But same sex marriage would destroy the institution

Southern Man said:
I was clearly talking about my Christian Faith and how it has much in common with those I've know who are Mormons, none of which you know anything about in spite of your insistence of attempting to equate them with specific denominations.
Click to expand...

I pointed out already that you do share some tenets. Did that word confuse you? It means beliefs. But they are different religions no matter how much you argue otherwise.

The point has always been that they are different religions. It's never been about you. I merely tried to give an example that might be relevant to your small mind.

Did you get married in the temple? When I visited I heard weird stories about groping from residents of SLC and members of the church. I am not sure if I believe them. How'd it go for you?

Either I know far more about religion than you or you are plainly lying with your pretense of ignorance. If you know so much then why on earth would you ask such stupid questions.

Again, since you ignored it the first time, you no more share a religion with all other Christians than you share a religion with Muslims and Jews. You all do share some stupid ideas, but to call those one religion is just an absurd use of the word and drops context.
 
Damocles said:
However I gave you quotes from the actual people. It is seriously disingenuous to ignore history to make up your own fantastical representation. These laws were passed specifically against one religion, it was even a plank on a platform of one of the major parties, letters were written (and cited) that specifically mentioned how using the unpopularity of that particular religion they could get them to focus on that rather than other unpopular issues (slavery in particular, that was the D strategy to attempt to defeat Lincoln in that election)...

On and on. It doesn't even take much to research it, it's reality. The laws were passed specifically against the Mormon religion, the platforms of the party and the strategies were set in writing.

Now that ignorance is no longer an excuse, you still pretend that you "know" history of which you clearly show direct and (now) purposeful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Stuff that folks wrote isn't applicable evince unless the writings are specific to the laws and these same folks were shown to be instrumental in making the laws. Example: just because Thomas Pain was an atheist and wrote about the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution is based on atheism. Stuff that James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, however, is entirely applicable.
 
RStringfield said:
I pointed out already that you do share some tenets. Did that word confuse you? It means beliefs. But they are different religions no matter how much you argue otherwise.

The point has always been that they are different religions. It's never been about you. I merely tried to give an example that might be relevant to your small mind.

Did you get married in the temple? When I visited I heard weird stories about groping from residents of SLC and members of the church. I am not sure if I believe them. How'd it go for you?

Either I know far more about religion than you or you are plainly lying with your pretense of ignorance. If you know so much then why on earth would you ask such stupid questions.

Again, since you ignored it the first time, you no more share a religion with all other Christians than you share a religion with Muslims and Jews. You all do share some stupid ideas, but to call those one religion is just an absurd use of the word and drops context.
Click to expand...
You don't know what tenets I believe or don't believe, nor of the Mormons that I have known.

Nice ad-hom through about my supposedly not knowing what the word "tenets" means; a rather odd assumption on your part. A quick word search of this site, however, would prove otherwise. I suggest that you do so to help you understand why you've given me yet another debate point. :)
 
Southern Man said:
Stuff that folks wrote isn't applicable evince unless the writings are specific to the laws and these same folks were shown to be instrumental in making the laws. Example: just because Thomas Pain was an atheist and wrote about the Constitution doesn't mean the Constitution is based on atheism. Stuff that James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, however, is entirely applicable.
Click to expand...
Again, this is ignorant of the fact that they specifically stated they made the laws against one specific religion, making it planks on party platforms (yeah, a whole party, definitely "instrumental" in getting the laws passed, eh?), and used as a strategy in the hopes of getting people to ignore worse moral violations, specifically that of slavery. Yeah, the historical evidence is pretty much solid, what isn't is your support of the actual constitution.
 
Damocles said:
Again, this is ignorant of the fact that they specifically stated they made the laws against one specific religion, making it planks on party platforms (yeah, a whole party, definitely "instrumental" in getting the laws passed, eh?), and used as a strategy in the hopes of getting people to ignore worse moral violations, specifically that of slavery. Yeah, the historical evidence is pretty much solid, what isn't is your support of the actual constitution.
Click to expand...
Obviously your making connections that may not be justified.
 
Southern Man said:
Obviously your making connections that may not be justified.
Click to expand...
Obviously you are deliberately ignoring facts because they are inconvenient to how you want things to be. I'm embarrassed for you. You have to take a stance against actual recorded history and pretend that anything said about those records is somehow ... (how should I say it?)... A "living document" to be "translated" as seen fit by Southern Man...
 
Damocles said:
Obviously you are deliberately ignoring facts because they are inconvenient to how you want things to be. I'm embarrassed for you. You have to take a stance against actual recorded history and pretend that anything said about those records is somehow ... (how should I say it?)... A "living document" to be "translated" as seen fit by Southern Man...
Click to expand...
You should save your faux embarrassment for yourself at being unable to link these supposed facts into an argument that holds water. :)
 
Southern Man said:
You should save your faux embarrassment for yourself at being unable to link these supposed facts into an argument that holds water. :)
Click to expand...
Again, the only person who can't see the water is the guy covering his eyes (That's you Southern Man), and saying "you can't see me!"

We see you, you even ignore facts to promote violations of the constitution, and then in another breath try to tell me you are a conservative.

Any law passed in direct obstruction of the right to worship as we see fit is unconstitutional, even if Southern Man likes the law.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the only person who can't see the water is the guy covering his eyes (That's you Southern Man), and saying "you can't see me!"

We see you, you even ignore facts to promote violations of the constitution, and then in another breath try to tell me you are a conservative.

Any law passed in direct obstruction of the right to worship as we see fit is unconstitutional, even if Southern Man likes the law.
Click to expand...

Interesting that you bring that up because I have argued that the Constitution was based on Christian principles and others have denied this in spite of my supply of quotes from the Signers while here you are claiming that anti-polygamy laws are based on Christian principles yet are unable to supply quotes from the makers of said laws. :D
 
Damocles said:
Obviously you are deliberately ignoring facts because they are inconvenient to how you want things to be. I'm embarrassed for you. You have to take a stance against actual recorded history and pretend that anything said about those records is somehow ... (how should I say it?)... A "living document" to be "translated" as seen fit by Southern Man...
Click to expand...

It is like, he's an aspiring cult leader. He is going to need hallucinogens to get any sane person to buy this nonsense.
 
The only thing you have won is the defense of your ignorance. You ask stupid questions, ignore the answers and then claim victory when we point out that your questions are stupid.

Your argument is wrong. Mormonism is not Catholicism and it is silly to pretend there is only one religion, even just under your bible. Marriage customs have been influenced primarily by religion over the last couple thousand years in Western culture. To pretend otherwise is absurd and contradicts the arguments usually offered against gay marriage.

Your arguments are stupid. That's not an ad hom. It's an attack on your argument.

I think you are just lying and not really that stupid, but that has nothing to do with why your arguments which are so clearly absurd.

Then you bring up the Constitution, but what biblical passage do you find in it? What are the influences of the bible or Christianity on our Constitution?

The answer is the first amendment, which was largely about restricting the influence of religion over government.
 
Southern Man said:
Your argument is a straw man.
Click to expand...

BS! Prove it. The thread is right here.

My point was always that Mormonism and Catholicism are not the same religion and that marriage customs, including prohibitions on polygamy, were influenced by religion. Post #450. You took exception with that pretending there were no differences in the beliefs of Catholics and Mormons and asked me to give examples. I did you ignored them and maintained your ignorance. You also continue to pretend that the marriage customs and laws were not primarily influenced by religious doctrine and that they are mostly the result of secular principles.

If I have missed anything important concerning the course of the discussion or misrepresented what you have said, show us where.
 
Southern Man said:
What you Brits see as obstinate we Southerners describe as relentless. :D
Click to expand...

"We southerners"??? WTF?

No, we southerners see it as obstinance too. You may prefer to call it "relentless" in an effort to make it seem more legitimate. But you are perfectly willing to ignore evidence offered by Damo when it doesn't fit what you want your "truth" to be.
 
RStringfield said:
BS! Prove it. The thread is right here.

My point was always that Mormonism and Catholicism are not the same religion and that marriage customs, including prohibitions on polygamy, were influenced by religion. Post #450. You took exception with that pretending there were no differences in the beliefs of Catholics and Mormons and asked me to give examples. I did you ignored them and maintained your ignorance. You also continue to pretend that the marriage customs and laws were not primarily influenced by religious doctrine and that they are mostly the result of secular principles.

If I have missed anything important concerning the course of the discussion or misrepresented what you have said, show us where.
Click to expand...
The straw man is that I am discussing my faith, and you are discussing certain aspects of organized the two organized religions that do not coincide.

Here's the basic tenets of Mormonism, from their website. Assuming that they put these roughly in order of importance, I agree with all of these up to the point copied here:

[1]Jesus Christ is the head of The Church ... [2]The central purpose of the Church is to help all people come unto Christ .... [3]To fulfill this mission, the Church is organized according to the pattern revealed by the Lord ...

[4]The family is the fundamental unit in the Church. [5]No other organization can take the place of the family. [6]As The Church ... continues to grow, its purpose will always be to support and strengthen families and individuals in their efforts to live the gospel.

[7]Membership in The Church ... provides many opportunities to help others come unto Jesus Christ. Church members:

* [8]Donate their time and resources to help the needy and the afflicted.
* [9]Serve as missionaries across the world to teach God’s children the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
 
RStringfield said:
Uh, no. Maybe you meant "We carpetbaggers?"
Click to expand...

Carpetbaggers actually came to the south, screwed us over, and then left.


Its like the difference between a yankee and a damn yankee. The damn yankee came down here and stayed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top