Mormon girl comes out as gay in church. The church cuts her mic...

[Papageorgio]

So what's your "Sensible" argument against homosexuality?

You can't say "I think it's icky", because straight people engage in fellatio, cunnilingus and anal, too.

And you can't say, "God says it's bad", because there are a whole shitload of things that God says are bad, including posting on a message board on the Sabbath like you are doing today.

Again, I think there's nothing wrong with standing up against bad behavior.

But you homophobes really haven't shown me yet why two people who love each other are "wicked" because they happen to be of the same sex.

Meanwhile, the Book of Mormon said it was perfectly okay for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to marry multiple women, some of them girls as young as 14.

Not true. The Book of Mormons does not promote polygamy. Many people think it does because Joseph Smith and his followers had multiple wives. The Book of Mormons, as evidenced by the following verses, utterly and clearly condemns the practice of polygamy:
“And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son” (Jacob 1:15).

“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24) “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:27).

“For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:2).“Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines” (Ether 10:5).

The Bible, on the other hand, does not specifically condemn polygamy except on the case of those who would be bishops in their Church. Many of the Biblical patriarchs had multiple wives and Solomon, the wisest of all men, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Not only was polygamy permitted, in the case of a Levirate marriage it was actually expected: “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:5,6, KJV).

The only Biblical restrictions on polygamy are reserved for those who would become bishops in their Church: “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2, KJV; see also Titus 1:5-7).
So there you have it: Mormons practiced polygamy even though the Book of Mormons absolutely prohibited this practice while today's Christians condemn polygamy even though the Bible has no express prohibitions against it.

The Bible in Genesis, Mathew and Ephesians speaks of a man sticking to a wife and the two become one flesh, my thought is one man one wife, though it doesn't say so specifically.

.

though it doesn't say so specifically.

do you mean the state license that keeps you together - sortof like scriptures, written record for you to follow ...

A state license doesn't keep you together.

.

A state license doesn't keep you together.

why is a license necessary ... would you just be living together otherwise and being pornographic. would that be related to the crime of the 13 year old for mormons / christians.

My marriage is between my wife, myself and God, the state required a license to be considered married. So we satisfied the laws of the land. That was our choice what you decide is your choice. What the Mormon church requires is their choice. It is all about choices. If I wanted to live with a person without the benefit of marriage and the religion that I belonged to didn't allow it, then my choice is to get married or leave the religion. Again, it would be my choice. Pretty simple and pretty easy.

 

[BreezeWood]

Not true. The Book of Mormons does not promote polygamy. Many people think it does because Joseph Smith and his followers had multiple wives. The Book of Mormons, as evidenced by the following verses, utterly and clearly condemns the practice of polygamy:
“And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son” (Jacob 1:15).

“Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24) “Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none” (Jacob 2:27).

“For behold, he did not keep the commandments of God, but ... he had many wives and concubines” (Mosiah 11:2).“Riplakish did not do that which was right in the sight of the Lord, for he did have many wives and concubines” (Ether 10:5).

The Bible, on the other hand, does not specifically condemn polygamy except on the case of those who would be bishops in their Church. Many of the Biblical patriarchs had multiple wives and Solomon, the wisest of all men, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Not only was polygamy permitted, in the case of a Levirate marriage it was actually expected: “If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her. And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel” (Deuteronomy 25:5,6, KJV).

The only Biblical restrictions on polygamy are reserved for those who would become bishops in their Church: “ A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2, KJV; see also Titus 1:5-7).
So there you have it: Mormons practiced polygamy even though the Book of Mormons absolutely prohibited this practice while today's Christians condemn polygamy even though the Bible has no express prohibitions against it.

The Bible in Genesis, Mathew and Ephesians speaks of a man sticking to a wife and the two become one flesh, my thought is one man one wife, though it doesn't say so specifically.

.

though it doesn't say so specifically.

do you mean the state license that keeps you together - sortof like scriptures, written record for you to follow ...

A state license doesn't keep you together.

.

A state license doesn't keep you together.

why is a license necessary ... would you just be living together otherwise and being pornographic. would that be related to the crime of the 13 year old for mormons / christians.

My marriage is between my wife, myself and God, the state required a license to be considered married. So we satisfied the laws of the land. That was our choice what you decide is your choice. What the Mormon church requires is their choice. It is all about choices. If I wanted to live with a person without the benefit of marriage and the religion that I belonged to didn't allow it, then my choice is to get married or leave the religion. Again, it would be my choice. Pretty simple and pretty easy.

.

My marriage is between my wife, myself and God, the state required a license to be considered married. So we satisfied the laws of the land. That was our choice what you decide is your choice. What the Mormon church requires is their choice. It is all about choices. If I wanted to live with a person without the benefit of marriage and the religion that I belonged to didn't allow it, then my choice is to get married or leave the religion. Again, it would be my choice. Pretty simple and pretty easy.

this is not a personal discussion, seemingly you are incapable of conducting, bigot - you had no choice you got your license because it is the law of the land, how convenient for you. the hardship you must have suffered.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Bible in Genesis, Mathew and Ephesians speaks of a man sticking to a wife and the two become one flesh, my thought is one man one wife, though it doesn't say so specifically.

.

though it doesn't say so specifically.

do you mean the state license that keeps you together - sortof like scriptures, written record for you to follow ...

A state license doesn't keep you together.

.

A state license doesn't keep you together.

why is a license necessary ... would you just be living together otherwise and being pornographic. would that be related to the crime of the 13 year old for mormons / christians.

My marriage is between my wife, myself and God, the state required a license to be considered married. So we satisfied the laws of the land. That was our choice what you decide is your choice. What the Mormon church requires is their choice. It is all about choices. If I wanted to live with a person without the benefit of marriage and the religion that I belonged to didn't allow it, then my choice is to get married or leave the religion. Again, it would be my choice. Pretty simple and pretty easy.

.

My marriage is between my wife, myself and God, the state required a license to be considered married. So we satisfied the laws of the land. That was our choice what you decide is your choice. What the Mormon church requires is their choice. It is all about choices. If I wanted to live with a person without the benefit of marriage and the religion that I belonged to didn't allow it, then my choice is to get married or leave the religion. Again, it would be my choice. Pretty simple and pretty easy.

this is not a personal discussion, seemingly you are incapable of conducting, bigot - you had no choice you got your license because it is the law of the land, how convenient for you. the hardship you must have suffered.

I never said getting the license was a hardship. I had a choice, I could have been married or shacked up. It is not illegal to shack up. Not sure what your point is.

 

[JoeB131]

How and when, exactly, have you been imposed upon? Start with naming the month/year of the most recent imposition and let's go from there.

when you keep trying to ban abortion or gay marriage...

Not that I'd take advantage of those things, but frankly, I get sick and tired of you guys electing Republicans hoping to get these things, and then they fuck it up for the rest of us.

a great day will be when someone blurts out the word "God" and everyone else laughs at him like the class retard.

 

[Meriweather]

when you keep trying to ban abortion or gay marriage...

Not that I'd take advantage of those things, but frankly, I get sick and tired of you guys electing Republicans hoping to get these things, and then they fuck it up for the rest of us.

a great day will be when someone blurts out the word "God" and everyone else laughs at him like the class retard.

So if everyone is not in lockstep with JoeB, they get slapped around? You do realize there are atheists who do not support abortion and who are in favor of traditional marriage?

 

[Papageorgio]

when you keep trying to ban abortion or gay marriage...

Not that I'd take advantage of those things, but frankly, I get sick and tired of you guys electing Republicans hoping to get these things, and then they fuck it up for the rest of us.

a great day will be when someone blurts out the word "God" and everyone else laughs at him like the class retard.

So if everyone is not in lockstep with JoeB, they get slapped around? You do realize there are atheists who do not support abortion and who are in favor of traditional marriage?

That is what the left is about, they don't want debate, they don't want different viewpoints. They are not secure in their belief system and therefore any thinking not in line with theirs, is mocked and ridiculed. The left is the most intolerant group around.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How and when, exactly, have you been imposed upon? Start with naming the month/year of the most recent imposition and let's go from there.

when you keep trying to ban abortion or gay marriage...

And here is all that anyone needs to know about your moral character, or lack thereof. You openly take the side of those who would murder innocent children in cold blood, condemning those who would defend these most precious and defenseless of all human beings.

And you take the side of sick perverts who seek to make a disgusting, immoral mockery of the sacred institution of marriage, condemning those who would defend this institution.

It only goes to show, what I have observed before, that where matters of political ideology line up with clear matters of good versus evil, those of you on the left wrong can be found openly, willfully, taking the side of evil.

Of course, your hatred for religion should come as no surprise, in this context. Being openly on the side of evil, it only stands to reason that you would oppose any organization that stands against evil.

You have spent most of your life allowing yourself to be consumed with anger, and hatred, and look what it has turned you into.

 

[JoeB131]

So if everyone is not in lockstep with JoeB, they get slapped around? You do realize there are atheists who do not support abortion and who are in favor of traditional marriage?

I've never met an atheist who'd argue such things, honestly. Now, there are some misogynistic and homophobic atheists out there, but they are usually pretty upfront that's what htey are about... they don't hide behind a magic sky man to prove their point.

That is what the left is about, they don't want debate, they don't want different viewpoints. They are not secure in their belief system and therefore any thinking not in line with theirs, is mocked and ridiculed. The left is the most intolerant group around.

Again, when you are arguing from the Book with the Talking Snake and zombies, it's kind of hard to take you seriously. How do you NOT mock that?

I'm very secure in my belief that snakes don't talk and we don't have zombies walking around.

And here is all that anyone needs to know about your moral character, or lack thereof. You openly take the side of those who would murder innocent children in cold blood, condemning those who would defend these most precious and defenseless of all human beings.

Fetuses aren't babies... and you miss the point.

There is absolutely no danger that abortion is going to be outlawed. Women will get abortions no matter what the law is. It's what you stupid fucks have let into the door for the last 45 years on the hope that you can get the abortion laws (that weren't actually being enforced prior to 1973) back on the books.

What we did get was union busting, wealth inequality, a weakening of worker's rights---- All that DID happen in the last 45 years. And that's probably caused more abortions when working class folks realized they can't have 5 kids like their parents did, they'd probably stop at about two.

And you take the side of sick perverts who seek to make a disgusting, immoral mockery of the sacred institution of marriage, condemning those who would defend this institution.

The only person who is sick is someone who obsesses about what kind of sex other people are having. You see, here's the thing. No one can make you be gay. I mean, you might be a latent gay, because most homophobes are - THEY'VE DONE THE SCIENCE. But if you are secure in your sexuality, it really shouldn't bother you.

And this is why religion is fucked up. It keeps folks like you from confronting your inner demons, as it were.

You have spent most of your life allowing yourself to be consumed with anger, and hatred, and look what it has turned you into.

A funny charming guy who helps people? This is how most people IRL actually describe me.

 

[Meriweather]

I've never met an atheist who'd argue such things, honestly. Now, there are some misogynistic and homophobic atheists out there, but they are usually pretty upfront that's what htey are about... they don't hide behind a magic sky man to prove their point.

No belief in God does not equate to having no belief in the value of a child's life or traditional marriage. Many atheists are annoyed with people trying to lump them into amoral values or a progressive, liberal agenda. They are as much individuals as any other human being. When you became an atheist did you actually think you were joining some cookie stamp organization where you all became identical?

 

[BreezeWood]

I've never met an atheist who'd argue such things, honestly. Now, there are some misogynistic and homophobic atheists out there, but they are usually pretty upfront that's what htey are about... they don't hide behind a magic sky man to prove their point.

No belief in God does not equate to having no belief in the value of a child's life or traditional marriage. Many atheists are annoyed with people trying to lump them into amoral values or a progressive, liberal agenda. They are as much individuals as any other human being. When you became an atheist did you actually think you were joining some cookie stamp organization where you all became identical?

.

No belief in God does not equate to having no belief in the value of a child's life or traditional marriage.

No belief in God ... does equate in their particular manner to the desert religions.

those that worship a 4th century christian bible, the desert religions are the ones without the Almighty that equate their beliefs to having value by the servitude to their book proven through the ages for deception and oppression and encapsuled by the exclusivity in the institutions of their own making.

 

[Meriweather]

No belief in God ... does equate in their particular manner to the desert religions.

those that worship a 4th century christian bible, the desert religions are the ones without the Almighty that equate their beliefs to having value by the servitude to their book proven through the ages for deception and oppression and encapsuled by the exclusivity in the institutions of their own making.

Our lives are not lived inside a church or inside a book...or even inside a group. We are all individuals living to serve our God who come together as a family to worship. For ourselves, and to support each other, with the help of the Holy Spirit and by the grace of God, we strive to live by and uphold the teachings and ideals Christ taught. We have done this since Apostolic times, so you still have a bit more than three hundred years of historical study on which to catch up.

 

[BreezeWood]

No belief in God ... does equate in their particular manner to the desert religions.

those that worship a 4th century christian bible, the desert religions are the ones without the Almighty that equate their beliefs to having value by the servitude to their book proven through the ages for deception and oppression and encapsuled by the exclusivity in the institutions of their own making.

Our lives are not lived inside a church or inside a book...or even inside a group. We are all individuals living to serve our God who come together as a family to worship. For ourselves, and to support each other, with the help of the Holy Spirit and by the grace of God, we strive to live by and uphold the teachings and ideals Christ taught. We have done this since Apostolic times, so you still have a bit more than three hundred years of historical study on which to catch up.

.

so you still have a bit more than three hundred years of historical study on which to catch up.

no, that's how long it took you to became what you made from the 1st century crucifixion into your own religion ... the book of the crucifiers, injustice unheeded to the present day.

are the ones without the Almighty that equate their beliefs to having value by the servitude to their book proven through the ages for deception and oppression

your crucifying a 13 year old girl is only a gentle reminder for what you people really are, idolators and deceivers of the true religion of the Almighty.

 

[JoeB131]

No belief in God does not equate to having no belief in the value of a child's life or traditional marriage. Many atheists are annoyed with people trying to lump them into amoral values or a progressive, liberal agenda. They are as much individuals as any other human being. When you became an atheist did you actually think you were joining some cookie stamp organization where you all became identical?

No, I was joining a group where you didn't believe stupid shit because you were terrified of a magic man in the sky was going to punish you.

Once you take God out of the equation, all you have left for homophobia is "I think it's icky!" and that's really not an argument.

 

[Meriweather]

[No, I was joining a group where you didn't believe stupid shit because you were terrified of a magic man in the sky was going to punish you.

Once you take God out of the equation, all you have left for homophobia is "I think it's icky!" and that's really not an argument.

"I think it's icky!" isn't even on the radar for most thinking people.

 

[Meriweather]

no, that's how long it took you to became what you made from the 1st century crucifixion into your own religion ... the book of the crucifiers, injustice unheeded to the present day

Study history. The books were around and being circulated in the first century. Later, non-Apostolic books were also introduced. In the fourth century, the committee of that time simply researched which books were apostolic, first century works--and which were introduced two or even three hundred years later. Once all the Apostolic/first century books had been identified, these were gathered as Canon. The books not chosen are still around, just not used as Canon as they are non-Apostolic.

 

[BreezeWood]

no, that's how long it took you to became what you made from the 1st century crucifixion into your own religion ... the book of the crucifiers, injustice unheeded to the present day

Study history. The books were around and being circulated in the first century. Later, non-Apostolic books were also introduced. In the fourth century, the committee of that time simply researched which books were apostolic, first century works--and which were introduced two or even three hundred years later. Once all the Apostolic/first century books had been identified, these were gathered as Canon. The books not chosen are still around, just not used as Canon as they are non-Apostolic.

.

The books were around and being circulated in the first century. Later, non-Apostolic books were also introduced.

you write factually about what you have no physical proof for or anything that is written in the 4th century christian bible.


“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me”.


the above is a forgery, the matter is where it originates than its authenticity, crucifier. the only true bible will be the one written after the crucifiers are brought to Justice ... if ever. Mary Madeline was of the few that remained at Jesus's side, the rest like you abandoned them as you have the 13 year old girl ...

 

[JoeB131]

"I think it's icky!" isn't even on the radar for most thinking people.

Really? You should see how most discussions of gay marriage go out, where you get these extended graphic description of anal sex from the homophobes...

It's like listening to a vegetarian talk about steak.

All Homophobic Arguments boil down to "I think it's icky" or "God says it's bad".

Beyond that, you have no argument.

 

[Meriweather]

Really? You should see how most discussions of gay marriage go out, where you get these extended graphic description of anal sex from the homophobes...

It's like listening to a vegetarian talk about steak.

All Homophobic Arguments boil down to "I think it's icky" or "God says it's bad".

Beyond that, you have no argument.

Sorry you missed out on more mature discussions. I never even heard of the ones you describe. We must move in very different circles.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry you missed out on more mature discussions. I never even heard of the ones you describe. We must move in very different circles.

Okay.

Here you go. Gay Marriage should be illegal because __________

Answer that are not allowed.

1) I think it's icky.
2) God Says it's bad.

Have at it. I'll be watching some Doctor Who reruns for the next couple hours.

 

[Meriweather]

Okay.

Here you go. Gay Marriage should be illegal because __________

Answer that are not allowed.

1) I think it's icky.
2) God Says it's bad.

Have at it. I'll be watching some Doctor Who reruns for the next couple hours.

Gay Marriage is yet another failure of our political systems. Years before Gay Marriage even became an issue many of us were working on civil unions because the goal was to give gay couples the same rights as married couples enjoy in courts, in hospitals, in dying wishes, in inheritance, and in the tax code. We got an indulgent pat on the head from the government and were completely ignored.

The sacramental definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman, the union of the two opposite sexes, for the purpose of creating new family units, which is the foundation of society--children who ideally have both mother and father. (Don't bother arguing other arrangements, it was understood alternate arrangements have always existed along with the ideal. I'm merely pointing out that at this point Gays recognized and honored all of this--and many still do. There is the ideal, and then there is the rest that is acceptable as well.)

Okay, back to the politicians ignoring us. Since the politicians would not give equal rights to unmarried couples, the anger and frustration built and so began the demand for gay marriage. While the gay community lost those of us who supported them on the civil rights issues for unmarried couples, they did capture the attention of the politicians, particularly those on the left. Thanks very much to our inept government officials, the lack of civil rights for unmarried couples still remains...and we inherited Gay Marriage.

Most homosexuals are very much aware of the risks they take in engaging in sex with a same sex partner. There are above average health risks (even leaving out HIV) and mental health risks are higher as well. Knowing this, many gays and lesbians don't want the "approval" of heterosexuals, which they see as often patronizing. These people jump on the bandwagon of supporting gays to feel cool and open-minded about themselves, waving waved away health concerns as unimportant or even non-existent. (Not cool and open-minded to push people into ill health.) Simply respect their decision, recognizing the risks they face, and at least be happy (though it didn't go as originally intended) that as a couple the government is now willing to give them the rights and benefits they should have had to begin with.

People are entitled to their religious beliefs. Couples are entitled to equal rights under the law, be they a married couple or an unmarried couple. The Constitution is clear on equal rights and on religious freedoms. So what has our government done? They began trampling on religious freedom while still discriminating against unmarried couples. The stupid way government conducts business....