A Defense of Marriage/Gay Rights Amendment

[Cryer]

As well, I might add:

The term "Mormon" refers to The Book of Mormon. This is a second Testament of Jesus Christ, another book of scripture. This book is found only in one religion: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. aka the mormons. Your sources seem to suggest the the LDS church is a branch of mormonism...???

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by dansim



see learn to use the quote button right and you'll totally rule.

Impostal22, I love you madly. Will you run away to San Fran with me and marry me? I'll wear the dress, you can be the man

Yeah Dansim, you are right. Playing with quotes can be fun!

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by brandnewcadillac
civil unions would give gays status as second class citizens, as the mass. supreme court has already found. it is discrimination to keep gays from marrying. period. there is no credible reason why they should be denied equal rights.

Pardon me for not stepping into line when the ultra liberal Mass. courts says something.

There would be no second class citizens. Gays would have the exact same legal protections as non-gays just without the word marriage.

[Cryer]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


You know what Cryer, take your narrow minded "my way is the only way and everyone else is wrong" nonsense and keep it. I don't want to hear anymore "every source but me" is wrong out of you.

I'm not narrow-minded. I'm merely pointing out that these articles are in error, and its best for you to research a topic before assaulting a group of people.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Cryer


I'm not narrow-minded. I'm merely pointing out that these articles are in error, and its best for you to research a topic before assaulting a group of people.

Except, why did the LDS give up poligamy? It was not due to their evolving social norms, but as a condition of Utah's statehood.

So if any ultra-traditional Mormans wish to practice poligamy, are we not repressing their freedom of religion by refusing them?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by brandnewcadillac


omg
yes, we all know what marriage is currently
we are debating whether to change that definition
go back to grade school
idiot

and this would be your "arguing on the merits"?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


Pardon me for not stepping into line when the ultra liberal Mass. courts says something.

God forbid!

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Cryer


I'm not narrow-minded. I'm merely pointing out that these articles are in error, and its best for you to research a topic before assaulting a group of people.

You know what, and Cryer becomes the first ever person to go on my ignore list.

If there's one thing I can't stand is people that are provided with contraveiling posistions and have nothing more to say then "I don't like it so it isn't true".


SO what you have the official posistion on speed dial for when someone else find a seperate arguement. I obviously did do research, since I provided two resource links. What you mean is, read what I tell you read and believe nothing else.

Have fun talking to yourself, it's all you were doing anyway.

[than205]

hmm...
Newt,
I was raised a LDS (mormon, whatever).
The mormons you are using for an example are the Fundamentalist Mormon. Which I know you know this.
Cryer apparently doesn't know they exist. (maybe, maybe not. No offense meant Cryer) The Kingstons are prime example.

They are by their own definition fundamentalists. They however are not the larger group. The LDS group is quite large, very wealthy and very influential. I've heard at different times that they membership wise they are second only to Catholics. (or it could have been wealth)

I believe your boy Orrin Hatch is a LDS member.

While I was still active the fundamentalists where shunned/ignored. They were considered outcasts as many Christians would consider a faith that believed in polygamy.

[Cryer]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Except, why did the LDS give up poligamy? It was not due to their evolving social norms, but as a condition of Utah's statehood.

So if any ultra-traditional Mormans wish to practice poligamy, are we not repressing their freedom of religion by refusing them?

Well, I'm not sure to tell you the truth... We no longer hold polygamy as part of our religion, as it is against the law, and has been. If someone claimed they were being repressed in that manner, they wouldnt have the support of the Church, so I dont think it would hold...

[Cryer]

Originally posted by than205
hmm...
Newt,
I was raised a LDS (mormon, whatever).
The mormons you are using for an example are the Fundamentalist Mormon. Which I know you know this.
Cryer apparently doesn't know they exist. (maybe, maybe not. No offense meant Cryer) The Kingstons are prime example.

They are by their own definition fundamentalists. They however are not the larger group. The LDS group is quite large, very wealthy and very influential. I've heard at different times that they membership wise they are second only to Catholics. (or it could have been wealth)

I believe your boy Orrin Hatch is a LDS member.

While I was still active the fundamentalists where shunned/ignored. They were considered outcasts as many Christians would consider a faith that believed in polygamy.

I hadn't heard of kingstons, but I know there are a couple of very small, break-off groups of Mormons. And yes Orrin Hatch is LDS.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by than205
Newt,
I was raised a LDS (mormon, whatever).
The mormons you are using for an example are the Fundamentalist Mormon. Which I know you know this.

I actually did not know that. I had assumed they were a more minor variant of mormonism (as it said in the links) and I had also assumed their believes had to be (at least) slightly different, otherwise they wouldn't be different sects.

But the point is there are different sects, and that not all sects claim to have anbandoned polygamy.

[impostal22]

i've pretty much finished with this debate, but i thought you should all know that the town in new york that is allowing gay marriages (new paltz) is where my sister lives! wooo my small section of NY is on the map!

link here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast...age/index.html

[CaptaiN_JacK]

albinonewt, you are correct. you win. im done. i just reread the Declaration of Independence, and i found a part i skipped over the first time i read it. it's the part that states:

"...all straight men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, but only if they are straight as an arrow."

so, end of discussion, you win. my mistake.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by impostal22
i've pretty much finished with this debate, but i thought you should all know that the town in new york that is allowing gay marriages (new paltz) is where my sister lives! wooo my small section of NY is on the map!

link here: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast...age/index.html

A friend of mine lives there too. I'm having dinner with him tomorrow so you can guess what we're going to be talking about.

And this is the kind of lawlessness that's going crush the gay lobby. They are so stupid for forcing the issue like this. They're going to set their cause back 100 years.