Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
yes because a child and an animal can give consent!
this argument is tired. you just showed the [shallow] depth of your thinking. you only make yourself look silly. and juvenile. children can not give consent and neither can animals. wow you really thought you had a good one there didnt you!
you are DISMISSED. the monkey bars are waiting for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Despite all the hollow warmth and fuzziness that now covers the media and news over this issue, the fact remains, in all things there is right and wrong, there is correct and incorrect and there is true and false.
What do you lose by letting a man marry 2 women? What do you personally care if your neighbor marries a child? what would you stand to lose if someone wanted to marry their sibling or an animal?
I mean if its all about love and letting others be free to do as they please, what's it to the rest of us?
Just as you probably draw the line at incest, polygamy and beastiality, some of us draw the line at same sex marriage.
yes because a child and an animal can give consent!
this argument is tired. you just showed the [shallow] depth of your thinking. you only make yourself look silly. and juvenile. children can not give consent and neither can animals. wow you really thought you had a good one there didnt you!
you are DISMISSED. the monkey bars are waiting for you.
The real shame in this post is the utter and total denial it displays.
Just as view incestuous marriages and beastiality to be wrong on many levels, there are many people out there who feel exactly the same way about gay marriage.
Of course, I don't expect a normal response, probably another insult or attempt at belittling. I mean, that's all you people seem to have to say to opponents. No substance, just flamethrowing.
Its as if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints singlehandedly invented opposite-sex marriage and IT is the oddity-not same sex marriage.
The law states that a religious organization can spend up to 20% of its annual budget on any political issue so long as they don't endorse a specific candidate.
And so the Mormon Church would have to spend I'd guess $200-$500 Million before it broke any laws.
In the case of Prop 8, if the church spent even $500,000 I'd be surprised.
Once again, we're talking about a right that does not now nor ever has existed-period.
Why does it upset you when people of faith see what they believe to be crumbling morality fight to uphold one of society's most sacred and precious institutions??
This right has and does exist. In several US states and other countries.
You did not answer my question. But that is typical of some people. It does not upset me when people of faith try uphold "morality" but it does upset me when they try to go so far as to stop people who love each other from marrying and trying to get in the way of a woman and her doctor. That is where I draw the line. Your religion has no business in my life.
[quote=SOON2BNSURPRISE;10338905]Remember this one; Multiply and replenish the earth. Not too sure how that works with 2 people of the same sex.[/quote]
Well it isn't working with this heterosexual, married woman either as I am never having children. The couple of the same sex adopt the kids that heterosexuals didn't want. Or they find a donor/surrogate to have the child for them.
The mormons have bowed down to the greater public sentiment more than once. Banning polygamy and letting blacks get the priesthood are two of the bigger examples. Just FYI
At the time of Polygamy the nation had no laws against it. The idea behind it has never ended. When a law was made banning the practice those that were practicing Polygamy moved to Mexico where their was no law against it. One of our beliefs is in being subject to kings, magistrates, presidents and laws of the land. Generally speaking Mormons follow the law of the land and support it. Although today it is not practiced by members of the Church it is still something that we believe is of God. As far as allowing all worthy males the opportunity to hold the Priesthood, that is something that came from a Revelation to our then Prophet Spencer W. Kimball. It was in 1979 that the revelation came about. Why bow down to anyone then and not in the 60's when the problems of race were more prevalent? The reason is that the Priesthood is Gods and he can give it to anyone he wants at any time he wants.
Remember this one; Multiply and replenish the earth. Not too sure how that works with 2 people of the same sex.[/quote]
Well it isn't working with this heterosexual, married woman either as I am never having children. The couple of the same sex adopt the kids that heterosexuals didn't want. Or they find a donor/surrogate to have the child for them.
That is also a choice. You choose not to do that or you can't do it. You either follow the law or you don't. Same sex couples can not produce children on their own.
In a former post I mentioned to someone that in God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the Earth. That is a commandment or Law that God gave to all people. He has yet to rescind that law. The point is that same sex couples can not follow that law.
Jillz was comenting that she a married woman is not having kids and same sex couples can addopt. My comment had to do with this. The law in the Bible is plain as day, multiply and replenish the Earth. You either live it or you don't.
You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. I do believe it though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.