My use of "fairy tales" was not meant as an insult or jab.
Christians / Muslims / Jews are all rule based on fantastical tales, unverifiable, unreproducable but taken as absolute truth with no bases other than a long time ago a supreme deity told it to person who wrote it down. You must understand what little ice that cuts to non-initiates.
Finally Mormons my advice PR-wise, cool it with the anti-gay activities, it turns off some possible converts.
Thanks alex, you offer evidence that rises to the level of proof that pilottim's accusation that I "dont know much about Mormons" is false.
btw genetically Native Americans are much closer to the folks found in Eastern Siberia (supporting the land-bridge theory) than Semites of The Levant where the Jews originated but if to you they are from the House of Israel, have it your way, they just took the long way to get here!
No worries. As a graduate student and a former student of theology and philosophy I've learned that it is far too easy to conjecture or blatantly assume things that are far from the truth.
(Also, if you're interested, Ether, the second to last book in the Book of Mormon, discusses your final point loosely. This chapter also parallels some concepts from Noah and his ark when read in earlier texts. Just in case you're bored/curious).
Buddy if you want to do the Mormon thing and stay off booze & drugs and work hard and get educated and have lots of kids who do the same; more power to you. I'd just hate to see the following of Mormon fairy tales to become dominant in this country, I think it would be bad compared to what we have now.
Mormon's teach that most of the Native Americans are from the House of Israel, as in decedents of Jacob. However, the writers of the Book of Mormon are decedents of Jacob's son Joseph not Judah.
In regards to the "secret handshakes" I want to speak generally of things done in the temple. In the LDS Church, many things are referred to as sacred/secret. When Mormons don't talk about what is and isn't in the temple, it is because they gave their word they wouldn't and, as you said, lying is a sin.
No normal thinking people want to see their children get mixed up with Mormon nonsense like secret handshakes, magic underwear, baptising dead people, Jewish Indians, Black people with the Mark of Cain, endowment ceremony reading rooms, celestial marriage, blood oaths, etc etc, it's just too weird but it's a free country if people are foolish enough to join and then be expected to persecute gays I guess they can.
@tradercris Blood oaths? Never heard that one, as for things you mentioned, baptisms for the dead, garments and marriages all mentioned in the bible along with brief accounts of rituals
So how about we agree for a bill to approve gay marriage which explicity states that churches are exempt from conducting gay marriage? This would be redundant, as this is already the case. But I'm guessing you wouldn't be on for that either---because deep down, whether you admit it or not, this is about your faith-based hate.
no I have nothing against gays doing what they want, but I don't want the definition of a religious ceremony that has been defined as it has been for thousands of years to be changed because of small minority. Let them do what they want but that definition need not to change.
One more change. Arranged marriages have been made illegal. Imagine if in all of these situations we had never changed marriage? Blacks could not get married, much less interracial couples who love each other. It would still be illegal for abused wives to leave their abusive husbands (no divorce). Or have your parents decide who you marry, based on money and not love. Now, we will let dedicated, loving gay couples marry. Years after it happens, no one will question that it was a good thing.
the question is not about blacs or interracial marriages, it's about the definition of the word marriage in california, it's between man and woman, that's it, gays can stil live together and all that, why do they haveto get that union the name marriage, if it's not the definition of the word from the beginning.
If you really believe this, then actively support civil unions for gays in every state. In truth you are among the horde that 1. Don't want gays to have civil union 2. Think gays should remain barred from the military 3.Should continue to not have a federal law saying you can't be fired just for being gay 4.think that states should again be allowed to make sex between gays illegal as was in many states around 6 years ago. I don't believe you when you say you oppose just our marriage rights.
What people like you actually DO want, is to exterminate gays one way or other. Mormons create sham institutions like evergreen that spread lies about cures. Once they find out it is genetic, they will try and find a way to alter DNA or whatever. Behind all of this anti-gay mormon rhetoric is mormon fantasies to exterminate the gay population--and if they can't do it, hopefully they can force them under the rug and make them invisible.
it is clear from your comments that you have no idea of what mormons believe and how they see the gays. We aren't trying to exterminate anyone. Offcourse iof a cure could be found for gay, we would promote that but we aren't trying to do anything illegal or immoral against them, only help them according to our best conscience.
Great, so you are telling me. 1.You support civil unions. 2. You support a law banning discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. At least we can find that common ground.
That's actually a brilliant idea augustenburg. And, by brilliant I mean ignorant and idea, completely unoriginal attack against Prop 8 supporters.
Segregation is a terrible things. It is also terrible to force government upon a church, or vice versa. Once you take away the rights of a church, you spit in the face of constituionalism. Furthermore, there's no hate in denying marriage, just protecting those things that belong to religion.
Gay rights are a legal issue, not to impose upon religion.
You are a moron. So freedom of religion requires that laws are shaped so that those who do not belong to those religions must follow their rules? Get a brain. Churches today don't have to perform interracial marriages if they don't want to. This is a pure legal issue, it has nothing to do with anyone affecting religion. That is a pure lie.
Marriage has been a religious ceremony trough out history, to try to redefinie a religious ceremony to fitt secular world opinion is silly. What ever gays wanna do, it's their right, but what theyr union is, can't be definied as a marriage since mariage has always been a religius ceremony, not secular.
That is actually not true. In many countries throughout the world, religious marriage and secular marriage have been separate for decades. In all of Europe, religious marriages are only symbolic. Oh--and btw--slavery, until modern times has been a traditional part of history for thousands of years. Interracial marriage has only been allowed in all of the US for 40 years. People for slavery and people against interracial marriage used your same pseudo-argument of "tradition".
yes they have been separeted, but the secular one has not been called a mariage, it has a different name in most cases, but some just call it mariage out of popular meaning of the word. Also prop 8 is about california, and if marriage is not defined in california s it is defined somewhere else, it's californias decision and they can stick with their definition if they want to. Still, marriage has a religious roots down to prehistoric times.
I'm sorry, as someone who is doing their PhD in history, I just have to jump in and correct you. Roman society, greek society, chinese society---not a religious ceremony. Also, there is a thing called common law marriage---in Europe and North America---all throughout history. This is a civil non-religious marriage. It means if you are coupled long enough---you authomatically are considered as married. I know it is easy to look at your own time, and imagine it has always been this way.
history goes a lot further than roman or greek times. it's alkso important to know what is the meaning of the word that is translated as marriage, in that other culture, plus, as i said, in different places people have different meanings for things as we do. if california defines marriage as it does, then there's no need to change that meaning. bye the way alexander the greats lover man wasn't called his husband, his wfe was married to him, but the male lover wasn't.
btw that also applies to mormon marriages in all of Europe. All mormons in Europe who go to a temple to get married are not legally married, only symbolically married. To be legally married, they must also go to city hall and get married.
And let me point out the radical ways marriage has been changed in the past. First, divorce--before, never allowed, has only been allowed for all society for about 200 years. Blacks marrying. Blacks before the 1860's were not allowed to marry. Interracial marriage-legalized 40 years ago. Allowing women to divorce on their own initiative came even later. The Yale academic John Boswell has also written a book on places in medieval europe where coupled male priests were married.
divorce has been allowed atleast by the jews from the times of moses, catholics tried to forbid divorce and possibly some muslims, but as far as I remember koran did mention law for divorce.
That is untrue. If the laws are passed to force enforce gay marriage, churches will have to perform homosexual marriages if asked or they loose their tax exempt status. That is a fairly big deal, and infringement upon separation of church and state.
You are willfully delusional. Churches have NEVER had to marry ANYONE that they don't want to. You just throw out excuses like that to hide the fact that this is about you hating gay people.
That is not true. One of the repercussions that will occur if it is found constitutional to marry homosexuals is that it is unconstitutional to deny that marriage. If a church denies marrying a homosexual couple, they will be held in violation of the law and as consequence, lose their tax exempt status. That is not my delusion, that is the law and how it is designed. That is why church fight it so strongly, it will take away their rights.
To whom it may concern:
My use of "fairy tales" was not meant as an insult or jab.
Christians / Muslims / Jews are all rule based on fantastical tales, unverifiable, unreproducable but taken as absolute truth with no bases other than a long time ago a supreme deity told it to person who wrote it down. You must understand what little ice that cuts to non-initiates.
Finally Mormons my advice PR-wise, cool it with the anti-gay activities, it turns off some possible converts.
tradercris 2 years ago
Thanks alex, you offer evidence that rises to the level of proof that pilottim's accusation that I "dont know much about Mormons" is false.
btw genetically Native Americans are much closer to the folks found in Eastern Siberia (supporting the land-bridge theory) than Semites of The Levant where the Jews originated but if to you they are from the House of Israel, have it your way, they just took the long way to get here!
tradercris 2 years ago
No worries. As a graduate student and a former student of theology and philosophy I've learned that it is far too easy to conjecture or blatantly assume things that are far from the truth.
(Also, if you're interested, Ether, the second to last book in the Book of Mormon, discusses your final point loosely. This chapter also parallels some concepts from Noah and his ark when read in earlier texts. Just in case you're bored/curious).
alexpleith 2 years ago
The LDS has a book named "Ether"?!
Haha that's appropriate! (sorry couldnt resist).
Buddy if you want to do the Mormon thing and stay off booze & drugs and work hard and get educated and have lots of kids who do the same; more power to you. I'd just hate to see the following of Mormon fairy tales to become dominant in this country, I think it would be bad compared to what we have now.
tradercris 2 years ago
pilottim79:
Keep in mind... It's a sin to lie... I challenge you right now... tell me Mormons dont have secret handshakes.
Tell me... Native Americans arent Jewish.
I know Mormons keep these things quiet as to not scare off potential converts, but I lie is still a lie and a sin.
Respond please, true or false.
tradercris 2 years ago
Mormon's teach that most of the Native Americans are from the House of Israel, as in decedents of Jacob. However, the writers of the Book of Mormon are decedents of Jacob's son Joseph not Judah.
In regards to the "secret handshakes" I want to speak generally of things done in the temple. In the LDS Church, many things are referred to as sacred/secret. When Mormons don't talk about what is and isn't in the temple, it is because they gave their word they wouldn't and, as you said, lying is a sin.
alexpleith 2 years ago 2
@tradercris There is a difference between secret and sacred some things are sacred.. And hey if people find out things they dont like they can leave.
LuLu6214 3 months ago
No normal thinking people want to see their children get mixed up with Mormon nonsense like secret handshakes, magic underwear, baptising dead people, Jewish Indians, Black people with the Mark of Cain, endowment ceremony reading rooms, celestial marriage, blood oaths, etc etc, it's just too weird but it's a free country if people are foolish enough to join and then be expected to persecute gays I guess they can.
tradercris 2 years ago
wow, you really don't know much about Mormons do you?
pilottim79 2 years ago
@tradercris Blood oaths? Never heard that one, as for things you mentioned, baptisms for the dead, garments and marriages all mentioned in the bible along with brief accounts of rituals
LuLu6214 3 months ago
So how about we agree for a bill to approve gay marriage which explicity states that churches are exempt from conducting gay marriage? This would be redundant, as this is already the case. But I'm guessing you wouldn't be on for that either---because deep down, whether you admit it or not, this is about your faith-based hate.
augustenburg 3 years ago
no I have nothing against gays doing what they want, but I don't want the definition of a religious ceremony that has been defined as it has been for thousands of years to be changed because of small minority. Let them do what they want but that definition need not to change.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
One more change. Arranged marriages have been made illegal. Imagine if in all of these situations we had never changed marriage? Blacks could not get married, much less interracial couples who love each other. It would still be illegal for abused wives to leave their abusive husbands (no divorce). Or have your parents decide who you marry, based on money and not love. Now, we will let dedicated, loving gay couples marry. Years after it happens, no one will question that it was a good thing.
augustenburg 3 years ago
the question is not about blacs or interracial marriages, it's about the definition of the word marriage in california, it's between man and woman, that's it, gays can stil live together and all that, why do they haveto get that union the name marriage, if it's not the definition of the word from the beginning.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
If you really believe this, then actively support civil unions for gays in every state. In truth you are among the horde that 1. Don't want gays to have civil union 2. Think gays should remain barred from the military 3.Should continue to not have a federal law saying you can't be fired just for being gay 4.think that states should again be allowed to make sex between gays illegal as was in many states around 6 years ago. I don't believe you when you say you oppose just our marriage rights.
augustenburg 3 years ago
I don't promote any of those 4 points you tried to impose on me, therefore you have no idea about my idealogy.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
What people like you actually DO want, is to exterminate gays one way or other. Mormons create sham institutions like evergreen that spread lies about cures. Once they find out it is genetic, they will try and find a way to alter DNA or whatever. Behind all of this anti-gay mormon rhetoric is mormon fantasies to exterminate the gay population--and if they can't do it, hopefully they can force them under the rug and make them invisible.
augustenburg 3 years ago
it is clear from your comments that you have no idea of what mormons believe and how they see the gays. We aren't trying to exterminate anyone. Offcourse iof a cure could be found for gay, we would promote that but we aren't trying to do anything illegal or immoral against them, only help them according to our best conscience.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
Great, so you are telling me. 1.You support civil unions. 2. You support a law banning discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. At least we can find that common ground.
augustenburg 3 years ago
nice propaganda. I'm sure your next project is to make a nice white-washed film about what a good thing segregation is.
augustenburg 3 years ago
That's actually a brilliant idea augustenburg. And, by brilliant I mean ignorant and idea, completely unoriginal attack against Prop 8 supporters.
Segregation is a terrible things. It is also terrible to force government upon a church, or vice versa. Once you take away the rights of a church, you spit in the face of constituionalism. Furthermore, there's no hate in denying marriage, just protecting those things that belong to religion.
Gay rights are a legal issue, not to impose upon religion.
alexpleith 3 years ago
You are a moron. So freedom of religion requires that laws are shaped so that those who do not belong to those religions must follow their rules? Get a brain. Churches today don't have to perform interracial marriages if they don't want to. This is a pure legal issue, it has nothing to do with anyone affecting religion. That is a pure lie.
augustenburg 3 years ago
Marriage has been a religious ceremony trough out history, to try to redefinie a religious ceremony to fitt secular world opinion is silly. What ever gays wanna do, it's their right, but what theyr union is, can't be definied as a marriage since mariage has always been a religius ceremony, not secular.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
That is actually not true. In many countries throughout the world, religious marriage and secular marriage have been separate for decades. In all of Europe, religious marriages are only symbolic. Oh--and btw--slavery, until modern times has been a traditional part of history for thousands of years. Interracial marriage has only been allowed in all of the US for 40 years. People for slavery and people against interracial marriage used your same pseudo-argument of "tradition".
augustenburg 3 years ago
yes they have been separeted, but the secular one has not been called a mariage, it has a different name in most cases, but some just call it mariage out of popular meaning of the word. Also prop 8 is about california, and if marriage is not defined in california s it is defined somewhere else, it's californias decision and they can stick with their definition if they want to. Still, marriage has a religious roots down to prehistoric times.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
I'm sorry, as someone who is doing their PhD in history, I just have to jump in and correct you. Roman society, greek society, chinese society---not a religious ceremony. Also, there is a thing called common law marriage---in Europe and North America---all throughout history. This is a civil non-religious marriage. It means if you are coupled long enough---you authomatically are considered as married. I know it is easy to look at your own time, and imagine it has always been this way.
augustenburg 3 years ago
history goes a lot further than roman or greek times. it's alkso important to know what is the meaning of the word that is translated as marriage, in that other culture, plus, as i said, in different places people have different meanings for things as we do. if california defines marriage as it does, then there's no need to change that meaning. bye the way alexander the greats lover man wasn't called his husband, his wfe was married to him, but the male lover wasn't.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
btw that also applies to mormon marriages in all of Europe. All mormons in Europe who go to a temple to get married are not legally married, only symbolically married. To be legally married, they must also go to city hall and get married.
augustenburg 3 years ago
I know only of england where temple marriage is not valid alone, in finland temple marriage is valid alone.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
And let me point out the radical ways marriage has been changed in the past. First, divorce--before, never allowed, has only been allowed for all society for about 200 years. Blacks marrying. Blacks before the 1860's were not allowed to marry. Interracial marriage-legalized 40 years ago. Allowing women to divorce on their own initiative came even later. The Yale academic John Boswell has also written a book on places in medieval europe where coupled male priests were married.
augustenburg 3 years ago
divorce has been allowed atleast by the jews from the times of moses, catholics tried to forbid divorce and possibly some muslims, but as far as I remember koran did mention law for divorce.
Jarkko1983 3 years ago
That is untrue. If the laws are passed to force enforce gay marriage, churches will have to perform homosexual marriages if asked or they loose their tax exempt status. That is a fairly big deal, and infringement upon separation of church and state.
alexpleith 3 years ago
You are willfully delusional. Churches have NEVER had to marry ANYONE that they don't want to. You just throw out excuses like that to hide the fact that this is about you hating gay people.
augustenburg 3 years ago
That is not true. One of the repercussions that will occur if it is found constitutional to marry homosexuals is that it is unconstitutional to deny that marriage. If a church denies marrying a homosexual couple, they will be held in violation of the law and as consequence, lose their tax exempt status. That is not my delusion, that is the law and how it is designed. That is why church fight it so strongly, it will take away their rights.
alexpleith 3 years ago
Marriage is something so important and solemn.
Families are forever.
omiolo1 3 years ago