The Mormon and Homosexual Agenda

[_subgenius]

By your argument, murder is ordained of God and therefore it is futile to consider it illegal.

Have you not read the Old Testament?
Have you not read the story of Laban?

Murder, according to scripture, is not only ordained of God, it is actively encouraged!

Actually, because i have read those texts i understand what murder is and the Hebrew use of the word. So the futility is found in your own posts, which are steeped in a, at best, cursory knowledge of the scriptures and any Christian doctrine, teaching, or for that matter cliché.

If God created the capacity for opposite sex attraction, then He can't very well dodge the credit for creating a persons capacity/inclination towards same sex attraction, or footstool attraction for that matter. Remember, He created us, warts and all.

I have no issue with the idea that God created and allows temptation in our lives. I would even take the position that it is necessary. Your post is inept in as much as it does not realize that simple fact....a fact most would learn in primary or the nursery.
So while God "created" poop he certainly did not intend for you to choose to put it on a silver platter and eat it....but as you have recently demonstrated, you are certainly free to choose to eat all you want.

[_Jutta]

Is polygamy prohibited by the US Constitution?
Does the Federal Government have the right/ability to prohibit polygamy?

If the Fed cannot declare marriage as between a man and woman, then they certainly may not limit the quantity....and for that matter, by what law can they prevent a man from marrying a footstool?

Polygamy was often abused in the USA. I think of minors; this one compulsion marriedly was with old men. Or to women who were already married and although with this sect leaders had to have Sex (Jim Jones for example).
The U.S. laws therefore forbid polygamy because these "marriages" were abused and, because the understanding of the founding fathers of a relationship went out.

[Guest]

virtue that is what

That is your opinion.

and the opposite is your opinion...which merits the same "so what?" response. Not sure if you were paying attention but the court did not grant anything, just that people were preventing incorrectly....States can still define marriage.

it doesn't hurt me just like it doesn't hurt you if they don't get to marry whomever they want. Ultimately your argument here is based on selfishness, which is contrary to the benefit of society....unless you are Ayn Rand.

Actually, it is pretty selfish to keep equal rights from others. It is pretty selfish to deny others the benefits that married couples enjoy just because of your own personal preference.

There is so much nonsense in your statement. We

you are arguing the exception, not the rule.

Prove it. And there are no questions asked regarding intent to procreate. It is not a requisite for marriage.

i never said it was a requisite for marriage...but culturally it is most certainly the expectation.

not really...recent years has seen it devolve and become degraded by the selfish argument stated above....which is, ultimately, contrary to the "invention" of marriage.

It started out as a way of proving ownership of a man's children. He wanted to make sure he wasn't passing inheritance to children that were not his own. Women and children were regarded as property of the man. People did not originally marry for love.

Ironic how you want me to prove that marriage without children is the exception and then you claim that it is founded on children.
Nevertheless, you have just made the claim, so now prove (CFR) why marriage was invented.

I have a feeling you don't really know anything about this topic other than your feelings.

Feeling? How ironic, again.
As for me, i know that on this topic you rely solely on your feelings and disregard fact, history, tradition, and common sense.
But hey, if it feels good, do it.....right?

[_LittleNipper]

Homosexuality is based on the misapplied use of human organs for sexual acts that are both unhealthy and tend to glamorize violence. Their actions are for heightened sexual arousal without procreation as its goal or result. Marriage for the establishment of a father and mother as a means to bear, raise, and set the example for children --- is the only reason marriage was ever promoted by governments and society at large. The exception to this is were religious societies followed God given regulations in pure obedience to His will.

So what? Not that I even agree with what you've said here. But, for arguments sake, so what?

How does it hurt you if someone else marries whomever they want?

We allow infertile couples to marry. We allow couples to marry without asking for a declaration of intent to procreate.

Marriage has evolved a LOT since it was first invented.

We allow men and women to marry. The fact of their infertility is in the hands of God alone. What allowing homosexuals to play at marriage is doing is spoiling the children. It is quickly turning society into a bunch of materialistic hedonistic louts, whose only desire is to have their bodies pierced and covered with tattoos for the temporal joy of folly. The striving for perfection, humility, the ideal, and the spiritual has been devalued. The idea that there are good choices and bad choices has been replaced with anything goes --- if that is what an individual desires... Marriage is special -- a blessing ---- but the new society is turning it into the mundane and a free for all.

[_Bazooka]

We allow men and women to marry.

What gives 'us' the moral right to decide who can or who can't be joined in matrimony?

[_subgenius]

We allow men and women to marry.

What gives 'us' the moral right to decide who can or who can't be joined in matrimony?

if marriage is not regulated then it ceases to exist...as with any government exercise, there has to be those who are included (qualify) and those who are excluded (not qualified).
If there are no rules to marriage then anyone can say they are married to anyone or anything.

[_LittleNipper]

We allow men and women to marry.

What gives 'us' the moral right to decide who can or who can't be joined in matrimony?

God gives us that right. And a warped society demonstrates what happens when that right is disregarded.

[_just me]

What gives 'us' the moral right to decide who can or who can't be joined in matrimony?

God gives us that right. And a warped society demonstrates what happens when that right is disregarded.

According to you and your version of god.

You cannot force your religious beliefs onto others and have them encoded in law.

Your whole rant about equal marriage leading to body piercings and tats is just hilarious. Where does Jesus say anything about those things being immoral or wicked?

Heterosexual sex is no more or less hedonistic than homosexual sex. Every human on the planet seeks for pleasure. It is a survival technique. Everyone I've ever come across is equally hedonistic. Just because someone derives pleasure in a different way than you doesn't mean their way is wrong and your way is right.

[_Jutta]

We allow men and women to marry.

What gives 'us' the moral right to decide who can or who can't be joined in matrimony?

Mormons may would answer: GOD.
But I would say, that it is the power wich lays in the Hand of church leaders, which members follows blind. And blind obidience is always be bad for humans, as I can see in German history (Hitler and former GDR).

[_Jutta]

Heterosexual sex is no more or less hedonistic than homosexual sex. Every human on the planet seeks for pleasure. It is a survival technique. Everyone I've ever come across is equally hedonistic. Just because someone derives pleasure in a different way than you doesn't mean their way is wrong and your way is right.

And men are more hedonistic than women, so heterosexual and gay men are more hedonistic than straight and lesbian women. But what is with transfolks? Are transwomen and men more or less hedonistic than "normal" women and men?