What's new

Gay marriage in Utah put on hold

I find it absolutely hilarious that someone would claim 100% of the work done in LDS temples is for the benefit of mankind.

We thank thee Lord for a profit!

I'm the guy who left the neg, if you hadn't already guessed, and I feel the need to clarify. In my mind, as a member (albeit a Jack if there ever was one) of the MoMo's, I personally feel that the work done in LDS temples is strictly for the benefit of mankind, both living and dead, both spiritually and maybe physically. Do I have any proof? Nope. I can see why it's funny to you, and don't blame you for snickering. Maybe you've done temple work before and didn't see any benefit, but I also have done the work, and I have seen the benefit. On the flip side, I've yet to see anything harmful (other than boredom) come form temple work. Maybe we'll never know if it's beneficial, but at least we know it's not harmful. (Unless we find out someday that there is asbestos in the cushions or something)

I would certainly be interested in an LDS take on how work done in LDS temples benefits mankind as a whole. I wouldn't even hold a person to the 100% criteria.

I'm probably the wrong person to answer this, but since nobody else has, I'll give it a shot. If you believe what the Mo's believe, then temple work is an essential part of exaltation in the next life. Attaining the highest degree of glory sure sounds like a benefit to me. The temple work is done for everyone, regardless of their faith, unless someone has specifically requested not to have the work done for them or their family. It harms nobody, but if the Mo's happen to be right, then it will benefit damn near everyone.

That actually wasn't all that hard to explain.

I consider the "We thank thee Lord for a profit" as a light jab, and is something I've always considered pretty funny due to the LDS church's aggressive manner of keeping track of and encouraging full 10% net tithe.

Wouldn't it be "We thank thee, oh Saints, for a profit"? I hate tithing as much as the next guy, but since when are Mo's the only religion that requires tithes and offerings -- or at rather, when did it become funny to jab just the Mormons for their beliefs? I want to see some Catholic Collection Plate bashing, dammit!

However, I don't have nearly the influence of the LDS. When I discriminate against religious people, it is unintentional and ineffective. When the LDS discriminates, it casts a pall on the lives of thousands of its own members. So, as much as I deeply, deeply respect the old rubber-glue argument, I don't think that I feel my comments are in any wrong inaccurate or inappropriate here.

Didn't take long for me to bust it out:

The truth is often distasteful and shameful to those who would prefer it otherwise.

I have a feeling I'm going to get some serious mileage out of that one.

Of course you love them, you're just telling them that their natures are inferior and not worthy of the honors available to straight people. How could anyone interpret that message as less than loving and accepting?

Those same "honors" are not available to people who drink beer or smoke. If you're a pedophile, you can't have them either. If you don't pay your tithes? No soup for you. Love them or hate them, those are the rules. Do you think that I think any less of Gameface because he brews his own (Award Winning) beer? Or of franklin because he gets off on midget porn? Or fishonjazz because he snorts Ambian? Or Dala because he practices Islam? (PBUH)

It is possible, and believe it or not, idiotically probable, to hate the sin, but love the sinner. I do it everyday, and so do you. Stop being such an easily offended bitch. (Now feel free to call me a sexist, misogynist, pig and then cry harder.)

Your argument against Mormons and/or religion in general is the same, tired, loathsome ********* that you spew regarding racism. You're not black, Mormon, or gay, yet you are the end-all be-all when it comes to those subjects. Even when people are agreeing with you, you find a way to tell them they're wrong. It's awesome.

If you complained about being discriminated against for being a Muslim, and someone responded by saying "well, maybe you should change your religion", would you take that as a valid retort to your complaint? What OB is saying is pretty obvious.

I think the question ought to be, "Why would you stay in a religion that doesn't accept the way you are?". If your answer is, "Because it's true!" then it shouldn't be too tough to live/worship by their rules and beliefs. I know it's not that simple, but then again, why can't it be? For example, there are a lot of things that I dislike about the United States, but because it is, IMHO, the greatest country in the world to live in, I abide the ********. There are those that shout, "Don't like it, then leave!" (Usually followed by the words "terrorist" or "Sand ******"), but I like it here, so I'll stay.
 
I still do not get why those who subscribe to organized religion feel they have the monopoly on the terms "Wedding" and "marriage". I do not subscribe, but I'm married. So I'm curious, according to you am I not married? Was my wedding not a wedding?

Weddings and marriage, even as terms, are not solely owned by those of faith. Once that is understood, maybe some will realize the "separate but equal" argument is offensive to many others, not just LGBT folks.

cus like with everything else governments stole and took control of it
 
I think marriage has evolved over time, which speaks to your point. Marriage is much more than a religious ceremony and the gateway to procreation. The words marriage and wedding have taken on a new meanings in our society encompassing couples religious and non. No need to alienate those that use that language to describe their union just because they have different beliefs, race, or sexuality.

Hey it's my perfect world, remember? That means it's mine and it's perfect.
:)


Seriously though, plenty of churches allow/recognize gay marriage.

Like it or not, the legal status comes from conforming to whatever procedures the STATE requires - not the church. A church can be completely left out of the process and it's still a legal union. The church can specify whatever requirements it chooses but if you haven't met the state's requirements, your union is not legal.
 
At what point did governments steal marriage? 1000BC, 400BC, 100AD, 1200AD?

Time to take marriage back!

so you are saying the government did not take a religous concept and applied laws/rights concering it.
thereby governing a religious concept? in effect taking control over it. i call that stealing. you cant deny that the government started governing marriage.
 
so you are saying the government did not take a religous concept and applied laws/rights concering it.
thereby governing a religious concept? in effect taking control over it. i call that stealing. you cant deny that the government started governing marriage.

Marriage is about alliances, pooling of resources, granting sexual rights amongst other privileges. Has been since before religion "stole" it, using your terminology. Government deals in that aspect of marriage.
 
Marriage is about alliances, pooling of resources, granting sexual rights amongst other privileges. Has been since before religion "stole" it, using your terminology. Government deals in that aspect of marriage.

Yes. Seriously all the Bible talks about is "laying" with someone in a sexual context.
 
Marriage is about alliances, pooling of resources, granting sexual rights amongst other privileges. Has been since before religion "stole" it, using your terminology. Government deals in that aspect of marriage.

Yes. Seriously all the Bible talks about is "laying" with someone in a sexual context.

guess moe is sarcastic.
but just goes to show how darkwing duck is uneducated. about this whole marriage thingy. will try and educate him, he probably realize i am right and crawl back under his rock.
i have only read new testament once. and never read the book of Mormon(3rd testament). so i cant really speak on those 2.
but old testament and related stuff i read a million times.

but marriage in the old testament is about alliances, pooling of resources en granting of sexual rights.
dont know what you think marriage originally is.
but in the old testament lots of rights and or privileges are connected with marriage. not only sexual wise and offspring wise.
most of em are there to care for offspring.
for example if a man dies the care of the children and the mother falls on the brother of the man. if the woman so chooses(a way of having "social/familial" security). in judaism there are even "unfair" laws toward men. or should i say in favor for women
for example if a married woman has a child that is not her husbands child. he cannot refute paternity. in essence the child becomes HIS responsibility. he should threat such a child as his own.


also before marriage the man must set up a contract as "wedding gift" a so called kituba. this contract also states the "compensation" in case of divorce. there are things that are a must in the contract for example the husband must provide a home, furnished and all and should live together in this home. there is also (not in marriage contract but stil a requirment) that the man must provide minimum provisions.

so darkwing please go educate yourself on marriage before commenting again. seeing as old testament is also a part of christian and LDS. i am to guess it is the same with their belief system

yes governments just STARTED governing a well thought out religious concept, that created family values, had a positive effect on society and gave social security to kids and raped it by defiling it and letting gays get married. and it not being about family and children. and bounding these children to a father something a inner city ghetto ******* like obama and various other evil politicians knows nothing about.

government is organized crime. and not a solution. they should not meddle in most things.


so darkwing duck please stfu and study the concept of religious marriage before ever trying to put me in place on this subject. religion did not steal it THE GOVERNMENT DID
 
Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve overtime. It can and does happen.

Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.

fixed.. for sports message board'ism.
 
Just my opinion. Married is the term we've grown accustomed to - that's not to say the meanings and language can't evolve over time. It can and does happen.

Gay is a prime example! Maybe there will come a time when it simply means happy and joyous again.

freedom of religion in my humble opinion also means their religious concept and terms must not be mocked and imposed upon.
so before changing terms the government should take it up with the religious leaders. because marriage is a religious term.


by allowing gays to get married imho opinioin is unconstitutional. heck even more unconstitutional than gun control. seeing as this impedes the first amendment.
this obama generation things equality means everybody has the right to a marriage and an ipod.
this obama self entitled generations thinks equal rights means if my neighbour worked 100 hours and bought a nice car. person b who is lazy as **** also deserves that nice car.

so excluding gays from marriage has nothing to do with equal rights
 
so you are saying the government did not take a religous concept and applied laws/rights concering it.
thereby governing a religious concept? in effect taking control over it. i call that stealing. you cant deny that the government started governing marriage.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking you how many thousands of years ago it started.

Didn't seem like a problem until recently...when gay people wanted the same legal benefits from long term committed relationships that heterosexual people enjoy.
 
So let me get this straight. Dutch is citing a religious text, something that if it wasn't believed by a lot of people would be classified as historical fiction, to try and prove that marriage is originally a religious concept?

And I'm the uneducated one?
 
So let me get this straight. Dutch is citing a religious text, something that if it wasn't believed by a lot of people would be classified as historical fiction, to try and prove that marriage is originally a religious concept?

And I'm the uneducated one?

yes you are. because you said
Marriage is about alliances, pooling of resources, granting sexual rights amongst other privileges. Has been since before religion "stole" it, using your terminology. Government deals in that aspect of marriage.
i just show you that that is untrue. because long before government meddle in marriage.
religioun also dealt with THOSE aspects you mentioned
 
yes you are. because you said i just show you that that is untrue. because long before government meddle in marriage.
religioun also dealt with THOSE aspects you mentioned

Where did I say religion didn't do that? Or religious based governmental entities? You use the Old Testament which is full of theocratic governnments. Marriage has been doing that long before religion got involved. Government just deals with that portion of marriage.
 
Top