Mordecai Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Why are we debating whether or not we should call something with significant differences by the same name? It's a stupid idea, like legally recognizing John Goodman as Brad Pitt.
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 Why are we debating whether or not we should call something with significant differences by the same name? It's a stupid idea, like legally recognizing John Goodman as Brad Pitt.I agree, this thread is getting all...
frankenstein Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 Why are we debating whether or not we should call something with significant differences by the same name? It's a stupid idea, like legally recognizing John Goodman as Brad Pitt.just as stupid an idea as calling Mormons Christian, or calling the BoM or D&C scripture.the definition of marriage, if there ever could have been a "absolute" unchanging definition, has changed, to allow for current times attitudes; whether it is time only marriage, plural marriage, marriage which man allowed for divorce, interracial/seed of Cain marriage.
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 just as stupid an idea as calling Mormons Christian, or calling the BoM or D&C scripture.the definition of marriage, if there ever could have been a "absolute" unchanging definition, has changed, to allow for current times attitudes; whether it is time only marriage, plural marriage, marriage which man allowed for divorce, interracial/seed of Cain marriage.frank... how does man define mairrage if it is set by a Lord who is higher than him? =PIf he does so, he is doing so without permission, no?What does doing so without permission bring, I ask? Why should we not try and avoid the results?
Mordecai Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 just as stupid an idea as calling Mormons Christian, or calling the BoM or D&C scripture.That would be incredibly stupid to have the gov't officially recognize Mormons as Christians or the BoM or D&C as scripture. We don't want to the gov't getting involved in such matters, because language is directly tied to free speech, which is exactly why we need to keep the gov't from officially adopting gay Newspeak. Of course, it's worse, because your analogy is even more false. A Mormon is a specific type of Christian (using the dictionary), just like a domestic partnership is a specific type of union. Nobody is saying a domestic partnership isn't a union. That'd be ridiculous, just like it's ridiculous to say members of the Church of Jesus CHRIST aren't CHRISTIANS. Again, do we need to have the gov't officially recognize John Goodman as Brad Pitt to make John and his fans happy? the definition of marriage, if there ever could have been a "absolute" unchanging definition, has changed...Yeah, it has changed, if you're a politically correct drone. Conversely, if you have common sense and embrace reason, the real definition of marriage involves a man and a woman.
frankenstein Posted February 20, 2011 Author Posted February 20, 2011 Yeah, it has changed, if you're a politically correct drone. Conversely, if you have common sense and embrace reason, the real definition of marriage involves a man and a woman.yep drones like Moses. What was marriage "from the beginning"?
TAO Posted February 20, 2011 Posted February 20, 2011 What was marriage "from the beginning"?What is happening in the temple, that it is.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.