KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) The "3rd world" is not part of civilization.....hmmmm....The English are still a bit touchy over losing the colonies. Edited March 13, 2012 by KevinG
KevinG Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I think homosexuals have much more to worry about under Sharia law emerging in England than they do under the Mormons.
LeSellers Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 The English are still a bit touchy over losing the colonies.Doncha know it: they don't even celebrate the Fourth of July.Lehi
zerinus Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 I would note how some would take away marriage by making it so vague that no definition will fit it. That is exactly what is going on. The very challenge to "traditional marriage" reflects a certain nod and a wink reducing an important part of life on this earth to a semantic argument. Marriage will become such a vague concept that its meaning will whither to nothingness for society. But that is what they want. In essence they seek to destroy marriage by making it meaningless.Agreed. At first "civil partnerships" were proposed, to avoid calling it marriage. Now it is a full blown marriage. What if in ten years time somebody decided that they wanted to marry their dog, or cat, or the trees in their garden? What would be the logical basis of stopping it? There wouldn't be; and eventually the concept of marriage would become meaningless. It is a plot by the devil to destroy the institution of marriage.
wenglund Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 I still find it confusing when the Great and Abominable is called a Church. I think that it means that it is a recognizable organization.I can see the reasoning that there is a metaphorical aspect to it,yet the word church implies a religious adherence,an identifiable congregation.Is it that a person must belong to one camp or the other? No gray camps?Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand, but Bill Hamblin discusses this issue as a part of his Mormon Scripture Exploration, Here (see in particular his treatment of verse 4).Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Daniel2 Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Agreed. At first "civil partnerships" were proposed, to avoid calling it marriage. Now it is a full blown marriage. What if in ten years time somebody decided that they wanted to marry their dog, or cat, or the trees in their garden? What would be the logical basis of stopping it? There wouldn't be; and eventually the concept of marriage would become meaningless. It is a plot by the devil to destroy the institution of marriage.I found that the following explanation provides a pretty succinct answer to your concerns: Edited March 13, 2012 by Daniel2
frankenstein Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Agreed. At first "civil partnerships" were proposed, to avoid calling it marriage. Now it is a full blown marriage. What if in ten years time somebody decided that they wanted to marry their dog, or cat, or the trees in their garden? What would be the logical basis of stopping it? There wouldn't be; and eventually the concept of marriage would become meaningless. It is a plot by the devil to destroy the institution of marriage.What is the current basis for not allowing a person to marry a dog? And does that reason stand up to rational basis or strict scrutiny?
Ares Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 This is Ares and this is a Mormoism board.The two are in an intimate partnership to kill any thread that goes purely political.
Recommended Posts