Homosexuality And The Purpose Of The Chruch

[ERayR]

No hyperbole at all. The Federal Marriage Amendment is an act of terrorism (again...no hyperbole or exaggeration). What is very telling is only what is perceived by your very astute and logically thinking mind. You'll likely do what you always do, Selek. That is to twist and mold others words to fit an, albeit poorly reasoned, set of statements to make your case as you have done above in (twice) to Akboy. This is telling as well.

Set aside the hyperbole. 9-11 was terrorism, suicide bombings is terrorism, The Federal Marriage Amendment is not terrorism and to call it such demeans the suffering of those who experience real terrorism.

[Damien the Leper]

History is meant to be changed; its fundamentals challenged. It is how we learn. We grow out of archaic idealisms and formulate our own that suit the needs of modern society.

My 81 year old grandfather would love for life to be as 'simple' as it was back in the 'wild west'. In a way, it was this type of setting when he was a child and adolescent in Arizona. However, the morals and ethics adhered to by persons coming from such an era, according to him, are directions and learning posts for coming generations and not a standard mindset to be upheld through all generations.

[Damien the Leper]

Set aside the hyperbole. 9-11 was terrorism, suicide bombings is terrorism, The Federal Marriage Amendment is not terrorism and to call it such demeans the suffering of those who experience real terrorism.

Terrorism (n.)- The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

The key word in the definition is violence. Violence as you well know, ERayR (because I know for a fact that you are NOT ignorant), is not limited solely to the physical.

Your accusation concerning any demeaning is disgusting...HOW DARE YOU!!! I recognize terrorism in many forms that include instances outside of physical actions..

[selek1]

You are correct that not myself, nor any other gay couple, and nor any straight couple need legitimization of their families and how those families are defined.

The agitation, persecution, and hateful rhetoric espoused by your side of the argument belies your declaration.

In the case of Prop 8, your side of the argument waged a campaign of legal harassment and voter intimidation in an attempt to silence- and disenfranchise- dissent.

Your side of the argument went after private businesses and citizens for the sin of disagreeing with your agenda.

Your side of the argument raided churches, commited acts of assault, vandalism, and arson in an attempt to punish people for the crime of thinking differently.

Your side of the argument sent packets of white powder to LDS temples, spray painted and burned LDS chapels and private homes.

That behavior- and the inability to allow others the sanctity of their dissent- indicates a deep seated insecurity.

That piece of paper granted by the county recorder is simply a formality and registry to the state.

A statement belied by the insistence with which LGBT advocates demand it- and demonize anyone who would deny it to them.

People don't fight tooth and nail for things which do not have value to them.

The bitterness and ruthlessness of the guerilla war LGBT activists have been waging on dissenters (even in the privacy of their own homes and churches) indicates that your side considers the stakes to be very high indeed.

Also, I don't believe it necessary that anyone accept (or be forced to accept) some 'normal' or 'traditional' definition of marriage simply based on trivial religious belief systems or anything else.

Honestly, maybe the government across the United States should stop handing out marriage licenses. If churches want marriage to be conservatively defined then they can hand out cute little "Certificate of Marriage" or "Certificate of Achievement" papers when the ceremony is finished so that couples can hang the cute papers up on an obscure wall in their house where the government doesn't have to acknowledge it. This would be a fair enough solution, right?

Even after 2600 years, Aesop is still relevant.

If you cannot reach the grapes, they must be sour.

If you cannot have it- then you belittle it.

[ERayR]

That doesn't me we have to follow their lead and and let them dictate what the conversation is about.

One has to address the conversation that is in the arena of ideas. It would do no good to talk about bad movies when they are addressing ssm. We have to address the topic or we have lost the battle of ideas already.

I'm saying the church should be vocal advocates of the gospel. It makes a lot more sense than trying to get people to follow God's rules before they believe in God at all. We can advocate the gospel without making or trying to enforce laws against sin.

We are already vocal advocates of the gospel. By standing firm on the issue under consideration you are advocating for the gospel. It is the homosexual community trying to change the laws. We enforce laws against sin everyday. we enforce laws against the sin of theft, against the sin of killing, against the sin of drunk driving etc. etc. Laws against sin are not new and are designed to protect society from the deleterious effects of such sins.

[selek1]

History is meant to be changed; its fundamentals challenged. It is how we learn. We grow out of archaic idealisms and formulate our own that suit the needs of modern society.

In other words, "We are soooo much smarter than our stupid, brutish forebearers that we cannot be bound by thier foolish traditions".

Are you even remotely conscious of how closely you are echoing Korihor and Alma 30?

Two and a half thousand years after the fact, you are vomiting up exactly the same narcissictic self-justifications and rationalizations.

I do have to thank you though- watching you (however inadvertently) fulfill the prophecies contained in the Book of Mormon is good for my testimony.

Edited August 10, 2012 by selek1

[ERayR]

Terrorism (n.)- The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

The key word in the definition is violence. Violence as you well know, ERayR (because I know for a fact that you are NOT ignorant), is not limited solely to the physical.

Your accusation concerning any demeaning is disgusting...HOW DARE YOU!!! I recognize terrorism in many forms that include instances outside of physical actions..

You recognize terrorism where none exists because of your agenda. How would you react if I were to call the Homosexual communities attacks against religion and the religious terrorism. By your definition Dan Cathy has just been the victim of terrorism. Now you know better and so do I. I stand by what I said.

[ERayR]

History is meant to be changed; its fundamentals challenged. It is how we learn. We grow out of archaic idealisms and formulate our own that suit the needs of modern society.

History is what it is and can not be changed. It can however be falsely reported. Part of the problems with the perceptions that our idealism is archaic is the revisions to our history.

[Akboy]

One has to address the conversation that is in the arena of ideas. It would do no good to talk about bad movies when they are addressing ssm. We have to address the topic or we have lost the battle of ideas already.

But we can address the issue without insisting on a law against ssm.

It is the homosexual community trying to change the laws. We enforce laws against sin everyday. we enforce laws against the sin of theft, against the sin of killing, against the sin of drunk driving etc. etc. Laws against sin are not new and are designed to protect society from the deleterious effects of such sins.

Laws against theft, killing and drunk driving stop a lot of theft, killing and drunk driving. Do laws against SSM stop much homosexuality?

[Damien the Leper]

The agitation, persecution, and hateful rhetoric espoused by your side of the argument belies your declaration.

In the case of Prop 8, your side of the argument waged a campaign of legal harassment and voter intimidation in an attempt to silence- and disenfranchise- dissent.

Your side of the argument went after private businesses and citizens for the sin of disagreeing with your agenda.

Your side of the argument raided churches, commited acts of assault, vandalism, and arson in an attempt to punish people for the crime of thinking differently.

Your side of the argument sent packets of white powder to LDS temples, spray painted and burned LDS chapels and private homes.

MY side? This is your first and severe mistake by being so ridiculously presumptuous to group me in with actions that 1) I did not participate in and 2) did not condone at any point of time. I believe that I spoke to guerreiro9 about being generalized into any camp. I'll thank you not to make the same ignorant mistake.

That behavior- and the inability to allow others the sanctity of their dissent- indicates a deep seated insecurity.

This I will agree with. Excommunicated scholars from the LDS church are a prime example of such insecurity. Thank you for pointing such out.

A statement belied by the insistence with which LGBT advocates demand it- and demonize anyone who would deny it to them.

A mutual sin performed by those who demonize and misrepresent those who would advocate in favor of such.

People don't fight tooth and nail for things which do not have value to them.

I agree.

The bitterness and ruthlessness of the guerilla war LGBT activists have been waging on dissenters (even in the privacy of their own homes and churches) indicates that your side considers the stakes to be very high indeed.

Ah yes...a similar method employed by these ignoramuses.

If you cannot have it- then you belittle it.

No. Not belittle it. Disallow it to more than it actually is. No harm, no foul.

[selek1]

But we can address the issue without insisting on a law against ssm.

Repeating this lie doesn't make it true for the chanting.

We are not the ones trying to change the law to impose our view.

Laws against theft, killing and drunk driving stop a lot of theft, killing and drunk driving. Do laws against SSM stop much homosexuality?

This rationale is idiotic on its face.

Until they were struck down, laws against sodomy, adultery, and fornicatiuon were just as effective as laws against theft, killing, and drunk driving.

Were they 100% effective?

No- but not even the law of gravity can boast a 100% success rate.

Thread has become a brawl.