Zone1 Mormon Church Sells its Soul, Endorses Lyingly-Named Respect for Marriage Law

[The Sage of Main Street]

There is nothing deceptive about "Respect for Marriage" marriage is marriage. Why are you so threatened by it? How has it effected you?

You might want to note that while you rail against the Mormons, you seem to fail to realize that they still prohibit gay marriae within their church.

They did, however, realize that it makes good political and public relations sense to butt the hell out of the business of oter people who do not share their religion or values. That is more....much more...than cn be said for your Catholic Church.

The Anal-Retentive Beget the Anal-Receptive

Homo-"sexuality" is not a religious issue, even though both predatory sides try to make it one. Opposition to it is part of the Survival Instinct. This dangerous Death Wish was condemned thousands of years before any religion got involved.

Proof is that it could have been encouraged in order to prevent the dire consequences of overpopulation. Instead, infanticide, human sacrifice, and intertribal genocide were the evil but necessary solutions. That's how destructive this sick and immature perversion is, that they would be forced into such violations of conscience to avoid it. Its evil is recognized by anyone who is not intimidated by the highly placed Gayist Mafia.

 

[Meriweather]

The novus ordo church would be so proud of you for saying this (for standing up for homos)

Standing up for the truth...I doubt TheProgressivePatriot would agree I have been guilty of standing up for anyone.

 

[DGS49]

Reality check, if you please.

Virtually every organized religion on the planet abhors homosexual sodomy. Those that have changed their stance (now including, apparently, the CofJCofLDS), have done so in order to slow the death spiral that our rotten culture has inflicted on organized religion. But who cares, right?

When I was growing up, homosexual sodomy was a crime in virtually every State (the Feds had no say in the matter, thanks to the Constitution). These laws were sporadically enforced - often not at all, but they did reflect the judgment of the GenPop.

Over time, some of those laws were repealed, but then something bizarre happened in Washington D.C. The USSC decided that (a) there was a "right of privacy" hidden somewhere among the emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution, and (b) perverse, private sexual activity (not including adultery) was PROTECTED by that imaginary Constitutional right. With this gambit, the Leftist Supreme Court effectively nullified all of the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the country.

Parenthetically, at around the same time, the AIDS pandemic came to our shores, and although everyone who was not certifiably stupid knew that it was basically a problem spread by anal intercourse among gays, "we" were compelled to suppose that it was a "universal" plague which endangered "everyone." In fact, my 10-year-old son was treated, in 1992, to formal classroom instruction on "safe" anal sex practices. At the time, there had not been a SINGLE CASE OF HETEROSEXUALLY TRANSMITTED AIDS in our entire county of two million souls.

But I digress...

So let's set the stage for where "we" were after the Supreme Court's discovery of the buggery right: ANY GAY COUPLE WHO WANTED TO could enter into a committed, monogamous relationship, do every sexual thing that their little hearts desired, and the official position of Government at all levels toward these relationships would be total disinterest. NOTHING and NO ONE could interfere with their eternal bliss. They could have joint checking accounts, buy a home together, call themselves "partners," "husbands/wives," or whatever they wanted. In one short generation they had gone from criminals to Fine Upstanding Citizens! They should have been CELEBRATING!

But...but...but...[Enter the Gay Mafia].

"We can't adopt kids." "When we die, our estate is taxed at a higher rate than if we were legally married." "We can't benefit from our partner's health insurance." "If my partner is dying, I can't get into the hospital to see him." Oh my, oh my.

So they DEMANDED to be allowed to MARRY in the same way the "normal" couples do. This was total bullshit. The purpose of marriage, legally, and culturally, is to create a framework that promotes and supports the nuclear family. And because homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE, it doesn't apply.

But the Supreme Court struck again. Based again on the non-existent right of privacy, it ruled that the States had no justifiable basis to discriminate against a gay couple when compared to a normal couple.

But again parenthetically, the more rational issue here was that some states had already formally sanctioned gay "marriages," and under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, every other state is required to recognize those marriages, even if the state does not allow gay "marriages" within its borders.

Gay marriage doesn't harm me. Slavery in South Carolina in 1850 didn't harm anyone in Massachusetts. The Germans' treatment of the jews (and others) in the 1930's did nothing to harm Americans. Some woman in Hawaii killing her baby in the womb is no sweat off my balls, so to speak. But moral people are implicitly required to recognize and oppose evil, even when that evil does not harm them directly.

So why would LDS now approve of gay marriages? As stated above, it is a cynical attempt to slow down its devolution into nothingness. Good luck with that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Comparing states' divorce rates and using them to make a case of gay marriage stability is invalid, considering gay marriage represent only a small fraction of all marriages.

Clearly you do not understand statistics very well. A percentige of any number is still a percentage. But I am not trying to use that oercentage to make a case for gay marriage. That case has already been made in many ways.

But if you want to focus on divorce rates, let me ask you this. What marriage "success rate" must gays achieve -what rate must any demographic achieve- inorder to be worthy of the right to marry? What other group is scrutinized in such a way to determine if they should marry?

 

[martybegan]

Reality check, if you please.

Virtually every organized religion on the planet abhors homosexual sodomy. Those that have changed their stance (now including, apparently, the CofJCofLDS), have done so in order to slow the death spiral that our rotten culture has inflicted on organized religion. But who cares, right?

When I was growing up, homosexual sodomy was a crime in virtually every State (the Feds had no say in the matter, thanks to the Constitution). These laws were sporadically enforced - often not at all, but they did reflect the judgment of the GenPop.

Over time, some of those laws were repealed, but then something bizarre happened in Washington D.C. The USSC decided that (a) there was a "right of privacy" hidden somewhere among the emanations and penumbras" of the Constitution, and (b) perverse, private sexual activity (not including adultery) was PROTECTED by that imaginary Constitutional right. With this gambit, the Leftist Supreme Court effectively nullified all of the remaining anti-sodomy laws in the country.

Parenthetically, at around the same time, the AIDS pandemic came to our shores, and although everyone who was not certifiably stupid knew that it was basically a problem spread by anal intercourse among gays, "we" were compelled to suppose that it was a "universal" plague which endangered "everyone." In fact, my 10-year-old son was treated, in 1992, to formal classroom instruction on "safe" anal sex practices. At the time, there had not been a SINGLE CASE OF HETEROSEXUALLY TRANSMITTED AIDS in our entire county of two million souls.

But I digress...

So let's set the stage for where "we" were after the Supreme Court's discovery of the buggery right: ANY GAY COUPLE WHO WANTED TO could enter into a committed, monogamous relationship, do every sexual thing that their little hearts desired, and the official position of Government at all levels toward these relationships would be total disinterest. NOTHING and NO ONE could interfere with their eternal bliss. They could have joint checking accounts, buy a home together, call themselves "partners," "husbands/wives," or whatever they wanted. In one short generation they had gone from criminals to Fine Upstanding Citizens! They should have been CELEBRATING!

But...but...but...[Enter the Gay Mafia].

"We can't adopt kids." "When we die, our estate is taxed at a higher rate than if we were legally married." "We can't benefit from our partner's health insurance." "If my partner is dying, I can't get into the hospital to see him." Oh my, oh my.

So they DEMANDED to be allowed to MARRY in the same way the "normal" couples do. This was total bullshit. The purpose of marriage, legally, and culturally, is to create a framework that promotes and supports the nuclear family. And because homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE, it doesn't apply.

But the Supreme Court struck again. Based again on the non-existent right of privacy, it ruled that the States had no justifiable basis to discriminate against a gay couple when compared to a normal couple.

But again parenthetically, the more rational issue here was that some states had already formally sanctioned gay "marriages," and under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, every other state is required to recognize those marriages, even if the state does not allow gay "marriages" within its borders.

Gay marriage doesn't harm me. Slavery in South Carolina in 1850 didn't harm anyone in Massachusetts. The Germans' treatment of the jews (and others) in the 1930's did nothing to harm Americans. Some woman in Hawaii killing her baby in the womb is no sweat off my balls, so to speak. But moral people are implicitly required to recognize and oppose evil, even when that evil does not harm them directly.

So why would LDS now approve of gay marriages? As stated above, it is a cynical attempt to slow down its devolution into nothingness. Good luck with that.

They aren't going to perform SSM's, they probably think the religious protections included make up for recognizing STATES being forced to accept all marriage licenses.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

People can start with, "If a child has two male parents, the benefit of not having a female parent is...." or, "If a child has two female parents, the benefit of not having a male parent is...

No. People should start by saying"if a child has two male, or two female parents , what is the harm"?

 

[Blackrook]

Same-sex marriage has shifted from something I oppose to something I don't care about.

I was worried that making it legal would harm traditional marriage, but it didn't.

I still oppose multiple marriage. I think that's bad for women.

 

[Mashmont]

There is nothing deceptive about "Respect for Marriage" marriage is marriage. Why are you so threatened by it? How has it effected you?

You might want to note that while you rail against the Mormons, you seem to fail to realize that they still prohibit gay marriae within their church.

They did, however, realize that it makes good political and public relations sense to butt the hell out of the business of oter people who do not share their religion or values. That is more....much more...than cn be said for your Catholic Church.

As I said, immoral behavior harms us all, and I listed the ways. Mormons saying it's unacceptable for Mormons, but OK for others is the same argument baby-killers like Biden use. And so I would ask if you feel the same about rape. Is rape not OK for you, but perfectly fine for other men?

If something is immoral for some, it is immoral for all. I get really tired of the equivocation.

 

[martybegan]

Same-sex marriage has shifted from something I oppose to something I don't care about.

I was worried that making it legal would harm traditional marriage, but it didn't.

I still oppose multiple marriage. I think that's bad for women.

Plus the old rule that any threesome is actually a twosome with an added onesome.

 

[Blackrook]

The argument that something should be illegal because it's immoral doesn't hold water.

Adultery is immoral, but not illegal.

 

[Mashmont]

Clearly you do not understand statistics very well. A percentige of any number is still a percentage. But I am not trying to use that oercentage to make a case for gay marriage. That case has already been made in many ways.

But if you want to focus on divorce rates, let me ask you this. What marriage "success rate" must gays achieve -what rate must any demographic achieve- inorder to be worthy of the right to marry? What other group is scrutinized in such a way to determine if they should marry?

First off, gays can't really marry and they can't really have mutual sex, because they lack the plumbing.. The best they can do is call it mutual masturbation. And since the whole arrangement is unnatural, it is not suprising the arrangement fails. It's like when you rig up water pipes that don't quite match and try to tape them. They'll eventually leak. They're being used in ways they aren't meant for.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Anal-Retentive Beget the Anal-Receptive

Homo-"sexuality" is not a religious issue, even though both predatory sides try to make it one. Opposition to it is part of the Survival Instinct. This dangerous Death Wish was condemned thousands of years before any religion got involved.

Proof is that it could have been encouraged in order to prevent the dire consequences of overpopulation. Instead, infanticide, human sacrifice, and intertribal genocide were the evil but necessary solutions. That's how destructive this sick and immature perversion is, that they would be forced into such violations of conscience to avoid it. Its evil is recognized by anyone who is not intimidated by the highly placed Gayist Mafia.

Holy shit! What? That is quite an unghinged rant ! I really do not think that homosexuality has ever, or will ever have a measurable impact on population. The fact is that while homosexuality has been condemned at times, it has also been tollerated and even acepted at times and in some places. You hysteria over it has no place in todays reality

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First off, gays can't really marry and they can't really have mutual sex, because they lack the plumbing.. The best they can do is call it mutual masturbation. And since the whole arrangement is unnatural, it is not suprising the arrangement fails. It's like when you rig up water pipes that don't quite match and try to tape them. They'll eventually leak. They're being used in ways they aren't meant for.

So to you gay marriage is all about how they have sex? That is so damned ignorant!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

So they DEMANDED to be allowed to MARRY in the same way the "normal" couples do. This was total bullshit. The purpose of marriage, legally, and culturally, is to create a framework that promotes and supports the nuclear family. And because homosexuals CANNOT REPRODUCE, it doesn't apply.

Oh but it can and does!

 

[Mashmont]

The argument that something should be illegal because it's immoral doesn't hold water.

Adultery is immoral, but not illegal.

Adultery has been illegal. I think it should be illegal again. In my America it would be.

 

[Blackrook]

Adultery has been illegal. I think it should be illegal again. In my America it would be.

Good luck arresting and convicted all the adulterers. We'll have to clear out the prisons to make room for them all.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But again parenthetically, the more rational issue here was that some states had already formally sanctioned gay "marriages," and under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, every other state is required to recognize those marriages, even if the state does not allow gay "marriages" within its borders.

Not true, The Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 put and end to that. It is still on the books but unenforcceable due to Obergefell

 

[Mashmont]

So to you gay marriage is all about how they have sex? That is so damned ignorant!

You axed me how gay marriage is immoral. Marriage implies sex.

 

[Mashmont]

Good luck arresting and convicted all the adulterers. We'll have to clear out the prisons to make room for them all.

Texting while driving is illegal too. Are we clearing out prisons to make room for everybody who texts at the wheel? Can we catch them all? Of course not. Do they try? No. But if you make it apparent, you pay the price.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Gay marriage doesn't harm me. Slavery in South Carolina in 1850 didn't harm anyone in Massachusetts. The Germans' treatment of the jews (and others) in the 1930's did nothing to harm Americans. Some woman in Hawaii killing her baby in the womb is no sweat off my balls, so to speak. But moral people are implicitly required to recognize and oppose evil, even when that evil does not harm them directly.

So you equate gay marriage with slavery and genocide? That tells me all that I need to know about you