quote:

---

None of the people who speak for "the family" and "the Christian religion" speak with the mind of Christ, their like 8 year olds trying to understand being 40.

---

Do you really think this kind of rhetoric will convince anyone Thor?

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
I think it's fairly true. Unless you really think that you understand God.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
If you believe that Christ speaks through Prophets (like Issiah of the Old Testament, or Peter of the New Testament) then if they pronounce God's word on the subject you no longer have to guess at what Christ thinks, He's already told you (and the world).

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
 

quote:

---

Unless you really think that you understand God.

---

quote:

---

Does George W. Bush not make global choices
believing he is a hand of God?

---

quote:

---

Billions of people
speak what they believe
they know of God.

I shall do the same.

---

quote:

---

Mind you,
I have known and loved God since I was
a small boy.

I have not doubts that
the Lord is the Great Father,
and the Great Creator.

I've been a poet and a writer and a worker for over 25 years of my 33 year old life.

My credentials are quite fair.

---

I'm not sure what being an artist has to do with being able to understand God, but loving God sounds like a good set of credentials to me. Of course it depends on what you're planning to do with them...

quote:

---

If the Bush Conservatives want to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, because the Bible defines it such, let them also ban 2nd, 35, 4th and 5th marriages, for the bible defines it so.

---

I assume 35 was supposed to be 3rd, right? Well either way keep in mind that there were several people in the OT who had multiple wives and were still in good standing before the Lord. Not that I would really be upset if there was a constitutional amendment banning polygamy.

Also, remember that the typical versions of these amendments define marriage, they don't "exclude" marriages. Yes I'm sure that's what everyone supporting them really wants them to do, but in this context the amendment isn't just a list of things that don't count as marriage, so you can't just tack on "no polygamy either guys" to the end.

Also, most of the versions I've heard of define marriage as between one man and one woman, so it would stop multiple wives...

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
So, Hobbes, do you think polygamy is wrong?

(Trick question-- there's a right answer. )

*enjoys being a pain in the butt occasionally*
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
No I don't think so, I just don't much care if there's a constitutional amendment that would ban it

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
The correct answer is:

"It is ok only if I can clone Annie over and over and over again."


 

---

Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
 
"Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body," (1 Cor. 6:19-20).

I’m not sure if it will do to quote a verse in this argument. But this says to me that I should take care of my body. Be fit. Not overeat. Not smoke or do drugs. We know that these things are unhealthy.

The Bible also allows for you to marry again in cases of fornication.

Matthew 19:9 - And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 

quote:

---

Hard liqour is more harmful than marijuana in every way, yet you can advertise liqour and go to jail for smoking marijuana.

---

quote:

---

Gay Polygamists Make Bid for Legitimacy

CAMBRIDGE, MA--In a bold move, Latter-day Saints who are both homosexual and
polygamist have banded together to lobby for greater acceptance and understanding. Called
Poly-Gay-Mists Now and Forever, the advocacy group has begun holding rallies,
seminars, love-ins, and mass weddings in Massachusetts, with events planned soon for
locations in California and Utah.

"My Heavenly Father created me to love men, and not just one," said Daniel Bryant, a
sixth-generation Mormon who grew up in Centerville, Utah, and now lives in
Somerville, Massachusetts, where he serves as editor of the group's newsletter, Come, All Ye
Sons of God. "I am a gay fundamentalist who believes in Joseph Smith's original
teachings regarding the plurality of partners, and I believe that extends to same-gender
relationships. We're trying to be true to our feelings as well as our heritage."

Kevin Brooks, founder of the Poly-Gay-Mist movement, would not speak directly to The
Sugar Beet. We have learned, however, that Brooks grew up in a fundamentalist
polygamist family in Colorado City, Arizona. Leaving home at age 17, he departed from the
faith's teachings for a season. Two years ago, he became reconverted to
fundamentalist beliefs, but by then he was already gay. Today, he is eternally sealed to four
men.

"This merging of two Mormon subcultures is unexpected but strangely inevitable,"
said Eric Newberry, a University of Utah sociologist. "It's as if the two opposite ends
of the spectrum curved back and met in the rear, so to speak. If this catches on, it
could help alleviate the extreme competition for females among fundamentalist
Mormons."

George Welch, spokesman for the National Association for the Advancement of
Polygamists (NAAP), said, "While the Poly-Gay-Mists are not a traditional polygamist group,
we nevertheless embrace them with open arms, and they're welcome to have a booth at
our NAAP convention in October. In fact, we hope they'll queer-eye some of the other
booths that could use a little more pizzazz."

For more information about Poly-Gay-Mists Now and Forever, visit
www.multiplehusbands.org.

---

 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
LJ:
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
That's great.

Hobbes, the correct answer is, "It's wrong for me..."
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
[editted because I decided it was totally off topic anyway] carry on

[ February 04, 2005, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
No, I like vwiggin's answer the best.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
But you haven't been directed that the law is once again in effect and applies to you. So that's not the right answer.
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Yes it is.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Why?

Oh, I suppose you're saying you don't know how to clone people. Okay.

[ February 04, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Because no one's figured out how to clone people yet either so my answer (from vwiggin ) isn't wrong, and it's a lot sweeter.

[EDIT: Ohh fine, edit while I'm responding ]

Hobbes

[ February 04, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Hobbes
 

---