diamond
ONE love, blood, life
I think it hints that most religions are doctrines of men mingled with scripture.
<>
<>
I think it hints that most religions are doctrines of men mingled with scripture.
<>
The facts aren't conditional on peoples feelings, so that is irrelevant.rather bleak outlook my friend.
<>
All religions are scripture written by human beings, how do childish notions of God inspiring human texts get any respect in this day and age?I think it hints that most religions are doctrines of men mingled with scripture.
<>
If people's objection to same-sex marriage is that it abandons the gender roles inherent in marriage, then they're closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Our country now has (finally, and almost without exception) egalitarian marriage laws. The law does not require that either gender in a marriage take on a particular role withing the marriage.
Outlawing same-sex marriage does nothing to "fix" this. If their desire is for the continuation of certain gender roles in marriage, then they should change the laws to insist on those gender roles for heterosexuals - not pick on homosexuals.
But if a voter indicated human beings created marriage, Script B would roll instead, emphasizing that Proposition 8 was about marriage, not about attacking gay people, and about restoring into law an earlier ban struck down by the State Supreme Court in May.
“It is not our goal in this campaign to attack the homosexual lifestyle or to convince gays and lesbians that their behavior is wrong — the less we refer to homosexuality, the better,” one of the ward training documents said. “We are pro-marriage, not anti-gay.”
"Nobody is hurt by it," Wallace said. "There are other issues."
"Let people do what they please," Barnes said, adding: "They don't bother me."
Brian Camenker of the group MassResistance, which opposes gay marriage, said he believes that most people cannot accept the idea of gays and lesbians as a group whose rights need special protection.
"The concept is so ridiculous and absurd," he said.
i think you're mistaken on both counts.
<>
"We're very pleased, of course," said Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute, a nonprofit public policy group that has pushed for an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage. "Most people believe that marriage is about the creation and nurturing of children. Two fathers, two mothers, don't make up for a mother and a father."
What about straight couples who choose not to have children or are unable to conceive? This statement doesn't really make sense to me. I believe that marriage is about the love between two people. Period.
Maybe someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but when people talk about that 'traditional' definition of marriage, isn't that a misnomer of sorts? Isn't romantic love a relatively new concept? Didn't marriage evolve from a financial contract to its present-day incarnation? So why can't it be allowed to evolve further?
unless you are willing to say that all straight relationships are better than all gay relationships.
Which is what has been hinted at time and time again.
What did you think of the Richard Thompson Ford article I posted? Granted, it's not really raising anything that hasn't been touched on in here before (I was reminded of your familiar comment that "homophobia is basically sexism in drag" as I read parts of it), but my sense is that at least when it comes to grassroots campaigning, he may be right that starting from a recognition of the gender-role anxiety many people who have traditionalist leanings, but aren't necessarily ideological homophobes (nor ideological sexists), feel towards the idea of gay marriage might be the best way to identify a target audience--people whose minds can actually be changed--and a strategy that might work with them.i really am flummoxed. i've been trying to understand this for the past 12 days or so.
i wish someone would just come out and say it. it would make things a whole lot easier.
and the subtext of the whole thing is so offensive. i.e., "if gays can get married then they'll ruin the whole thing."
you wouldn't *believe* what the evangelicals say about you behind your back.
in whose military?
<>
you notice though the LDS Faith doesn't reciprocate the ill feelings from those that despise them.
Maybe the one that kicks out translators for where they put their privates, that type of discrimination costs lives.in whose military?
<>
sure i would.
you notice though the LDS Faith doesn't reciprocate the ill feelings from those that despise them.
that should be your first clue as to where their hearts are at.
<>
Blood atonement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSeveral early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood-presumably by capital punishment-as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.
What did you think of the Richard Thompson Ford article I posted? Granted, it's not really raising anything that hasn't been touched on in here before (I was reminded of your familiar comment that "homophobia is basically sexism in drag" as I read parts of it), but my sense is that at least when it comes to grassroots campaigning, he may be right that starting from a recognition of the gender-role anxiety many people who have traditionalist leanings, but aren't necessarily ideological homophobes (nor ideological sexists), feel towards the idea of gay marriage might be the best way to identify a target audience--people whose minds can actually be changed--and a strategy that might work with them.
sure i would.
you notice though the LDS Faith doesn't reciprocate the ill feelings from those that despise them.
that should be your first clue as to where their hearts are at.
<>
Maybe the one that kicks out translators for where they put their privates, that type of discrimination costs lives.