Here is a brief list of Mormon beliefs that should be put on the ballot for the public to vote on.
1. Baptism for the dead. This is a ceremony that takes place in Mormon temples where they baptize your dead relatives vicariously regardless of the religion they practiced while alive.
2. Secret underwear. I think that everyone should be able to purchase Mormon secret underwear.
3. Let us in your temples.
If anyone has any others please leave in the comments!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I went to a Mormon wedding once. Many of the family member nor I were allowed into the church to see the ceremony.
From what I understand the LDS church has agreed that homosexuals may form unions as allowed per state law and recieve all the benefits that come with it. And I don't think you argument is very good. Maybe you should focus more on proving the moral positivity than attack just the LDS church who actually only contributed 4.2% of the vote and >1.5% of the donations. I supported gay marrages, but I will not cry, wine, and create some childish winning tantrum like you have done. If you really insist on acting this way, the go after the Catholics (17.87% of the money contributed and <23% of the vote!). Or maybe the state who allows such laws to revoke your ability and rights!!!! You are getting no where attacking such a small institution like the LDS church!
I have to say that Mormons cannot spell worth a shit. Let's have a spelling / grammar lesson. "Wine" is something you drink. "Whine" is what you are doing on my blog because you feel like the Mormons are being picked. Well, fuck the Mormons. I never said Mormon votes stole out rights. Mormon money did.
Poll tracking shows that it wasn't until the Mormons got involved that the tide turned in favor of banning gay marriage. The simple fact of the matter is that the Mormon church threw their financial weight around to impose their moral code on a minority group that wants nothing to do with them.
For your information, I never said the Mormon church donated the money directly. They tricked and bullied their members to do that for them. Estimates show that $4 out of every $5 came from a Mormon.
Its great to be back on this Blog. However, I doubt that the prior guy was mormon. You seem to just assume things that are questionable.
First, your information, Antinous, must be mistaken; any group could have shifted the vote either way as per its small win percentage. Your argument is what we call an ad hoc argument.
And I would also be careful to hold that "Mormon money" caused the change... since again there is not "prima razone" to believe that is the case -especially since it deals with the same product as stated above.
I also, think that Bahfami has a point. You seem to be counter productive in how you approach this situation. Let us suppose that the Mormon Church is bigoted, and that they hate and wish that every one of you sinful people would just die -which I really doubt they do. Would your approach be more justified? Do the conjunction of two negative operators make a positive one? No! Never! Now let us suppose that the Mormons sympathize with you, but wish to hold on to what they deem as the true standard of morality, and in fact, the believe it with such zeal that they speak out against it in a democratic way, and their view is upheld - would you act negatively in this case as you did in the prior? (this is just a thought evaluation -we sometimes use these on confused or irrational people to help them see more clearly). I think that via logical analogy we can safely conclude that your views are irrational at best.
It's true. Any group could have shifted the vote. But it was the Mormons who did it. And no religion, Mormon, Catholic, Buddhist or Scientology has the right to use our democratic process to further their agenda.
I'm sure there are many other things that go on in this country that the Mormons don't agree with. For instance, as "the one true church" wouldn't it be just as logical for you to pass a ballot measure banning any other religion? If this was truly about morals, and the upholding of your morals at any cost, why not at least pass such a law in Utah? It would pass breezily if put on a ballot. Why protect others rights to practice a religion that you believe to be false? And even more, why jump in bed with "the great whore of the earth" to ban gay marriage.
And since your moral compasses are clearly superior to the rest of the worlds, why not go after abortion? You'd think that the murder of babies would be worse than two people of the same sex wanting to commit to one another for life. Guess not.
Based on your argument below it would seem that slavery was acceptable. As were the segregation laws. And the laws preventing women from voting. Just because a majority votes a certain way does not mean that the majority was right. In fact, the majority typically gets it wrong.
Ps. I predict in the very near future that someone starts using Nietzsche quotations. Philosophy majors. (As soon as I can find an emoticon that rolls it eyes, I'll insert it here.)
First, you really don't want me to bring up Nietzsche -that just too brutal for someone who holds a life-negating orientation.
In a democratic society this is one of the problems that you must en-front. The social mix of people that posses certain affiliations like: fraternities, religions, clubs, and general social organizations, can bring about damaging and beneficial outcomes to any democratic systems. Now, for you, you might wish to hold that the outcome was negative, but was it? Or, in the end will it make society aware of the harm done? Perhaps, it could also lead to some realization that the anti-natural acts of homosexuality are such that they pose a terrible threat to society and the necessary functioning of it - and so they move against it. The outcome is unclear. You should see my most recent post, I think it clarifies some aspects of this.
I mainly wanted to skip Nietzsche so I didn’t doze off and chip a tooth on my keyboard.
People, yourself included, seem to think that because we live in a democracy that they have a certain amount of control over the government. Which to a certain degree, they do. The way a democracy works is that the people elect officials who will represent their beliefs or best interests. Voters cast their ballot for that person in hopes they will represent them. If they do a good job, you keep voting for them. If they don’t, you vote for someone else. This is democracy.
While our elected officials are selected by a popular vote, policy or governmental decisions are not typically decided by a simple majority. If this were the case why didn’t the American people get to vote on how our government is spending the $700 billion dollar bailout? Why didn’t we vote on whether or not we should attack Iraq? Why don’t we vote on state and national budgets? Because the majority is ill equipped and sometimes too personally invested in a situation to make a rational decision. When the population doesn’t like a decision the government makes they shouldn’t have the opportunity to vote it down. We make our voices heard by not electing those officials again, and relying on the new officials to fix what was broken.
The government should never be involved in moral decisions. Let the religions dictate morals. The government is there to protect the rights of the people.
As nobody else has been able to explain this, and you think so highly of yourself, please explain to me (not using a religious argument) how gay marriage will impact your future heterosexual marriage. You must also assume that the gay citizens seeking marriage are already living a gay lifestyle and therefore will not impact the human population.
Go.
I never said that democratic issues are "acceptable." However, let me address your question about how homosexual marriages will affect heterosexual marriages. I don't think there is a direct argument to be made here, but I do think that we can consider a modal-consequence conditional to explain it. Let us suppose that some action X is not accepted by the some society S. S negates X, and thus the possible outcomes of X are not realized. So, X never perpetuates in S in any possible world. However, let us suppose some other society S' and X again. Let us suppose that the social condition is such that X is accepted by S'. As this occurs X is integrated more readily into S'. However, the integration of X in S' affects Y as per some psychological conditioning of S'.
So... we can move to show that X caused some damage to Y in S' by way of S' accepting X. This is an analogues formulation, so all you have to do is plug in the terms "homosexual marriages" and "heterosexual marriages" in for the variables.
Post a Comment