Mormons

Originally posted by Regret
I am not asking what it is. I am asking why it is legally recognized, for what purpose? Why was it placed in law? Did they just say "Hey, I just noticed people get married, let's make some laws!!!"? Why did they make those laws, what is the purpose? What did the laws do? And, given this, does a homosexual marriage fit under the reasons that the laws exist?

Religions would still marry people even without the laws.

People wanted a formal statement expressing the devotion to their lover.

Originally posted by Eis
How about non-religious people? What if they wanted to get married?

People wanted a formal statement expressing the devotion to their lover.

They could set up some figure to marry people, religious people wanted to get married, so they take some person in their group and say "hey he can marry you." They didn't say "Oh, crap, we don't have someone to marry us, please someone(government), tell us we are married." Are non-religious people unable to do this?

You still did not answer the earlier question.

Originally posted by Regret
They could set up some figure to marry people, religious people wanted to get married, so they take some person in their group and say "hey he can marry you." They didn't say "Oh, crap, we don't have someone to marry us, please someone(government), tell us we are married." Are non-religious people unable to do this?

You still did not answer the earlier question.

I didn't answer your question? What question? How does Gay Marriage benefit the government? I'm sure I did.

NOTHING, the government wins nothing. I'm sorry but last time I checked the purpose of the government was not to win benefits by passing laws, the purpose of the government is to maintain order in the nation and rule the people equally and fairly! Which is something it is NOT doing.

THere are two types of marriage, civil and religious. THe relgious one only has personal meaning, the civil on gets you tax/legal benefits. This is the one that is "equal treatment under the law." IMO religions can do whatever they want, the government can't.

Please move this discussion to the "gay marriage" thread.

Originally posted by Alliance
THere are two types of marriage, civil and religious. THe relgious one only has personal meaning, the civil on gets you tax/legal benefits. This is the one that is "equal treatment under the law." IMO religions can do whatever they want, the government can't.

Please move this discussion to the "gay marriage" thread.

Originally posted by Eis
Some figure, now if they wanted their "union" to be official then there had to be some kind of a record. And if any person could marry anyone I'm sure it'd be quite hard for there to be an official record of all married couples. No?

So non-religous people can't keep records? I want to keep track of something, can I get the government to make a law to track it? I hope we don't make laws based on that.

Originally posted by Eis
I didn't answer your question? What question? How does Gay Marriage benefit the government? I'm sure I did.

Originally posted by Regret
Why is marriage legally recognized, for what purpose? Why was it placed in law? Did they just say "Hey, I just noticed people get married, let's make some laws!!!"? Why do those laws exist, what is the purpose? What do the laws do? And, given this, does a homosexual marriage fit under the reasons that the laws exist?

If your answer was that non-religious people wanted someone to say you are married and track it, then I think those laws are stupid.

Originally posted by Alliance
THere are two types of marriage, civil and religious. THe relgious one only has personal meaning, the civil on gets you tax/legal benefits. This is the one that is "equal treatment under the law." IMO religions can do whatever they want, the government can't.

Please move this discussion to the "gay marriage" thread.

I will stop responding to the gay marriage line. I appologize if the previous posts were off the topic, I got caught up in this debate.

Originally posted by Regret
Oh, and I am not against homosexuals marrying. I am perfectly fine with any gay man may marrying any woman he chooses, and any gay woman can marry any man she chooses. That is perfectly fine by me. Even if both of them are gay it's still fine by me.

Prior to 1967 it was argued that interracial couples had equal marriage rights because a black person could marry a black person, and a white person could marry a white person, they just could not marry one another.

Originally posted by Regret
No, what I'm saying is I don't care. I don't believe in legalizing it, and I don't care if it makes homosexuals upset. I believe homosexuals can marry now, it just isn't legally recognized. Why does the law have to recognize it? What does marriage mean, to the law, not to homosexuals or to me, to the law? What is the purpose of legalizing it? Answer those questions, you still have not.

The government has to recognize same-sex marriages because marriage is a basic civil right guaranteed by the 14th amendment of the constitution of the United States. The government has to recognize same-sex marriages because same-sex couples are guaranteed equal protection under the law by the Equal Protection Clause of the constitution of the United States. The government has to recognize same-sex marriages because it collects taxes from same-sex couples. Do I need to go on?

Originally posted by Regret
Unless there is some benefit to our government I do not think the government should officially or legally recognize any of it, including heterosexual marriage. So what is the benefit, why is marriage a legally recognized thing? But quit attacking us, and state your reasons, and don't say because of equality. Quit hiding behind the "Ohhh, you're so vile, it's not fair...etc." crap and answer the question. So far you have been unable to state anything without attacking us in some way.

This is a tremendous non-argument. The fact of the matter is that the government does recognize it, and in doing so, the government is constitutionally obligated to allow all Americans equal access to the institution.

Why is marriage legally recognized, for what purpose? Why was it placed in law? Did they just say "Hey, I just noticed people get married, let's make some laws!!!"? Why do those laws exist, what is the purpose? What do the laws do? And, given this, does a homosexual marriage fit under the reasons that the laws exist?

Originally posted by Alliance
I never thought you did. I was stating that religious doctrine shouldn't have an impact on US law.

If religious people live in a democracy how can their beliefs not have an impact on the law? Unless you want to make them the second-class citizens.

Originally posted by Alliance
The proposed amendment do change something. CLASSIC "conservatives" being liberal by passing all sorts of crazy jargon. Your same arguments were used against black during segregation. <<We're just clarifying that blacks arent equal humans, they're just 3/5ths of a human>>

The difference is no one is saying that gays don't have rights, or that they're not people. The argument is about what the right is, not whether people have it or not. Any man has the right to marry any woman. period. That's the stance the "anti-gay marriage" people are taking.

History lesson - blacks weren't considered 3/5 of a person since the 14th ammendment was passed, right after the civil war - that would have been long before "segregation".

Originally posted by Alliance
An BS about your "leftist" judges. Upholding the rule of law is not "leftist." Upholding equal rights is not "leftist." "leftist" judges is a myth made up by conservatives to scare thier base into going to the polls. Those "leftist" judeges gave women rights, ended segregation, gave minorties rights, Miranda rights. Thats called AMERICAN, not "leftist." Using your position, you're against all those.

Point on segregation (although I do think that the civil rights movement, and the nation in general, would have been better off if Congress had done the job), Miranda rights are arguable, and as far as womens rights - those were done the old fashioned way, legislatively - not through judges.

Originally posted by Alliance
And you talk about "Reading things into the constitution that have never been there"? YOU"RE the one scrawling all over it. You're arguments BS.

What have I read into the constitution that isn't there?

Originally posted by docb77
The difference is no one is saying that gays don't have rights, or that they're not people. The argument is about what the right is, not whether people have it or not. Any man has the right to marry any woman. period. That's the stance the "anti-gay marriage" people are taking.

Prior to 1967, a white person could marry a white person, and a black person could marry a black person. Obviously, interracial couples were not being discriminated against. 🙄

GUYS one time i got abducted by MORMONS !!!!!

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
GUYS one time i got abducted by MORMONS !!!!!

Shhhh, don't let our secrets out of the bag !!!!!

Just feel special it was you 😉

😆

GUYS one time i got abducted by MORMONS !!!!!

Everything happens to you doesn't it......First you're aroused by Christ and now this!!

😂

Originally posted by debbiejo
Everything happens to you doesn't it......First you're aroused by Christ and now this!!

😂

We're just out to get him 😈

roflmao/walu (/while abducting Lord Urizen - figured after the slash needed some interpretting 😉 )

Originally posted by Psycho Ninja
Mormon = Christians ?? I dont think soo !!

What you got to back up that claim?

Did you guys hear the Warren Jeffs tape on polygamy? He talks slower than a narcoleptic 80 year old.

(not that he's a representative mormon)

cnn.com

Originally posted by Alliance
What you got to back up that claim?

I'm Mormon, but I think the Christian thing is a waste of time discussing.

We are Christian by the secular definition as well as by our definition.

We are not Christian in the sense that mainstream Christianity defines it.

They claim we are not Christian because our belief is that Christ is not the same entity as God, we believe that they are separate and distinct beings. They believe that God the Father, the one that caused the conception in Mary, is Christ in another form, we do not believe that God the Father is also God the Son in another form. We also do not believe that the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead is Christ in yet another form, we believe that once again it is a separate entity. Since we do not believe these things, we do not believe that two of their three forms that Christ takes are actually Christ. We do believe in all three members of the Godhead, but unlike mainstream Christianity we do not believe they are all the same being, So God the Father is not Literally Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost is not literally Jesus Christ, and God the Father is not literally the Holy Ghost. They are, to us, three separate and distinct personages that are one in purpose not one in person.

In essence we do not agree with everything in the Nicene Creed which is the origin of their definition of the Trinity. Prior to the Nicene Creed (325 AD) there was debate in Christianity as to the how the trinity were related, singular distinct beings or one singular entity which manifested in different forms/identities. We disagree with the outcome of the Council at Nicaea, and the following councils. So, prior to 325 AD we would have been considered Christian by mainstream Christianity. The Nicene Creed is not doctrine that cannot be refuted, it was a debate that was voted on. There was, and is Biblical evidence to support the other side, it was just decided that the official interpretation was the one that mainstream Christianity follows today.

Here is the text of the Nicene Creed, I figured this was a decent source, and typically if there are differences in it they are slight.

The following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:

We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Taken from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm

It is also worthwhile to note that until between 100 and 200 AD Christianity taught pre-earth existence. Around this time pre-earth existence was decided to be lacking in evidence, and so fell out of popularity. It seems that modern Christianity has taken the stance that it is an impossibility, but it was a decision based on lack of evidence supporting, not impossibility of having been.

The Roman Catholic church ruined a lot of things, and a lot of beliefs.....Interesting though about a preexistence earth.