First of all, polygamy is not a "nontraditional" marriage. It has been practiced since the days of Abraham and is still considered religiously acceptable by various Jewish and Muslim sects. Even though it is not socially acceptable in the United States today, it is still a union between a man and a woman.
Secondly, just because polygamy played a big role in the history of the LDS Church doesn't mean it is the focal point of the church's success. Faith in the Lord is the only focal point, period. And lastly, I can't understand how anyone can be so discouraged over something so trivial as the church's position on homosexuality. Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
43 comments
inb4 'between a man and a woman, not a man and multiple women'
And your concept is ineffective on nonbelievers.
What happened to faith is the focal point? I have faith that a reasonable lord would understand that he allowed his creation to have amazing variability so that homosexuality is no big deal.
PS. Admit it, the lord has never bothered to speak to you about anything. You stumble through the babble like most people.
Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
That died, thankfully, at the beginning of the Enlightenment. Looks like you've got 200 years' worth of news to catch up on.
Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
Cause God never speaks. Only his followers.
Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
I have never heard a god speak, maybe that explains a lot?
"I can't understand how anyone can be so discouraged over something so trivial as the church's position on homosexuality."
I don't give a shit about the church's position on anything. When the church tries to change secular laws to reflect its mythology, I get pissed. Just leave us the fuck alone and we'll leave you alone. Deal?
Ozzie wrote:
"It's not a union between a man and a woman, it's a union between a man and a bunch of younger women that he chooses when he sees one that he likes." At least in the case of the FLDS sect, this is true.
Real-world examples of plygamy tend to be a lot more boring than this. It's less like having a harem than like having several households full of screaming kids to provide for.
Abraham was given his wife's handmaiden because she hadn't conceived and he needed an heir.
LDS polygamy started as a way to protect widows and children, as women weren't allowed to own property, and if their husbands died, their land deeds were invalid.
None of these had anything to do with a 'higher power', just property and inheritance rights.
I'd love to see this become Proposition 9 - polygamy legalization.
Why not, it's all over the Bible, just like the anti-gay stuff.
Oh, but it's "immoral" because it's part of the Bible Christians now choose to ignore.
[it is still a union between a man and a woman.]
No, it is a union between one man and six women (plural).
[Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"? ]
"The lord" doesn't speak to me. And what two people do with their private lives shouldn't be a debate.
Ok, I'll wait for your lord to speak up on this subject.
Still waiting...
Hmm. He seems to be curiously silent. Almost as if he either didn't care, or didn't exist.
I'm for polygamy and even if it's a fundie, I'm glad to hear someone else speak up for it.
I can't pass too much judgement on this because he's probably arguing to Christians, in the context of their belief system.
Nothing is wrong with this until the retarded last two sentences.
@nowonmai:
You'd better check your Mormon history, because you have your facts wrong. That story about early Mormon polygamy being to "protect the widows" who had no property rights is pure B.S. put out by the modern day LDS Church to paint Joseph Smith in a more favorable light. If you check the LDS church's own Family History web site, you will find that he "married" girls as young as 14 years of age (with living parents). A third of his "wives" were in their teens, almost all were under forty, and a large number (I believe it was eleven, but can't remember for sure off the top of my head) were ALREADY MARRIED TO OTHER MEN at the time he "married" them. He conveniently sent those women's husbands off on missions to get them out of the way so he could nail their wives. A con man and a womanizer, yes; protector of widows and children, no.
So...you went screaming past "Once we allow gay marriage, what's to stop the polygamists" to "The polygamists are still good, because at least it's man and woman." Points for at least TRYING to be creative about it.
Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
It happened that the Lord never speaks, only a bunch of cunts that claim to be his messagers.
Sorry, I'm an American. We don't have Lords or Kings or whatnot in my country. We got rid of such riffraff a long time ago.
Your concept does not apply.
"Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?"
Pretty much an impossibility once one realizes that the proof of God's inerrancy is circular. If we don't debate with God, how is he supposed to find out what mistakes he might have made?
Indeed, there is nothing inherently wrong with informed, responsible, consenting adults choosing to live polygamously. The problem is that brainwashed child brides, rape/kidnapping victims or slaves/war captives forced to marry their aggressor or girls sold/given by their parents in arranged marriages do not fit these requirements...
I also wonder: just how fast would Dave here backpedal if someone pointed out that if the law allowed the one man, several wives type of polygamy, it would also have to allow one woman, multiple husbands and several members of each gender types. I bet he'd manage to break the sound barrier :P
"Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?"
It was questioned and later rebuked by people who actually decided not to put on the patented Jim Jones Brainwashing HelmetsTM .
-Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?-
"First of all, polygamy is not a "nontraditional" marriage."
I agree. I mean, who on Earth would want to marry a parrot that was expert at, say, Monopoly Or even...:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=7fz1D4YuyiU
Ai thenk yaw!
"Faith in the Lord is the only focal point, period."
My Samsung digital camera would suggest otherwise.
Ai thenk yaw II!
Whatever happened to the concept of "When the Lord speaks, the debate ends"?
Oh, I dunno. Just ask Onan, and lots of other people!
Ai thenk yaw III!
Take my wife. No please, take my wife!
Ai thenk yaw ad infinitum...! X3
Then you'll approve of my having a few husbands?
Oh, but that's totally different, right?
You're in a religion founded by a shyster who LITERALLY talked to 'god' through his hat. Your words are worthless. But the church's stand on homosexuality is not trivial to homosexuals. They are human beings, or in the words of the faithful, "children of god".
"Secondly, just because polygamy played a big role in the history of the LDS Church doesn't mean it is the focal point of the church's success."
But it was a focal point.
And we cannot tolerate a homosexual descendant, because they are not increasing our power in the afterlife. Well, THEY may be, but they're not having litters of offspring to speed it along.
It's very central to the great afterlife pyramid scheme that J. Smith managed to flog...
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
