Of gay "marriage," virginity, and JSM's creepy fixation

[_Brackite]

I also believe in the literal resurrection as well as the crossing of the Red Sea. I'm not sure it is an adequate rejoinder to all my posts to say, simply, yeah but you believe in the Book of Mormon.

How would you feel if I kept reminding viewers that you went to that Stoner U, Sonoma State?

You also believe that Plural Marriage (Polygamy) is an eternal Principal. Here is again what You Stated:

Plural marriage is an eternal principle. It is founded on the notion that there will be far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women. It has to do, somehow, with the struggle in the Garden of Eden, the choice Eve made, and the promise that she would be saved in childbearing. I don't get it all, but the fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit is a fact.

( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8991&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=210 )



Why do You believe that Plural Marriage (Polygamy) is an eternal Principal?

Why do you believe that far fewer men who will accept the atoning sacrifice than women?

Why do You believe it is a fact, that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit?

And, if it is a fact that women are more spiritual and willing to accept the spirit, then how come women are not allowed to give Priesthood Blessings within your Religion?

Jesus Never taught that Plural Marriage (Polygamy) is an eternal Principal.

Here are a couple of teachings from Jesus about Marriage:

Matthew 19: (New International Version):

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"

4 "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,'[a] 5 and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? [b] 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

7 "Why then," they asked, "did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?"

8 Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Matthew 22: (New International Version):

Marriage at the Resurrection

23 That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24 "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27 Finally, the woman died. 28 Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?"
29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'[a]? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.

Jesus Believed that Marriage was between one man and woman.
Jesus Taught Against the idea of Polygamous Marriages being allowed and practiced, within the Kingdom of Hevean.
There will Not be within the Kingdom of Heaven, men having many wives.

Here is again Jacob Chapter Two, Verses 23 through 34:

Jacob 2:23-34:

23 But the word of God burdens me because of your grosser crimes. For behold, thus saith the Lord: This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts.
34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done.

How in the world, can an abomination and a whoredom be considered an eternal Principle???


From about.com:

How many boys are born for every 100 girls?

There are 105 boy babies born for ever[y] 100 girl babies worldwide but scientists haven't determined why this sex ratio is so.

( http://geography.about.com/library/faq/ ... eratio.htm )



There will Not be men having many wives, within the Kingdom of Heaven.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Hmm... let's try a little experiment:

By way of contrast, old people sex is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.

Yup! That works, too!

No it doesn't, junior. You need to learn the difference between per se and per accidens. Sex between two men or two women is essentially incongruous with the proper procreative ends of their generative organs; "old people sex" is only incidentally nonreproductive.

So if, say, gay marriage has existed in Massachusetts for five years and the state hasn't descended into chaos yet, you'd have no problem with gay marriage?

No. That would only mean that particular argument has no force. In any event, you set the bar too low; other indicators of societal integrity need to be taken into account.

Hrm... let's try a little experiment:

This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands interracial "marriage."

Yup! That works, too!

That's probably true. So? I disagree with interracial marriage bans but argumentum ad consequentiam is fallacious in this context as well as others.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Spare me from this cretin.

Don't be too hard on him, Bob. It wasn't too long ago that his testicles dropped (right into the glass jar his gf was holding underneath).

[_Calculus Crusader]

Incidentally, Bob, Stoner U is Humboldt State. I believe junior when he says he went to UCLA because he also admitted he got a worthless degree from there.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Hmm... let's try a little experiment:

By way of contrast, old people sex is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.
Yup! That works, too!

No it doesn't, junior. You need to learn the difference between per se and per accidens. Sex between two men or two women is essentially incongruous with the proper procreative ends of their generative organs; "old people sex" is only incidentally nonreproductive.

You seem to believe that the essence of reproductivity lies in heterosexual intercourse. The stupidity of that idea should be apparent to anyone who paid attention in their 7th-grade sex ed class, because those people know that heterosexual sex is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for reproduction. Appealing to outmoded scholastic concepts like "essence" will not save you here -- elderly couples are just as infertile as gay couples, and stammering counterfactuals like "elderly couples wouldn't be infertile if the woman wasn't post-menopausal" doesn't do any legwork.

So if, say, gay marriage has existed in Massachusetts for five years and the state hasn't descended into chaos yet, you'd have no problem with gay marriage?

No. That would only mean that particular argument has no force. In any event, you set the bar too low; other indicators of societal integrity need to be taken into account.

Such as what? Dog and cat cohabitation levels?

Hrm... let's try a little experiment:

This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands interracial "marriage."
Yup! That works, too!

That's probably true. So? I disagree with interracial marriage bans but argumentum ad consequentiam is fallacious in this context as well as others.

You have misidentified the argument, genius. Ad consequentiam is when you attack a premise for having bad consequences. I haven't done that. I attacked the argument itself as leading to an untenable conclusion -- I said that if your argument against gay marriage is valid, we should likewise permit interracial marriage bans. That's the definition of a reductio ad absurdum.

This is what I hate most about religion. It takes obviously intelligent people, like you, and makes them feel like they have to say inane things. Cast off your yoke, CC -- you should know by now that the burden isn't actually light.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Spare me from this cretin.

Don't be too hard on him, Bob.[quote]
He won't. Being hard when I'm around is your job.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Don't be too hard on him, Bob.

He won't. Being hard when I'm around is your job.

I'm sure you wish it were my job.

[_JohnStuartMill]

You gonna respond to the point, or what?

[_JohnStuartMill]

Hmm... let's try a little experiment:

By way of contrast, old people sex is completely incongruous with the proper procreative ends of our generative organs and thus a violation of ordo naturalis.
Yup! That works, too!

No it doesn't, junior. You need to learn the difference between per se and per accidens. Sex between two men or two women is essentially incongruous with the proper procreative ends of their generative organs; "old people sex" is only incidentally nonreproductive.

You seem to believe that the essence of reproductivity lies in heterosexual intercourse. The stupidity of that idea should be apparent to anyone who paid attention in their 7th-grade sex ed class, because those people know that heterosexual sex is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for reproduction. Appealing to outmoded scholastic concepts like "essence" will not save you here -- elderly couples are just as infertile as gay couples, and stammering counterfactuals like "elderly couples wouldn't be infertile if the woman wasn't post-menopausal" doesn't do any legwork.

So if, say, gay marriage has existed in Massachusetts for five years and the state hasn't descended into chaos yet, you'd have no problem with gay marriage?

No. That would only mean that particular argument has no force. In any event, you set the bar too low; other indicators of societal integrity need to be taken into account.

Such as what? Dog and cat cohabitation levels?

Hrm... let's try a little experiment:

This is actually important in establishing the correct socio-historical context for state and federal constitutions. When read in their proper contexts, it is impossible to arrive at the conclusion that any constitution demands interracial "marriage."
Yup! That works, too!

That's probably true. So? I disagree with interracial marriage bans but argumentum ad consequentiam is fallacious in this context as well as others.

You have misidentified the argument, genius. Ad consequentiam is when you attack a premise for having bad consequences. I haven't done that. I attacked the argument itself as leading to an untenable conclusion -- I said that if your argument against gay marriage is valid, we should likewise permit interracial marriage bans. That's the definition of a reductio ad absurdum.

This is what I hate most about religion. It takes obviously intelligent people, like you, and makes them feel like they have to say inane things. Cast off your yoke, CC -- you should know by now that the burden isn't actually light.

You've quit defending this awful logic, I see. Smart move.

[_Calculus Crusader]

You've quit defending this awful logic, I see.

Says who?