Mormon Church To US Supreme Court: Ban Gay Marriage

Thanda said:

Please cite your sources for all these assertions.

Click to expand...

LOL! How do I cite nonexistant material? There is nothing about "marriage" in Tanakh.

Thanda said:

Secondly - is the Tanakh the only thing the Jews ever wrote?

Click to expand...

Obviously not, - however - Tanakh is supposedly straight from God, - and all later materials are man discussing and arguing them.

Thanda said:

You know well that is not what I meant. Secondly it is clearly not true.

Click to expand...

Yes it is true. Animal studies show males will mount both males and females. It is ridiculous to assume only male-female attractions took place in the ancient past.

Thanda said:

Thirdly incestuous relationships have also been going on for a long time. But they are taboo now and have been for a very long time - as have homosexual relationships. So the operative word you should have paid attention to was "normal". Did the people of the time consider it normal or did gay people have to conduct their relationships undercover?

Click to expand...

Incest does not equate to homosexuality. Incest is now banned because we know of genetic problems in offspring.

Homosexuality = same-sex attraction/LOVE. And hurts no one.

Thanda said:

Again, sources for all these wonderful assertions would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

LOL! Sources for the obvious? You think a God source zapped down a male and a female then held a marriage ceremony??? LOL!

As I said - humans first just had sex. Later we get more and more complicated ritual.

The so-called "marriage" at Cana uses the word - gamos. Look up the ancient original meaning.

As I said, - For instance - if you look up the Greek Hieros gamos - you will find it is a coming together in a sex rite.

Modern translations often say - holy/sacred marriage, but that is obviously not the meaning of the Greek Hieros gamos, as it was a temporary coming together in a SEX RITE representing original creation.

Thanda said:

It would also help if explained exactly why the marriage would cease to be a marriage, or a wedding cease to be a wedding, if the situation was as you describe (but I first need sources for you assertions).

Click to expand...

LOL! Again - need no sources for the obvious - see above.

And you have that backward. I said nothing about marriages ceasing to be marriages.

I said - what is being CALLED marriage in our ancient past - was NOT "marriage," as defined today. Getting together for sex is not marriage. Being given as a sex possession from one male to another, - is not "marriage." It is legal possession of a sex object.

Thanda said:

So the Jews were so patriarchal, women were nothing more than property, but they weren't patriarchal enough stop people from having sex with others of the same sex? So these men, who were so keen to own women they sometimes had multiple, allowed women to take themselves out of the marriage pool by declaring themselves to be lesbian? Are you really thinking about what you are saying?

Click to expand...

Indeed, these cultures were patriarchal, and women were property, as is obvious by their laws and writings.

Why would patriarchal ideas jump full bloom into any situation? They grow over time.

Women as possessions were not allowed to make a choice. We also know they were married off before they could even know their sexual orientation. Apparently for the Hebrew, - a child three years and one day old could be given to another male for sex - through sex.

Babylonian Talmud. "Rabbi Joseph said, 'Come and hear. A maiden aged 3 years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition.'

MISHNAH: A girl of the age of 3 years and a day may be betrothed, subject to her father's approval, by sexual intercourse.

GEMARA: Our Rabbis taught: 'A girl of the age of 3 years may be betrothed by sexual intercourse."

Historian Josephus, Antiquities, XIX, 354 - It is even stated that - "A girl aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husbands brother cohabited with her, she becomes his." - 80

And note - those are translations - no "marriage." Ownership by taking the maidenhead, - making her used-property to other men.

Thanda said:

Okay, so I would appreciate it if you gave a timeline for the "Kind of Patriarchal" to "Full Patriarchal". And as always, sources would be great.

Click to expand...

LOL! I don't have to give a timeline, or sources, for what is common sense. Ideas obviously grow.

*

JoStories said:

I will concede that Jesus did say that marriage was between a man and a woman. But he also did not say anything about SSM or homosexuality. ...

Click to expand...

Actually the NT has Jesus saying nothing about marriage being only between a man and a woman.

*

Serenity7855 said:

Everyone who knows anything about HIV and AIDS knows that there has been a letter sent to all of the relevant parties asking them to make a reappraisal of the AIDS hypothesis. The need for rethinking AIDS has been backed by 2,700 professionals. You should know this

Click to expand...

Surely you know that HIV/AIDS didn't start with homosexuals?

Do you actually think that Homosexuals, whom have been having sex for thousands of years, - all of a sudden have a "homosexual" disease? It just showed up recently? NOT!

Also - Far more heterosexuals have HIV/AIDS.

You should find and read a very good article which was published in the June 2000 PROSPECT, Politics, Essays, Argument. The article is called - The Origin of Aids, by Matt Ridley.

It talks about several biologists trying to find the proof that Aids was caused by Polio Vaccines that used Chimpanzee or Bonobo kidneys, and were used on Africans in the 1950s.

This article basically says that a particular type of live polio vaccine called Chat was grown in the 1950s in cells derived from chimpanzee kidneys containing simian Aids (SIV). Chat was tested on more then one-million Africans in 1957-60, in the exact areas where Aids subsequently became epidemic for the first time. There are NO known Aids cases that predate these trials.

The earliest know cases in the west are from the1960s-70s. A Norwegian and his family, two Belgians, two Germans, and an American. All but one of these cases was traced to Africa. That last person was found to have been born to a mother in a New Jersey prison, where guess what? They were testing one of the suspect 1957 Chat batches. She was vaccinated there, at birth, with that Chat batch.

This is a very intriguing article. It gives names, dates, batch numbers, and numbers killed, etc.

*

SkepticThinker said:

You're providing facts, quotes and articles that are pretty outdated at this point. It's as if you haven't read any modern research on HIV/AIDS. But even if you didn't, there have been enough studies conduced over the last few decades to link HIV to AIDS which is why prevailing thought is that HIV causes AIDS.

Click to expand...

If that were true then why hasn't there been any scientific papers written on it, or maybe a better question to ask is why no referees have passed any papers for publications showing that HIV causes AIDS. All that they have in their favor is correlation, which is starting to diminish. But I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating, if HIV causes AIDS then why are there so many diagnosed cases of AIDS that are not HIV positive.

AIDS WITHOUT HIV
The number of HIV-free cases is significant. As of 1989, the CDC reported that 5% of all U.S. AIDS patients who had been tested for HIV to that time were HIV-negative. No figures have been reported by the CDC since 1989.

The existence of HIV-free AIDS proves that HIV is not a necessary cause of acquired immunodeficiency. This does not preclude HIV from playing some role in most AIDS cases, but it may also mean that HIV is not the primary immunosuppressive agent in AIDS.

If non-HIV immunosuppressive agents can cause AIDS in HIV-free people, they can also cause AIDS in HIV-infected people. Essentially all AIDS patients have several immunosuppressive risks concurrently. The public acknowledgment of HIV-free AIDS makes it untenable not to reconsider the idea that these agents are themselves sufficient to cause AIDS. It is unlikely that a new, previously unknown virus related to HIV is the cause of HIV-free AIDS. Given the amount of work done on HIV over the past years, the possibility that a new lymphotropic virus related to AIDS has been overlooked by almost every laboratory in the world is remote. It is much more likely that HIV-free AIDS cases are due to known causes of immunosuppression that have not previously been considered significant by mainstream researchers.*
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rrbhivneg.htm

There are probably thousands of cases of AIDS without HIV in the United States alone. Peter Duesberg found 4,621 cases recorded in the literature, 1,691 of them in this country. (Such cases tend to disappear from the official statistics because, once it's clear that HIV is absent, the CDC no longer counts them as AIDS.)

SkepticThinker said:

Those 2700 professionals better start studying some epidemiological studies backing up their claims then, shouldn't they? Then they can make their case because at the moment, they are at odds with current research findings. What they have now can't be that convincing, if it hasn't gained any traction in the science community yet. Apparently Duesberg has been going on about it for 20 years now.

Click to expand...

No, Peter Duesberg has been going on about it for a little over 30 years, and that is because he believes in his alternative hypothesis.

They have more than made their case with over 200 peer reviewed published paper showing that HIV does not cause AIDS. 2,700 professional, and rising, tells me that they are getting there and will eventual dismissed the current hypothesis. Watch the two documentaries i recommended to you to see how convincing they are.

leibowde84 said:

http://newscastmedia.com/blog/2010/12/29/aids-hoax-the-truth-behind-the-virus-that-never-was/

This is from an opinion piece from Newscast Media that seems to be very outdated. Can you point to a recent study?

Click to expand...

It is only five years old.

SkepticThinker said:

I’m also backed by the scientific community.

Click to expand...

Not quite all of them otherwise we would not be debating this.

SkepticThinker said:

You’ve talked about conspiracy many times throughout this thread. You’ve referenced the “gay agenda” and you’ve talked about the all the pharmaceutical industries being in cahoots with each other to make money off human suffering.

Click to expand...

I have not talked about conspiracy theories you labelled it thus.

I have not said that all the pharmaceutical industries are in cahoots with each other to make money off human suffering. I made it clear that I do not know all of the drug companies to be able to make that judgement.

SkepticThinker said:

You haven't made your case for a mass worldwide, decades-old conspiracy involving governments, doctors, scientists, researchers, nurses and gay activists covering up mass amounts of data in order to make a few bucks selling drugs.

Click to expand...

If my ability to convey, what I know to be true, is inadequate then watch the two documentaries I recommended to you. There are many of these professionally produced documentaries that show that HIV does not cause AIDS, but these two are the best.

sojourner said:

They used to think epilepsy was "evil spirits," too. Shall we continue to burn people at the stake to cure their epilepsy?

Click to expand...

That is a very large an obvious straw man to be knocked down.

sojourner said:

Oh, you mean the same thing you've accused me of with regard to biblical knowledge, yes?


Oh, you mean the same thing you've done to me all along, yes?


What's good for the goose, my friend...

Click to expand...

When did two wrongs ever make a right? said to emphasize that it is not acceptable to do something bad to someone just because they did something bad to you first. In the school yard it is called tit for tat.

sojourner said:

This is exactly why people are getting screwed up by religion

Click to expand...

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, [in] a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and [that] spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

Serenity7855 said:

That is a very large an obvious straw man to be knocked down.

Click to expand...

So... Progress in scientific discovery and the refusal of fanatics to believe said discoveries is a straw man?

Serenity7855 said:

When did two wrongs ever make a right? said to emphasize that it is not acceptable to do something bad to someone just because they did something bad to you first. In the school yard it is called tit for tat.

Click to expand...

Calling out hypocrisy isn't schoolyard hijinks.

sojourner said:

Are you the clergy police? Whether I am salaried or not 1) is none of your business and not subject to your approval, 2) has no bearing on the validity of my call, or the credibility of my ordination. Your intimations and the high-handed, self-righteous nature of your posts are not cogent to the arguments in this thread.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask how much is you salary. It does have a bearing on the validity of your call because the true church will not have any paid ministry, according to the word of God.

Your intimations and the high-handed, self-righteous nature of your posts are not cogent to the arguments in this thread.

Click to expand...

The same could be said of you but I have never been called that before, however, when considering who is making the claim I will take it with a pinch of salt.

Serenity7855 said:

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, [in] a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and [that] spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit.

Click to expand...

I doubt seriously that Jeremiah was talking about ordained ministry. Way to twist the text!

Serenity7855 said:

I didn't ask how much is you salary

Click to expand...

You did ask if I am salaried.

Serenity7855 said:

It does have a bearing on the validity of your call because the true church will not have any paid ministry, according to the word of God

Click to expand...

...according to you. Given who is doing the interpretation, I'm not too concerned that either I or the church is fake.

Serenity7855 said:

The same could be said of you but I have never been called that before, however, when considering who is making the claim I will take it with a pinch of salt.

Click to expand...

God said that I am the salt of the earth...

sojourner said:

God said that I am the salt of the earth..

Click to expand...

I wonder why you didn't quote the whole verse?

Matthew 5:13
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his
savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good
for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.

sojourner said:

...according to you. Given who is doing the interpretation, I'm not too concerned that either I or the church is fake.

Click to expand...

No, not according to me but according to the word of God as it stands in His Holy Bible. It is hard to misinterpret that.

sojourner said:

I doubt seriously that Jeremiah was talking about ordained ministry.

Click to expand...

Oh, OK then. You must be right because you are an ordained clergy. Which is what your congregation would say without knowing that you preach false doctrine. You did accuse me of dishonestly manipulating the text.