What’s that? Is that where your cake layers fall apart while you’re cooling them, and you have to cut them up into a bowl and make a trifle out of it?
Did Joseph Smith have a traditional marriage? Or did he have thirty-four traditional marriages?
Also, I’ve been reading the thread from the beginning for amusement and I’d like to point out that negating the status of illegal immigrants as “persons” contravenes Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the US is a signatory.
So Romney has never supported a “traditional definition of marriage”, using those words or those largely equivalent? I’m truly interested in that. If he has, then gamer’s quote stands.
Democrats have a multitude of legitimate personal and policy issues on which to oppose Romney’s campaign for President.
“He’s a Mormon!” isn’t one of them.
I don’t think his faith is relevant until he starts making value judgements based on “traditions” and “definitions” that aren’t even relevant to the “traditions” and “definitions” employed by his Church in its inception. I think if he wants to avoid accusations of hypocrisy, he has to renounce the rhetoric used to oppose gay marriage at least (and shift to either personal belief or Obama’s position that it’s a “struggle”) or renounce those that do not practice the tradition that he longs to defend: namely those that are in homosexual or polygamous marriages.
The LDS Church bailed out on polygamy a long, long time ago. It is not legitimate to infer that they support polygamy simply because they did at one time. For comparison’s sake, the writings of Martin Luther reveal an appalling degree of antisemitism, a position the modern Lutheran Church rejects. It would not be legitimate to question a Lutheran candidate on the stance his Church took some hundreds of years ago.
Bella Santorum, 3 years old and both physically and mentally challenged, is now an official member of the …
Wait for it …
National Rifle Association. (video)
and if someone that was a high ranking Lutheran said that they believed in the tradition of strong links with Israel, it’d suddenly be very relevant. I’d be interested in whether they agreed with Martin Luther about whether denying the transubstantiation should be a capital offence too (only in passing though, as it would likely be irrelevant to their political platform). I don’t think religions should get a pass when they can cohere so well on social issues and then ultimately reject them in a few generations. I’ve spoken to a Mormon that believes that the pronouncements from Joseph Smith were literally from the omniscient Godhead, as were those from Brigham Young (supporting and opposing polygamy, respectively).
I’d say the exact same thing about a Muslim candidate that used the same rhetoric when it is clear neither their holy book nor the practices of their prophet supports that use.
I suppose Obama is pro-slavery then because he’s a Democrat?
And I guess every Jew on the planet today is pro-polygamy.
gamerunknown has given new meaning to the terms stupid, inane, and asinine. Naw, strike that. His utter lack of thinking skills tarnishes even those words.
My wife is a convert to Lutheranism and is a firm transubstantiationist. I think the church goes with consubstantiationism these days. I’m a solid “it’s all symbolic” nonbeliever. We get around this by not discussing it, like good modern Lutherans.
So churches can’t be allowed to change their minds? Or their modern members can’t disagree with their great-grandfathers? Where is the chronological cutoff? Never?
I didn’t plan to make a protracted defence of the genetic fallacy here. I’m just pointing out that when a person makes an appeal to tradition based in religious morality, it’d be handy if the progenitor of their religious morality actually engaged in that tradition. I’d be saying the exact same thing if Joseph Smith were in a gay marriage.
The analogy would hold up if the Democrats expelled members that expressed their abolitionist views.
I phrased that awkwardly. I was going to add a qualifier of some sort about their moral authority. I don’t think the religious should claim that their doctrine is the revealed will of an omniscient being and then reject it when it becomes inimical to their chances of electoral success. They especially should not make appeals to that moral authority when their prophets did not adhere to the moral standards that they expect of their constituents.
“He’s a Republican!” is.
The stupid is strong, very strong, in gamerunknown.
I have begun to seriously question if Rep. West is entirely sane, or very intelligent. I’m also worried that he’s a typical example of today’s Army officer, or at least a significant subset of them.
Each religion is asserting that they have the superior view of God. If they change their practices, then they obviously aren’t supernaturally locked-in to God’s desires and needs.
So, I’d say if your church changes its views, it’s pretty good evidence that its all horseshit and you should do something more productive with your Sundays.
West, like many of the crop of recent Republican darlings is practically defined by his ignorance. These people are elected because they champion an ideological view that’s based on not understanding complex issues. Either they’re smart people faking, like say, Lindsey Graham, or they’re idiots elected by other idiots, like Louie Gohmert.
How dare you!
Rep. West is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.
Why don’t you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
My favorite quote from the very quotable movie:
"Intelligence officer. Stupidity officer is more like it. Pentagon wants to open a Stupidity Division, they know who they can get to lead it. "
Points Equipoise to posts 5081 and 5083.
Com’on, this thread isn’t even 5,200 posts long. Surely you can keep up with the entire thing!
I know you’re not addressing this argument and apologies for that, but modern members can’t disagree with their great-grandfathers on an issue while invoking that very same “tradition” of their forefathers in the name of taking away the same right for a separate group of people.
If they themselves eschew the marriage traditions of their forefathers, why does their invocation of “traditional marriage” carry any weight whatsoever, since they themselves think their great-grandfathers views on marriage weren’t so very hot after all.
Again, not saying that you’re discussing the SSM issue nor that Romney has invoked the “traditional marriage” anti-SSM argument. I’d love to see a clip of him doing so, though, for the delicious ironing.