Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Mormon Church Threatens Critic With Excommunication [View all]AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)52. And yet you spew anti-SSM talking points, that you still 'stand by'.
"Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you."
That's you. Your post.
That's you attempting to hand-deliver the 'meat' anti-same-sex marriage talking points the right wing bigots have been fretting over for years. You are attacking DU posters in your fervor to deliver, precisely what they have been scaremongering about.
Here's another example of it from Mike Huckabee. He's not ACTUALLY advocating for bisexuals to have two spouses. He's attempting to produce the SLIPPERY SLOPE result that hasn't been forthcoming, now that we have a full 36 states in which SSM is fully legal and recognized.
http://www.advocate.com/bisexuality/2015/01/13/mike-huckabee-says-marriage-equality-will-lead-bisexuals-marrying-two-spouses
It's been explained to you that marriage is a legal contract, and that entities like... a bicycle, cannot be party to a contract, and therefore cannot 'marry'. You cannot marry yourself, because the contract would be missing a second entity to enter into the contract with. Marriage is the legal joining of two people as one entity. You're already one legal entity, in case you haven't looked in a mirror or at your drivers license lately. How the fuck do you propose to join yourself to yourself in legal contract? A dog cannot be party to a legal contract, again, due to its non-status as a legal entity capable of consent. Bonus points for shades of bestiality though, the right wing LOVES when you work that into the picture. Really feeds their agenda. Good job.
You're throwing out the same slippery slope bullshit, in the same fake 'positive' way Mike Huckabee is, right there in that article. It's disgusting, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly, hidden by at least two juries, 5-2 and 6-1, and yet you still 'stand by it' as if it's been misconstrued.
Either drop the fake act, or get it through your fucking skull.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
103 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Mormon Church is one of the biggest funders of those who favor anti-LGBT laws.
merrily
Jan 2015
#58
Mormon individuals, yes. An example of that is what this thread is about. Not the Mormon church.
merrily
Jan 2015
#69
My post was about the current positions and acts of the Church, not its individual dissidents.
merrily
Jan 2015
#80
The mormon church has a history of doing that when the government holds a gun to its head.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#91
If the mormon church is wrong about this, then it cannot pretend to hold revealed truth.
AtheistCrusader
Mar 2015
#89
Keep pretending non-belief and XYZ belief belong 'on the table' together.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#24
Just because someone has a "right" to an idea, doesn't mean that idea is sacrosanct.
Major Nikon
Jan 2015
#25
IMO, a religion's requires secrecy from its members about religious beliefs and
merrily
Jan 2015
#56
An event that is, basically, what I suggested a long time ago, and that you attacked me about.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#26
You weren't banned from A&A for 'stepping out of line', and you know it.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#27
Really? I think calling out the bullies, bigots and cyber stalkers was too much for some.
Starboard Tack
Jan 2015
#31
You can't even go two posts in a thread fork without contradicting yourself.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#63
I hope the entirety of DU is reading this thread, and your posts in particular, very carefully.
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#66
I hope so too. Your obsession with me and distorting what I said is quite extraordinary
Starboard Tack
Jan 2015
#67
Starboard Tack has been blocked from the Atheist and Agnostic group:
beam me up scottie
Jan 2015
#35
LOL. Didn't realize Starboard Tack was ex-communicated from th A&A Group. I'm out of that loop.
pinto
Jan 2015
#38
Whoa, did you miss the point or what. BMUS, I think I ought to step out of this 3rd party side talk.
pinto
Jan 2015
#40
Thanks for the repost. I stand by that, silly as it may be. I made my point. Others misconstrued it.
Starboard Tack
Jan 2015
#49
Except I support same sex marriage and always have. I support all consensual marriage
Starboard Tack
Jan 2015
#54
No, you don't support consensual marriage. You just defended a post where you attacked people
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#57
Oops sorry! Did I attack bigots who want to tell me who or what I'm allowed to marry?
Starboard Tack
Jan 2015
#62
Your 'point' perfectly overlaps with one of the classic right wing anti-same-sex-marriage talking
AtheistCrusader
Jan 2015
#64
My you think highly of yourself. I actually don't give a fuck about you at all.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2015
#98
If it were up to me he would have been banned from DU for his homophobic posts.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2015
#100
I appreciated the guy's talk a lot. Found some of it condescending and paternalistic.
pinto
Jan 2015
#17
Many religions are paternalistic and a hell of a lot worse than condescending to
merrily
Jan 2015
#59