1 - 10 Next
While I agree that gay marriage is the slippery slope to legalized polygamy, this particular case did not arise from that slippery slope. This case was an extension of the Lawrence vs. Texas case that struck down laws against unlawful cohabitation of gay persons. This judgment merely said that if laws against cohabitating homosexuals are unconstitutional, then so are laws against polygamists who are not guilty of bigamy.
Why don't we ever hear of Palestinians building settlements on their own land? Oh, that's right, they just trash what ever land they get. Do you think that if the Palestinians just practice Islam Fundamentalism that they will prosper like the Israelis? No? I didn't think so either. The Palestinians want to kill you because you exist, not because you build settlements. Build on, Israel. Screw the UN.
In response to:

Supreme Court to Take Up Gay Marriage

Alex 1 Wrote: Dec 08, 2012 7:28 PM
Bruce, You say there is no reason to ban gay marriage? A majority if people less than 10 years ago thought so. They thought they were bad for the people in them. What if a majority finds no good reason to ban polygamist marriage? What then?
I've been chuckling at some of the polygamy jabs aimed at Mormons like myself. I've decided to break my silence and make a comment. You know, every now and then, I am tempted to get polygamy legalized just so we can finally be guilty of what we are constantly charged with. The truth is, polygamy is not really a common topic of discussion among Mormons. We only end up talking about it when it becomes a topic in the press. Many here have more of a fixation on it than we do.
In response to:

Video: Romney Boosts Mia Love in Utah

Alex 1 Wrote: Nov 01, 2012 7:20 PM
Das_Veritas: That revelation applied to priesthood, not to membership. There has never ever been a restriction on membership. In other words, you are wrong.
It is a good thing he is not doing that.
In response to:

10 Ways Husbands Can Ruin Their Marriage

Alex 1 Wrote: Jul 17, 2012 4:44 PM
Actually there is. Just say, yes she is. Recognizing beauty is not the problem. It is what you do with it.
It is ironic and sad how a private organization has to justify what it does with money it has acquired by free will donations, while the Federal Government never feels the need to account for what it forcibly takes. Where is the outrage from this lady about the spending of the Federal Government of our money?
loisoo01: (Part 3) The Law of Consecration can work within a free market system, because it doesn’t control the economy. It easily works within it. It is a system of voluntary cooperation by which all are provided with a stewardship that they can improve upon and enjoy the fruits of their labors. Whatever you receive that is in excess of that which you need to improve your stewardship is consecrated to the Church again. I have given you the short answer, which is all I have time for.
loisoo01: (Part 2) It is impossible for the Law of Consecration and Communism to coexist, because the Law of Consecration presupposes that there is private property. Private property is undefined in communism. Another point is that the Law of Consecration is a system of stewardship, voluntarily entered into. Communism is a system of redistribution, forcefully executed.
1 - 10 Next