The Divine Institution of Marriage

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Doesn't calling someone a n----r in jest betray a racist mindset?

Context.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Doesn't calling someone a n----r in jest betray a racist mindset?

YES! I personally think that calling someone "Non Sequitur" is the most offensive thing you could ever do. What a massive put-down!

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

As far as polygamy versus "sexual relations between husband and wife", as far as I know the church didn't allow 3-somes, 4-somes or 17-somes in polygamous households and that relations were strictly between one man and one woman at any given time.

Dammit. There goes my support for the reinstitution of polygamy.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Context.

Can't think of any where it would be appropriate.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

As far as polygamy versus "sexual relations between husband and wife", as far as I know the church didn't allow 3-somes, 4-somes or 17-somes in polygamous households and that relations were strictly between one man and one woman at any given time.

I hear this one a lot and I think it's a poor argument. Yes, polygamous marriages were between one man and one woman but there's no getting around the fact that while the one woman sits home alone for x nights/week the one man is having sexual relations with a different woman. For the woman in a polygamous marriage, the standard presented in this letter (and quoted below) was NOT met.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I hear this one a lot and I think it's a poor argument. Yes, polygamous marriages were between one man and one woman but there's no getting around the fact that while the one woman sits home alone for x nights/week the one man is having sexual relations with a different woman. For the woman in a polygamous marriage, the standard presented in this letter (and quoted below) was NOT met.

It is interesting that the Church itself has historically deviated from the very definition of marriage that it espouses today.

Things change, even in the Gospel.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Can't think of any where it would be appropriate.

Are all terms equal? Does "n-----er" = "fag"? Does jokingly calling someone who is not gay a "fag" the same as calling a gay person a "fag" in order to demean, dehumanize and hurt them? What other terms are off limits? Spic? Wop? Frog? Honky? Mullah?

And if it's OK to use the term "mullah", but not "fag", why? Both terms can be used in the context of demeaning, dehumanizing and hurting a class of people.

Is "mullah" OK because it is directed towards white LDS males who don't have any real crosses to bear in life because they possess all the power and are actively keeping every possible other subclass of member and nonmember alike under their overzealous control?

Where do you draw the line? At what point does some class-ist slur go from acceptable to unacceptable? Is it ever acceptable to use class-ist slurs in jest when the intent is clearly not to demean, dehumanize or hurt?

I think the term "mullah" should be outlawed on this site, for the sake of moral consistency and setting the proper example for all the mullahs on this site that use all the other terms.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

It is interesting that the Church itself has historically deviated from the very definition of marriage that it espouses today.

Things change, even in the Gospel.

It really is the great irony of this whole "fight". That a church known best for its one time non-traditional definition of marriage now spearheads a movement to preserve the most traditional definition. That the "enemy" now uses many of the same arguments (the non-religious arguments of course) that our forefathers used to defend their right to polygamous marriage.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

It really is the great irony of this whole "fight". That a church known best for it's one time non-traditional definition of marriage now spearheads a movement to preserve the most traditional definition. That the "enemy" now uses many of the same arguments (the non-religious arguments of course) that our forefathers used to defend their right to polygamous marriage.

The church should just abandon making specific arguments and simply rely on "thus saith the Lord" as their moral authority. People can then read, ponder and pray and get a "thus saith the Lord" of their own.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Are all terms equal? Does "n-----er" = "fag"? Does jokingly calling someone who is not gay a "fag" the same as calling a gay person a "fag" in order to demean, dehumanize and hurt them? What other terms are off limits? Spic? Wop? Frog? Honky? Mullah?

And if it's OK to use the term "mullah", but not "fag", why? Both terms can be used in the context of demeaning, dehumanizing and hurting a class of people.

Is "mullah" OK because it is directed towards white LDS males who don't have any real crosses to bear in life because they possess all the power and are actively keeping every possible other subclass of member and nonmember alike under their overzealous control?

Where do you draw the line? At what point does some class-ist slur go from acceptable to unacceptable? Is it ever acceptable to use class-ist slurs in jest when the intent is clearly not to demean, dehumanize or hurt?

I think the term "mullah" should be outlawed on this site, for the sake of moral consistency and setting the proper example for all the mullahs on this site that use all the other terms.

Do we call you a "mullah" because of your race or sexual orientation? You don't see the difference? Don't know if there's any way to help you out, then, because there's a fundamental difference in our social paradigms.