Ask any Mormon if they think it was acceptable for Joseph and Brigham to steal their follower's wives and teenage daughters after sending their husbands and fathers away on missions and they'll avoid answering that question like the plague, because the only possible moral answer is, no.

If they say, "Yes" then they're completely denying the law word of God, not to mention, common human decency, all of which says otherwise.

But they've sworn a suicidal oath NEVER to speak ill of the Lord's annointed, so they just don't go there.

Ask them if its acceptable for the church to ban the children of gay parents from being blessed in a Mormon church and the answer is, absolutely.

Proving how just how religion retards independent observation and reason, making you a MORmON.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/27/2016 09:58PM by koriwhore.

Seems obvious, actually it's blindingly obvious.

guess lying to yourself is easier than facing the fact that you're following a bunch of old bigots

THISSSSS is what I wonder , also !!

Answers , anybody ??

That's a d@mm good question.

Well, in a nutshell, it's because the sexual exploitation of women and children is acceptable in a patriarchal society. They're just taking what they believe to be rightfully theirs. Rape and sexual abuse is normalized in these societies and often the blame is placed upon the victim for being an easy mark, or a temptress, or, "that's what men do," or whatever excuse sexual abusers come up with to avoid responsibility for their behaviour.

Because gaybies and their parents are rejecting the patriarchal mold, they're unfit to be accepted in the society unless the gaybies denounce their parents. It doesn't matter that the children are innocent, after all, they made the choice in heaven to be born to a gay parent, right? They knew what they were getting into! (That's sarcasm, peeps.)

It likely has to do with the home and what the child will learn growing up. A child born of rape, but not with the abuser, is living in a traditional way and can get taught conservative religious teachings. Whereas a child living with gay parents won't be learning traditional family life and will be taught appreciation for liberal secular things.

This is the way it was explained to me from a relative, And it makes sense when you think about it.

Is there a flaw in this logic?

"A child born of rape, but not with the abuser, is living in a traditional way and can get taught conservative religious teachings. Whereas a child living with gay parents won't be learning traditional family life and will be taught appreciation for liberal secular things."

Rape is traditional.
That doesn't make it a good tradition.
"Conservative religious teachings" are typically "Patriarchal indoctrination" which attracts pedophiles who know they can get away with rape if they just dress up in a Mormon monkey suit on Sunday.
That might be good for children to grow up in non-traditional families that instill acceptance of 'others' who are not like you and other 'liberal secular things' like acceptance of science, rather than denying it.