quote:Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
Scott, I'm not understanding this. Unless the Mormon Bishop is also a Justice of the Peace, what does he have to do with civil ceremonies?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Did you see when the Extermination Order was rescinded?
You mistake sarcasm for anger, Scott. Nothing I said in my post would indicate that I needed to regain control of my breath, or count to ten just to come back to my senses. So please avoid trying to give the impression that I'm ranting or raving or any other such nonsense.
You didn't even respond to anything I really said.
But no, I hadn't seen that it was officially rescinded in 1976. I do fail to see the relevance of that fact, however. That this order was not rescinded for nearly a hundred years tells us... what?
If anything it tells us how dangerous it is to let religion and government walk hand-in-hand, to the point where some are more equal than others.
quote:You see Stan, it's illegal to hunt certain animals. You can only shoot them in self-defense. So that's why we shout out "He's coming right for us!" right before we shoot them.
posted
Caleb, I know we have an old argument about how orientation is estabilshed and whether it could be changed. I think we agreed that it can vary from person to person. I agree that no one can force a bishop to marry a couple. However, pressure may be brought to bear for the church to not restrict entrance to the temple. Forget the extermination order, that was about Mormons swinging elections. During the 1880s, congress passed a number of laws to persuade the church to abandon polygamy. All church property was seized and church officers were arrested. All this was before Utah was even actually a state. Edmunds Tucker Law
Considering what it has cost us (and I am contending that the scars have extended into my generation) it shouldn't be surprising that we don't want to see anyone else get away with what we could not- that is, expanding the American definiton of marriage.
But that's more or less an emotional appeal. Homosexuals are full citizens as much as people with first cousins are full citizens. It is wanting to marry that is the trouble. I don't really hope to persuade folks who believe in gay marriage as strongly as I disbelieve in it. I'm more out to persuade fence sitters that they can't deny church marriage but be open minded about civil union. It's an uncomfortable feeling, because as GM proponents say, Christians are supposed to be loving and squishy.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"However, pressure may be brought to bear for the church to not restrict entrance to the temple."
Why would you say this? Catholics have been free to excommunicate people for hundreds of years; Scientologists can shun whomever they like. No one has ever successfully sued the Catholic church, as far as I know, for excommunicating them -- because no one has the inherent right to belong to a religion of their choice.
One of the reasons we should fight so hard to keep religion out of the public sphere -- and one of the reasons the state of Utah sucks so much -- is that you should NEVER have a situation in this country where being accepted by a religion is equivalent to civil and legal acceptance.
"I'm more out to persuade fence sitters that they can't deny church marriage but be open minded about civil union."
The thing is, I think they CAN.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, out of curiosity, how much time have you spent in Utah? Those are big words for some from a state proud to be Hoosiers. *nods, smiling*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've spent probably a total of thirty hours in Utah, over my entire life. But it's in the news a lot.
(Kayla, I like to think of myself an a metromidwesterner: born in Michigan, raised in northern Indiana, temporarily redirected to Illinois, and currently in Wisconsin. *laugh*)
In all seriousness, though, don't you think Utah's remarkable lack of religious diversity is a powerful influence on its culture?
posted
I'm sure all the Utes would agree with you, Kat.
But whether he's spent time there or is guessing, he's pretty dead-on.
The alcohol laws alone are enough to drive a non-Mormon insane! You know how far I had to drive down at EnderCon to get myself good and wasted for "The Polish Boy" reading?!
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn, here. Part of me wants to defend Utah, because going to college at Utah State was a basically completely heavenly experience. On the other hand, Tom pretty flippantly dismissed a state he'd spent less than two days in, and the logic of "bad news sells" seems to have failed him in terms of using what news reaches Madison to judge a state. And despite the flat numbers, the midwest doesn't have the greatest reputation for racial harmony. "Sucks so much" IS a bit much from a region that includes 8 mile.
On the other hand, I don't live there, and I don't want to. Nothing personal, just a preference.
Frisco, you mean Hatrackers aren't enough for you?
Since nothing in my post was "hostile", "aggressive", or "egaged in warfare", I'll put this on the ever-growing stack of character assassinations and lies that come courtesy of Katharina. I also note that you do not quote me or refer to any specific text of mine in telling this lie. Typical.
And if you're trying to say it's wrong to use sarcasm to make your point, that would be a wholly separate argument. An argument that you don't take the time to make, of course. Also an argument that you yourself flagrantly violate all the time. Here's a couple just from this thread:
quote:Or by making divorce laws, or custody laws, or going after dead-beat parents, or having anything to do with wills or inheritance. Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
quote:You mean the government? The one that has nothing to do with what the people it governs believes? So much for of the people, by the people, for the people...
quote:Is it just squicky to you? *amused*
Does this mean you're a polyphobe? *warming up* What are you really afraid of in a polygamous relationship, that you'd be the one ignored?
quote: I think Lalo is a man of principle
(I add both of those two last ones because it is difficult to tell which one would be sarcasm in your eyes, though they are both obviously lies)
Anyway...
Pooka:
quote:Caleb, I know we have an old argument about how orientation is estabilshed and whether it could be changed. I think we agreed that it can vary from person to person.
Well you snuck something extra in there... I would agree that 'how orientation is established' can possibly vary from person to person, if only because I am unwilling to speak for anyone but myself in that regard. I contend that for the vast majority of homosexuals, their orientation is not "established" any more than heterosexuality is "established" for you. I have NEVER agreed that a person's sexuality could be changed (which would play into my underlying belief in the genetics of homosexuality, I suppose), and I base that on the fact that I tried to do that very thing for about twelve years and found nothing but heartache and abandonment.
But on to your post...
I'm taking a look at this Edmunds-Tucker Act. Also from the 1880's. Would I be misunderstanding you if I supposed that you support the following?
quote:In 1882 congress enacted the Edmunds Act which made "bigamous cohabitation" a misdemeanor. If proven guilty, the defendant was given a limited jail sentence and was thereafter barred from serving on a jury, voting, or holding public office. This law was effective, and around 1,300 Mormon men were jailed under it in the 1880’s.
Because this:
quote:it shouldn't be surprising that we don't want to see anyone else get away with what we could not- that is, expanding the American definiton of marriage.
..sounds a lot like you're AGREEING with the people that threw Mormons in jail because they disagreed with them on a religious matter. I pretty much find that deplorable, so please clarify.
Because if you agree with that, you're one step away from saying homosexuality should be a criminal offense. You're one step away from saying that gays should have to serve minor prison sentences if they are found living a gay lifestyle.
Surely that's not what you're saying?
But then that's the problem with referring to legislation from the 1880's. Not much of it is relevant today.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
No, I've already blocked your email address because I don't appreciate harassment in my inbox. As I've said to you more than a few times, I am not interested in communicating with you outside of making sure you don't get away with lies on hatrack.
As this is one of those cases...
quote:You owe Scott an apology.
I was obligated to respond. You have not shown where I was belligerent or offensive to Scott. You have not even pointed to whatever it was that I wrote that made you come to this conclusion. You can't just run around hatrack accusing people of doing things that they haven't done. I won't stand for it. I was not belligerent towards Scott and you are lying to say that I was.
This is exaclty like the situation on page 6 of this thread where Lalo and I called you on your appalling discussion tactics and you failed to respond to anything at all. Either A) Accept the fact that you just put your foot in your mouth, B) Prove your outlandish allegations (around here we do that with links to relevant stories and research or quotes of another poster's text), or C) Don't say anything at all.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, for crying out loud. Do you want a vote?
Everyone who thinks responding sarcastically and witheringly to polite, sincere people is the best way to prop up your contentions, raise your hand. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you read his response to "Take A. Breath." etc. I don't think it sounds angry or belligerent, but a lot can be misconstrued in internet postings. It seems plausible to me that sarcasm was mistaken for something else.
Anyways, that's between Caleb and Scott. We don't want to get stuck policing apologies, do we?
Tom has a point(Giving the 'Utah sucks' thing a rest for the moment)-- separation of church and state is one of the cornerstones of America. No church can be forced to accept members or to marry people. The government can do lots of stuff that church A or church B might not approve of, but they operate in different spheres.
That said, when homosexual civil unions become legal, will any of those opposed to them leave the country? Just curious.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take a breath, kat. Is it really our place to demand an apology on someone else's behalf? We don't even know if Scott took offense.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Olivet, I'm fine. I'm not demanding one. *waves arms* I do think he owes Scott an apology, but I'm sure Scott's day will go on whether he gets one or not. I'm just using sarcastic because that's what Caleb admitted he was doing. Belligerent was a judgment call; since it's causing so much ruckus and it isn't important, I'll withdraw it.
Edit: Yeah, he admitted the sarcasm, and I see where his posts could be read a few different ways. No need to withdrawyour opinion, though. Just thought the 'put it to a vote' thing was a bit premature;)
posted
Yeah, that's why I added the disclaimer. Caleb's said a few times his goal is to completely discredit me and point out what a horrible person I am. I don't share the...sense of a vast, judgemental audience whose opinion needs to be swayed, and I figure a person's character is revealed a great deal more by what they say than by what anyone says about them. If someone can't figure out for themselves an opinion, I'm not sure it's worth fighting for, assuming anyone cared in the first place.
I also think his determination to paint me as a horrible person is less than condusive to reading what is actually there.
Putting it to a vote would cut to the chase in the proposed PR struggle. I don't believe in it, though.
---
I have decided that I don't believe in group opinions or emotions or fates or anything. I don't believe there is any such thing as the heart of a nation. I don't believe in the collective. Not that I don't believe the collective is worth fighting for; I don't believe the collective even exists. There's no such thing as group loyalty or groupy enmity; there's only people. There are only individuals. You can't remedy a group hurt with one act towards an individual, whether it is good (say, mentoring) or ill (say, beating someone). It just doesn't exist. There are no groups; only individuals.
And sometimes families.
Like Hatrack. I do love Hatrack, but that's shorthand for a lot of thing. I love the people here and what I can get and do here, but I don't think there's any such thing as a Hatrack collective opinion.
quote: There's no such thing as group loyalty or groupy enmity; there's only people. There are only individuals.
Really? That seems to be the complete opposite of everything that (what I understand of it, through OSC's books and Hatrack) your religion is all about. For some reason, I always thought that individual happiness came from establishing a family in a community (collective). That individuals willing to sacrifice for the whole (collective) were sometimes necessary.
If this isn't the case, then what is the argument against homosexual marriage? As I understand it, you are against it for religious reasons, and while I haven't memorized your position, I've read from more than one poster that it would be bad for society. But if you don't believe that there is a collective, then how could homosexual marriage affect it? And if it's just because you believe it to be a sin, then I still don't understand why it would matter to you as no one is trying to force you into a homosexual marriage and you can't be your brother's keeper if there is no collective. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You owe Scott an apology.
Gosh, Kat. It sure is swell of you to leap to Scott's defense like that, especially when Caleb's most offensive remark was that Scott was using a ridiculous and -- in light of Scott's argument -- hypocritical argument against homosexual equality.
Golly, I wonder if you read it at all? Or just Scott's response? Here's the relevant part of the post, just for you.
quote:Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
Wow! Caleb sure is an offensive bastard, isn't he? But for silly little minds like mine, Kat, do explain how Scott could possibly be offended by that, and why Caleb has any obligation to apologize for a reasonable and logical argument?
Actually, what's most surprising about this, Kat, is your insistence of Caleb's apology to Scott for an imagined slight (or for a reasonable, coherent post, if that's what he's supposed to apologize for). I mean, hey, haven't I given you a week to respond to my lengthy analysis of your lies in just this thread? Not only have you refused to challenge a single point I raised, you've failed to even acknowledge the post's existence!
So, let's follow the line of thought, here. You make unwarranted attacks on my character (all of which were blatant lies). Caleb refutes them, and you dismiss him, declaring that you want only my response to your lies. I make a post that declares I was about to post a response to your lies -- and you declare you're leaving for a weekend! So I post and wait a weekend. Then I wait a week. No response.
Gosh, Kat. Don't tell me I'll have to add "craven" below "deceitful" on my list of adjectives about you. I mean, if you can work yourself into a self-righteous tizzy over Caleb's non-offensive (and dead on) post, surely you can spare a few moments to respond to my criticism of you? Perhaps, dare I dream, apologize for your lies?
But I guess that was too much to hope for.
Here's the post, in case you've forgotten how far back it is. Eighth post down.
I doubt you can convince anyone here that you're not a liar, after that. Maybe, though, you can try to tell everyone you're not a coward?
Though going back to the same old bullshit within a week of my analysis of your last pack of lies seems a bit much. Heh. Christ. Out of interest, now that you've started your bit on Caleb, how long were you going to take before you declared him anti-Mormon or spineless? Maybe hypocritical or collaborating with Martians?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I am one step away, what does that make me? One step away is still one step away. But I think you didn't understand me. For the record, I don't think homosexuality is a crime. It is a free country and I believe in free will. I just don't think marriage is about any consenting relationship. In my fantasy totalitarian state, citizens would be under the same burdens of proof to form a marriage as green card applicants obtaining citizenship through marriage. :evilaugh:
And by establish orientation, I didn't mean to exclude those who are different from birth (or conception in your case). What word would you prefer? (please interpret this as a genuine question and not snarkiness).
So should the polygamists have been jailed? Should polygamy be permissable as free exercise of religion? If an Arab with four wives converts to LDS, must he divorce his three latest wives or does he get to pick? I don't know...
Part of the trouble with the laws were they were enforced after the fact. This is typical of the level of constitionality of that process. And I don't know why it being in the 1880's makes it unlikely to happen again. The internment of Japanese was about midway between then and now. A lot of people think out actions in Iraq and with the Al Qaeda are similar.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Gosh, Kat. I sure didn't expect you to completely avoid every question and accusation I provide.
So, out of interest, does anyone still believe you to be an honest or moral person after this constant bullshit? I have trouble believing that anyone reading my thread (and especially posts by me or Caleb responding to your constant lies and avoidance) can see anything but repeated affirmation of your complete lack of ethical spine.
I'm disgusted, Kat. I don't know why I expected better from you, except by judging you as any other member of Hatrack, but from here on out any honesty from you would come as a complete surprise. Go on lying about Caleb -- I doubt anyone's still gullible enough to believe that accusations of dishonesty or rudeness from you are worth anything.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
So you can't prove that I was belligerent--quite naturally, because I wasn't--and you take that back. But you still think I owe Scott an apology for being sarcastic, even though you yourself (and many of us here) use sarcasm all the time to point out a flaw in someone's argument? (See above, where I do you the courtesy of quoting your actual text instead of putting words in your mouth)
Why exactly are you so intent on being my mother? I need to apologize to Scott? Where exactly do YOU fit into that assertion? Or are you just putting on a show for some wierd 'court of public opinion'?
Oh wait, now you say that you DON'T care what other people think. Which begs the question, why do you care so much about whether I should apologize to Scott for doing something that you haven't even shown to be a bad thing?
I have acknowledged that I was being sarcastic because I was being sarcastic. I do that sometimes, just like the rest of us.
What you are doing is incomprehensible to me. You are steeped in contradiction and hostility and for some reason you feel it is necessary to show everyone why I'm guilty of your crimes.
Well, Kat, I've responded to your allegations that I was belligerent. I disproved them. I responded to your allegations that I was being sarcastic. (Though to be technical, I "admitted" it before you ever tried to "pin" it on me)
I'm still waiting for one honest post from you detailing the multitude of objections that you have, using actual words from my posts rather than lies and innuendos, or putting words in my mouth.
Why are you so in love with the personal attack? Can't you just leave me alone like I asked you to? Did you take the time to find out if Scott was offended before you started demanding that I apologize to him? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--quote anything from me to show that I was being offensive? Did you ever--EVEN ONCE--make a case that sarcasm in and of itself is inherently rude? And did you afterwards address your own use of sarcasm in this very thread?
How about some FACTS, please?
Oh look, another lie:
quote:Caleb's said a few times his goal is to completely discredit me and point out what a horrible person I am.
Ah, so my goal in this situation isn't to defend myself from you: "Why the sarcasm and belligerence, Caleb? ScottR hasn't done anything to you, and his post wasn't made in sarcasm." My real goal is just to hit you personally with a smear campaign. Right.
Have you even noticed that the only times I've addressed you lately on Hatrack were to point out where you were lying? Could it be that I'm defending myself, because, yeah, I defend myself when someone slanders me?
Oh and NOW look. Lalo shows you, again, how my post was not offensive in any way. And in spite of reason and logic and human decency, you respond "You're a good friend to Caleb. That's nice."
Please do me a favor and just leave me alone, as I don't need this particular insanity in my life.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Okay, I didn't read all that, but I did read Caleb's last line.
How about a truce?
Man.
I'm at a loss for words.
Caleb, dude, don't let idiots get to you. After reading (and experiencing) this entire thread, Kat's assertations are proven worthless hundredfold. If it makes you feel better, the rest of Hatrack is reading her lies, too.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. You'll ignore all of our points--even skip over my whole post--AND refuse to own up to your audacious behaviour, AND you'd ask me to participate in a 'truce' that would have no meaning for me, since you certainly haven't given the impression that you intend to clean up your act. Again, I would prefer that you simply leave me alone.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And out of interest, how could you possibly be comforted by knowing the rest of Hatrack is learning how often you lie shamelessly? Unless you're somehow titillated by spreading lies about other people, I don't see how you would enjoy being proven a liar.
Though it would explain the sheer volume of your outrageous lies, and avoidance of any responsibility regarding them.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have already demonstrated that I don't discuss things with you unless it is to defend against your lies. It is a promise I needn't make, but sure. Given the fact that you never treat me or my posts with respect, logic, or truth, I have no difficulty promising not to engage you unless I have to defend against a lie, which was my only purpose in responding to you THIS time.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So after Katharina posts saying she’ll do what Caleb wants and leave him alone you still feel the need to insult her?
Yes, the rest of us are reading and experiencing this entire thread and her disagreements with you two.
And your bullying and insults, too.
I knew some uninformed poster would pop in and offer an opinion.
Kat is offering a "truce" -- as though Caleb had performed any fraction of a degree of the lies and bullshit she's hurled his way. She takes no responsibility for her repeated lies, and has yet to offer even a single retraction. Let alone an apology.
It's not "bullying" to demand that she take responsibility, nor to be disgusted by her frantic self-righteousness in the face of her constant deceitfulness.
You have not, obviously, "experienced" this thread if you've never been given this ridiculous treatment by Katharina. Obviously you haven't, given that you're somehow offended that I've repeatedly requested some sort of acknowledgement of my repeated, accurate analysis of her constant lies. (Obviously you've skipped constant, polite criticisms of her lies. Click the link I provided in an above post. Or better yet, read the thread from the beginning. Then return and pretend nobody should be outraged by Katharina's egregious lies and irresponsibility for her own words.) Heh, god forbid that either of us receive an apology.
But from observation on this thread alone, Katharina'll be back to lying about other posters within a week of any major analysis of her moral character. I realize it's hopeless and useless to get a worthless apology from her, but at least other posters will know better than to expect rational dialogue and decent conduct from her in future arguments.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would delete the post, then, since I misunderstood your meaning. But I don't want to make it look like either of us were posting for no reason, so I'll just say I'm sorry I thought you were calling me a liar again. I'll believe you that that wasn't the case.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As do I. I wonder if they'll take into account your still going-on refusal to take responsibility for a single one of your lies?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was still hoping to find out from Caleb what word besides established, determined, formed (I can see these are all problematic in the same way) is used to describe orientation.
Edit: Now you are lying, kat, Lalo's posts were hardly "devastations"
posted
I prefer to have a little more faith in the Hatrack public. Though the volume of your lies force my responding posts to be ridiculously long, I hope some will struggle their way through each and every one of your lies and realize exactly the sort of person you are.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. The words we say and our conduct reveal what kind of person we are.
Added: Why did you feel it necessary to prepare dissertations on your greviances, then? There is no formal system, no standing in judgment, and I doubt anyone cares.
That isn't to say that no one cares about stuff at Hatrack; I think people just have their own lives. It's like being worried what you look when you dance; no one's watching except those who aren't dancing and they'll be distracted by someone else soon enough, and the person that really matters is your dance partner.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
