quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Does a gay couple getting married invalidate your eternal marriage? If not, then why don't you enjoy your eternal marriage and let them enjoy their temporal one?
You're missing the point. Your original assertion was that Mormons are wasting their money on a less than valuable effort. I pointed that out from many a Mormon's perspective, the more people select homosexuality as their desired lifestyle, and to be clear, whether or not somebody decides to be gay is often not a cut and dry matter, they are placing themselves in a position where their being ultimately happy is in jeopardy. I not suggesting we drag anybody kicking and screaming into heaven.
quote: Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins, so you may as well let them have a bit of happiness while they're on earth, or do you begrudge them that too?
You are mistaken, and gravely so. Perhaps you are unaware that nobody can go to hell in ignorance. I don't believe people lobbying for same-sex marriage are prime candidates for hell. If they genuinely fell what they are doing is right, I do not believe God will ignore that in his judgments. But I do believe that all these people will ultimately find that the direction these people are taking their lives is contrary to God's will, and adjustments will have to made ultimately. This isn't any different though than any other human being.
quote: Opponents of same-sex marriage ARE akin to witch burners. They're using their spiritual beliefs to oppress another group - a group which is in now way a threat to them in any demonstrable way, but only in some vague, what-if, potentially spiritually dangerous way.
If you say so. I don't think Proposition 8 was necessary and I voted against a similar ban that passed here.
quote: Any time a choice comes up between doing a real, obvious evil NOW, vs. the mere possibility of some future supernatural ill, which will only come to pass under some imagined future scenario, I don't see how any truly moral person can choose the obvious and guaranteed evil now just to protect their own best interests for fear of some unlikely and unsupported future scenario.
I don't think you have any idea what the ultimate effects of Proposition 8 being defeated are. You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
quote: If that isn't a perfect example of selfishness, greed, and oppression, I don't know what is. I find it repugnant.
I hope you are never in a position where others find you repugnant just because they don't understand where you are coming from.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unless I'm mistaken, you already think they're going to burn in hell for all eternity for their sins
Pretty much no one goes to hell according to the Mormons. The bad guys just go to a version of heaven that's just totally awesome instead of the super totally radical awesome version that faithful members of the church get to go to.
Not exactly Matt. There certainly is a place reserved for those who hate God and all righteousness and have decided to fight all that is good for all eternity. There is nothing awesome about that place. But you are right, I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits that definition.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not exactly Matt. There certainly is a place reserved for those who hate God and all righteousness and have decided to fight all that is good for all eternity. There is nothing awesome about that place. But you are right, I don't think I've ever met anyone who fits that definition.
I'm not sure where I'm "not exactly" right. Almost no one goes to hell - check. Everyone else goes to heaven, even those we might consider bad guys - check. Worthy members of the church get a better heaven - check.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: To be honest, I feel that telling me I'm not *allowed* to believe that homosexuality is immoral because it's based on religious views is morally repugnant. Insulting me and calling me names for believing such is immature at best. I have every right to believe what I want for whatever reasons I want. And I have every right to work to push forward those views to others, just as you have a right to push forward your views. And now, of course, that Proposition 8 passed, proponents of gay rights are starting to show their strong belief in the "marginalize, insult, protest, and attack until they agree with us" tactic of rhetorical discourse, which I regret has been used against them in the past. Using it right back does not make them any better than their opposition.
I agree with everything you've said here, which is exactly why I do not understand supporting laws which ban gays from marrying. You have every right to your view of morality. I have every right to mine. We have every right to share, discuss, and persuade. Why, though, should the law get involved here? This is my fundamental hang up when it comes to gay marriage bans.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Banning marriage for same sex couples only closes one method of getting what they want. There are a million and one ways that gay rights activists could be getting exactly what they want (or at least, what they *say* they want). Why are they not attempting to find and exploit other ways of getting what they want instead of taking a battering ram to their opposition? I don't necessarily object to gays having the legal benefits of married couples, but the way they are going about it is completely bull headed.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You're missing the point...whether or not somebody decides to be gay is often not a cut and dry matter, they are placing themselves in a position where their being ultimately happy is in jeopardy.
Gay people will tell you that they never "decided" to be gay. But you're the one missing the point - You're forcing them into a position where their happiness is RIGHT NOW being taken away, for the mere CHANCE that at some point in the future they might, somehow put their happiness in jeopardy.
quote: You are mistaken, and gravely so. Perhaps you are unaware that nobody can go to hell in ignorance. This isn't any different though than any other human being.
Except in the fact that the church isn't paying millions to legislate away other potential sinful behavior.
quote: I don't think you have any idea what the ultimate effects of Proposition 8 being defeated are. You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
So what it comes down to is that you want to make sure that YOUR group doesn't get "jeered" at, and to do so you are trampling all over the rights of another group. This is my point - out of fear of some unlikely and unknowable possible future that would be merely uncomfortable for your group, you're willing - and perhaps eager - to deprive another group of their rights and happiness.
How is it possible to be more selfish and less charitable than for a powerful group to commit a clear and immediate wrong in defense of a minor possible future wrong?
quote: I hope you are never in a position where others find you repugnant just because they don't understand where you are coming from.
I hope I am never in a position where others find me repugnant because I am using my position of wealth and power to oppress a minority group I don't agree with.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Public opinion begins to shift towards hostility regarding organizations that continue to believe that only different sex marriages are correct. Thousands and millions of people are raised to believe in this new conventional wisdom, and the church is inhibited in it's ability to reach these people.
And
quote: You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
I just want to make sure that I'm really understanding the ramifications of your argument.
What it looks to me like you're saying, is that you fear that in the future, people will start to see the Mormon's denial of marriage to same sex couples as prejudiced, and you don't want to be seen that way.
So to combat this, you want to encourage everyone else to feel the same way you do, by intentionally holding back the social acceptance of gay people.
Your church wants to legislate prejudice and segregation, so that fewer people will realize how prejudiced you are.
posted
I think it is important to remind people (AGAIN) that the church itself provided no funding. When they talk about millions of dollars, it is from members.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The money didn't come from the church coffers, but from the people who belong to the church, and with the direction of the church leadership. Duly noted.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Public opinion begins to shift towards hostility regarding organizations that continue to believe that only different sex marriages are correct. Thousands and millions of people are raised to believe in this new conventional wisdom, and the church is inhibited in it's ability to reach these people.
And
quote: You claim Mormons are mistaken about what will happen, but what do you suppose will happen? If hostility mounted against groups that continued to not grant same-sex marriages would you stand in the way? Or would you join the crowd in their jeering?
I just want to make sure that I'm really understanding the ramifications of your argument.
What it looks to me like you're saying, is that you fear that in the future, people will start to see the Mormon's denial of marriage to same sex couples as prejudiced, and you don't want to be seen that way.
So to combat this, you want to encourage everyone else to feel the same way you do, by intentionally holding back the social acceptance of gay people.
Your church wants to legislate prejudice and segregation, so that fewer people will realize how prejudiced you are.
You really should consider the effects of repeated head bashing on your ability to reason things. I don't know why you simply keep repeating the charge that my church has no idea what it's talking about, and just wants to harm gay people. Neither of those things are true.
Please posit what you think both the short and long term effects of allowing same-sex marriage across the country would be. Quit banging your head over my guesses. Also just because I am attempting, (albeit poorly) to argue from the other side does not mean I am unsympathetic to your POV. Again I voted AGAINST an identical ban that passed here in Utah, I promise you it was not because I misread the ballot proposal.
Furthermore, there are plenty of bad ideas that are only stopped by suppression. Do I think same-sex marriage is one of these? I don't think so, I don't know enough about the long lasting effects of permitting it to say.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The money didn't come from the church coffers, but from the people who belong to the church, and with the direction of the church leadership. Duly noted.
For me, this is an important thing. I can honestly say that none of my money went to fund this. And that is actually extremely important to me personally.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know why you simply keep repeating the charge that my church has no idea what it's talking about, and just wants to harm gay people. Neither of those things are true.
The important thing is that it doesn't matter if the church "wants" to harm gay people, its actions ARE harming them. And you're right that I don't know if the church's fears about the future are founded or not, but we can all see the immediate and obvious effects of denying same sex couples marriage rights.
quote: Please posit what you think both the short and long term effects of allowing same-sex marriage across the country would be.
I'd guess that over the short term, many gay couples who have been happily living together for years or decades will finally be able to enjoy the legal rights that straight couples have had forever.
Over the long term, gay teens may run away from home and commit suicide less often as they realize that they aren't worthless and that they can be treated with respect and equality.
quote:Also just because I am attempting, (albeit poorly) to argue from the other side does not mean I am unsympathetic to your POV. Again I voted AGAINST an identical ban that passed here in Utah, I promise you it was not because I misread the ballot proposal.
Furthermore, there are plenty of bad ideas that are only stopped by suppression. Do I think same-sex marriage is one of these? I don't think so, I don't know enough about the long lasting effects of permitting it to say.
If you agree with me, I wish you'd stop defending prejudice just for the sake of agreeing with a leadership that supports it, or out of fear of some unsupported future event.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Banning marriage for same sex couples only closes one method of getting what they want. There are a million and one ways that gay rights activists could be getting exactly what they want (or at least, what they *say* they want). Why are they not attempting to find and exploit other ways of getting what they want instead of taking a battering ram to their opposition? I don't necessarily object to gays having the legal benefits of married couples, but the way they are going about it is completely bull headed.
Why shouldn't a gay couple get married? Why should they have to try one of these "million and one" other ways?
As for those other ways...I don't know about how things work out there in California, but I know that in many places the anti-gay platform is working hard to eliminate those choices. Here in Kansas, for example, civil unions are also not acceptable.
So I ask again:
Why shouldn't gays get married?
What rights is it ok for them to have?
What rights is it not ok for them to have?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mighty Cow: The problem is is that I will defend prejudice for the sake of agreeing with a CERTAIN leader, my God. In this instance He has yet to take a clear stance and so I have wiggle room, but for many in my religion they believe they already understand the correct position. You took a very conservative road in predicting the future, and that is good as you are likely right in what you predicted. But you don't know some of the unintended side effects of your policy. You don't know how many future generations will find the gay lifestyle more comfortable, and though their sexuality was still undecided, because of particular social pressures they chart that course. For you that is just fine, for many others they earnestly believe it's a bad decision. Sure we are all so happy that slavery ended in the South, but what of the fact that the South has lagged behind the rest of the country economically ever since?
We won the cold war, the Soviet Union collapsed, and now the country is still in the hands of strong men. Organized crime is so powerful there they have to be negotiated with rather than dealt with. Call it the ends justify the means, but don't pretend anyone knows what's going to happen exactly, and don't act like it can only be good. Even things that seem objectively good for everyone still carry a price.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, do you not feel that the even remote possibility that one group of people might lose constitutional rights as a result of giving rights to another group is a problem? I would think that it would be wise to find a course of action that would allow the rights of all parties to be protected in all cases rather than plowing through without thinking or caring about "small possible outcomes."
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
You know, that shouldn't be scare-quoted. There is a general right in this country to have the government reflect the will of the majority. Just as we do with other rights, we circumscribe that right in certain situations when it conflicts with other rights. But it's still a right.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
The right of religious groups to preach and teach what they want to. There is a very real fear among religious people that once gay rights activists get what they say they want that they'll then move to attempt to squelch religious disapproval of homosexuality. Discounting those fears as baseless and idiotic is nothing short of arrogant and pigheaded. If you really want to open a discourse with someone, it's probably good to address their fears and make sure they do not become a reality, rather than toss them aside and call the people who have those fears idiots.
Unfortunately, gay rights activists are so concerned with getting what they want that they fail to realize there are other people involved in it. More often than not, the immediate reaction they have to religious opposition is to cry out that religious people are full of hatred and shout with cries of "homophobe!" I have some serious issues with this. It seems like every person who pushes for gay rights feels it is their duty to tell me why I don't support them, rather than actually talking to me to figure out the real reason and get to the root of the problem.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The government does not have the right to change what you teach and preach by law. Your real reason is a bogeyman.
The Catholic Church can still preach and teach against divorce, for example. What you do within your own church, what your doctrine is determined to be, is up to your church. Government doesn't have a say in that.
And as far as that goes, what about the rights of those churches who support SSM? Don't they get to preach and teach what they want to?
I think that gay rights activists should move to change what their churches teach and preach regarding inclusivity, but that that activism belongs within the churches not in government. For example, as a Catholic I feel it is my duty to pray and argue for more inclusivity within the Catholic Church. I have no business using the law to help me change your church doctrine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The government does not have the right to change what you teach and preach by law. Your real reason is a bogeyman.
Who said anything about the government? All they have to do is keep suing and suing and suing. You can sue anyone for anything, remember? But hey, I like how you just discounted my comments as nonsense. Way to prove my point.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, that doesn't prove your point at all.
Are there lawsuits now for non-members to be married with LDS rites? Are they successful?
The Catholic Church has not been swamped by lawsuits from divorced people suing to be married in the Church, have they?
People can, true, sue for anything they want. It is not reasonable to think that these lawsuits would be successful.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are plenty of things that the LDS church teaches against that are legal. People could theoretically sue the church for not providing whiskey and slots in the Las Vegas temple cafeteria, but you don't see Monson issuing official declarations about that.
Geez, it's possible that Kanye West could sue my broke white grandma for reparations. Does that mean we should repeal the Emancipation Proclamation?
Saying that we should deny gay people civil rights because one of them might try to sue your church makes about as much sense as saying that we should nuke Canada before they start sending over suicide bombers. Wild hypothetical fantasies are no basis for aggressive preemptive action.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Boris, what "right" would you lose - would anybody lose - except the "right" to having the government endorse your disapproval?
The right of religious groups to preach and teach what they want to. There is a very real fear among religious people that once gay rights activists get what they say they want that they'll then move to attempt to squelch religious disapproval of homosexuality. Discounting those fears as baseless and idiotic is nothing short of arrogant and pigheaded. If you really want to open a discourse with someone, it's probably good to address their fears and make sure they do not become a reality, rather than toss them aside and call the people who have those fears idiots.
Unfortunately, gay rights activists are so concerned with getting what they want that they fail to realize there are other people involved in it. More often than not, the immediate reaction they have to religious opposition is to cry out that religious people are full of hatred and shout with cries of "homophobe!" I have some serious issues with this. It seems like every person who pushes for gay rights feels it is their duty to tell me why I don't support them, rather than actually talking to me to figure out the real reason and get to the root of the problem.
Considering all religions should be burnt and disposed of into the ashheap of history I don't think your making a good point.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: Wild hypothetical fantasies are no basis for aggressive preemptive action.
But they *are* basis for negotiation. And the hypothetical is not wild at all. It is not uncommon for non-LDS couples to be married in LDS churches or on church owned property. What would happen if a same sex couple asked to be married in an LDS church or on church owned property and got turned down? They could make a case for a discrimination lawsuit. And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
And Blayne, in order to get what *you* want, you'd have to kill me and that's something I really don't think you're capable of.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
Got a link?
If it happened the way you say, it sounds like an injustice was perpetrated against a religious institution by some gay people. So why didn't the LDS church put its time, money and resources behind fighting that specific injustice, rather than perpetrating a new injustice against an entire culture of uninvolved people in retaliation?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
BS. I know the case you are talking about and it is not even close to being analogous to an LDS chapel. It wasn't a chapel or church, it was property owned by a church, specifically a pavilion. The church that owned the property was not forced to officiate, merely to rent the facilities that they rent to all other comers, for many other purposes. The same case could have been brought, and won, by a Nazi brunch or a Satanist chili cook-off. The event was not even a marriage. It occured in NJ, which does not have legal SSM. So it's a total red herring for a campaign about the legalization of SSM.
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I go off on the dishonesty of "yes on 8" campaign., You are, presumably in ignorance, repeating something that is sorta kinda the truth, but is missing so much context that it's easy for you and others to equate it to a wholly different, much less palatable, and much less likely, situation.
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And Blayne, in order to get what *you* want, you'd have to kill me and that's something I really don't think you're capable of.
Why not? You religious types are always pointing out that atheist regimes have the best atrocities. Blayne is even a Mao fanboi. But even without that, you will eventually die, and who is to say that your children will be as faithful as you are? Or if not them, then their children again. Truth is patient. It might even come to you personally someday. Many people have crises of faith, and some of them return to the sunlit lands.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
I believe you're refering to the property owned by a group related to the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. It's not analogous -- the part of the property in question was being operated as a public park and the association which owned and operated it applied for and accepted public funds for maintaining the property as public-use. That was central to the lawsuit.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
I believe you're refering to the property owned by a group related to the United Methodist Church in New Jersey. It's not analogous -- the part of the property in question was being operated as a public park and the association which owned and operated it applied for and accepted public funds for maintaining the property as public-use. That was central to the lawsuit.
Here's an article that cites some of the public but religious institutitions that are finding adapting to leagalized SSM challenging. It cites the NJ case, along with Catholic Charities here in MA and a NM case involving a wedding photographer who was sued when she refused to photograph a commitment ceremony.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did you notice that none of those examples have anything to do with SSM? The examples you cite don't actually involve marriages at all. There is no SSM in NJ or NM and the Catholic Charities case involved adoptions to gays, regardless of marriage status.
Now, if your case is for the right to disciminate against homosexuals then those examples might be germane, but that wasn't the issue with Proposition 8. It's already illegal in CA, regardless of the status of SSM, to discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Again, it is so tiring to see so many irrelevant arguments being used to support the case against SSM.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'd thought you thought it was, I wouldn't've said anything. I figured you could use a second opinion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be to moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime. So get over it and quit acting like you're better than anyone else. Your ideas and arguments are neither new or interesting and it's not worth my time trying to talk up to the pedestal you've placed yourself on.
And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I can post in this discussion any more. I want to say thank you to the people who have been polite and honest, and I won't say anything at all to the few people who I really want to throttle right now.
I will say that I'm very sad to see some of the things posted here are being treated with even a slight level of acceptance.
To me, it's deeply disturbing that so many people look at this issue from such a perspective that they can't see the clear and real parallels to segregation, and that they aren't deathly ashamed to be part of an organization that would perpetuate such nonsense, fear-mongering, and prejudice.
If I were part of such an organization, I'd either drop out, or fight for change. I certainly wouldn't defend such a terrible error in judgment.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause.
Who's ignoring anything? Every time one of these specious arguments against SSM comes up, I point out why it is not an argument against SSM.
The battle over discrimination against gays, at least in the states where SSM is likely to occur, is largely over, and those who support discrimination have already lost. Every time you bring up an instance of, horror of horrors, someone being prevented from discriminating against someone because they were gay, you are fighting yesterday's fight, not making a case against SSM. And when you do that in the context of a discussion about the possible ramifications of SSM, you are lying, just like the Yes on 8 campaign lied, with the full support of several churches.
posted
Okay, look. You can do one of two things. You can try to get people to see your point of view by acknowledging their fears and working around them, or you can keep beating away at the issue with a hammer and ridiculing your opponents until they shut up. Only one of these methods is going to result in a peaceful end to the issue. Guess which one you're *not* doing.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be to moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime. So get over it and quit acting like you're better than anyone else. Your ideas and arguments are neither new or interesting and it's not worth my time trying to talk up to the pedestal you've placed yourself on.
And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
I don't think you could be that brave in front of a firing squad.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not campaigning here, Boris. I'm pointing out the dishonesty in the "yes on 8" campaign. I'm also pointing out the hypocricy of churches that claim to hold honesty to be a virtue using deceptive messaging to convince other people to support their views politically. The best tactic for addressing fears is, I think, to show that those fears are unfounded. If you think there's a monster under the bed, wouldn't showing you the absense of said monster put an end to that pretty quickly?
If you think I'm wrong, tell me why, don't just complain that I'm being too strident.
Also, who am I ridiculing? Do you consider having your claims shown to be false to be a form of ridicule?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And ya know what? This has already happened to one portion of another sect and guess what. The church *lost*. Wild hypothetical my foot.
Got a link?
If it happened the way you say, it sounds like an injustice was perpetrated against a religious institution by some gay people. So why didn't the LDS church put its time, money and resources behind fighting that specific injustice, rather than perpetrating a new injustice against an entire culture of uninvolved people in retaliation?
You are missing the point entirely. The LDS Church was visited by one of God's angels and that Angel gave them Divine Knowledge. Homosexuals and their defenders do not have divine knowledge. The LDS Church and all other Churches are doing what is best for all people. Gays are just trying to do what is best for gays. The Churches have God and all of his resources on their side, homosexuals only have San Francisco. See?
If they deserved rights, they would already have them. There is no point in arguing, some one without divine knowledge arguing against the divine knowledge of a Church is like a pre-schooler arguing with Stephen Hawking.
Seriously, it's a sinner telling God He is wrong.
That is not right.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... I don't think you could be that brave in front of a firing squad.
Please stop. We already have a Christian with delusions of persecution. Why add delusions of leading a persecution?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, implied threats on other members are not okay. Please remove your post, and dial it back.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And Matt, my point is that whether or not the situation *could* occur that religions lose rights over this, religious groups are *afraid* of that and ignoring that fact does nothing to further your cause. The entire gay rights movement would benefit greatly if it stopped trying to beat down the door for once.
Boris, a large part of the reason that people are afraid is because of the scary ad campaign funded in part by LDS members. People are afraid of these things because the anti-SSM advocates use them as scare tactics.
Also, how would the gay rights movement benefit if it stopped trying to "beat down the door"? How are they supposed to achieve civil rights without demanding them? Should they just wait until you say that God says that they can have families? Or do you mean that if they just shut up and rode quietly in the back of the bus, people wouldn't be so worried about them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Actually, KoM, the meaning of my comment wasn't entirely that he would be too moral or that he'd be too squeamish, but also that if he tried he'd get his butt handed to him. I'm sorry you were too thick to catch the secondary meaning.
I won't argue the point. There's such a thing as fair warning, after all.
quote:As for your comment, KoM, you won't see a world without religion in your lifetime.
I've already seen one; I was born in such a world. Eventually the colonies catch up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what Boris is saying is not to stop fighting for stuff, but to fight with less venom. Be willing to state explicitely that a church will not be forced to perform a marriage it does not accept. Instead of just saying anyone who disagree with us only does so because they hate gays, address the fears people have (not give in to them, but try to reassure people). Talk about why society in general will be better by granting these rights (if you cannot think of a way society is better through your actions, maybe they aren't good- though I can think of many ways all of society will be improved for all with ssm so that is kinda a moot point). Basically, tjhe difference between a positive campaign and a negative campaign.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
