posted
Puppy: What goes on in your church is none of my business. Otherwise I'd be on about the misogyny of your dogma. I'm not. I don't care. No one else cares either. YOUR church. YOUR business.
But your church threw tens of millions of dollars to thwart other people's civil rights in another state.
I'd have loved it if we, as two groups, had left each other alone. But you (plural you) wouldn't mind your own business.
Now you're getting protests.
If you (plural you) were worried about being hated, you did the wrong thing. Next time, try a smile and a handshake instead of stomping on people's civil rights.
Pix
PS: I still like and respect you, Puppy. I think you were just handed something that's hard to defend.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would it (to my earlier recommendation) be open to roommates, and others in committed, non-sexual relationships?
I imagine they're hammering the language out now, precisely to address this sort of nitpicking.
Why do you think it's nitpicking?
I think it fundamentally changes the nature of what a "civil union" should be understood to be: from a validation of a sexual relationship (in which I don't see why the government should be involved) to an easy way of extending a class of legal privileges to anyone in a committed, socially-stable, long-term relationship.
Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Yes.
<edit>With the caveat that an appropriately non-sexual term be found for that relationship. I don't know if "civil union" or "domestic partnership" has already been overly corrupted by the battle over SSM, but they both strike me as being in the right spirit</edit>.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One thing about the LDS stance, and its backers, that needs to be understood before any advance can be made.
Its not hate
There is no low viscous dehumanizing hatred in the secret bowels of the Church of Latter Day Saints, or in the majority of its members who backed proposition 8.
Until the gay rights protesters realize this then they will be written off as hate-mongers.
Its not hate that motivates them.
Its something even worse.
Its fear.
Now fear can lead to hate, can lead to violence and destruction, but it hasn't yet.
Its fear that their ideas and beliefs are threatened by two girls kissing, or a couple of manly men holding hands and promising a lifetime of commitment to each other.
Its fear that legalizing Adam and Steve means that their church has less import, less power, less meaning in our current culture.
Its fear that their children will see happy gay couples, and unhappy straight couples, and be driven to that gay relationship in search of happiness.
Its fear that sinister gay protesters are going to force their church to perform sins of consecrating what should be condoned.
And its fear that is bred and fed by leaders, wolves in shepherds clothing, that want to tie their congregations together, to give them an enemy to fight.
I want to know what is the bigger threat to the church? Gay marriages recognized by the state, or church leaders who bear false witness in order to spread fear, hoping to scare their congregations into behaving.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But those members made the choice. And those of us who thought prop8 should be opposed were told that our opposition was perfectly acceptable (atleast everyone I know of).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
I think this, now oft-repeated refrain, is a bit of an obfuscation.
The counsel from the church was everything but a direct commandment. No, the church didn't force members to donate time and money, but they very strongly encouraged it. It's perfectly reasonable to credit the church for the political activities of its membership in this campaign.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... shows that, hate or no hate, you are certainly willing to make choices for gay people based on what you think is their good. This is not the way adult citizens are generally treated.
Yes it is. Whenever anyone takes a position on an issue that affects other people, he is making choices for someone else. Is the moral to not take positions on issues that affect someone else?
When was the last time a group other than gays had a choice about their sex and love lives made for them by legislation?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
It's not the votes of individual members that made the difference. What really turned this issue around was the members who took the Presidency letter for what it was - a call to arms. People who would normally just cast their vote or donate a hundred dollars to a political campaign all of a sudden became political activists.
Members donated more money and in greater numbers than if left to their own devices and consciences. Ward and stake resources were used to plan campaign activities.
I've spoken to one church member who SUPPORTED prop 8 who elected to say home from Sacrament Meeting until after the election so she could avoid the constant politicing from the pulpit on this issue.
This was absolutely an organized campaign by the church that started with a directive from the highest authority that the church recognizes on the earth. Who signed the checks at the end of the day is not nearly as relevant as what the status quo was prior to the "yes" campaign and what influences changed that status quo.
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Pixiest- MEMBERS of our church- not the church.
I think this, now oft-repeated refrain, is a bit of an obfuscation. ...
I may also add that it is a bit misleading since the campaign used church organization and resources for help rather than the implication that the church was really hands-off.
Right from the horses mouth:
quote: Church Readies Members on Proposition 8
As the Proposition 8 campaign in support of traditional marriage enters its last two weeks, the Protect Marriage Coalition is encouraging its members to make phone calls in support of the measure. The Church is participating with the Coalition in support of this endeavor.
...
At the request of the Protect Marriage Coalition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is making arrangements for them to call friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of the effort to defend traditional marriage. The coalition has asked members of the many participating churches and organizations to contribute in whatever way they can to the effort to pass Proposition 8, including by phoning.
posted
Kieth O. is an idiot. First he says he doesn't know why anyone would support Prop. 8 and then he goes off on a triad against those who did? First get to know the supporters reasons and then you might have somewhere to start where your not speaking to your Choir.
I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context. Religion isn't about "Love," but about G-d and how G-d defines love. Sometimes love is even defined in religion about what others take as hate in defense of things greater than the worth of individual humans. The Scriptures, if you have read them, even limit love to very specific actions more than feelings. That includes the New Testament and sayings of Jesus who said a few things that could be taken as hate speech. He called a few people, and groups, names. Love in religion doesn't start with the love of people (and that can even be a sign of an evil heart), but the love of G-d and what He defines as righteousness.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Talking about the Mormon church in general includes a lot of people who opposed the prop and who would have thrown a massive fit if tithing money was used on the campaign. Which is why it annoys me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I may have my opinions on this guy, but he makes a damn good argument.
That's not an argument; it's an impassioned plea. A very well-written and executed one. But one that I find personally unmoving, because it addresses none of the core issues.
<edit>Or, if what he presents are in fact the core issues, it strengthens my support for overturning SSM, since the arguments stand essentially on the ground of legislating against prejudice, which I view as a misuse of the force of law.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Talking about the Mormon church in general includes a lot of people who opposed the prop and who would have thrown a massive fit if tithing money was used on the campaign. Which is why it annoys me.
The existence of a quiet minority that opposes the leadership on this matter does not make the characterization inaccurate. Also, to the extent that church resources were used to support the campaign, your tithing money was used for this purpose.
quote:If you (plural you) were worried about being hated, you did the wrong thing. Next time, try a smile and a handshake instead of stomping on people's civil rights.
What I'm protesting isn't "being hated" — you can't be a Mormon without developing a thick skin for that. I'm protesting being accused of hate. It unnecessary and unfair, and your argument could work perfectly well without including that untruth.
The church may have motivations you don't share, but those motivations are not hate. They include faith (that opposing gay marriage will displease many people now, but will ultimately benefit all of society in the long run), fear (not a generalized, irrational "fear of the gays", but a fear that changes to the surrounding society and its language will make it much harder to promulgate their own culture and religion), and a number of other individual motives. But hate is not a significant universal motivation.
Accusing the church of "hate" when its motives are something entirely different is wrong, however justified you might feel in lashing out.
I do appreciate your having given me the benefit of the doubt. And I assure you that many, many of my brethren deserve the same. The fact that someone supports or promotes ideas that you think are bad does not mean that the people are bad, or have bad motivations. When two people evaluate the potential consequences of a particular action in different ways, it is perfectly possible for one to support the action, and another to oppose it, without either party have an evil, hateful motive. The sooner they recognize this fact, the sooner they can reach a compromise that satisfies them both.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are you arguing that the state should get out of the marriage business entirely then, and rather provide incentives for any generic type of committed and socially stable relationship?
Yes.
<edit>With the caveat that an appropriately non-sexual term be found for that relationship. I don't know if "civil union" or "domestic partnership" has already been overly corrupted by the battle over SSM, but they both strike me as being in the right spirit</edit>.
I agree in principle. But to paraphrase, are you then opposing SSM because existing SSM proposals don't go far enough? That is, they don't extend the legal benefits to a wide enough group? Wouldn't extension of the legal benefits to an additional group at least be an improvement over the current situation?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I agree in principle. But to paraphrase, are you then opposing SSM because existing SSM proposals don't go far enough? That is, they don't extend the legal benefits to a wide enough group? Wouldn't extension of the legal benefits to an additional group at least be an improvement over the current situation?
Not necessarily. For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings. If, instead, states only required that two people make consensual long-term commitment to one another, regardless of their implicit or explicit sexual relationship, I would get on board.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think, again, that we are overlooking the fact that civil marriage is more than a contract. It creates one unit where there had been two. It joins families as well as finances and possesions. When you enter into a SSM marriage, you get in-laws just as in heterosexual marriage And marriage creates new families. This is true even when a married couple has no children. They are still each other's family.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Not necessarily. For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings. If, instead, states only required that two people make consensual long-term commitment to one another, regardless of their implicit or explicit sexual relationship, I would get on board.</edit>
That actually sounds like a pretty good plan to me. I don't think the government should deny legal rights to one set of two committed individuals verses any other set.
The Church was never against Domestic Partnership laws in California that tried to give these rights. Granted, these laws were ruled to be unequal, but instead of changing the laws to be the same, they made sweeping decisions about the definition of marriage. It's simply not about rights. It's about that definition. I'm finding myself getting pretty libertarian on this, I guess, but I don't think the government should be trusted to define marriage one way or another.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: For me, it would very much depend on what baggage is attached to that minimal extension. If, for instance, the extension is tied to the language of "marriage," which I believe is inextricably entwined with a social approval of a sexual relationship, then I would oppose the extension. Even if the language were right, if the statutes (such as those in CA and VT I linked to earlier) make that implicit assumption obvious, I would have misgivings.
<edit>To clarify: I don't see a way that I could support while defining the relationship as "marriage." If a state were to eliminate "marriage" and institute "domestic partnerships" for all people in committed sexual relationships that didn't involve near relatives, unconsenting minors, or mentally incompetant, I would still have misgivings
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: The Church was never against Domestic Partnership laws in California that tried to give these rights.
Which "Church" are you talking about?
Because if you mean the Catholic or the LDS churches, those groups did oppose Domestic partnerships.
''I think it's probably the most comprehensive and emphatic and definitive statement the Vatican has yet issued,'' said C. J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. ''The church is not only opposed to same-sex marriage, but also to civil unions, domestic partnerships, and homosexual adoptions.''
And the LDS church:
"In October 2004, the First Presidency's office issued a statement saying the church 'favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.'"
I'm not aware of any other church that is routinely refered to simply as "the Church", so can I ask which Church you were referring to?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The domestic partnership laws in California don't say anything about marriage, which is what the First Presidency's message is referring to. If the issue were about rights, the LDS church would have likely thrown its weight behind fighting those laws like it did for Prop 8. Did they do that? No. It might have been somewhat disapproving of DPs, but not to the degree that is was for the changing of the definition of marriage. So arguments that the LDS Church only wants to take away rights is false. That's the point I was very poorly trying to say.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Because I feel it violates the freedom of conscience of a large number of people, including myself.
<edit>I assume you meant why I would oppose simply extending the "marriage" label in order to grant the legal privileges. If you meant why I would have misgivings about establishing a new term, and including both hetero- and homosexual partnerships, but no others, it is because I think it would be silly to come up with an inclusive label, and then exclude some group of people that could benefit from it.</edit>
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: [The domestic partnership laws in California don't say anything about marriage, which is what the First Presidency's message is referring to.
Did you read the quote? "[The LDS church] favors measures...that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
quote:If the issue were about rights, the LDS church would have likely thrown its weight behind fighting those laws like it did for Prop 8.
They opposed the granting of any legal status to gay couples. How is that supporting their rights?
Even today, they support lots of rights only conditionally, "so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family". So, does the LDS think that gay people being in relationships infringe on straight families? Well, lets see what they wrote in 2004:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. " [italics mine]
Hmmm...So they believe that gay relationships undermine the family, they reserve their support for hospital visits and the like only so long as it doesn't "impinge" on the family. This isn't me imagining what the LDS stance is, this is me reading quotes from published statements directly from the church itself.
quote:It might have been somewhat disapproving of DPs, but not to the degree that is was for the changing of the definition of marriage.
This isn't a question of degree.
You wrote that the LDS was "never against" domestic partnerships.
Do you still think that this is an accurate statement? Let me remind you of the official statement below:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures ...that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship.""
quote:So arguments that the LDS Church only wants to take away rights is false. That's the point I was very poorly trying to say.
If they didn't want to take away rights, they wouldn't make their support of their rights conditional. We know from their writing that the LDS church thinks that same-sex relationships damage "the family". We know from their writing that they support same-sex couple rights only to the extent that they don't "impinge" on "the family". This isn't interpretation, these are direct quotes.
Sorry, but I am going to put 2 and 2 together here.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And their families or ones like theirs are the only ones that matter.
Using the law to destroy families that aren't patterned the way their families are patterned is fine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Because I feel it violates the freedom of conscience of a large number of people, including myself.
<edit>I assume you meant why I would oppose simply extending the "marriage" label in order to grant the legal privileges. ...
Yes, that's what I meant.
But I don't understand what you meant. That is, I don't understand why your freedom of conscience would be violated. Do you mean in a legal sense, in that churches would ultimately be legally forced to recognize and/or perform marriages that they would not have otherwise?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I don't understand what you meant. That is, I don't understand why your freedom of conscience would be violated. Do you mean in a legal sense, in that churches would ultimately be legally forced to recognize and/or perform marriages that they would not have otherwise?
No. I mean that the government would be legislating an approved way of thinking about and referring to homosexual relationships which violates my (and many others') personal conscience. I don't feel the government should take sides by legislating private morality, and that's exactly what I feel it would be doing in extending the term "marriage" to cover homosexual relationships.
<edit>To head off any charges of hypocrisy, I should point out that my support for prop 8 (which legally defines marriage contrary to the private conscience of lots of other people) is strictly reactionary. The government had already taken sides, and so I supported prop 8 as a less bad alternative to the current state of affairs. On principle, I think it's a lousy thing for a government to define a social construct; but since it already had, I felt it should define it correctly. If a proposal that got the government out of the marriage business completely were instituted, I would support an effort to repeal the amendment passed as part of prop 8.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I see. And that trumps the extension of the legal benefits to an additional group of people, ergo you don't support the extension?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Oh, I see. And that trumps the extension of the legal benefits to an additional group of people, ergo you don't support the extension?
In the hypothetical, probably (depending on what the legal benefits are and how large the subpopulation whose freedom of conscience is being violated is and a few other factors). In the specific case of CA, where the legal benefits were already conferred (albeit through a faulty mechanism), then absolutely.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. Thanks for explaining. I hope you didn't feel like I was baiting you for some "gotcha" moment.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context.
I don't know what book you're reading, but I'm pretty sure it ain't the Bible.
Matthew 22:36-38
quote:36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
1 Corinthians 13:1-7
quote: 1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[b] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Luke 6:35-36
quote:35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
And this, I don't even know what to say.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: No. I mean that the government would be legislating an approved way of thinking about and referring to homosexual relationships which violates my (and many others') personal conscience.
You are arguing that you should TAKE AWAY OTHER PEOELES' RIGHTS, because otherwise the government is FORCING YOU TO THINK A CERTAIN WAY?
I swear to all that is good in this world, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. To defend legislating against SSM, people have to step completely outside of reality and into some bizarro world where it makes sense to segregate, hate, fear, and demean others in the name of a Loving God.
Edit: Here's the worst part about these arguments - the fears that several of you are trying to avoid by preventing SSM HAVE ALREADY COME TO PASS.
Look around you - people are already protesting the anti-gay bigotry evidenced by the Church. People already see these actions as prejudice. You aren't even fooling yourself.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I swear to all that is good in this world, I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. To defend legislating against SSM, people have to step completely outside of reality and into some bizarro world where it makes sense to segregate, hate, fear, and demean others in the name of a Loving God.
You should remember that as little as fifteen years ago, very few people were arguing in favor of same-sex marriage either because they disagreed with the idea, or because it seemed like an utter impossibility. Recognition and acceptance of gays in the military was the issue du jour, and it didn't work out the way the pro-gay agenda intended.
If living in a world where gay marriage seems unattainable due to the attitudes of others is like the Twilight Zone or Bizarro World for you, how did you survive the nineties?
Can you understand that for some people who never seriously considered the idea until this decade, the emergence of gay marriage as a possibility also feels like the Twilight Zone? It's a new, unfamiliar concept, and you should not be at all surprised that it is taking time to catch on.
I'm curious if you think that all the people who vote in favor of gay marriage today, but who would not have fifteen or twenty years ago when public opinion was much further in the "against" direction, are also bigots? Closet bigots, perhaps. Or repentant bigots. Or maybe all this name-calling is a waste of time, and we ought to be discussing the actual issue.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already admitted that in the past I was bigoted against gay people, because I didn't think they needed to get married. I'm not proud of it, but I have the introspection and intellectual honesty to admit that I was wrong in the past, dead wrong, and it was largely due to prejudice and ignorance.
I didn't know any gay people, I didn't understand the issues, and I went with what was popular, and what society seemed to support, rather than actually considering the issue, looking it in terms of prejudice and segregation, and seeing how wrong I was.
Once I got to know some gay people, I found out that they're just people, and it was idiotic of me to think they should be treated any differently from anyone else.
Once I realized that all the fear and prejudice people were using for excuses, trying to disguise in a veil of religious belief or societal pressure or what's "normal" was just excuses and a smoke screen to prevent us from realizing that it's just prejudice and segregation, I was ashamed and realized that I needed to change my mind.
I do understand what's going on here. Nobody wants to admit that their strongly held beliefs are actually prejudiced. It's much more comfortable from an introspective and world-view standpoint to insist that other people are wrong, and what we believe is right. It's hard to change your beliefs, especially when doing so forces you to admit that your past beliefs were deeply wrong and hurtful.
What surprises me though, is the logical stretches people are going to in order to justify and deny the prejudice. Some of these explanations are just crazy.
The idea that the government will force us to think differently or that we might feel uncomfortable if we allow other people equal rights, so it's better to deny them their equality in order to protect our delicate sensibilities - I'm just amazed that people can give these arguments out loud, and not realize how nonsensical and completely unjust they are.
It's easy to justify things to ourselves when we don't think about them to much, but to actually think through the argument and come up with some of the least compelling arguments I've seen really and honestly surprises me.
I guess I can take solace in the fact that with such flimsy arguments, it will be easier for people to realize the cognitive dissonance and accept the fact that it's better to admit to having been wrong and correct it, than to stubbornly hold on to that error and compound it.
Edit: And I think the name calling IS necessary. It's only when we're made uncomfortable that we have any good reason to change. It is the very fact that people are willing to soften the blow, make justifications, and think around the issue that even people who sort-of, kind-of see the point are willing to sit by while their friends or their Church condemn SSM.
If you can pretend it's not really so bad, and it's someone else's problem, and that gosh darn, change takes time, and there's no reason to push it, of course it takes time.
If we call a spade a spade, and make people see the uncomfortable truth, that regardless of justifications, people are being prejudiced and supporting segregation, maybe they'll realize that they don't want to be called a bigot, they don't want to BE a bigot, they just want to stay in their comfort zone and pretend it doesn't matter to them.
If I can make people uncomfortable enough that they realize it does matter, maybe they'll step up and say something positive next time, instead of just NOT saying something negative.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: How many people do you really think changed their viewpoint because of the church's statement? The people I know who liked it would have liked it even if the church said nothing and the people who opposed it continued opposing it after the church's statement.
I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Ah, the modern face of the evils of organized religion. Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I am tired of those attacking religious people about the word "Love" as if it had some kind of unconditional meaning within a religious context.
I don't know what book you're reading, but I'm pretty sure it ain't the Bible.
quote:Originally posted by Lanfear: I grew up with a bunch of gay friends, participated in the Gay Straight Alliance at my school, and even did the Day of silence when one of my close friends asked me to.
When I first heard of Prop 8, I hated it. Actually. I still think it was the wrong move. However, I believe the church leaders are inspired men, and as such their position supersedes mine.
I voted yes on eight.
Ah, the modern face of the evils of organized religion.
I find it very interesting that none of the religious crowd have used the word "evil" in describing their opponents, and yet your side seems to have brought that word out first.
Maybe it's just a coincidence. You seem to be injecting alot of emotion in your statements MC, I am sure everyone here knows you feel strongly and passionately about your position. I don't think anyone here would accuse you of being false. But when you flat out tell somebody that when they support their spiritual leader that they MUST be committing sin is frankly very disrespectful and presumptuous. All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
To assume that those who endeavor to obey a prophet must be evil or else complete imbeciles is very insulting. You may have found organized religion wanting, but you don't know that nobody has found a more direct link to God through it. You may have concluded that in this instance the church's stance regarding same sex marriage proves that it's leadership does not speak for any God, real or imagined. But don't speak as if you must be right, and the rest of us are fools or evil agents.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Define love, please.
Clearly, there are many definitions of love, but I think it's clear within the context of Christianity that Jesus' love was very inclusive, accepting of faults, forgiving of failings, and was never withheld from anyone because they were wrong, because their beliefs or behaviors were against his teachings, or because they were part of an excluded or shunned group.
We may have different definitions of love, but when someone tries to tell me that a Christian based love is the basis for injustice and exclusion, I refuse to accept that as valid.
Jesus made a specific point to show EXTRA love to people who were considered sinners, outcasts, and the people put down by society.
People often bring up the idea that Jesus condemned their behavior, or hated the sin and loved the sinner, which I find little scriptural backing for, but the important point is that Jesus never used any sort of force, emotional, physical, legal, or spiritual to make people change, and while he asked them to make an effort to be better - he gave them the best of himself anyway.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But when you flat out tell somebody that when they support their spiritual leader that they MUST be committing sin is frankly very disrespectful and presumptuous.
Would you say that it's more, or less disrespectful and presumptuous than when your spiritual leaders tell your congregation that all the gay people MUST be committing a sin, and should be legally prevented from doing so?
The evil I was referring to is when someone KNOWS right from wrong, and intentionally chooses to do wrong because their leadership instructs them to.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: their position supersedes mine.
All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
Are you saying that you thought those people or the people who followed them were correct to do so? I don't understand.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: their position supersedes mine.
All of us who believe in divine revelation are fully aware of some of terrible acts committed in the name of God and those preporting to speak for Him.
Are you saying that you thought those people or the people who followed them were correct to do so? I don't understand.
You seem to have added some inadvertent text when you quoted me. I was saying that those of us who still believe in divine revelation are fully aware of the atrocities committed in the name of God. I can't give a line by line synopsis of when somebody really was doing what God commanded. We are aware of these terrible acts but have not concluded that God just doesn't command anyone to do anything controversial. Jesus himself says concerning disapproval of Christians, "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."
MC: I can't speak for my leaders, neither can you. We do not know their motivations. My God has not told me that they have instructed amiss. As they have not out and out said "God commands that His saints act thus..." I cannot definitively say what God's opinion is on the matter. I do believe my church's leaders are doing what they think is right, they are not evil men seeking to harm others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'm just going to state a couple things and then hope I never get drawn into this discussion again. The LDS church was not responsible for the tactics and messages used in the Yes on 8 campaign. The church constantly called for civility and kindness in the effort. That the campaigners chose not to do that as much as possible is not the fault of the church. From what I see, gay rights activists are crying foul over the message that was used in the yes on 8 campaign. That's perfectly fine. But they're also using those *exact same* tactics to get back at their detractors. There's a word for that. It's called hypocrisy. And you may think that religious groups are being hypocritical by refusing to give rights to homosexuals, but fighting perceived hypocrisy with hypocrisy does absolutely *nothing* but cause those you're fighting to dig in deeper and fight against you even harder.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I hope you didn't feel like I was baiting you for some "gotcha" moment.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
