quote: won't shout you down. But I do respect you less because of your support for this proposition. It's harmful and offensive and based in bigotry and superstition, and I suspect you'll live to regret it. I recognize that you believe you were doing something good; I also quite firmly believe that you were absolutely, completely wrong.
Do you respect about 70% of the black voters less as well for their support of this proposition?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If you get shouted down, it's because you are viewed as being against a civil rights issue.
I understand you don't see it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue, and that to see people who you respect making a stand against civil rights is frustrating, infuriating and repulsive.
I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California. This was way before Prop 8. I don't know about other faith groups, but the Church had no official position on that legislation, one way or the other. Civil Rights was not the issue with the Church's support, and according to other supporters, not for them either. The rights they already had, they were arguing for a change in the definition of marriage.
If one is so concerned about 'separate but equal' status than Civil Unions should be across the board for any two-person partnership, thereby taking government completely out of the equation.
It also occurred to me that even if Prop 8 failed, it would matter very little. The state of California gives a same-sex couple a piece of paper saying that they are entitled to certain rights and responsibilities, but it only applies within the state boundaries. It's *still* no different from the previous domestic partnership law, which also only applies within the state.
In thinking about that, I'm starting to think that it really should be a federal issue, and not something decided merely on the state level. Otherwise, gay couples would never leave California (or Massachusetts, or wherever has these kind of statutes) for fear of losing insurance coverage, or medical decisions, or any number of rights or responsibilities if they happened to travel through, say, Kansas (I may be wrong but I think many states have done this already, I'm saying it should be cleaned up and made clear on the national level).
I am very much *for* these rights for any couple who have committed to each other. I'm even for them calling it a marriage if it suits them (free speech and all). I'm not comfortable leaving the government to define that term for me or anyone else.
With any luck, this post will be completely ignored, since that's what always seems to happen when I weigh in on issues like this.
edited to clean some of the wording
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: ...but they own
AgReserves Inc. - the largest producer of nuts in America.[1]
Hawaii Reserves, Inc. - Miscellaneous church holdings in Hawaii.
Along with the Polynesian Cultural Center (the leading for-profit visitor attraction in Hawaii[23]) and Brigham Young University-Hawaii, Hawaii Reserves generated revenue of $260 million for the Hawaii economy in 2005.[24]
Farmland Reserve Inc. - 228,000 acres (923 km²) in Nebraska,[25] and over 312,000 acres (1,260 km²) in Florida (dba Deseret Cattle and Citrus).[26]
Bonneville International Corporation - the 14th largest radio chain in the U.S.[1]
Deseret Morning News - a daily Utah newspaper, second-largest in the state.[27]
Beneficial Financial Group - An insurance and financial services company with assets of $3.1 billion.[28]
Why does a Church NEED to own an insurance and financial services company??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Since you obviously read the wiki article, you know many of those business holdings are historic in nature, dating to the time that the church played a significant economic role in the development of Utah. For instance, the financial services and insurance company was founded over 100 years ago. It doesn't generate significant profits, but is maintained to preserve continuity in the lives of those who depend on the institution.
Again, the church owns large holdings, but they are almost exclusively non-commercial. It's wealth is used to financially support missionary, educational, humanitarian, and community services throughout the world. Suggesting otherwise, particularly considering the evidence presented to you, is wrong.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: won't shout you down. But I do respect you less because of your support for this proposition. It's harmful and offensive and based in bigotry and superstition, and I suspect you'll live to regret it. I recognize that you believe you were doing something good; I also quite firmly believe that you were absolutely, completely wrong.
Do you respect about 70% of the black voters less as well for their support of this proposition?
I can't speak for Tom, but anyone who voted for this proposition - or otherwise supports it - has earned a little bit of my disdain. So, yes, I respect the black voters who supported this proposition less.
Edit: So that sm doesn't think his post was ignored, I would be completely in favor of all marriages being referred to by the state as "civil unions" or some such thing.
Why doesn't the Mormon Church spend $50 million on something like that?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What Tom said. I believe that someday you will realize that you are on the wrong side of this.
I can conceive that possibility, but I (obviously) find it unlikely.
Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame Mormons, but they have spent a ton of money fighting to pass legislature, and we didn't have a Homosexuality Bailout, we had a corporate bailout that will cost Americans up to 3 trillion dollars, when we already carry 10 trillion in debt, it makes you wonder how "moral" the Churches stance is.
People are losing their homes, retirees who worked their whole life and were told the stock market is NOT a gamble lost their life savings, thousands of jobs are lost daily, Banks are using the Bail Out Money to buy other banks and are not lending. Medicare and Social Security are a ticking time bomb, and the Church is fighting for California legislation with millions of dollars using Moral High Ground and Christian Duty as their motives.
When a multi billion dollar Church uses its multi billion dollar revenues to help pass government legislation denying people basic civil rights, their Moral Authority and Moral Priorities are in the spotlight and open for questioning.
Why does a Church need to own an Insurance and Investment company if it is not in business?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California.
This is only mostly true. A person can be compelled to testify against their domestic partner, but not their spouse. If a person in a domestic partnership dies, their estate is split between the parter and other surviving family. In a marriage 100% goes to the spouse.
That's not really the primary issue though. It's the inherent inequality of the separate but equal status of domestic partnership.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Why doesn't the Mormon Church spend $50 million on something like that?
The Mormon church spent no money on the Prop 8 battle (except a minimal in kind donation for church leadership travel to a conference in CA).
Members of the LDS church donated some unknown, but presumably large amount to support Prop 8 (one estimate was appr. $17 million). Other members of the LDS church undoubtedly donated some amount of money to oppose Prop 8.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California.
This is only mostly true. A person can be compelled to testify against their domestic partner, but not their spouse. If a person in a domestic partnership dies, their estate is split between the parter and other surviving family. In a marriage 100% goes to the spouse.
That's not really the primary issue though. It's the inherent inequality of the separate but equal status of domestic partnership.
Than make Civil Unions the norm for all legally binding partnerships. The term "marriage" seems to be the only real sticking point with detractors, so take it away for everyone.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can't speak for Tom, but anyone who voted for this proposition - or otherwise supports it - has earned a little bit of my disdain. So, yes, I respect the black voters who supported this proposition less.
I am quite stunned that this story is not being made into a much bigger issue. Unless, of course, the point is to bash the Mormon church in which case the story of Prop 8 is going as intended. We have elected our first black President, a definite and overdue moment in our civil rights history, yet blacks voted for Proposition 8 and because of their high percentage support the proposition passes? Boggles my mind a bit...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: When a multi billion dollar Church uses its multi billion dollar revenues to help pass government legislation denying people basic civil rights, their Moral Authority and Moral Priorities are in the spotlight and open for questioning.
The Church used none of its revenues to help pass Prop 8. The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures, to fund food banks, to give aid following natural disasters, to send kids to technical schools who otherwise couldn't go, and to provide wheelchairs to those who can't afford them. Stop misrepresenting the LDS church.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unicorn you aren't actually responding to what Senoj is telling you the church does with its money.
You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Go moan somewhere else. You need to stop trolling.
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures
Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard there was a specific policy against making mortgage payments for members.
quote:Than make Civil Unions the norm for all legally binding partnerships. The term "marriage" seems to be the only real sticking point with detractors, so take it away for everyone.
It's beyond my individual power to do this and if the SSM side were to propose it, it would be interpreted as a vindication of the view that they were trying to destroy marriage. For it to be politically possible, the anti-SSM side is going to have to bring it to the table.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why does God or Jesus Christ NEED $50 Billion dollars in cash, land, and stock holdings?
UF, we get it. Could you please find something else to harp on? If you can't do that, could you please make some attempt to actually engage in conversation? Maybe even read responses an address the points raised therein?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Atlantic Monthly's Andrew Sullivan picked up on the staggering influence the Church of Latter Day Saints has had on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in his piece, "Mormons v. Civil Rights".
"People may be unaware that the top leadership of the LDS church has made banning gay couples from having any legal rights in California a supreme issue, part of a determined political campaign of unprecedented ferocity and organization," he writes.
Indeed, while figures on Mormon giving vary from around 40 percent to 80 percent, whatever the exact number, the influence clearly goes far beyond their actual population in California, which hovers below two percent."
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The church has used huge amounts of its resources to prevent foreclosures
Do you have a reference for this? The last I heard there was a specific policy against making mortgage payments for members.
There is a recommendation against making mortgage payments for members. However, as part of a transitional plan, or in situations deemed appropriate by local authorities, such payments can be authorized. I don't have a specific reference beyond my individual experience.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying "We give some of that money to poor people." is not a proper justification. Jesus Christ warns of an obsession with wealth and material things, so for any Church with an over abundance of wealth and material things to claim Moral High Ground is very silly.
I've got proof that Greed has harmed this country again and again and again, where is the proof that letting two men who've been together for 30 years have basic couple rights has been harmful?
What I am hearing is "A Church cannot be Greedy".
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: ... Can you similarly conceive that something unforseeable might be lost as a result of pro-SSM legislation? Can you imagine that you might one day regret such legislation?
I may note that for some of us, this is not a theoretical.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada for anywhere between eight to three years, depending on province, and according to the polling, support for this policy has only been increasing.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
No argument I have heard opposing SSM has ever made sense to me. I have heard a lot of them. None are just or loving. None reflects the God I know. You could keep trying, but I think your chances are pretty slim.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
UF, your not "hearing" anything. You aren't even responding to 3/4 of the people are saying to you.
Look at the way the church leaders live their live and you would know they aren't "obsessed with greed" . They live, for the most part, very modest lives.
The church needs money to respond to natural disasters, which in some cases, the churches help arrives before the governments.
You just sound silly
Posts: 332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: If you get shouted down, it's because you are viewed as being against a civil rights issue.
I understand you don't see it that way. But that doesn't change the fact that this is a civil rights issue, and that to see people who you respect making a stand against civil rights is frustrating, infuriating and repulsive.
I don't mean to call you, or anyone, repulsive, but that is the feeling that is created in me when I see Americans voting to take away the rights of other Americans.
Civil rights of domestic partnerships (homosexual or otherwise) are equivalent to marriages in California. This was way before Prop 8. I don't know about other faith groups, but the Church had no official position on that legislation, one way or the other. Civil Rights was not the issue with the Church's support, and according to other supporters, not for them either. The rights they already had, they were arguing for a change in the definition of marriage.
If one is so concerned about 'separate but equal' status than Civil Unions should be across the board for any two-person partnership, thereby taking government completely out of the equation.
It also occurred to me that even if Prop 8 failed, it would matter very little. The state of California gives a same-sex couple a piece of paper saying that they are entitled to certain rights and responsibilities, but it only applies within the state boundaries. It's *still* no different from the previous domestic partnership law, which also only applies within the state.
In thinking about that, I'm starting to think that it really should be a federal issue, and not something decided merely on the state level. Otherwise, gay couples would never leave California (or Massachusetts, or wherever has these kind of statutes) for fear of losing insurance coverage, or medical decisions, or any number of rights or responsibilities if they happened to travel through, say, Kansas (I may be wrong but I think many states have done this already, I'm saying it should be cleaned up and made clear on the national level).
I am very much *for* these rights for any couple who have committed to each other. I'm even for them calling it a marriage if it suits them (free speech and all). I'm not comfortable leaving the government to define that term for me or anyone else.
With any luck, this post will be completely ignored, since that's what always seems to happen when I weigh in on issues like this.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing.
My faith similarly assures me that God is just and loving. And yet, here we are. So let me rephrase my original question: can you conceive that, while rightly believing God to be just and loving, your belief that his intent, his plan, or his principles would necessarily lead to passage of pro-SSM legislation is mistaken?
I don't believe that your God is loving or just, and thus I don't worship him or care about his intent, plan, or principles. In fact, I don't even believe he exists.
My reasoning for believing SSM is good comes from some morals derived from pretty firm non-religious epistemology. Unless someone can give me a good, non-religious moral argument why it's SSM is bad, I won't be changing my mind. I haven't heard one yet.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, Kate. The argument "God told me or someone whose authority I accept that same-sex marriage is wrong" is pretty solid, once you permit religious premises in the first place.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blind obedience is not a good argument. It may be a reason (not what I would call a good one - God gave us brains and the holy spirit for us to use) but it isn't an argument.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Blind obedience is not a good argument. It may be a reason (not what I would call a good one - God gave us brains and the holy spirit for us to use) but it isn't an argument.
The LDS church doesn't advocate blind obedience. They repeatedly say that church members should pray individually about what they are told by the leadership and should seek confirmation by the holy spirit. The spirit is telling them that the leadership is right.
EDIT: Of course I consider noncorporeal confirmation to be no confirmation at all, but that's beside the point.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
See? I'm a Christian and you can't convince me. There is no reason, religious or otherwise, for me to believe that your "prophets" have a clue.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You realize, Kate, that the boilerplate response to that is "you haven't prayed about it enough, or in the right way."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: See? I'm a Christian and you can't convince me. There is no reason, religious or otherwise, for me to believe that your "prophets" have a clue.
Matt wasn't trying to convince you. He was playing devil's advocate.
Unless I'm the one who is confused, which is possible.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You realize, Kate, that the boilerplate response to that is "you haven't prayed about it enough, or in the right way."
Sure. Not an argument.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you're not arguing in good faith, then.
Their argument goes as follows:
1) Grant that I have received personal confirmation of the divine. 2) Grant that the same process tells me that specific individuals can speak with divine authority. 3) Grant also that I can but do not always receive divine confirmation on the rightness of specific policies.
Once you grant these things, and you have specifically identified the leaders and policies, it is logically sound to adhere to their divinely-inspired recommendations for those policies. This is a perfectly sound argument.
Now, you can argue that one or more of those premises is flawed. Certainly I think so, and I'll mock anyone who tries to persuade me of something while requiring that I grant those premises to them. But that doesn't mean the argument is bad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LDS Church explicitly condemns hatred of persons with a homosexual orientation or practicing homosexuals, although some of its members may be guilty of this. It just believes certain texts in the Bible condemn certain homosexual practices, and that those practices should still be avoided today. And it believes approval of same sex civil marriages will tend to reduce respect for marriage itself in society. I remember exactly those same opinions being expressed in an article by a respected theologian in the Church of England, who also happened to be openly gay. I thought he probably knew more about the matter than I did, and surely had greater incentive to look into it.
Moreover, in practice, the LDS Church has only begun to grapple with these issues because gays were largely invisible in Utah until a few years ago, at least as compared to San Francisco. A Mormon scholar noted amusingly that the LDS published defense of the family was largely borrowed without acknowledgment from work done at Notre Dame, which did not make for consistency because Mormon and Roman Catholic beliefs differ quite a lot. And the hierarchy has been completely inconsistent on where they will oppose civil marriage for homosexuals and where they will ignore it. So they blundered into this fight over Proposition 8, and surely were essential to winning it, but the net effect is probably similar to the British Army winning the Battle of Bunker Hill or Napoleon reaching Moscow. Spending the amount they did to pass the measure by a 2% margin, in a state dominated by a Democratic Party committed to securing same sex marriage, and with a state Supreme Court on which five of seven justices support same sex marriage, can be described as admirably quixotic. But tilting at windmills tends to damage the knight more than the windmills.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises...
Which is the essence of religion, and the reason I don't accept any argument based on religious epistemology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between a valid argument and valid premises. A valid argument is any for which the conclusions must be true if the premises are true.
You don't have to grant their premises to see that if their premises are true the conclusions would follow, and it is usually considered polite to accept that a person who says he or she believes a premise does.
Therefore you should be able to see why something might be a good argument for someone else even if you disagree with the premises. After all, it is pretty dismissive to say that no religious argument is a good argument unless you share the premises, unless by good you just mean some argument you agree with, and that definition is pretty dismissive, too.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises, but they don't have to grant the same premises to anyone else?
Well that hardly seems fair.
This is precisely the reason that rational people insist on premises that are publicly demonstrable. (Edit) That is, they do not depend on anyone's state of mind.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So in order to argue in good faith I have to grant them all their premises...
Which is the essence of religion, and the reason I don't accept any argument based on religious epistemology.
Nor should you. I am giving them the opportunity to make a religiously based argument and all they can come up with is our leaders said so and something scary might happen. I share some of their beliefs (though less than I might have thought at one time) and I don't find that convincing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry. When you called it a "bad argument," I thought -- as fugu notes -- that you meant it was an argument which did not proceed from its premises, and not just an argument which you found unconvincing because you don't share those premises.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
