Church officials are "disturbed" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was "singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election," said LDS spokesman Scott Trotter earlier Friday....Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate. What a terrible idea!
Attacking a religious organization rarely works, said Joe Mathews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a political think tank in southern California....
"Mormons are unpopular and the church went a long way in diving into this issue," he said. "But it doesn't make long-term strategic sense. You are appealing to religious bigotry and I don't think that's a good idea. You need to convince people of faith that they're not under attack."
UPDATE: CBN reports:
Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported....
Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.
"A lot of opinion has generated that this is in connection with Prop 8," Layton Utah Police Lt. Quinn Moyes said. "We aren't making that connection yet."
Posts
238 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 238 of 238I'm not opposed to marriages of more than two people.
I'm opposed to viewing any marriage as disposable.
The slippery slope that concerns me is one we're sitting in the mud at the bottom of.
I'm not sure if one side of this sees marriage as a noun and the other sees it as a verb, but I think that our society in general views love as a noun rather than a verb... promise to love and cherish? Meaningless, because love isn't something we *do*. And this is the supposed basis of the most important foundational human contract. We'll be married until we wake up one morning and aren't in love anymore.
"There's a Utah brand?"
Yes, there is, Polygamy Porter. "Why have just one?"
The problem remains that once you throw out the authority of tradition to define the institution of marriage, it's gone, and it isn't much of a defense to say "we choose not to do this today"; tomorrow we may choose to, which is the very essence of the slippery slope.
The idea of the slippery slope is that once you reach a critical point, your find yourself moving forward whether you want to or not. That's the slippery part.
If we leave the definition of marriage in the hands of the majority, there's no slippery slope. We can't end up with any legitimized marriages that the majority of the population doesn't feel ought to be legitimate. So there's no slippery slope to legalized polygamy and incest, because there's no plausible argument for the majority *inevitably* becoming accepting of those things.
It is certainly POSSIBLE that the majority might end up favoring those things. But that's not a slippery slope. That's just a regular slope-type slope. I think it falls to the anti-gay-marriage folks to demonstrate the plausibility of such a scenario -- and, while they're at it, to explain why we SHOULDN'T have polygamy if the majority of voters want it. It seems to me that denying voters something they want, which the Constitution doesn't forbid, would itself be unconstitutional.
You know, this shouldn't be all that hard to understand. Many of us look at the black American experience of the last 40 years and see the post marriage landscape to be. The burden of proof rests not with me, but with those who advocate such a dramatic change. Given what has happened to the black American family since marriage became an afterthought, unimportant, it is incumbent upon YOU to assure ME that your fiddling with fundamental societal rules will not backfire.
Instead you insist that I prove to you that it will not. I have no issue with civil unions. Just don't call it marriage.
I'm not a person that thinks only my views are valid; I guess that's not the case with you.
You're certainly a bitchy little thing today.
I don't think only my views can be valid, but I do draw the line at believing that mutually exclusive beliefs can both be valid. Like the saying goes, there is no point in being so open-minded that your brains fall out of your head.
Going after Utah for a California vote is a little like PETA activists throwing paint at fur-wearing women while ignoring leather-clad bikers.
... sensible? :)
Revenant said...that somewhere between thirty and forty percent of Americans still think consensual homosexual sexual activity should be illegal.
And 83.14% of statistics used in arguments are made up on the spot.
You're certainly a bitchy little thing today.
No more than normal. 8^)
I don't think only my views can be valid, but I do draw the line at believing that mutually exclusive beliefs can both be valid. Like the saying goes, there is no point in being so open-minded that your brains fall out of your head.
When it comes to something like religion (or non-religion), there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong. Atheists *think* they are right, and Christians *think* they are right, but it's beyond proof, so I stand by my belief that both are valid. I think that philosophical atheism is indeed a very valid philosophy.
Yes, it's true that mutually exclusive views cannot both be right, i.e. atheism and theism cannot both ultimately be true, but until some future time (if at all), we won't know whether you're right or I am.....so a little respect for differing views is called for.
Buford,
Here is Gallup's polling information on the subject.
Question: "Do you think homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be legal?"
The percentage saying "should not be legal" has fluctuated between 35 and 49% over the last decade, hovering between 40 and the high 30s for the past few years.
The feminists tried that crap on the Mormons with the ERA. That worked out really well for the left.
When it comes to something like religion (or non-religion), there is no way to know who is right and who is wrong.
It is, however, possible to know what the possible arrangements of "right" and "wrong" are.
Christians may be right and atheists wrong, (e.g. if the Bible is accurate). Atheists may be right and Christians wrong (if there is no God). Atheists AND Christians may both be wrong (e.g. if there is a God but he hates worshipers and loves being ignored).
However, there is no circumstance under which both atheism and Christianity may both be valid belief systems. We can, and do, know for certain that that particular possibility is off the table. So any Christian who thinks atheism is valid is either extremely confused or thinks Christianity ISN'T valid. Which makes him a strange sort of Christian!
I notice that Mormon and Catholic churches have been targeted for protests, but not one mosque. Why is this? Islam absolutely does not tolerate homosexuality and I can't imagine a true Muslim voting no on 8. Should they not also be facing rebuke for this? Or does gay religious bigotry only extend to those who would never actively defend themselves?
I notice that Mormon and Catholic churches have been targeted for protests, but not one mosque. Why is this?
Because the Mormon and Catholic churches provided significant support for Proposition 8. Islamic groups did not.
Or does gay religious bigotry only extend to those who would never actively defend themselves?
Disliking people for voting to strip you of your legal rights is not "bigotry". Also, even if it were true that gay groups avoided protesting at mosques because Muslims are prone to violence, that wouldn't serve as a criticism of the gay groups. There is no reason why anyone should have to picket the psycho religious people before being allowed to picket the merely obnoxious religious people.
Plus, it is silly to even try casting the Catholic Church or the LDS, both of which are filthy rich and politically connected, in the role of "oppressed weakling". You don't need to kill your critics when you can simply outspend and outvote them.
As a practicing homosexual I am not too worried about this.
Yes it was a setback. But in the future I realize that my fellow faggots will be able to get married.
Maybe not in Mississippi or Oklahoma but those states don't matter.
Also, I have no interest in getting married but I want my fellow mos' to have that opporutnity.
Why would fags want to live in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma or Nebraska or Idaho?
I never understand that.
I came from Madison Wisconsin which I thought was repressed but I guess is supposedly liberal.
I could not imagine living as a fag in Biloxi. How depressing.
I believe fags should have their own state. In that state they can get married, have children, have sex, get a good job, clean up the neighborhoods and have fabulous ferns.
There should be one state allocated to the fags. It needs to be urban, creative, educated and worldly.
My pic is Massachusetts.
Back your bags fellow fags. I hope you have enough money for housing. I hope you have been educated in technology and the life sciences.
An advaced degree is preferred. International experince is a plus. And you must be making over 100k individually. Otherwise, we don't want you and would rather not acknowledge you.
You should also be tops in your field whether it business, communications, education, entertainment, health care or technology.
For those of you fags that are not tops in the specific industries you can come if you are willing to clear our plates, wipe our asses, clean our restrooms or suck our hogs.
thank you.
You haven't done that, because you can't.
Revenant,
The slippery slope argument is completely illogical. Polygamy and incest have nothing to do with gay marriage in any way, shape or form. It's a red herring used to trip people up, and unfortunately people fall for it because it's easier to be scared and dumb.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Gay people are born gay, just as redheads are born redheads. You want to ban gingers from getting married? Good luck.
Polygamists, on the other hand, are not born polygamists. They are taught to be polygamists. Incestuous people are not born with an incest gene. They are suffering from a mental disorder.
Being gay is not something that is taught, nor is it a mental disorder.
Now, ask a Mormon or an Evangelical whether or not they believe being gay is something you choose or if it is a mental disorder...and their answer will give you the foundation for all of their bigotry, and yes, Prop 8.
The next time my Honda breaks down I think I'll follow this example and get mad at the Germans.
Revenant begged another interlocutor at 6:08 PM, "I asked for a rational argument for allowing civil unions and not allowing recognition of gay marriage. Your argument doesn't address that request."
Hmmm. Good point. Let's just chuck the whole civil unions stuff and leave marriage as it has traditionally been understood in the West, between a man and a woman.
Henry Eyring knew all about slippery slopes for inanimate things. I mean my God, the man taught the world about what it meant in mathematical terms to get over the hump when going from to A to B-just a little to-and-fro wiggle to reach a tipping point, a little "activation energy" as it were.
But it was left to another demi-God, George Hammond, to teach us about how easy it was to go downhill, and how much work it takes to effect uphill (worthwhile) change.
Zachary,
You have three choices here:
(1): You can concede that gay people do not have a right to have their marriages recognized, and argue that despite there being no such natural right it is still a good idea to recognize gay marriages, or
(2): You can argue that there is a right to marriage which applies to exactly two groups (monogamous heteros and monogamous homosexuals) and absolutely nobody else, in which case the appropriate response is to point at you and laugh since there is no historical, legal, or philosophical basis for such a ridiculous belief, or
(3): You can argue that there is a more general "right to marriage" or "right to freedom of conscience" or whatever, and then explain why it covers monogamous gay couples but not, e.g., polygamous heterosexual ones.
Thus far you have chosen option (4): pitch a hissy fit whenever somebody raises the subject. Option (4) is not working. Try something else.
Polygamists, on the other hand, are not born polygamists.
All men are born polygamists. But even if that were not the case, "I was born gay" does not imply "I have a right to have my marriage to another man recognized". The law does not exist to mindlessly apply a stamp of approval to human nature -- quite the opposite, really.
As evident by his pitbull personality, Aravosis is a former republican. And not only that, but also a former aide of Senator Ted Stevens, the well known icon of integrity and aloofness. Now, what do you expect?
I could not imagine living as a fag in Biloxi. How depressing.
The words 'as a fag' in that sentence are not necessary to make it a true statement for just about anyone.
Sincerely,
FormerSlidellMan
Gays are cowards. Why don't they go after Muslims? They won't cuz they'll get their arses kicked.
Christians and Mormons won't fight back. Muslims would start bombing SanFran.
Most of the female porno stars of the late seventies and early eighties were very enthuastic in performing in girl on girl scenes.
I deduce from his knowledge of this vintage of porn stars that Trooper was an early VCR owner. The availability of videotaped porn was a main driver for VCR sales at that time, and as a complement, the ability to view porn at home -- instead of in a sticky-floored theater full of hat-in-lap degenerates -- made for a golden age of porn.
At a summer Consumer Electronics Show I attended around that time, the line to get Seka's autographed photo wrapped around the lower floor of McCormick Place.
Although the LDS church is based in Christianity, by putting an additional, 19th Century revelation at the heart of its faith it is no longer Christian. Further, the suspicion that Joseph Smith simply Made It All Up is too strong. (As the Summum monument kerfuffle shows, religious nonsense is respectable in direct proportion to its age. Christianity: highly respectable. Summum and Scientology: not so much.)
Why would fags want to live in Mississippi or Alabama or Oklahoma or Nebraska or Idaho?
Because those are the states in which they are born and raised. They want to be close to their families as much (or as little) as anyone else.
A high percentage of gays I know are Mormon by the way, living far from home.
DTL said: ...Sundance... There is massive pressure on Robert Redford to move the venue.
Sundance is a MOUNTAIN.
The availability of videotaped porn was a main driver for VCR sales at that time
No it wasn't. Porn had almost no effect on VCR sales ever.
at the heart of its faith it is no longer Christian.
If Christian means to believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ, they are Christian. What they aren't is christian as bastardized by evangelicals and Catholics.
(Disclaimer: I'm an agnostic Mormon who believes Joseph Smith did make it all up, but I also believe so did everyone.)
No it wasn't. Porn had almost no effect on VCR sales ever.
What an amusingly ignorant belief.
ZPSire wrote: "Now, ask a Mormon or an Evangelical whether or not they believe being gay is something you choose or if it is a mental disorder...and their answer will give you the foundation for all of their bigotry, and yes, Prop 8."
Gee dude, why not ask an Evangelical?
Some people have their heterosexuality stolen from them by rape or sexual abuse.
Homosexuality has not been in the DSM for over 30 years, so it is not a mental disorder. Nobody would choose to be gay, you get too much grief for being gay.
Homosexual attraction is a genetic disorder or birth defect. Like being color blind. Or my adhd or dyslexia. Engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin according to Christian and Muslim scriptures. Being gay is no sin dude, sorry to disapoint you. It is the choice, not the attraction.
Do us all a favor, if you want the opinion of a group of people you know nothing about, ask us.
Trey
Some people have their heterosexuality stolen from them by rape or sexual abuse.
Um, what? You can't catch "the gay" from a rape. Sexually transmitted diseases, maybe; sexual orientation, no.
Homosexual attraction is a genetic disorder or birth defect.
Not necessarily. It could actually be a beneficial trait, either to the individual or to the species.
For example, historically speaking gay people ended up marrying heterosexually and having kids anyway -- they just did so out of necessity rather than sexual attraction. Now, people have kids for three reasons: they want them, they need them (cheap labor and such), or because they like sex and kids are the byproduct of that. Married homosexual men would still have kids for the first two reasons, but not for the third -- and thus, would be less likely to have kids they didn't want or couldn't afford. So the kids they did have would be healthier and more successful than those in a heterosexual couple's massive brood.
I'm not saying that's the explanation, of course -- but it could be. There are a lot of things that might have served us well during most of our history but are now a net disadvantage. For example, a predisposition to believe in higher powers might be beneficial in a tribal environment, but disadvantageous in a high-tech environment like ours. Or not.
But we can't really know for certain that homosexuality is properly classified as a defect. Especially since -- aside from having to deal with homophobes -- there really isn't any downside to it. We don't call dark skin a birth defect, after all, even though it has disadvantages in our world. :)
Rev wrote: "Um, what? You can't catch "the gay" from a rape. Sexually transmitted diseases, maybe; sexual orientation, no."
You are wrong my friend, let me explain. Sometimes when someone is brutally abused by a person from the other gender, they lose the ability to become aroused in voluntary sexual contact with the gender. Even the voluntary sexual activity triggers nasty flashbacks of the abuse. Their heterosexuality was stolen.
Another perspective on the same theme, if a person is molested at an age when they are impressionable and the abuse is slimy and seductive, the person can become imprinted on that type of sexual experience.
About 1/3 of the gay folks I have seen in my practice tell me this type of story. Now I am fairly sure that 1/3 of my gay and lesbian friends were not "made" in this way. I work from a weird sample because people know that I do a lot of work with abuse survivors.
But that is the story, and once explained better, I bet it now makes sense. 8)
As far as the defect thinking goes, I do take that from the reproductive dead end. OK, I swear that was not a joke when I typed it. Honest. Not the dead, the end. But you got that!
I hear what you are saying and can accept it as an alternate view. (Alternate, why is it so, um, difficult to talk about sex without Freudian slips?) But I was answering in an Evangelical context, so I am sure that colored my thinking.
Trey
As far as the defect thinking goes, I do take that from the reproductive dead end.
They're not a reproductive dead end, though. They aren't physically incapable of having children, and historically speaking they usually DO have children. Even today they often do, albeit via artificial insemination rather than sex.
But even if they were a reproductive dead end, that doesn't necessarily make the trait a defect. For example, worker bees are a reproductive dead end, having no children of their own, but "worker bee" status in a hive is not a defect. Worker bees help propagate their common genes by assisting the bee that DOES reproduce -- the queen.
"The Queen." See what I mean! It is almost impossible to converse on sex without Freudian slips! I am sure yours was intentional, but still.
While we disagree, I see your point and acknowledge you certainly could be correct. I appreciate your logic and accept it even while we differ on our presuppositions.
Rev, thanks for this conversation. It speaks so well of you. It is rare for me to get the chance to disagree so amicably on this topic, thank you for not discarding me as a person just because we disagree on some points. I always enjoy and read your posts, keep it up pal. And if you are ever going to be in Nashville, please allow me to buy you a round.
Trey
No it wasn't. Porn had almost no effect on VCR sales ever.
What an amusingly ignorant belief.
I worked in Los Angeles in the video industry in the mid-1980s. I am very well acquainted with the trajectory of VCR sales and why VHS won over Beta. The notion that porn had relevance is extremely modern historical revisionism.
One interesting point is that more porn was available on Beta than VHS. Looking at the rental market (video sales did NOT drive VCR sales; video rentals did) and porn accounted for a very small percentage of that.
(One problem is inverting the relationship; video greatly expanded the porn industry, not the other way around.)
I am very well acquainted with the trajectory of VCR sales and why VHS won over Beta. The notion that porn had relevance is extremely modern historical revisionism.
Nobody is arguing that porn is the reason Beta VCRs won over VHS VCRs. The claim is that porn drove the adoption of VCRs in general. This claim is neither a modern one nor revisionist. It has been a well-known fact since the mid-80s.
Thanks Ms. Althouse, for starting this blog queue. As a non-Mormon, now living in North Utah, after a lifetime of living in NE Blue states, it is refreshing to read what people in Madison are thinking. RE: Mormon Mafia Money shipped into CA to throw YES Prop 8 over the 50% mark.
On Decision 2008, all non-Mormon DEMs living in Utah yelled shouts of joy........when O-ba-ma!! won. Then some started hitting local blogs, to voice how they felt about being non-Mormon in this FASCISTIC STATE of MORMON. Red Republican STATE!!?!!???? Far worse than that.
TOPIX/ South Ogden, Utah
Why are Mormons so racist and judgmental?
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/south-ogden-ut/T50UVQD52BDE45FLA
For those stat fanatics here, a recent census lists active Mormons in Utah state wide @ 60% and falling for the last few years. In Weber County (north Utah) where I live, recent census lists active Mormons @ 45% and falling. Locally we call it the Dilution Solution.
Do not be too hard on gay people in all USA states for voicing their hate re how much MORMON MAFIA MONEY was pumped in CA, to make sure all those undecided and /or closet gay voters (Blacks, Asians, Hispanics AND Mormons) voted FOR Prop 8.
Remember, in CA, Mormons are only 2% of the population. Fortunately, they live next to some of the biggest blocks of Gay voters, in LA and SAN FRAN suburbs. Who are happy to rub their their anger in the faces of sheep like Mormons who sent their money to prop up Prop 8.
Also remember that there is NO CATHOLIC STATE in the US. Catholics are dispersed throughout most US states. Yeah, how OLD is Catholicism?? Ditto NO Black, totally Hispanic or Asians US state. UTAH is the MORMON state. In other states, at least Blue States, Mormons disappear, without much influence as Mormons. Although of course they mostly vote as Republican. In other US states, Mormons keep to themselves and keep themselves OUT OF POLITICS. Except when a switch hitter like Mitt Romney manages to swindle the thinking people of the great STATE of Mass., that Romney is liberal enough to be their governor. Now they can see their mistake.
BTW, lots of Non-Mormon DEMs in Utah are hoping that, in 2012, the NRC is stupid enough to run a Romney/Palin Ticket. So that it can be O-BAM-A = 4 more years, no sweat.
For those Constitutional Law fanatics, abuse of Constitution-GIVEN Civil Liberties is what we are talking about in Prop 8. Tolerance of divergent religious beliefs is what those founding fathers (sexist and racist as THEY were) had in mind. STAT fans will enjoy knowing that in Utah, there is only 1 ACLU office for the whole state of Utah. In SLC. AND......worse yet, there is only 1 ACLU lawyer there to handle all the civil liberties law suits in ALL OF UTAH. Gay people who Boycott Sundance Film Festival and skiing vacations in Utah, can send some of their $$$$$$ to the ACLU in SLC.
So PLEASE, CALL Utah a MORMON HATE STATE. John Aravosis plans to. And yes, you marketing fans and Branding aficionados, I think MORMON HATE STATE has a certain branding ring to it, to gather ALL civil rights protesters around. When John Aravosis ID Colorado as a Hate STATE in 1992, he did manage to help overturn similar anti-gay legislation. For those of us who worked on Roe v Wade, as I did 35 yrs ago, lets never forget that this is just one more civil liberties battle. We are just supporting the civil liberties of a different group.
On the lighter side, HOMOPHOBIA is high in Utah Mormons and all Mormons, because closet gays in Utah MALE Mormons in particular are so numerous. Trust me. I LIVE HERE!
Think about it. If your history (going back to only 1840) has always allowed you to treat women like chattel, along with your oxen and cattle, why would you ever, as a Mormon Male, want to let that position of dominance go. Black Male MEN are..........but only recently.......... allowed to be.........sort of.........part of the Mormon Male Hierarchy. And these Black Male Mormons are the first to be trashed, when things get out of hand.
Will higher up members of the Mormon Male Hierarchy take time to think, as they watch the Evangelicals and the Catholics let Mormons take the Heat for Mormon Mafia Money's involvement in the Prop 8 win?? Knowing how much Catholic Mafia Money and Evangelical Mafia Money was shipped into CA too??? I doubt it. I live in Utah.
As Schwarzenegger said on CNN this week, the lawsuits taking Prop 8 to the CA Supreme Court will allow the CA Supreme Court to overturn this Prop 8 vote. Since it was barely over 50% anyway. And since this vote was HIGHLY tampered with.
Did O-BAM-A buy his election???? HELL YES!! $5 at a time. Then all those contributors went out and voted for him. READ the stats.
In the meantime, Gay people and Civil Liberties proponents are doing a great job keeping the Global educated indignation HIGH over how much Mormon Mafia Money, Catholic Mafia Money, etc., was pumped into Pro Prop 8 advertising in CA.
The entire educated CYBER world was following Decision 2008. The SAME Global Cyber world is still watching, to see how Prop 8 is dealt with, American Democracy style. This is better than watching American Idol, if you have a brain.
CA exit poles show Black vote @75% for Prop 8. Still lots of homophobia in the CA Black community. Because so many Black men get theirs on the down-low. Lots of closet homosexuals in the global Mormon community. Those of you who live in Blue States will never see it, like it is, in Utah.
So I say to John Aravois, and all the Gay people he can organize, BRING your demonstrations into Utah en-mass, both to SLC and Park City, during Sundance Film Festival in Jan 2009. GREAT IDEA. Join demonstrations in SLC. Demonstrate all over Park City. STAY a while. Post lists of what businesses in Park City are Mormon Owned. Boycott them and demonstrate outside of them. There are enough NON-Mormon owned restaurants in Park City. Boycott the Mormon-Owned movie theaters and demonstrate outside of them. The global Liberal news media will be happy to cover it all. Both Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann will keep all of this on their radar.
I am not Gay. I do live in Ogden Utah, which has a secondary Sundance Venue. Bring your opinions and demonstrations into all of Utah. The national/global media has you covered. NON MORMON DEMs in UTAH are COUNTING ON YOU.
Post a Comment