NationStates Jolt Archive

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

The Mormons can be nice. Why do you want to harm their church?

The Mormons can be nice. Why do you want to harm their church?

They were a power behind the passage of anti-gay prop 8 in California.

Why bother? Their flaws are obvious as it is.

The Mormons can be nice. Why do you want to harm their church?

Because apparently they funded Prop 8 in California, which bans gay marriage in that state, and it passed last night.

They were a power behind the passage of anti-gay prop 8 in California.

Damn you!

*shakes fist* Next time Daistallia, next time!

I see no reason to damage the mormon church - there may be dark sides to it, but the core is ok.

recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

I would do this. *nod*

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses

not outright. but there are a lot of mormon owned businesses, and the religion is a damned cult, so they are effectively run for the benefit of said cult.

I see no reason to damage the mormon church - there may be dark sides to it, but the core is ok.

Don't they have the practice of Blood Atonement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement) and up till the 1970s believed that blacks were the angels who didn't pick a side in the war between God and Satan?

Because apparently they funded Prop 8 in California, which bans gay marriage in that state, and it passed last night.

That's not reason enough to hate an entire group. It's deplorable, yes, that the Mormon Church is against gays. It is deplorable that Prop 8 passed. But still...

The best way to "hurt" them would be to ignore them completely. Don't answer the door, don't answer their questions, don't attend their church.

I see no reason to damage the mormon church - there may be dark sides to it, but the core is ok.

this is some weird version of 'ok' with which i am unfamiliar

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/280669/17/

not outright. but there are a lot of mormon owned businesses, and the religion is a damned cult, so they are effectively run for the benefit of said cult.

Pfff... all religions are a cult. Look up the meaning of the word cult and you may understand the meaning.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

That's not reason enough to hate an entire group.

Hmm - why not ? People chose to be part of that group - it is not like they could not stop being Mormon.

How can I do damage to the Mormon Church?
Join them. :tongue:



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Look, I see no reason at all to be even remotely polite to evangelists, no matter what church they're selling. They are the number one reason why I instituted my life rule that, unless there is an immediate emergency, strangers may not speak to me without prior permission from me.

But that doesn't change the First Amendment. They have the right to exist and to practice their religion, even if that means making pests of themselves.

They DON'T have the right to make themselves the object of my or your attention, however, so feel free to slam that door in their faces the very instant you spot those name tags and clipboards. Yes, that kind of rudeness will make them feel bad, but who cares?

How can I do damage to the Mormon Church?
Axe: 1 point of Normal Damage

Torch: 20 points of Fire Damage

Grenade: 80 points of Explosive Damage

Bulldozer: 1000 points of Blunt Damage

Mormon church ruins: Priceless.

Hmm - why not ? People chose to be part of that group - it is not like they could not stop being Mormon.

Didn't a guy did that, leave the the Mormon church and was excommunicated? And he also published a Mormon missionaries calendar and stuff?

The best way to "hurt" them would be to ignore them completely.

i don't know, illinois and missouri seemed to find some fairly effective ways to hurt them back in the day

this is some weird version of 'ok' with which i am unfamiliar

My way of ok is always odd. :D

Hmm - why not ? People chose to be part of that group - it is not like they could not stop being Mormon.

I've chosen to be Mormon. Do you hate me? (Ok I know that's flame baiting, for sure.) But, I am not compleatly the average Mormon. Yea, I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But... I am not the fully Republican stock that so many of my faith are.

I've chosen to be Mormon. Do you hate me?
It's more disappointment than hatred.

I've chosen to be Mormon. Do you hate me?

Not really - but sofar Mormons have not bothered me overly much.
However, if your group would become a pest in my neighbourhood, I would indeed hold you partly responsible since you have chosen to be a part of it. If you dislike your chosen groups behaviour - leave it. If you don't - stop whining about how people hate you. Choices have consequences.

Of course, I myself have been attacked for this position in the past.

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature.

Illegal. Supreme Court says so.

Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT!

I like that one, but yes, 99% sure its unconstitutional.

I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Yes, only liberal activist judges would promote freedom of religion.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

Promoting boycotts is within your rights. So is alerting Anonymous, if you can.

It's more disappointment than hatred.

*nods* I can live with disappointment. And no one can make you choose to believe a faith, you have problems understanding and accepting, that's the first admendment.

I am actually disappointed that we have to have ballet measures trying to determine what marriage is and having to fight both ways.

I've chosen to be Mormon. Do you hate me?

i'd go with a general sense of sadness that yet another has fallen prey to proven (and ridiculously obvious) falsehoods and bigoted nonsense, as well as a burning desire to stop you from hurting society with those beliefs.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage.
I do not give a damn what your beliefs or faith are. If you left me alone, I would leave you alone.
The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs.
NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER has tried to force your churches to conduct any kind of marriages that they don't want to. Your claims otherwise are an echo of the kinds of lies that your side peddled throughout this fight. Your church was founded on fraud, and that is why its leadership will always be dishonest.

The best way to "hurt" them would be to ignore them completely.
Unfortunately, that leaves them with money and power which they will use to my injury. They won't ignore me, so I cannot afford to ignore them.

Not really - but sofar Mormons have not bothered me overly much.
However, if your group would become a pest in my neighbourhood, I would indeed hold you partly responsible since you have chosen to be a part of it. If you dislike your chosen groups behaviour - leave it. If you don't - stop whining about how people hate you. Choices have consequences.

Of course, I myself have been attacked for this position in the past.

I accept you choices for where you stand. No one is pushing you to accept the faith I have. Besides you're not the first that has an anti-Mormon agenda. It just exists and has existed since it's foundation. And I am not whining about anyone hating me or my church. But I do think you'll have a hard time trying to overcome a church that has a strong membership, particularly out in the Southwest of the US.

Illegal. Supreme Court says so.
I like that one, but yes, 99% sure its unconstitutional.

THAT'S THE POINT. I want them to have to seek the protection of the courts, and understand what "equal protection of the laws" really means.
Yes, only liberal activist judges would promote freedom of religion.
I put "liberal activist judges" in quotes because that is what their kind always call judges who enforce equal protection.
Not really - but sofar Mormons have not bothered me overly much.

Until last night, I felt the same.

Actually, try starting a campaign to out prominent LDS members.

Any group as homophobic as that is likely to have lots of closet cases...

I've chosen to be Mormon. Do you hate me? (Ok I know that's flame baiting, for sure.) But, I am not compleatly the average Mormon. Yea, I don't believe in homosexual marriage. But... I am not the fully Republican stock that so many of my faith are.

Why do you not believe in gay marriage?

I do not give a damn what your beliefs or faith are. If you left me alone, I would leave you alone.

*shrugs* You're the one that started the thread.

NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER has tried to force your churches to conduct any kind of marriages that they don't want to. Your claims otherwise are an echo of the kinds of lies that your side peddled throughout this fight. Your church was founded on fraud, and that is why its leadership will always be dishonest.

*shrugs* I won't comment on your bigotry of my faith.

Unfortunately, that leaves them with money and power which they will use to my injury. They won't ignore me, so I cannot afford to ignore them.

Again, you started the thread. It's your choice how you do things.

Actually, try starting a campaign to out prominent LDS members.

Any group as homophobic as that is likely to have lots of closet cases...

The child rape cases have not really hurt the mormons. I doubt pointing out that most prominent mormon leaders like it up the arse themselves would accomplish much.

Unfortunately, that leaves them with money and power which they will use to my injury. They won't ignore me, so I cannot afford to ignore them.

At some point their "wants" will become a non-issue, kinda like racists. Ignoring them will take away their power, when nobody is listening anymore they'll either shut up or nobody will be listening so we won't care.

Why do you not believe in gay marriage?

Mainly based on Biblical teachings that homosexualiy is a sin.

*shrugs* I won't comment on your bigotry of my faith.

Seems fair. But will you comment on the "NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER has tried to force your churches to conduct any kind of marriages that they don't want to" part ?

Mainly based on Biblical teachings that homosexualiy is a sin.

but how is that the case? What, exactly, is it about homosexuality that makes it sinful in your eyes and/or in the eyes of your religion?

Seems fair. But will you comment on the "NOBODY, ANYWHERE, EVER has tried to force your churches to conduct any kind of marriages that they don't want to" part ?


Maybe it's more of a fear that the goverment will take away our tax status as a religious foundation if we don't accept it or conduct marriage, Which makes actually a lot of sense if you think about it.

The child rape cases have not really hurt the mormons. I doubt pointing out that most prominent mormon leaders like it up the arse themselves would accomplish much.

worthwhile to do anyways, probably.

Maybe it's more of a fear that the goverment will take away our tax status as a religious foundation if we don't accept it or conduct marriage, Which makes actually a lot of sense if you think about it.

are you now currently required by law to perform marriages between catholics and jews?

but how is that the case? What, exactly, is it about homosexuality that makes it sinful in your eyes and/or in the eyes of your religion?

I have to go to school soon, and I'd love to answer your question. But I don't have time to answer.

Anyway, google The Family: A Proclamation to the World. And it might give you some insight on the position the church holds. Wish I could spend some more time trying to explain but I don't.

Maybe it's more of a fear that the goverment will take away our tax status as a religious foundation if we don't accept it or conduct marriage, Which makes actually a lot of sense if you think about it.

Why ? Church and state marriage should be seperate in an administrative sense anyway. How one marries before ones Deity should have no value in the eyes of the law.

are you now currently required by law to perform marriages between catholics and jews?

I don't know the answer to that question, sorry. I assume that if a Mormon Bishop was asked to preform a civil cermony between a Catholic and a Jew, he'd do it. Otherwise most of our marriages are held in our temples.

*shrugs* You're the one that started the thread.

Because YOUR GODDAMNED CHURCH attacked ME. Without any provocation at all. I did not start this. I never did anything to Mormons. What is your excuse for "forcing yourselves down my throat"?
Maybe it's more of a fear that the goverment will take away our tax status as a religious foundation if we don't accept it or conduct marriage, Which makes actually a lot of sense if you think about it.
Makes ZERO sense: what church, anywhere, has been forced to marry anyone they didn't want to, for whatever reason, in all of our history?
Your church just makes up absolute crap.

I have to go to school soon, and I'd love to answer your question. But I don't have time to answer.

Anyway, google The Family: A Proclamation to the World. And it might give you some insight on the position the church holds. Wish I could spend some more time trying to explain but I don't.

fair enough. Later perhaps.

Why ? Church and state marriage should be seperate in an administrative sense anyway. How one marries before ones Deity should have no value in the eyes of the law.

I am admitting it maybe a church and state irrational fear. I don't fully understand the whole issue, except the doctrinal issues and beliefs my church holds.

You could join it.

I am admitting it maybe a church and state irrational fear.
No, it's not an irrational fear on the part of your church leaders. They understand perfectly well that no churches are ever forced to marry anybody they don't want to (Catholic churches won't marry divorced people; lots of Orthodox Jews won't marry a Jew and a Gentile; etc.) It's a flatout lie, concocted to create irrational fears in the minds of gullible followers like you.
I don't fully understand the whole issue, except the doctrinal issues and beliefs my church holds.
Exactly. You don't know anything, but whatever your church pumps into your head you will parrot. That is why that church must be destroyed, or weakened as far as possible. But I wouldn't care what nonsense they peddled to their own members-- until they start imposing on the unwilling.

No, it's not an irrational fear on the part of your church leaders. They understand perfectly well that no churches are ever forced to marry anybody they don't want to (Catholic churches won't marry divorced people; lots of Orthodox Jews won't marry a Jew and a Gentile; etc.) It's a flatout lie, concocted to create irrational fears in the minds of gullible followers like you.

You won't destroy my faith or my beliefs. And you have the right to disagree with me.

Exactly. You don't know anything, but whatever your church pumps into your head you will parrot. That is why that church must be destroyed, or weakened as far as possible. But I wouldn't care what nonsense they peddled to their own members-- until they start imposing on the unwilling.

Good luck. People have been trying to do that for years. I don't see anything diffrent between them or you. And I really don't think you'll be that sucessful.

I really don't think you'll be that sucessful.
No, probably not, but I'll do whatever I can.

What exactly was this attack? Did they assault you? I read the thread, but I might have missed it.

What exactly was this attack? Did they assault you? I read the thread, but I might have missed it.

Prop 8 passed because the Mormons funded advertising using their children's college funds.

You won't destroy my faith or my beliefs.

Hmm. Who or what could/would ?

Prop 8 passed because the Mormons funded advertising using their children's college funds.

Sooooo, how was that an attack on Tmutarakhan? If his location is to be believed, he's in Michigan. Prop 8 was California. Unless there's something I'm missing.

Sooooo, how was that an attack on Tmutarakhan? If his location is to be believed, he's in Michigan. Prop 8 was California. Unless there's something I'm missing.I have been trying to move out of the goddamned state of Michigan ever since they passed a similar (to be sure, even harsher) proposal four years ago. I am in the process of moving to California, although I must reconsider.

Sooooo, how was that an attack on Tmutarakhan? If his location is to be believed, he's in Michigan. Prop 8 was California. Unless there's something I'm missing.

years ago i recognized my kinship with all living beings, and i made up my mind that i was not one bit better than the gayest on earth. i said then, and i say now, that while there is a pride parade, i am in it, and while there is a homosexual population, i am of it, and while there is is one child not gay married, i am not free

I have been trying to move out of the goddamned state of Michigan ever since they passed a similar (to be sure, even harsher) proposal four years ago. I am in the process of moving to California, although I must reconsider.

Ah, now I understand.

years ago i recognized my kinship with all living beings, and i made up my mind that i was not one bit better than the gayest on earth. i said then, and i say now, that while there is a pride parade, i am in it, and while there is a homosexual population, i am of it, and while there is is one child not gay married, i am not free

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8206/owlque5al.jpg

Get a bottle, fill it with petrol, stick a rag in the top light the rag, throw the bottle then run. That should damage any church.

Or you could somehow try to convince the populace that Warren Jeffs and his Talibanesque Polygamy Cult are a lot closer to mainstream Mormonism than they are/appear to be.

I can't believe I'm reading this crap. Look, I disagree wholeheartedly with the Mormon Church's position, and yes, I think that their efforts at promoting Prop 8 were woefully misguided; they are based on a woefully inadequate understanding of the relationship between religious practice and the law, a flawed understanding of the various parts of the Bible focused on homosexual behavior, and a deep overestimation of those passages' practical importance relative to the rest of the text. Their efforts degrade the respect and dignity that the law should show to all human beings generally and citizens particularly, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

But that being said, I CANNOT with one hand condemn the LDS church as violating the spirit of their law with their efforts while with the other doing the exact same thing by throwing a Molotov. If you believe in the integrity of the law, then you cannot in good faith argue in favor, however jokingly, about injuring or damaging either Mormons or their property, because the very same rights that I insist that they afford to gays and lesbians also protects them, and demands that I respect them as people and as citizens, which they are both in good standing. If I do not respect the integrity of the law, then what they did makes no difference; the law is illegitemate either way. Knock this crap off. If you disagree, you picket, you argue, you persuade. You do not violate the law, or consider doing so.

Get a bottle, fill it with petrol, stick a rag in the top light the rag, throw the bottle then run. That should damage any church.

"La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde"

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

Go to Nauvoo, and protest at their temple. I promise you will come away unscathed.


;)

"La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde"

The only Church that Illuminates is the one that burns?:confused:

"La única iglesia que ilumina es la que arde"

Sorry, I'm an antidisestablishmentarianist.

I see no reason to damage the mormon church - there may be dark sides to it, but the core is ok.

They should stay the hell out of civil rights.

To the OP:

Make them realize how farsicle their beliefs are. They believe that a guy named John Smith read a magical golden tablet with forgotten biblical writings from a hat and that only he could translate the language it was written in.

They believe(d) blacks are descended from angels who didn't pick a side in the battle between heaven and hell; and as punishment were burned by the sun.

Its not hard... you might have to do a bit of studying.

To the OP:

Spearhead a multi-millions dollars effort in the state of Utah to put a constitutionnal amendment outlawing mormonism.

Yeah, it will have to be written in small characters inside a bigger proposition you could name Defense of Religion amendment. It's going to need a bit of work but theat would show them.

I can't believe I'm reading this crap. Look, I disagree wholeheartedly with the Mormon Church's position, and yes, I think that their efforts at promoting Prop 8 were woefully misguided; they are based on a woefully inadequate understanding of the relationship between religious practice and the law, a flawed understanding of the various parts of the Bible focused on homosexual behavior, and a deep overestimation of those passages' practical importance relative to the rest of the text. Their efforts degrade the respect and dignity that the law should show to all human beings generally and citizens particularly, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

But that being said, I CANNOT with one hand condemn the LDS church as violating the spirit of their law with their efforts while with the other doing the exact same thing by throwing a Molotov. If you believe in the integrity of the law, then you cannot in good faith argue in favor, however jokingly, about injuring or damaging either Mormons or their property, because the very same rights that I insist that they afford to gays and lesbians also protects them, and demands that I respect them as people and as citizens, which they are both in good standing. If I do not respect the integrity of the law, then what they did makes no difference; the law is illegitemate either way. Knock this crap off. If you disagree, you picket, you argue, you persuade. You do not violate the law, or consider doing so.
This^^^

Seriously, people, THINK about what you are saying. Do you want to be church bombers, like the murdering terrorizing racists of a bygone generation? Do you want to say that rights only apply to people you agree with, like certain rightwingers of today?

If you have learned nothing else from the failed McCain campaign, please learn this: You don't win a war of principles by abandoning your principles.

Do you want equality? Then you must acknowledge and grant equality. Do you want religious freedom to worship or not, as you please? Then you must acknowledge and grant that freedom to all, because freedom for some is not freedom. Do you think you are better than your enemies? Then BE better than them. DON'T stoop to their level of hostility and bigotry.

If you want to get the Mormon church out of politics, then expose their political machinations, expose their tactics and lies. If they won't leave you alone to live as you wish, then don't leave them alone to freely manipulate the laws. If you want to see them fall from whatever position of influence they currently have, then let the truth be your weapon.

But do not ever seek to take away from them those same rights to speech, belief, and political engagement that you demand for yourself. If you do, then you are no better than them.

I realize the OP is angry. I'm angry about CA's Prop 8, too. But seriously, some of the things in this thread are extremely uncool. Neither fun, nor funny.

They should stay the hell out of civil rights.

Could you illuminate me? I can't say I know much about what the Mormons are doing in America.

Sorry, I'm an antidisestablishmentarianist.

And problematic. *nod*
:fluffle:

And problematic. *nod*
:fluffle:

Hey, I don't get to use that word very often. I had to take the opportunity.

I am admitting it maybe a church and state irrational fear. I don't fully understand the whole issue, except the doctrinal issues and beliefs my church holds.
Tygereyes, I do not agree with what you say, but I promise that I will defend to the death your right to say it.

However, if you attempt to push through legal measures that would restrict MY civil rights on the basis of YOUR religious belief, I will turn right around and fight to the death to stop you.

I will never allow anyone else to take away your rights, but by that exact same token, I will never allow you take away anyone else's rights.

The only Church that Illuminates is the one that burns?:confused:

yep

Could you illuminate me? I can't say I know much about what the Mormons are doing in America.
The whole point of the OP's complaint is that the Church of Latter Day Saints used its funds to finance the promotion of California's Proposition 8, which has altered the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus effectively destroying the state law allowing same sex marriage and rendering the over 18,000 same sex marriages already performed in California invalid.

They used the funds of a religious organization to control a government issue, which in my opinion should be a violation of separation of church and state, and they did it specifically to take away a civil right from a segment of the population.

They used the funds of a religious organization to control a government issue

If you can prove that the Church's funds themselves were used, or that the church directly incited its members toward a specific governmental issue, you can submit your complaint to the Department of the Treasury, or the Internal Revenue Service, which will conduct a review.

If they are guilty, they will lose their tax exempt status for five years, at which time they can reapply.

Note, preaching "The bible says homosexuality is wrong" is OK, but preaching "Go vote yet on Prop 8" is grounds for legal action.

yep

Y eso tiene que ver con? La iglesia de los mormones?

Of course, you could always get your community organized, now that "The One" is safely elected, and use some of the resources and energy used in the Elections to get Prop 8 Reversed.

If you can prove that the Church's funds themselves were used, or that the church directly incited its members toward a specific governmental issue, you can submit your complaint to the Department of the Treasury, or the Internal Revenue Service, which will conduct a review.

If they are guilty, they will lose their tax exempt status for five years, at which time they can reapply.

Note, preaching "The bible says homosexuality is wrong" is OK, but preaching "Go vote yet on Prop 8" is grounds for legal action.
I agree, but it is apparently extremely difficult to prove such things. At least, as far as I know, no church has lost its tax exempt status on such grounds. I believe a few have been threatened in the past, but those incidents turned out to be cases of attempted political intimidation against the churches or pastors in question.

i don't know, illinois and missouri seemed to find some fairly effective ways to hurt them back in the day

So did Michigan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Island_(Lake_Michigan)#The_Mormon_kingdom_on_Beaver_Island

I have been trying to move out of the goddamned state of Michigan ever since they passed a similar (to be sure, even harsher) proposal four years ago. I am in the process of moving to California, although I must reconsider.

Move to Ontario. It's like Michigan but with jobs, healthcare and a bit more sanity in government.

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

How open-minded, inclusive, non-judgemental, and liberal of you. [/sarcasm]

Seriously, is it a good idea to propose legislation against a religion (even as crazy as Mormonism) even in jest? 'Tis a dangerous step to take, especially when you are doing unto them worse than you imagine they have done unto you. That's several steps below the "golden rule" - maybe the lead rule?

The whole point of the OP's complaint is that the Church of Latter Day Saints used its funds to finance the promotion of California's Proposition 8, which has altered the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus effectively destroying the state law allowing same sex marriage and rendering the over 18,000 same sex marriages already performed in California invalid.

They used the funds of a religious organization to control a government issue, which in my opinion should be a violation of separation of church and state, and they did it specifically to take away a civil right from a segment of the population.

If a civil right is granted by the state, it can be taken away by the state. If the majority objects to a civil right, they are able to take it away democratically. Kinda like the OP wants to democratically punish a minority he doesn't like. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, and civil rights exist only at the whim of the mob. Try arguing for natural rights instead of civil rights and appeal to some power beyond the state if you wish to make a strong case for what you believe.

Y eso tiene que ver con? La iglesia de los mormones?

provided they aren't made of flame retardant materials, there is at least one way they could be a light in the world.


not saying that churches should be burned - that would be wasteful. but churches should not be churches, for the good of humanity.

I don't understand... if it's an issue about not wanting to marry gays in their churches, then... don't marry gays in your churches. I don't know why anyone would want to get married in a place where they weren't welcome anyway.

If it's an issue of disagreement over lifestyle, that doesn't make sense either. No one who disagrees with their religion gets to pass a law saying they can't have a church. Why do they get to pass a law saying other people who have nothing to do with them can't get married? It's not hurting anyone or anything. Someone's marriage isn't going to mean that suddenly your belief's don't exist anymore.

Get anonymous to look into it since they seem bored with Scientology.

provided they aren't made of flame retardant materials, there is at least one way they could be a light in the world.


not saying that churches should be burned - that would be wasteful. but churches should not be churches, for the good of humanity.

No no, I got you. I was just wondering if your Spanish reference was made about the Mormon Church solely. I mean, churches are supposed to be beacons *flaming/burning* for the believers.

I agree, but it is apparently extremely difficult to prove such things. At least, as far as I know, no church has lost its tax exempt status on such grounds. I believe a few have been threatened in the past, but those incidents turned out to be cases of attempted political intimidation against the churches or pastors in question.

There have been a couple actual churches that have lost their tax-exempt status. However, they were small churches without the legal resources to fight, and therefore they slipped under the radar.

The whole point of the OP's complaint is that the Church of Latter Day Saints used its funds to finance the promotion of California's Proposition 8, which has altered the state constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus effectively destroying the state law allowing same sex marriage and rendering the over 18,000 same sex marriages already performed in California invalid.

They used the funds of a religious organization to control a government issue, which in my opinion should be a violation of separation of church and state, and they did it specifically to take away a civil right from a segment of the population.

I see... that is kinda a bad thing to do. I can see why he dislikes it now.

Pfff... all religions are a cult. Look up the meaning of the word cult and you may understand the meaning.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

Who ever advocated making them perform gay marriages? I smell a strawman

No no, I got you. I was just wondering if your Spanish reference was made about the Mormon Church solely. I mean, churches are supposed to be beacons *flaming/burning* for the believers.

its actually a quote from durruti, hence the spanish (and they were bombing fascist-sympathizing churches at the time).

its actually a quote from durruti, hence the spanish (and they were bombing fascist-sympathizing churches at the time).

Buenaventura Durruti? A member of "Los Solidarios"? I heard rumors that he may have been assassinated by an Antistalinist faction of the USSR.

Here's the thing I don't get about the whole anit-same-sex-marriage thing:

1) The state is in the habit of legally recognizing religious marriages and granting married couples special status with regards to taxes, property, and certain other authority and powers. OK, leaving aside the question of whether the state SHOULD be doing that...

2) There is still such a thing as separation of church and state in the US, which specifically prohibits the government from making any laws concerning the practice of religion, especially the abridging of it.

3) Yet, the proposed bans on same sex marriage are all predicated on SOME churches' religious beliefs about sin. Note: SOME churches, not ALL churches.

4) So if the state decides to block same sex marriage by defining marriage in a way that conforms to (and is dictated by) the religious beliefs of SOME churches, is the state not then ABRIDGING the free practice of all those churches/religions that do not believe that homosexuality is a sin and that they can be married just like heterosexuals? In other words, is the state not infringing on religion by saying, "We will legally recognize some religious marriages, but not all"?

5) And if that is the case, is not every single ban on same sex marriage and every single restrictive definition of marriage a violation of the First Amendment?

5) And if that is the case, is not every single ban on same sex marriage and every single restrictive definition of marriage a violation of the First Amendment?

Assuming that there is no secular basis for the the ban/restriction, I believe so. I'm probably wrong, though.

e: yep wrong

5) And if that is the case, is not every single ban on same sex marriage and every single restrictive definition of marriage a violation of the First Amendment?

Of course. As is the "In God we trust" on currency - if only because it discriminates against polytheists.

Edit: actually, to a degree. Restricting marriages for reasons other than religious objections is not a violation. Even if such restrictions do in fact interfere with religious views of what a marriage should be.

There have been a couple actual churches that have lost their tax-exempt status. However, they were small churches without the legal resources to fight, and therefore they slipped under the radar.
Ah, thanks. I didn't know whether any of the cases I'd heard about -- mostly during the big immigration reform dust up a couple of years ago -- had ever gone anywhere.

Assuming that there is no secular basis for the the ban/restriction, I believe so. I'm probably wrong, though.
Well, people go to some effort to couch the objections to same sex marriage in secular language, but the fact remains that, not including arguments based only on plain vanilla anti-gay bigotry, I have never seen any such argument fail to boil down to a stance dictated by some religion. So to that extent, I see no real secular basis for arguing against state recognition of same sex marriage.

Pfff... all religions are a cult. Look up the meaning of the word cult and you may understand the meaning.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

But you have no problem limiting the religious rights of those who's religion DOES allow same sex marriage.

Mainly based on Biblical teachings that homosexualiy is a sin.

Considering the fact that that is not a valid reason for any secular law can you explain to me why prop 8 should have passed?

I am admitting it maybe a church and state irrational fear. I don't fully understand the whole issue, except the doctrinal issues and beliefs my church holds.

If you don't have a better understanding of the issue than that you should either educate yourself or stay out of the issue on a legal level. Your cchurches doctrinal issues are NO excuse for passing laws.

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

I share your anger. I also share the concerns of those who think we shouldn't violate the law or threaten harm to Mormons because of our anger.

I think boycotts are a good idea, and I'll be looking into them.

I would also push strongly for an investigation into whether the LDS Church has violated its tax exempt status with the degree of lobbying it has done on Prop. 8.

Having grown up in Mormon country with many Mormon friends/teachers/etc, I don't want to villify all members of the LDS Church. In fact, Mormons for Marriage (http://mormonsformarriage.com/) tried to oppose Prop. 8.

Nonetheless, I have always found LDS theology repugnant and their taking rights away from Californians is unacceptable.

Here's the thing I don't get about the whole anit-same-sex-marriage thing:

1) The state is in the habit of legally recognizing religious marriages and granting married couples special status with regards to taxes, property, and certain other authority and powers. OK, leaving aside the question of whether the state SHOULD be doing that...

2) There is still such a thing as separation of church and state in the US, which specifically prohibits the government from making any laws concerning the practice of religion, especially the abridging of it.

3) Yet, the proposed bans on same sex marriage are all predicated on SOME churches' religious beliefs about sin. Note: SOME churches, not ALL churches.

4) So if the state decides to block same sex marriage by defining marriage in a way that conforms to (and is dictated by) the religious beliefs of SOME churches, is the state not then ABRIDGING the free practice of all those churches/religions that do not believe that homosexuality is a sin and that they can be married just like heterosexuals? In other words, is the state not infringing on religion by saying, "We will legally recognize some religious marriages, but not all"?

5) And if that is the case, is not every single ban on same sex marriage and every single restrictive definition of marriage a violation of the First Amendment?

Although well-intended and based on a very common misunderstanding, this isn't a very good argument. A law doesn't violate the First Amendment simply because it overlaps with or reflects a religious viewpoint. For example, the religious views of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his followers were a major impetus behind civil rights laws. And some believed segregation was Biblically mandated. Did the government violate the First Amendment by siding with one religious view and not the other?

The real issue here is equal protection under the laws and the protection of fundamental rights by the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause (respectively) of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, without changes in the make-up of SCOTUS, we are unlikely to get a decision protecting same-sex marriage -- even though that is the logical extension of existing caselaw.

How about the idea that Prop 8 was passed by the electorate of the state of California? It isn't like the LDS Prophet got into his car, headed over to Sacramento, and wrote it into the state Constitution.

Money donations from the members? Yep. So what? There were plenty of groups on both sides of that one. Look at the list of prop 8 supporters and you'll see what amounts to a who's who of American religious organizations.

But all that gets in the way of a good rant, doesn't it? Much easier just to scream "The Mormons did it!" and leave it at that, isn't it?

How about the idea that Prop 8 was passed by the electorate of the state of California? It isn't like the LDS Prophet got into his car, headed over to Sacramento, and wrote it into the state Constitution.

Money donations from the members? Yep. So what? There were plenty of groups on both sides of that one. Look at the list of prop 8 supporters and you'll see what amounts to a who's who of American religious organizations.

But all that gets in the way of a good rant, doesn't it? Much easier just to scream "The Mormons did it!" and leave it at that, isn't it?

Sorry, but estimates are that some 77% of the money used to promote Prop. 8 came from LDS members. That is some $20 million or more. Mormons make up some 2% or so of the California population.

So it is reasonable for those angered by Prop. 8 to believe that Mormons in general and the LDS Church in particular played an outsized role in this travesty.

But all that gets in the way of a good rant, doesn't it?

Sorry, but estimates are that some 77% of the money used to promote Prop. 8 came from LDS members. That is some $20 million or more. Mormons make up some 2% or so of the California population.

So it is reasonable for those angered by Prop. 8 to believe that Mormons in general and the LDS Church in particular played an outsized role in this travesty.

But all that gets in the way of a good rant, doesn't it?

You say Mormons make up only 2% of the population yet the measure passed by a majority (i.e. greater than 50%.)

It must've taken an awful lot of non-Mormons to make up that difference.

So go ahead, rant on. It isn't like I had high expectations of rationality from this thread ;)

You say Mormons make up only 2% of the population yet the measure passed by a majority (i.e. greater than 50%.)

It's amazing what millions of dollars can do.

It must've taken an awful lot of non-Mormons to make up that difference.

Yes, it's amazing how a successful ad campaign can influence people other than the campaigners. Truly.

awesome summary


If it's a money issue, might as well outlaw the lobbying industry too.

You say Mormons make up only 2% of the population yet the measure passed by a majority (i.e. greater than 50%.)

It must've taken an awful lot of non-Mormons to make up that difference.

So go ahead, rant on. It isn't like I had high expectations of rationality from this thread ;)

Nice job of completely ignoring the rational point I made.

No one is saying that Prop. 8 passed solely due to Mormons. BUT ,much of the impetus to put this on the ballot came from the LDS Church and most of the funding to promote it came from the LDS Church and/or its members. Only someone completely ignorant of U.S. politics or someone being deliberately obtuse would fail to recognize the LDS Church had some influence on Prop. 8's passage.

Of course a lot of non-Mormons voted for it. Many were persuaded to do so by the commercials and other propoganda paid for by Mormons.

The vote was rather close. If the LDS Church had stayed the hell out of the issue, Prop. 8 would have either not existed in the first place or would have been defeated.

No one is saying the LDS Church is single-handedly responsible for Prop. 8, but the OP's annoyance with LDS involvement in this travesty is far from irrational.

Buenaventura Durruti? A member of "Los Solidarios"? I heard rumors that he may have been assassinated by an Antistalinist faction of the USSR.

the very same

No one is saying the LDS Church is single-handedly responsible for Prop. 8, but the OP's annoyance with LDS involvement in this travesty is far from irrational.

Responding to annoyance with premeditated violence ("cause damage to the church") is a very rational thing to do, not to mention democratic.

Responding to annoyance with premeditated violence ("cause damage to the church") is a very rational thing to do, not to mention democratic.

"Cause damage to the church" =/= "premeditated violence"

The OP and some posters engaged in some hyperbole about expressing their anger, but not seriously. Ever hear of venting?

Boycotts, investigations of the church's tax-exempt status, etc. ARE rational and democratic measures that have been suggested.

Move to Ontario. It's like Michigan but with jobs, healthcare and a bit more sanity in government.
I applied to Canada in 2001, but they are more enthused for young immigrants than old (I was mid-forties then, over fifty now) and wanted me to have a large sum of money in the bank to ensure I would not be a burden. I am sorry now that I was not more persistent, but perhaps now that I have a longer resume I could get a job offer there; with a job offer in pocket I could at least get residency status.

Obama's election does give me hope that the United States will eventually evolve, but it could take another twenty years, and I don't have another twenty years.
I would also push strongly for an investigation into whether the LDS Church has violated its tax exempt status with the degree of lobbying it has done on Prop. 8.
This is a good suggestion. As I recall (I may be mistaken), the tax laws do not treat issue-advocacy the same as candidate-endorsements: the Catholic Archdiocese here, for example, poured a lot of money into opposing Prop. 2 in 2004 (banning not marriage but joint insurance, etc.) and into opposing Prop.2 (lifting the ban on stem-cell research) this year, both times with thoroughly dishonest advertising.

However, perhaps the law could be changed to strip tax exemptions from churches which fund ballot-initiative campaigns. I will write to Senator Levin and ask what the chances are.
How about the idea that Prop 8 was passed by the electorate of the state of California?
So you think a minority's rights should be put to majority vote? A majority of New Yorkers and Illinoians wanted Joseph Smith's cult destroyed right at the outset.
You say Mormons make up only 2% of the population yet the measure passed by a majority
I hold the Mormons responsible for the vicious dishonesty which characterized the campaign.

Fuck the Mormon church.

My wifes sister is Mormon and we have gone to her daughters baptisms and whatnot. We've shopped at the Mormon owned thrift store here in town (Deseret Industries).

From now on I am boycotting everything Mormon/Mormon-owned and will work against their interests using every legal means available to me.

This angers me beyond my boiling point. Prepare to be demonized, relentlessly, Mormons.

You have no right to force your religion on other people who don't believe as you do. To the guy saying he is in favor of making homosexuals second-class citizens just in case someday the govt might force his church to perform gay weddings: you are out of your mind and have no basis for that statement. So when does the constitutional amendment to make caffeine illegal come out? Your excuse of this is pathetic and so is your church.

Because apparently they funded Prop 8 in California, which bans gay marriage in that state, and it passed last night.
And was approved by popular vote, so it shouldnt be a law because?

You have no right to force your religion on other people who don't believe as you do..
What makes forcing religious beliefs different than forcing political beliefs on someone else? Is there criteria for what belief can or cannot be voted on?

"Cause damage to the church" =/= "premeditated violence"

The OP and some posters engaged in some hyperbole about expressing their anger, but not seriously. Ever hear of venting?

Boycotts, investigations of the church's tax-exempt status, etc. ARE rational and democratic measures that have been suggested.

Well that's exactly my point, for two reasons:

1) The OP would rather deal with the LDS, rather than the more attainable, original issue

The LDS isn't going to go away, just like the fundamentalist aren't. Honestly, the tone in the OP seems to have hostile motives in "causing damage," rather than promoting genuine resolution (like dismantling this church). Having the church stripped of its exemption status is frankly unrealistic, not to mention how unjustified it would be, considering that other non-religious organizations are able to pour money into politics (donations to certain parties, endorsement by religious figures, lobbying, etc)

I don't exactly know how politics work down there on the state level, but surely it's not entirely dependent on who has the most money.



2) Venting and contemplating violence even in jest is very rational, there is a 100% logical reason to do that

Here is some information about Mormon-owned/operated companies:

LDS Inc. - a partial listing of corporations owned by the Mormon Church (http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon410.htm) (this source is dubious, but it's list seems to be confirmed by other sources I have seen)

Companies owned and/or operated by Mormons (http://whoaremormons.blogspot.com/2008/07/companies-owned-andor-operated-by.html)

Mormons hold a strong presence in the business world. Here are some examples of companies owned, founded, and/or operated by Latter-day Saints:

Sunrider International
Marriott
Latham & Watkins
Franklin Covey
Novell
Huntsman Chemical
Bain Capital
NuSkin
Black & Decker
Spectra
JetBlue
Azul
Zions Securities Corp.
Bonneville Comm.
Telefonica Brasil
American Express
Dell
Deloitte Touche


Mormon Stock Index: (http://www.mormonstockindex.com/)

The Mormon Stock Index tries to measure the stock market performance of companies run by Mormon executives. More than 50 companies have been part of the index in its two year history, including more than 30 companies on the index today. Companies are included as long as they have a Mormon executive on their management team, and as long as the company's public stock market capitalization exceeds $100 million.

Listed companies:

Affiliated Computer Services
AES Corp.
Avista Corp.
American Express
Black & Decker
Cadence Design
Corvis
Central Pacific Bank
1-800-Contacts
Cygnus Inc.
Diebold
Dell Computer
Dionex
Downey Savings and Loan
EarthShell
Franklin Covey
Hillenbrand Industries
Headwaters, Inc.
Hollywood Entertainment
Host Marriott
Iomega
JP Realty
Key Corp.
Knight Transportation
K-Swiss, Inc.
La Quinta Properties, Inc.
Marriott International
Micrel Semiconductor
Micro General
Merit Medical Systems
Monaco Coach
Microsemi Corp.
Myriad Genetics
Novell
NPS Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
NuSkin
Oil States International
Oakley
priceline.com Inc.
Phelps Dodge Corp.
Ryder Systems
SkyWest Airlines
Swift Transportation
Cornerstone REIT
Tropical Sportswear
Williams Companies, Inc.
Zions Bancorp

And was approved by popular vote, so it shouldnt be a law because?
Because the majority does not get to decide whether a minority has the same rights they do. We are, in theory, a nation of individual freedom, in which a collective decision is imposed on an individual only by necessity: we outlaw theft, etc. because it impinges on other individuals. Who are these people to interfere in my own life when I am doing nothing to them?

And was approved by popular vote, so it shouldnt be a law because?

:rolleyes:

Because it violates fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

Part of the whole point of having constitutions is to protect minorities from majority oppression.

I hold the Mormons responsible for the vicious dishonesty which characterized the campaign.

Then in principle most religions are vicious and dishonest. If I were converted to Mormonism through fear, would that not have a profound effect on my vote at the ballot?

What makes forcing religious beliefs different than forcing political beliefs on someone else? Is there criteria for what belief can or cannot be voted on?

example of a political belief that stops you from doing something that harms no one please

not outright. but there are a lot of mormon owned businesses, and the religion is a damned cult, so they are effectively run for the benefit of said cult.

BS might as well say they are part of the jewish conspiracy.

Mormons have influence in the business world

Just because somebody is too powerful, they aren't allowed to participate in a democratic process (funding a campaign to support a proposition)?

:rolleyes:

Because it violates fundamental rights and equal protection under the law.

Part of the whole point of having constitutions is to protect minorities from majority oppression.

I agree with your post, and very much support same-sex marriage, but I don't think the culprit in the issue is the LSD. If the proposition was in violation of the constitution, shouldn't it have been reviewed by some judiciary body to establish its legality?

example of a political belief that stops you from doing something that harms no one please
I believe you should have to own a gun. The act of you owning a gun hurts no one. The act of you using that gun may hurt someone.

Just because somebody is too powerful, they aren't allowed to participate in a democratic process (funding a campaign to support a proposition)?

Um. First, that was a quote from a pro-Mormon site that I copied.

Second, just as Mormon's can participate in the democratic process, those offended by their actions can boycott Mormon-owned/operated businesses. That is democratic as well.

Third, there is a separate issue here of whether the LDS Church should be so engaged in politics and still retain its tax-exempt status. The rules are complex and I don't know the LDS Church has overstepped its bounds, but the matter should be investigated.

I very much support same-sex marriage, but I don't think the culprit in the issue is the LSD.

For those who are disappointed by Prop. 8, the overwhelming LDS influence in its passage is a fair target. Just as they can take democratic action, so can we.

Part of the whole point of having constitutions is to protect minorities from majority oppression.
They aren't be oppressed, they can still screw each other in the butt all day long.

They aren't be oppressed, they can still screw each other in the butt all day long.

Oh, well, that clears that up then. :rolleyes:

Just because somebody is too powerful, they aren't allowed to participate in a democratic process (funding a campaign to support a proposition)?

No, and the gays are exercising their ability to participate in the democratic process by boycotting.

Oh, well, that clears that up then. :rolleyes:
Some things will be cleared out and some others may stay in

They aren't be oppressed, they can still screw each other in the butt all day long.

http://eatourbrains.com/EoB/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/troll.jpg

I believe you should have to own a gun. The act of you owning a gun hurts no one. The act of you using that gun may hurt someone.

re-read and try again or explain yourself better.

They aren't be oppressed, they can still screw each other in the butt all day long.

Which is relevent to the discussion how?

A foul mouth doesn't make up for having an actual point.

re-read and try again or explain yourself better.
Ah I read it wrong. Well for one thing a lot of people would argue illicit drugs, but they have the possibility of hurting someone else indirectly. I don't think you should be able to counterfeit and counterfeiting on a small scale isnt necessarily going to hurt someone. That being said, polygamy, seat belt laws, helmet laws, curfews, loitering laws and nudity laws may be held as political beliefs or part of a political platform, yet hurt no one else. Except possibly mentally

Second, just as Mormon's can participate in the democratic process, those offended by their actions can boycott Mormon-owned/operated businesses. That is democratic as well.

Third, there is a separate issue here of whether the LDS Church should be so engaged in politics and still retain its tax-exempt status. The rules are complex and I don't know the LDS Church has overstepped its bounds, but the matter should be investigated.


My bad, I didn't read the context of your post.

Which is relevent to the discussion how?

A foul mouth doesn't make up for having an actual point.

See my reply where I declined to use a thousand words to describe them.

A foul mouth doesn't make up for having an actual point.
I'm not sorry if I offended you

Which is relevent to the discussion how?

A foul mouth doesn't make up for having an actual point.

I think that what he's trying to say is that marriage is totally unimportant and merely a formality for gay couples, so the proposition shouldn't affect their lifestyles anyway.

I'm not sorry if I offended you

You haven't offended me. It takes more than schoolyard vulgarity to cause my blushes, nowadays.

On the other hand - you've not actually contributed anything worthwhile, either.

You made ridiculous and crass comments about 'butt-fucking', which is nothing to do with the focus of the debate. Don't think of my earlier post as me complaining about your lack of acuity and wit - think of it as me encouraging you to act like a worthwhile member of the species, and actually contribute.

I think that what he's trying to say is that marriage is totally unimportant and merely a formality for gay couples, so the proposition shouldn't affect their lifestyles anyway.

On the contrary, 'marriage' is connected to literally hundreds of legal statuses in the US.

I'm not here to pander to his ignorance. If that is his point, he's wrong.

.You made ridiculous and crass comments about 'butt-fucking'
I don't recall ever using that term thank-you

I think that what he's trying to say is that marriage is totally unimportant and merely a formality for gay couples, so the proposition shouldn't affect their lifestyles anyway.

No it isn't merely a formality. This isn't at all about people getting the right to have sex with each other. This is about legal rights afforded to straight married couples that gays are being denied.

On the contrary, 'marriage' is connected to literally hundreds of legal statuses in the US.

Examples?

I'm not here to pander to his ignorance. If that is his point, he's wrong.
Oh how silly of me to forget, if I disagree with NSG im ignorant.

Examples?

Oh how silly of me to forget, if I disagree with NSG im ignorant.

If you don't know any examples of the benefits legal marriage gives a gay couple, then wouldn't that make you ignorant, of the importance of gay marriage, by definition?

If you don't know any examples of the benefits legal marriage gives a gay couple, then wouldn't that make you ignorant, of the importance of gay marriage, by definition?
Off of the top of my head all I can think of would be illegal immigration/marriage status/citizenship. I asked him for examples to "enlighten" me I should say, I would call ignorant unwilling to learn, which is not what I am doing.

I don't recall ever using that term thank-you

No, your precise wording was 'screw each other in the butt all day long', I believe.

I notice you quibble the wording, but not the intent.

Off of the top of my head all I can think of would be illegal immigration/marriage status/citizenship. I asked him for examples to "enlighten" me I should say, I would call ignorant unwilling to learn, which is not what I am doing.

Hospital visitation rights. Next-of-kin.

Off of the top of my head all I can think of would be illegal immigration/marriage status/citizenship. I asked him for examples to "enlighten" me I should say, I would call ignorant unwilling to learn, which is not what I am doing.

I'll give you one that I think is extremely important. Let me know if you disagree.

What if a mans gay lover of 20 years is hospitalized with a serious condition, and they only allow family members in to see him. Since they can not be legally married he is not allowed to go in to give his S.O. any companionship or comfort?

What if a mans gay lover of 20 years is hospitalized with a serious condition, and they only allow family members in to see him. Since they can not be legally married he is not allowed to go in to give his S.O. any companionship or comfort?

Please forgive my ignorance, but would you help me disprove my elementary reasoning regarding this issue:

I assume that Mormons, and other fundamentalists are opposed to same-sex marriage because

1) it violates their familial values

2) sanctioning same-sex marriage is sanctioning sodomy and ill thoughts

So in general, the only legal statuses of marriage that violates religious ethics is the sexual relation (which is not illegal), and on the eligibility of raising children through adoption, in-vitro etc.

Since marriage is seemingly religious to the Mormons - as if using the term marriage was offending them - why not introduce a secular form of union, like common law status for gay couples?

I'm not saying that it's merely a wording issue, but it is important. If it were, the Mormons would be spear-heading a proposal that bans promiscuity.

Examples?


1049 as of the DOMA in 1997.

I even found it for you, so you have nothing to complaoin about:

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf


Oh how silly of me to forget, if I disagree with NSG im ignorant.

No, if the information is readily available, and you INSTEAD, choose to make fatuous comments ignoring it, you would be ignorant.

Please forgive my ignorance, but would you help me disprove my elementary reasoning regarding this issue:

I assume that Mormons, and other fundamentalists are opposed to same-sex marriage because

1) it violates their familial values

2) sanctioning same-sex marriage is sanctioning sodomy and ill thoughts

So in general, the only legal statuses of marriage that violates religious ethics is the sexual relation (which is not illegal), and on the eligibility of raising children through adoption, in-vitro etc.

Since marriage is seemingly religious to the Mormons - as if using the term marriage was offending them - why not introduce a secular form of union, like common law status for gay couples?

I'm not saying that it's merely a wording issue, but it is important. If it were, the Mormons would be spear-heading a proposal that bans promiscuity.

The Bible says christians are to be a 'separate people'. The Bible says to be subservient to the law, but not to make it. It says to serve your rulers, not try to replace them. It says to keep your religion and your state laws separate.

Christians, and christian-ish religions seem to ignore all those points.

A gay man marrying another man does nothing to 'violate the family values' of a Mormon. It is nothing to do with anyone else. It is between the people getting married. (Unless of course, one of those gay men IS a Mormon).

Sanctioning same sex marriage is not sanctioning sodomy, because sex and marriage are not the same thing - and sodomy can exist without marriage.

The Bible says christians are to be a 'separate people'. The Bible says to be subservient to the law, but not to make it. It says to serve your rulers, not try to replace them. It says to keep your religion and your state laws separate.

Christians, and christian-ish religions seem to ignore all those points.

A gay man marrying another man does nothing to 'violate the family values' of a Mormon. It is nothing to do with anyone else. It is between the people getting married. (Unless of course, one of those gay men IS a Mormon).

Sanctioning same sex marriage is not sanctioning sodomy, because sex and marriage are not the same thing - and sodomy can exist without marriage.

I'd love to compile something for my wifes Mormon sister to convince her that pushing her religion on other people by putting it into constitutional law is against her religion. I just don't have the biblical knowledge to do so. It would be especially cool if it was Mormon specific.

I'd love to compile something for my wifes Mormon sister to convince her that pushing her religion on other people by putting it into constitutional law is against her religion. I just don't have the biblical knowledge to do so. It would be especially cool if it was Mormon specific.

I'll have to look at my book of mormon again when I get home, see what I can find.

yay *hugs*

No it isn't merely a formality. This isn't at all about people getting the right to have sex with each other. This is about legal rights afforded to straight married couples that gays are being denied.

I have nothing to complain about legal rights. But it's the marriage factor that's hard to swallow. If this sounds contradictory, then I am sorry. Mostly it's the cermonial issue of marriage that makes it hard for Mormons to swallow. It has to deal with the cermonies we preform in our temples.

It also has a basis on how we look at society. (Sorry, if this seems bigoted.)


I also read how some are complaining about the church getting in the funding of Prop 8. The church does not donate money to any political cause, however it does not say that it's members can not donate money to political causes. So a lot of Mormons have a strong business presence. Okay, so they do. Are you going to try and stop the people in those business from donating? That's a violation of rights.

You want to boycott Mormon goods and businesses. Go ahead. No one is stopping you. You are by all means entitled to do so.

Also it can not also be *just* the LDS faith that went for prop 8. There are other faiths and religions out there that went for this bill as well.

The LDS isn't going to go away, just like the fundamentalist aren't.

Of course not, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't do my best to hinder them. And who knows, with enough sustained opposition sometimes they DO go away. I'm old enough to remember when people were mocked for thinking that divesting from South Africa would change anything.
Having the church stripped of its exemption status is frankly unrealistic
I don't know, it sounds actually like the most realistic proposal so far.
not to mention how unjustified it would be, considering that other non-religious organizations are able to pour money into politics
NONE of the non-religious organizations which do that have tax exemptions.
2) Venting and contemplating violence even in jest is very rational, there is a 100% logical reason to do that
Yes, because venting it is the only thing that will actually stop me from doing it.
why not introduce a secular form of union, like common law status for gay couples?
We HAVE a secular form of union, for people who don't go to church or aren't Christian at all: it's called "marriage".

What if a mans gay lover of 20 years is hospitalized with a serious condition, and they only allow family members in to see him.
You mean AIDS?

A gay man marrying another man does nothing to 'violate the family values' of a Mormon. It is nothing to do with anyone else. It is between the people getting married. (Unless of course, one of those gay men IS a Mormon).

If that's true, why do religious ad campaigns emphasize "family values = mom and dad"? In fact religious people (not necessarily Mormons) close to me like to announce that it is "unnatural" for gay couples to raise a family.

Sanctioning same sex marriage is not sanctioning sodomy, because sex and marriage are not the same thing - and sodomy can exist without marriage.

Then why do fundamentalists quote "...shalt not lie with another man" when talking about gay marriages? Sodomy can indeed happen outside same-sex marriage, but isn't it pretty much implied that a healthy, married male gay couple is 100% going to commit sodomy?


I'm not talking about theocratic implications the Bible/Book of Mormons have on the politics, I'm just exploring their viewpoints.

If venting is your form of self control, I don't know what to say.

Religious people aren't going to care if marriage is a secularized legal process, because marriage is clearly outlined in the Bible as their "marriage".

Religious people aren't going to care if marriage is a secularized legal process, because marriage is clearly outlined in the Bible as their "marriage".

WTF? Then why is Prop. 8 even an issue? No one is forcing churches to perform same-sex marriages.

If that's true, why do religious ad campaigns emphasize "family values = mom and dad"? In fact religious people (not necessarily Mormons) close to me like to announce that it is "unnatural" for gay couples to raise a family.


Religious campaigns emphasize things like that because they are trying to make a point.

It doesn't matter to them that it matches neither reality nor religion.


Then why do fundamentalists quote "...shalt not lie with another man" when talking about gay marriages? Sodomy can indeed happen outside same-sex marriage, but isn't it pretty much implied that a healthy, married male gay couple is 100% going to commit sodomy?


The Bible also says 'it is better to marry than to burn'. If they're going to fuck anyway, they should at least have the sanction of marriage.

All of which is kind of irrelevent - since religious people don't OWN 'marriage'.


I'm not talking about theocratic implications the Bible/Book of Mormons have on the politics, I'm just exploring their viewpoints.

Their viewpoints are oppressive and unjust. I don't care about their motivations. Their scripture doesn't back them enforcing laws on other people, but they do it anyway - but I don't even CARE about that. I don't care if they think god came down from a cloud and wrote 'thou shalt not boink men' in their asses in hot'n'cold - THEIR religion does not and SHOULD not, have the right to dictate how relationships are LEGALLY allowed to be conducted by OTHER people.

You mean AIDS?

At this point is anyone doubting my pictorial summery of this poster earlier in the thread?

I have nothing to complain about legal rights. But it's the marriage factor that's hard to swallow. If this sounds contradictory, then I am sorry. Mostly it's the cermonial issue of marriage that makes it hard for Mormons to swallow. It has to deal with the cermonies we preform in our temples.

It also has a basis on how we look at society. (Sorry, if this seems bigoted.)


Not just seems. IS. Are you willing to address any of my earlier points directed towards you on this subject?

Not just seems. IS. Are you willing to address any of my earlier points directed towards you on this subject?

Refresh them for me and I'll do my best to answer them. I have my scriptures close by if it comes to doctinal things. Also I may not be able to answer everything about Mormon doctrine either. Some things are, well we consider them sacred and we don't discuss them with non-Mormon people. As for legal things....well not really my strong point. So if you point out something legal and I don't have an answer or I answer incorrectly than that's because I am not a legal mind. I am an English major and I am more strong on literature and literary theory.

Please forgive my ignorance, but would you help me disprove my elementary reasoning regarding this issue:

I assume that Mormons, and other fundamentalists are opposed to same-sex marriage because

1) it violates their familial values

2) sanctioning same-sex marriage is sanctioning sodomy and ill thoughts

Since marriage is seemingly religious to the Mormons - as if using the term marriage was offending them - why not introduce a secular form of union, like common law status for gay couples?

I'm not saying that it's merely a wording issue, but it is important. If it were, the Mormons would be spear-heading a proposal that bans promiscuity.

A better idea. the gays can get married while the mormons can go fuck themselves
Why should we cater to bigots and their magic underwear cult?

I have nothing to complain about legal rights. But it's the marriage factor that's hard to swallow.


'Marriage' is not a religious institution.

Even if it was - it is not specific to any ONE religion.

So why should it be dictated by the rules of a religion?


Mostly it's the cermonial issue of marriage that makes it hard for Mormons to swallow. It has to deal with the cermonies we preform in our temples.


No one is saying you'd have to perform those ceremonies for gay couples.

So - not really an answer. You're saying (in effect) because we don't want to do it, no one can.


It also has a basis on how we look at society. (Sorry, if this seems bigoted.)


Not bigotted, per se - but irrelevent.

I see society as a secular arrangement of people(s) who may or may not have religious inclinations. That doesn't mean I'm going to legislate anything about what those people are allowed to do with one another.

America IS a secular society - religion has NO place making the law.

The Mormons can be nice. Why do you want to harm their church?

They poured money into the campaign for Proposition 8, which takes away the rights of gay people to get married in the formerly great state of California.

I would do this. *nod*

Not your personal army.

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?
Why not do what you've already suggested?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

How likely are those local ordinances to pass where you are? If you live in an area that voted heavily against prop 8, you should get moving on that right now, while everybody is still mad.

Refresh them for me and I'll do my best to answer them. I have my scriptures close by if it comes to doctinal things. Also I may not be able to answer everything about Mormon doctrine either. Some things are, well we consider them sacred and we don't discuss them with non-Mormon people. As for legal things....well not really my strong point. So if you point out something legal and I don't have an answer or I answer incorrectly than that's because I am not a legal mind. I am an English major and I am more strong on literature and literary theory.

One of my points was that your doctrines are irrelevant. They are not a valid basis for laws in this country and if it could be proven that Prop 8 and similar laws were based solely on religion they would be overturned in a heart beat.

Other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173326&postcount=97) points (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173347&postcount=99).

This^^^

Seriously, people, THINK about what you are saying. Do you want to be church bombers, like the murdering terrorizing racists of a bygone generation? Do you want to say that rights only apply to people you agree with, like certain rightwingers of today?

If you have learned nothing else from the failed McCain campaign, please learn this: You don't win a war of principles by abandoning your principles.

Do you want equality? Then you must acknowledge and grant equality. Do you want religious freedom to worship or not, as you please? Then you must acknowledge and grant that freedom to all, because freedom for some is not freedom. Do you think you are better than your enemies? Then BE better than them. DON'T stoop to their level of hostility and bigotry.

If you want to get the Mormon church out of politics, then expose their political machinations, expose their tactics and lies. If they won't leave you alone to live as you wish, then don't leave them alone to freely manipulate the laws. If you want to see them fall from whatever position of influence they currently have, then let the truth be your weapon.

But do not ever seek to take away from them those same rights to speech, belief, and political engagement that you demand for yourself. If you do, then you are no better than them.

I realize the OP is angry. I'm angry about CA's Prop 8, too. But seriously, some of the things in this thread are extremely uncool. Neither fun, nor funny.
This.

'Marriage' is not a religious institution.

Even if it was - it is not specific to any ONE religion.

So why should it be dictated by the rules of a religion?


For the sake of things, Mormons and some others of other religious faiths do see marriage as a religious institution. It ties into our religious cermonies as well.



No one is saying you'd have to perform those ceremonies for gay couples.

So - not really an answer. You're saying (in effect) because we don't want to do it, no one can.

I suppose many Mormons do take a wider view towards religion and day to day affairs. I guess this means I also do as well. It's a religious day to day lifestyle. It was mentioned that many of the arugments have to deal with family and moral beliefs. Yes, very much true. Many Mormons see homosexual marriage as the deterlization of society. The jury still is out on that decision. We choose to vote on issues like prop 8 to keep what we feel the stablization of the family, which Mormons see as a sacred and holy unit. Again, it deals with many of our cermonies. We believe that when a couple is married they are married for time and eternity and family are sealed, or bonded to the family as well. If you need more info on that subject look it up on the church's website. We believe that homsexual marriage and homesexual addoption, as it has been said is not a stable family form. And conflicts with things.



Not bigotted, per se - but irrelevent.

I see society as a secular arrangement of people(s) who may or may not have religious inclinations. That doesn't mean I'm going to legislate anything about what those people are allowed to do with one another.

America IS a secular society - religion has NO place making the law.

True, the church in general does not get involved in politcal issues. However, when it comes to what we see as moral issues we do, well at least the members, do get involved in it.

I have no doubt that you will see all of this or some of this bigotted. But Mormons on the whole believe that we have a duty to keep a 'rightous' society. Alot of this can be seen and perhaps noted from the overview of the Book of Mormon.

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

Attack there pocket book. They gave up discriminating against blacks to keep tax exempt status. I saw a list of mormon run business on a forum a while back.

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

Even to let off steam, that kind of rhetoric does no one any good. Surrender to hate, and you fall down to their level. You will also make it easier for them to justify their opinion of you to the public. You should not fight the unjust by imitation.

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Again, fighting injustice with injustice is both immoral and counter productive. The Constitution garuntees people equal rights. It is your friend, not your enemy here. And I don't care what the Mormons do. You attack their rights, and I'll fight you as strongly as I fight them.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

Anonymous are vial, disreputable wankers from what I've heard. You can find better allies than them.

Here's a nice one. California I believe has a law about not being allowed to give a privillage or right to only one group. So by taking away the right to gay marriage, they've also made strait marriage illegal under California law. If the Supreme Court of California upholds the law, it may have to ban all future marriage in California until prop 8 is repealed. I'll try to find the exact wording of the law and post it later.

One of my points was that your doctrines are irrelevant. They are not a valid basis for laws in this country and if it could be proven that Prop 8 and similar laws were based solely on religion they would be overturned in a heart beat.

Other (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173326&postcount=97) points (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173347&postcount=99).

I think I may have answered some of your points in one of my newer posts I just posted. If not try and clairfy.

I think I may have answered some of your points in one of my newer posts I just posted. If not try and clairfy.

If you're referring to this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14174624&postcount=169) it doesn't look like you touched on a single one of them. Did you read my points? If so I hope you were referring to a post I missed.

For the sake of things, Mormons and some others of other religious faiths do see marriage as a religious institution. It ties into our religious cermonies as well.



Cute, but marriage was secular before religious, and athiests get married all the time. So the religious dont have a monopoly on the word "marriage". Whining about it being corrupted should fall on deaf ears to anyone with a brain.

I suppose many Mormons do take a wider view towards religion and day to day affairs. I guess this means I also do as well. It's a religious day to day lifestyle. It was mentioned that many of the arugments have to deal with family and moral beliefs. Yes, very much true. Many Mormons see homosexual marriage as the deterlization of society. The jury still is out on that decision. We choose to vote on issues like prop 8 to keep what we feel the stablization of the family, which Mormons see as a sacred and holy unit. Again, it deals with many of our cermonies. We believe that when a couple is married they are married for time and eternity and family are sealed, or bonded to the family as well.


Because Mormons are the ones to tell us that marriage is between one man and one woman, right?:p

Seriously, what you just said was "We dont agree with you so we have the right to enforce our will through law." Sorry that shit wont fly.

If you need more info on that subject look it up on the church's website. We believe that homsexual marriage and homesexual addoption, as it has been said is not a stable family form. And conflicts with things

Mormons can believe that homosexual marriage and homosexual adoption create unstable families and causes conflicts, but theyd be wrong. There is an abundance of evidence that says the reverse is true.


True, the church in general does not get involved in politcal issues. However, when it comes to what we see as moral issues we do, well at least the members, do get involved in it.

Id be interested to see if it was the church that was donating.

I have no doubt that you will see all of this or some of this bigotted. But Mormons on the whole believe that we have a duty to keep a 'rightous' society. Alot of this can be seen and perhaps noted from the overview of the Book of Mormon.

We're not bigoted! We just think that we reserve the right to enact legistlation that descriminates against you and your ungodly lifestyle! Its not bigoted to enforce your morality and religion on everyone else!


Sorry kid, that is bigoted. And stupid.

I'd be interested to see if it was the church that was donating.

Look if you want, I doubt it. Members may donate towards it. But as for the church doing it. Extremly unlikely. It would mean our tithings and offerings were going for political things like prop 8, and it's not.



We're not bigoted! We just think that we reserve the right to enact legistlation that descriminates against you and your ungodly lifestyle! Its not bigoted to enforce your morality and religion on everyone else!


Sorry kid, that is bigoted. And stupid.

*shrugs* It's a religious viewpoint. You see it as bigoted I see it as part of the foundation of my faith. You're not going to change my mind on it, although I do see myself as a bit more moderate and left than some of the other members of my church. Sorry, that my viewpoints disappoint you. I guess this means we part on unequal terms. I expect that their will be people who put me on ignore. That's alright. I accept that. I've always seen myself and my political and religious viewpoints sometimes as contradictions. So I can't make everyone happy, on both sides. I get flack from Mormons on being a democrat. I get flack from others for being Mormon. *sighs* It's a very strange and confusing place. :(

Look if you want, I doubt it. Members may donate towards it. But as for the church doing it. Extremly unlikely. It would mean our tithings and offerings were going for political things like prop 8, and it's not.





*shrugs* It's a religious viewpoint. You see it as bigoted I see it as part of the foundation of my faith. You're not going to change my mind on it, although I do see myself as a bit more moderate and left than some of the other members of my church. Sorry, that my viewpoints disappoint you. I guess this means we part on unequal terms. I expect that their will be people who put me on ignore. That's alright. I accept that. I've always seen myself and my political and religious viewpoints sometimes as contradictions. So I can't make everyone happy, on both sides. I get flack from Mormons on being a democrat. I get flack from others for being Mormon. *sighs* It's a very strange and confusing place. :(

Why should there be legislation in the state of California based on what one church thinks? My church performs marriages for homosexual couples. Why shouldn't state law be based on what my church thinks?

As for being a bigot, as Neo Art said:

If you disagree with me on equal rights for gays, you don't believe they should have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

Either you're for equal rights, or you're not.

Attack there pocket book. They gave up discriminating against blacks to keep tax exempt status. I saw a list of mormon run business on a forum a while back.

Yes, that's been copied here too (thanks to Cat Tribe); attacking their tax status and boycotting their businesses are probably the most important avenues.
Even to let off steam, that kind of rhetoric does no one any good.

It did ME a lot of good.
California I believe has a law about not being allowed to give a privillage or right to only one group.
Not anymore: don't you understand, that is PRECISELY what Prop 8 was to amend the California constitution, in the section that formerly guaranteed equal protection of the law, to make an exception to that principle?

It would mean our tithings and offerings were going for political things like prop 8, and it's not.
That's PRECISELY what your tithes and offerings went to, this year.

That's PRECISELY what your tithes and offerings went to, this year.

Prove it. We give 10% in tithing and an offering for fasting. That money goes to our Bishops which goes to the head either in Salt Lake or to others who need it.

You're saying our tithing is going for that. Not true.


Now for the rest of our money, we can do what the Hell we want with it. So quit your rant that our tithing money is going for that.

As for being a bigot, as Neo Art said:

If you disagree with me on equal rights for gays, you don't believe they should have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

Either you're for equal rights, or you're not.

No where have I said I am not for equal rights. I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage. That's what I believe. I see that as a compromise. Maybe you don't but I do.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10842051

No where have I said I am not for equal rights. I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage. That's what I believe. I see that as a compromise. Maybe you don't but I do.

And this proposition that your church pushed through just banned even that.

I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage.
Liar. That's what you just TOOK AWAY from us.

No where have I said I am not for equal rights. I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage. That's what I believe. I see that as a compromise. Maybe you don't but I do.

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

A secular union that equates to marriage is ...... A MARRIAGE!!!!

And, btw, common law marriage isn't recognized in the United States except in a handful of states, which doesn't include California.

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10842051

Well, thats that.

and democracy is tryany by majority.

There is a nice saying about it. Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting what to eat

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_10842051

Okay....so that may very well be a violation. But without the documents it's hard to say who exactly it was that approved anything. If it was a coalition of members than it's not a violation. If it was the head of the Church itself than it is. But without any paper documents to glance over, well it gets a bit fuzzy. You do have a valid right to protest tax exhempt status, sadly enough.

You've been drinking the Kool-Aid.

A secular union that equates to marriage is ...... A MARRIAGE!!!!

And, btw, common law marriage isn't recognized in the United States except in a handful of states, which doesn't include California.

I never said I was perfect. And it's possible that the major complaint that many people have could be the wording of the law of things. I have a very unusual view on things, I must admit. It's wacked.

Liar. That's what you just TOOK AWAY from us.

I don't live in California, so a little hard to say I took it away from you.

I don't live in California, so a little hard to say I took it away from you.

No, but your church did.

Mormons, sigh. I'm really not at all impressed with this Prop. 8, such a backward step for California. I guess it's no suprise that these fools were behind getting it through. Fuckers.

No where have I said I am not for equal rights. I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage. That's what I believe. I see that as a compromise. Maybe you don't but I do.

There is no common law marriage in California.

And marriage IS secular. Your marriage isn't recognized by the state without a marriage license from STATE (that means SECULAR government) authority.

So no, it's not a compromise.

You believe in equal rights, or you don't.

If you are against equal rights, you are a bigot.

And unAmerican.

That's right, I said it.

Taking people's rights away is unAmerican. It goes against what this country is supposed to stand for.

Freedom. Equal treatment under the law. Justice. Fairness.

Your church was a major factor in taking the rights of my friends away. I can think of no reason not to be pissed at it.

I share your anger. I also share the concerns of those who think we shouldn't violate the law or threaten harm to Mormons because of our anger.

I think boycotts are a good idea, and I'll be looking into them.

I would also push strongly for an investigation into whether the LDS Church has violated its tax exempt status with the degree of lobbying it has done on Prop. 8.

Having grown up in Mormon country with many Mormon friends/teachers/etc, I don't want to villify all members of the LDS Church. In fact, Mormons for Marriage (http://mormonsformarriage.com/) tried to oppose Prop. 8.

Nonetheless, I have always found LDS theology repugnant and their taking rights away from Californians is unacceptable.



Although well-intended and based on a very common misunderstanding, this isn't a very good argument. A law doesn't violate the First Amendment simply because it overlaps with or reflects a religious viewpoint. For example, the religious views of Martin Luther King, Jr., and his followers were a major impetus behind civil rights laws. And some believed segregation was Biblically mandated. Did the government violate the First Amendment by siding with one religious view and not the other?

The real issue here is equal protection under the laws and the protection of fundamental rights by the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause (respectively) of the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, without changes in the make-up of SCOTUS, we are unlikely to get a decision protecting same-sex marriage -- even though that is the logical extension of existing caselaw.
OK, I understand that.

I don't live in California, so a little hard to say I took it away from you.

Don't you fucking lie. Do you give money to the church? That money was used to spread a message of hatred and bigotry in my state. It was used to strip citizens of their rights. If you gave the Mormon church a single penny, you helped oppress Californians.

I have every right to be pissed at you, yes, you personally, for that.

Fuck the Mormon church.

My wifes sister is Mormon and we have gone to her daughters baptisms and whatnot. We've shopped at the Mormon owned thrift store here in town (Deseret Industries).

From now on I am boycotting everything Mormon/Mormon-owned and will work against their interests using every legal means available to me.

This angers me beyond my boiling point. Prepare to be demonized, relentlessly, Mormons.

You have no right to force your religion on other people who don't believe as you do. To the guy saying he is in favor of making homosexuals second-class citizens just in case someday the govt might force his church to perform gay weddings: you are out of your mind and have no basis for that statement. So when does the constitutional amendment to make caffeine illegal come out? Your excuse of this is pathetic and so is your church.

Does that include your sister in law and your nieces?

Here is some information about Mormon-owned/operated companies:

<snip list>[/INDENT]
Easy! I already don't use any of those products/services. :D

Don't you fucking lie. Do you give money to the church? That money was used to spread a message of hatred and bigotry in my state. It was used to strip citizens of their rights. If you gave the Mormon church a single penny, you helped oppress Californians.

I have every right to be pissed at you, yes, you personally, for that.

I am unemployed college student. I've haven't had a job for over a year. So really nothing to pay a tithe with. You want to hate me fine. Go ahead. But.... I didn't opress anyone. You opress yourselves or yourself. And you seem to eqaute my church with everyone who voted for the prop, which really seems ridiculous as there are other churches, why don't you go boycot them? You appear to just be singleing out one faith and one organization. If I plan to be part of your hatered, don't take it out just on me and my church, take it out on others. After all equal boycotting for all faiths seems fair to me. You're just taking it out on my church because my church is well organized and has very propserous members. I am leaving this thread because I see that it's become nothing more than reverse discrimination and I won't take part in that either.

I am unemployed college student. I've haven't had a job for over a year. So really nothing to pay a tithe with. You want to hate me fine. Go ahead. But.... I didn't opress anyone. You opress yourselves or yourself. And you seem to eqaute my church with everyone who voted for the prop, which really seems ridiculous as there are other churches, why don't you go boycot them? You appear to just be singleing out one faith and one organization. If I plan to be part of your hatered, don't take it out just on me and my church, take it out on others. After all equal boycotting for all faiths seems fair to me. You're just taking it out on my church because my church is well organized and has very propserous members. I am leaving this thread because I see that it's become nothing more than reverse discrimination and I won't take part in that either.

Because no other religious group spent as much money on this as the mormons.


I dont intend to go around smashing mormons faces in. I dont equate the leadership of a church with those of its followers unless they show they are part of the hivemind.

It doesnt change the fact that your church is heavily to blame.

No where have I said I am not for equal rights. I believe in having secular rights that equate to a civil union and a common law marriage. That's what I believe. I see that as a compromise. Maybe you don't but I do.
You mean like... civil MARRIAGE?

Well, as KoL points out:

And this proposition that your church pushed through just banned even that.
So you just supported taking away equal rights.

So, then, by what logic do you continue to assert that you are in favor of equal rights?

I never said I was perfect. And it's possible that the major complaint that many people have could be the wording of the law of things. I have a very unusual view on things, I must admit. It's wacked.
What you actually have is an uniformed view.

You have admitted as much more than once -- that you don't really understand the issue, that you are not familiar with the laws connected to it, that you are only conforming to the line promulgated by your church.

You have not bothered to inform yourself about this at all. You are not expressing your own thoughts, because you have not bothered to form any. Instead you have just adopted other people's thoughts, while choosing to remain ignorant of facts that you know exist, out there, waiting to be looked at by you. This does not make for a valid argument.

I am unemployed college student. I've haven't had a job for over a year. So really nothing to pay a tithe with. You want to hate me fine. Go ahead. But.... I didn't opress anyone. You opress yourselves or yourself. And you seem to eqaute my church with everyone who voted for the prop, which really seems ridiculous as there are other churches, why don't you go boycot them? You appear to just be singleing out one faith and one organization. If I plan to be part of your hatered, don't take it out just on me and my church, take it out on others. After all equal boycotting for all faiths seems fair to me. You're just taking it out on my church because my church is well organized and has very propserous members. I am leaving this thread because I see that it's become nothing more than reverse discrimination and I won't take part in that either.

You are leaving the thread because what you PERCEIVE as discrimination upsets you?

In the CONTEXT of a group to which you not only belong, but have declared you agree with the prinicples of - that has just been heavily involved in pressing an ACTUAL form of discrimination on another group of people?

That, my friend - is hypocrisy. I had hoped for better.


I don't hold Mormons to be anything like solely responsible - but they were a large organised part, and they did what they did unapologetically and deliberately with the intent of removing rights from a minority.

They should be held accountable.

If you AGREE with what they did, YOU should be held accountable. If you don't - YOU should be holding them accountable.

You are leaving the thread because what you PERCEIVE as discrimination upsets you?

In the CONTEXT of a group to which you not only belong, but have declared you agree with the prinicples of - that has just been heavily involved in pressing an ACTUAL form of discrimination on another group of people?

That, my friend - is hypocrisy. I had hoped for better.


I don't hold Mormons to be anything like solely responsible - but they were a large organised part, and they did what they did unapologetically and deliberately with the intent of removing rights from a minority.

They should be held accountable.

If you AGREE with what they did, YOU should be held accountable. If you don't - YOU should be holding them accountable.

The use of the term "marriage" for homosexuals as opposed to "civil union" is not a right. Ergo, it cannot be unlawfully removed. I don't see a measure on the ballot that includes restricting food, water, oxygen, or condones harassment, violence, or imprisonment for people with homosexual beliefs. That would fall under my category of supressing rights. Not having your way in everything does not count as being discriminated against.

Your desire to punish people for being of a certain faith, which (in contrast) is a force for positive social good (even if I do not agree with all of the details of their church), sounds a lot like hate speech. Maybe you should be held accountable.

The use of the term "marriage" for homosexuals as opposed to "civil union" is not a right. Ergo, it cannot be unlawfully removed. I don't see a measure on the ballot that includes restricting food, water, oxygen, or condones harassment, violence, or imprisonment for people with homosexual beliefs. That would fall under my category of supressing rights. Not having your way in everything does not count as being discriminated against.

Your desire to punish people for being of a certain faith, which (in contrast) is a force for positive social good (even if I do not agree with all of the details of their church), sounds a lot like hate speech. Maybe you should be held accountable.

You have no idea what youre on about. Read the 14th ammendment. Then GTFO.


You want hate speech? Get me in a bad mood and give me some vodka and ask me about my feelings towards evangelicals. Ill show you hate speech. G&I's was tame as fuck.

I have nothing to complain about legal rights. But it's the marriage factor that's hard to swallow. If this sounds contradictory, then I am sorry. Mostly it's the cermonial issue of marriage that makes it hard for Mormons to swallow. It has to deal with the cermonies we preform in our temples. Marriage is first and foremost a secular legal contract. Without a marriage license, recieved from the state, there is no marriage, no matter how many times you have the ceremony.

I also read how some are complaining about the church getting in the funding of Prop 8. The church does not donate money to any political cause, however it does not say that it's members can not donate money to political causes. So a lot of Mormons have a strong business presence. Okay, so they do. Are you going to try and stop the people in those business from donating? That's a violation of rights.
No, I won't physically stop them from donating. They can donate all they want. I just will no longer patronize their establishments. I already requested that my mother cut up her American Express card that gives reward points to Mariott. I've also decided not to use JetBlue for any future travel.

You mean AIDS?
...are you fucking serious?
*bites tongue like all hell*
I am unemployed college student. I've haven't had a job for over a year. So really nothing to pay a tithe with. You want to hate me fine. Go ahead. But.... I didn't opress anyone. You opress yourselves or yourself. And you seem to eqaute my church with everyone who voted for the prop, which really seems ridiculous as there are other churches, why don't you go boycot them? You appear to just be singleing out one faith and one organization. If I plan to be part of your hatered, don't take it out just on me and my church, take it out on others. After all equal boycotting for all faiths seems fair to me. You're just taking it out on my church because my church is well organized and has very propserous members. I am leaving this thread because I see that it's become nothing more than reverse discrimination and I won't take part in that either.
I have no money to give, but still list myself as a member of an organization...lets call it the GER. I give this organization my time, and, when I have it, some money. I willingly affiliate myself with their beliefs. The GER takes a large role in blowing up a Mormon church. I do nothing to disaffiliate myself from this group. I continue to give them my time and, when I can, my money.

I am responsible for that church being blown up, and my continued support of that group. I am part of a terror organization, and as such, I am a terrorist.


You are a member of a church, the LDS. You give them your time, and, when you have it, money. You willingly affiliate yourself with their beliefs. They were very influential in the passing of Prop 8. You have not disaffiliated yourself from this group. You continue to give your time and money. You still adhere to their doctrines. You are a member of a bigoted group, and are, as such, a bigot.

Any person that supports a bigoted society, directly and knowing full well that they are bigoted, is a bigot. That simple.


Edit: Oh, and you are not being discriminated against. Being taken to task for your beliefs is not discrimination...it is discussion and debate. Welcome to NSG. Get a helmet.
Edit 2: The very fact that you use the phrase "reverse discrimination" implies that there was, in fact, discrimination to begin with. Nice admission.

The use of the term "marriage" for homosexuals as opposed to "civil union" is not a right. Ergo, it cannot be unlawfully removed. I don't see a measure on the ballot that includes restricting food, water, oxygen, or condones harassment, violence, or imprisonment for people with homosexual beliefs. That would fall under my category of supressing rights. Not having your way in everything does not count as being discriminated against.

Your desire to punish people for being of a certain faith, which (in contrast) is a force for positive social good (even if I do not agree with all of the details of their church), sounds a lot like hate speech. Maybe you should be held accountable.

Actually, according to the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Can straight people get married to the person of their choice? Yes? Thought so. Is this considered a right, and not a privilege? Yes? Thought so.

Can a gay man marry the person of their choice? No? Right. Is this a discriminatory practice, given what was just established with straight couples?

I'll give you a second to come up with the answer.

It should be noted that the 9th amendment specifically says that not every right is enumerated in the constitution, and that the remaining ones remain in the realm of the individual or the state. Marriage is one of these.

As for punishing those of a certain religion...well, they can be a member of that religion. I don't associate with or support bigots. If my revulsion towards them harms them in some way, well, sorry...but not my problem. Sorry, but I refuse to tolerate bigots, and will not give them my money. I will actually go out of my way to not give them my money.

And religion is not inherently positive. Or even most of the time. Not at the large organizational level (it may be great on the local or individual level...or not)

I am unemployed college student. I've haven't had a job for over a year. So really nothing to pay a tithe with. You want to hate me fine. Go ahead. But.... I didn't opress anyone. You opress yourselves or yourself. And you seem to eqaute my church with everyone who voted for the prop, which really seems ridiculous as there are other churches, why don't you go boycot them? You appear to just be singleing out one faith and one organization. If I plan to be part of your hatered, don't take it out just on me and my church, take it out on others. After all equal boycotting for all faiths seems fair to me. You're just taking it out on my church because my church is well organized and has very propserous members. I am leaving this thread because I see that it's become nothing more than reverse discrimination and I won't take part in that either.

The mormon church provided massive funds to the negative and lying "yes on 8" campaign.

My church didn't. My church performs weddings for homosexual couples. Not all faiths promote hatred like yours does.

I have no money to give, but still list myself as a member of an organization...lets call it the GER. I give this organization my time, and, when I have it, some money. I willingly affiliate myself with their beliefs. The GER takes a large role in blowing up a Mormon church. I do nothing to disaffiliate myself from this group. I continue to give them my time and, when I can, my money.

I am responsible for that church being blown up, and my continued support of that group. I am part of a terror organization, and as such, I am a terrorist.


You are a member of a church, the LDS. You give them your time, and, when you have it, money. You willingly affiliate yourself with their beliefs. They were very influential in the passing of Prop 8. You have not disaffiliated yourself from this group. You continue to give your time and money. You still adhere to their doctrines. You are a member of a bigoted group, and are, as such, a bigot.

Any person that supports a bigoted society, directly and knowing full well that they are bigoted, is a bigot. That simple.


Edit: Oh, and you are not being discriminated against. Being taken to task for your beliefs is not discrimination...it is discussion and debate. Welcome to NSG. Get a helmet.
Edit 2: The very fact that you use the phrase "reverse discrimination" implies that there was, in fact, discrimination to begin with. Nice admission.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Sark.

Actually, according to the US constitution, all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. Can straight people get married to the person of their choice? Yes? Thought so. Is this considered a right, and not a privilege? Yes? Thought so.

Can a gay man marry the person of their choice? No? Right. Is this a discriminatory practice, given what was just established with straight couples?

I'll give you a second to come up with the answer.

It should be noted that the 10th amendment specifically says that not every right is enumerated in the constitution, and that the remaining ones remain in the realm of the individual or the state. Marriage is one of these.

As for punishing those of a certain religion...well, they can be a member of that religion. I don't associate with or support bigots. If my revulsion towards them harms them in some way, well, sorry...but not my problem. Sorry, but I refuse to tolerate bigots, and will not give them my money. I will actually go out of my way to not give them my money.

And religion is not inherently positive. Or even most of the time. Not at the large organizational level (it may be great on the local or individual level...or not)

I thought that was the 9th amendment? Doesn't particularly matter, as it's still part of the bill of rights, part of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And Prop 8 punishes members of my religion who are homosexual and who have been married by my church.

Prop 8 is morally repugnant.

I thought that was the 9th amendment? Doesn't particularly matter, as it's still part of the bill of rights, part of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And Prop 8 punishes members of my religion who are homosexual and who have been married by my church.

Prop 8 is morally repugnant.

You're right. Damnit! Foiled by lack of sleep again!

I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks, Sark.

I did good :)
*bows*

You know, I've never cared much about their beliefs, silly though I consider them. I've always been polite to the apple-cheeked missionary boys knocking on my door to peddle that absurdly fraudulent book. What have I ever done to them that they should attack me with spite and deceit, so that on what should have been a happy night I still cannot feel like a citizen in my own country?

My first instinct is to hunt down one of those missionaries and strangle him; or to firebomb a Mormon temple; or at least go to one of their services and slash everybody's tires. Don't worry, I'll get over that. But what should I do?

I am thinking, maybe push for local ordinances and statewide ballot initiatives to require a license for going door-to-door with religious literature. Or craft a special clothing tax whose wording makes it applicable only to their sacred underwear. Sound discriminatory and flatly unconstitutional? DAMNED STRAIGHT! I want to make them run to the "liberal activist judges" to beg for their rights to be protected. Hopefully it will cost them a lot of money.

Or: doesn't the LDS church own a lot of businesses? Maybe find a list of those, promote boycotts, and spread viciously slanderous rumors on billboards frequented by gullible paranoids. Or: try to recruit Anonymous to put the Mormons on their list next to the Scientologists?

Any other ideas?

Here's a start (http://www.rickross.com/)

I suggest joining an elite anti-cult network to prevent them from brainwashing others and to inform others about the dangers of cults and their evil practices. Cults are merely fascist scammer that want to subvert all freedoms to the whim of the leader(s).

And remember: Rick Ross, Margaret Thaler Singer and Aryn Rand are your friends.

Pfff... all religions are a cult. Look up the meaning of the word cult and you may understand the meaning.

I am sorry that you do not believe or care for the faith of others. They have a firm belief against homosexual marriage. I do as well. The church is more worried about having to be forced to having to open up our sacred temples to homosexual marriage, which is firmly against our beliefs. This is the primary reason why our church disagrees with your view points.

I think that the NSG populace should do more research into the subject matter. Religion=/= cults. Multiple cult experts have verified that cults are only cults due to their structure and purpose. Since not all religions are totalistic and based around a leader logically not all religions must be cults. Besides cultism isn't limited to religion alone, it comes in the form of hate groups and dangerous political activism as well.

They poured money into the campaign for Proposition 8, which takes away the rights of gay people to get married in the formerly great state of California.

Oh, I see.

I am of the mind that religious organizations and churches should stay away from the business of the state. That's why there was clear separation between church and state. To prevent things like this from happening.

Oh, I see.

I am of the mind that religious organizations and churches should stay away from the business of the state. That's why there was clear separation between church and state. To prevent things like this from happening.

Indeed. I think that the Mormon church should lose their tax exempt status, since they demonstrated that they are a political organization.

Oh, I see.

I am of the mind that religious organizations and churches should stay away from the business of the state. That's why there was clear separation between church and state. To prevent things like this from happening.

Indeed. I think that the Mormon church should lose their tax exempt status, since they demonstrated that they are a political organization.

I guess I'm particularly mad about it, because it happened here. In California, my home state that I love, but am now so deeply ashamed of. Don't get me wrong, I'm mostly really happy right now, because of the presidential election, but as far as local politics goes, I feel cheated and betrayed. And I'm just a straight dude with gay friends. Imagine how they must feel...

I'm gonna put some research into the Mormon Church, because I feel I do not know enough to give an honest opinion. I will get back to you when I have.

Indeed. I think that the Mormon church should lose their tax exempt status, since they demonstrated that they are a political organization.

I guess I'm particularly mad about it, because it happened here. In California, my home state that I love, but am now so deeply ashamed of. Don't get me wrong, I'm mostly really happy right now, because of the presidential election, but as far as local politics goes, I feel cheated and betrayed. And I'm just a straight dude with gay friends. Imagine how they must feel...

Coming from a country that has implemented a law to have equality of gender everywhere and that respects the right humans have to love whomever they want, I can understand your disappointment and shame. I would feel the same.

All that's left now is try and work to, I don't know, somehow revoke this law and, of course, in the future, try to keep churches out of the business of running a government.

Coming from a country that has implemented a law to have equality of gender everywhere and that respects the right humans have to love whomever they want, I can understand your disappointment and shame. I would feel the same.

All that's left now is try and work to, I don't know, somehow revoke this law and, of course, in the future, try to keep churches out of the business of running a government.

It can't be repealed for two years. One of the stipulations.

There is already a repeal ballot proposition planned, should the lawsuits on the legality of the amendment in the California Constitution.

One of the problems with the California Constitution is it takes only a majority vote to amend.

Passing a budget, on the other hand, in the California Legislature, takes a two thirds majority.

It can't be repealed for two years. One of the stipulations.

There is already a repeal ballot proposition planned, should the lawsuits on the legality of the amendment in the California Constitution.

One of the problems with the California Constitution is it takes only a majority vote to amend.

Passing a budget, on the other hand, in the California Legislature, takes a two thirds majority.

I just hope and wish you all the luck in repealing this law when the time comes. It's a violation to civil rights I never expected to see happening in the US.

I just hope and wish you all the luck in repealing this law when the time comes. It's a violation to civil rights I never expected to see happening in the US.

Oh, it's far from abnormal in the US. I just never expected it to succeed in my home state. And it's not exactly a law (otherwise it never would have gotten through the Democratic-controlled state legislature), but an amendment to the state Constitution. Fortunately, it only takes a majority to repeal, as well.

I'm going to buy a shirt as soon as they start making them. Or if I lose my patience before that, I'll just make one myself. And do other stuff, as soon as the repeal campaign gets up and going.

So now you want to join Hitler and dominate an entire cult. Just set off a nuke in the Utah desert. That should sort them out! :/

It's a violation to civil rights I never expected to see happening in the US.

All the states in orange have constitutional bans on gay marriage, all the states in red ban gay marriage and similar same-sex unions, and all the ones in yellow have statutes that ban gay marriage.. Obviously, it hasn't been updates to include California.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/300px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png

All the states in orange have constitutional bans on gay marriage, all the states in red ban gay marriage and similar same-sex unions, and all the ones in yellow have statutes that ban gay marriage.. Obviously, it hasn't been updates to include California.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg/300px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg.png

Wow, the US isn't precisely the land of the free then.:(

Wow, the US isn't precisely the land of the free then.:(

Did you ever think it was?

Wow, the US isn't precisely the land of the free then.:(

Clearly not. Currently, only Massachussetts and Connecticut allow same-sex marriages, and New York and New Mexico recognize foreign same-sex marriages. In this context "foreign" includes those done in other US states.

Did you ever think it was?

They pride themselves on it, don't they?

I lived there, and it stroke me as a fairly equal nation. Of course, there were also a lot of weird things on the surface. I saw a lot of fear and a lot of discrimination, demo...

They pride themselves on it, don't they?

I lived there, and it stroke me as a fairly equal nation. Of course, there were also a lot of weird things on the surface. I saw a lot of fear and a lot of discrimination, demo...

Yeah they do but when it comes down to it they aren't as much as they like to think they are.

Yeah they do but when it comes down to it they aren't as much as they like to think they are.

Yeah, I guess it always boils down to that. The ad to the entire world is "America: land of the free", but in reality, they're as prejudiced as any other country in regards to certain issues. It's rather disappointing.

Not so much for me - it's nice to know that they're as bad as everyone else - kinda reminds you that even the most powerful can be the stupidest.

Yeah, I guess it always boils down to that. The ad to the entire world is "America: land of the free", but in reality, they're as prejudiced as any other country in regards to certain issues. It's rather disappointing.

It's a symptom of American Exceptionalism.

Not so much for me - it's nice to know that they're as bad as everyone else - kinda reminds you that even the most powerful can be the stupidest.

It's not as simple as surmising it in that the US is stupid. I don't like Americans or their government, but I do have to conceed to them the fact that people there are free to express themselves in any way they want. That, for a young nation (200 years more or less), they have achieved a lot. This issue is more complicated than that.

Why a nation that prides itself in being the land of the free acts so fearful and with such wrath (and that's not even the right word to use) against same-sex marriage? Makes one wonder.

Why a nation that prides itself in being the land of the free acts so fearful and with such wrath (and that's not even the right word to use) against same-sex marriage? Makes one wonder.

Americans have always seemed so frightened of change. It confuses me as to why, seeing as the rest of the world has proven more willing in the past few years.

Perhaps now Obama is in charge, and the Americans are proving themselves not as bad as I had always assumed, something good may come out of this.

Americans have always seemed so frightened of change. It confuses me as to why, seeing as the rest of the world has proven more willing in the past few years.

Perhaps now Obama is in charge, and the Americans are proving themselves not as bad as I had always assumed, something good may come out of this.

Obama already said many times that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states. He knows that his support would evaporate (probably half of it) if he came out strongly in favor of gay marriage.

So he's for change, but not for everyone.

Yeah, I guess it always boils down to that. The ad to the entire world is "America: land of the free", but in reality, they're as prejudiced as any other country in regards to certain issues. It's rather disappointing.

Yeah I think it goes back to the founding though where they became the free and allowed people to come to the country regardless of your status "Give me your tired, oppressed..." or something like that.

So it is something that passes down the psyche including how they want to be the shining light on the hill, but even back then they had slavery so go figure.

Obama already said many times that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states. He knows that his support would evaporate (probably half of it) if he came out strongly in favor of gay marriage.

So he's for change, but not for everyone.

Lets wait and see. Some Presidents tend to wait until in power before they show their true colours...

Yeah I think it goes back to the founding though where they became the free and allowed people to come to the country regardless of your status "Give me your tired, oppressed..." or something like that.

So it is something that passes down the psyche including how they want to be the shining light on the hill, but even back then they had slavery so go figure.

Yeah, the contradictions rain.

BTW, I dropped you a TG.

Yeah, the contradictions rain.

BTW, I dropped you a TG.

Yeah, oh well the only thing to do is to continue the debate and fight.

Cheers, right back at you. :)

Yeah, oh well the only thing to do is to continue the debate and fight.

Indeed. Maybe these will do something.

It's not as simple as surmising it in that the US is stupid. I don't like Americans or their government, but I do have to conceed to them the fact that people there are free to express themselves in any way they want. That, for a young nation (200 years more or less), they have achieved a lot. This issue is more complicated than that.

Why a nation that prides itself in being the land of the free acts so fearful and with such wrath (and that's not even the right word to use) against same-sex marriage? Makes one wonder.
US history is a very mixed bag. The first colonies that became this nation were originally settled and governed by people who believed in the opposite of freedom and equality -- they were slave-owners/traders in the south and oppressive theocrats in the north. However, later in the colonial period came people influenced by Enlightenment social/political philosophies, who came to the colonies precisely to escape the kinds of oppressive systems that ruled in Britain/Europe and which the old colonial powers still supported and emulated (oppressive in that they interfered with these people's ability to make money, mostly). When that second group became large enough, they began to influence things away from the old ways, and THEY were the ones who ultimately launched and won the revolution that broke us off from the British crown and created the US. They were the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and established our system of laws.

But the fact remains that, from that day on, the people and culture of the US has been a roughly 50/50 split between those who think "all men are created equal" and those who think the opposite of that; between those who think government is "of the people, by the people, for the people" and those who think the people should be subordinate to and ruled by the government, between those who believe in separation of church and state and those who believe in theocracy.

The battle for supremacy between those two world views has been going on ever since within the US, usually where other countries can't always see it. It is why every single advancement in civil rights in US history has been gained only through decades of often brutally violent resistance, up to and including full-out civil war. Just in the 20th century we saw it with women getting the vote, the establishment of labor rights, and the end of racial segregation, and now we go into the 21st century fighting over gay rights, just like we've been fighting our entire history.

It's my opinion that the non-progressive world view is doomed, because history shows that all countries progress towards greater liberty and greater egalitarianism as they mature in power and prosperity. But many of those who hold those restrictive views perhaps see the US as the last bastion of the kind of world they think is the only good and proper one -- at least that's how a lot of them around here talk -- and they are determined not to go down easily.

Yeah I think it goes back to the founding though where they became the free and allowed people to come to the country regardless of your status "Give me your tired, oppressed..." or something like that.

So it is something that passes down the psyche including how they want to be the shining light on the hill, but even back then they had slavery so go figure.
Actually, that moving poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty was a French idea of what we are about. It happens to express the view of my country and of the world that I personally hold, but make no mistake, it was something that was said ABOUT us, not BY us.

As far as California is concerned, the fight for gay marriage rights is now out of the courts and legislature and back in the streets with the people. Prop 8 changed their constitution, so the state now has no power to act against it. For the next two years, there will be no same sex marriages performed or recognized in California. And for those two years, supporters of equal rights for all genders/sexualities are going to have to work hard to change the minds of a majority of their fellow California residents so they can get a repeal of the amendment on the ballot and get the votes to push it through.

Obama already said many times that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states. He knows that his support would evaporate (probably half of it) if he came out strongly in favor of gay marriage.

So he's for change, but not for everyone.

I don't blame him for it. You know that phrase, "choose your battles." If he got into a fight over gay marriage, he'd basically be unable to get any of the things he wants to do done.

The key thing is getting bona fide marriage for gay people in a few states. Then eventually the rest will be forced to come around.

Also, the supreme court. Unfortunately, it's probably stacked the way it is for at least the next ten years, as I only see the liberal judges retiring during the Obama presidency.

Why only the mormons? Lets go against all organized religions!!!

Lets ban religions alltogether...or at least make a tax so brutal for religious practices!!!

That would be nice

US history is a very mixed bag. The first colonies that became this nation were originally settled and governed by people who believed in the opposite of freedom and equality -- they were slave-owners/traders in the south and oppressive theocrats in the north. However, later in the colonial period came people influenced by Enlightenment social/political philosophies, who came to the colonies precisely to escape the kinds of oppressive systems that ruled in Britain/Europe and which the old colonial powers still supported and emulated (oppressive in that they interfered with these people's ability to make money, mostly). When that second group became large enough, they began to influence things away from the old ways, and THEY were the ones who ultimately launched and won the revolution that broke us off from the British crown and created the US. They were the ones who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and established our system of laws.

But the fact remains that, from that day on, the people and culture of the US has been a roughly 50/50 split between those who think "all men are created equal" and those who think the opposite of that; between those who think government is "of the people, by the people, for the people" and those who think the people should be subordinate to and ruled by the government, between those who believe in separation of church and state and those who believe in theocracy.

The battle for supremacy between those two world views has been going on ever since within the US, usually where other countries can't always see it. It is why every single advancement in civil rights in US history has been gained only through decades of often brutally violent resistance, up to and including full-out civil war. Just in the 20th century we saw it with women getting the vote, the establishment of labor rights, and the end of racial segregation, and now we go into the 21st century fighting over gay rights, just like we've been fighting our entire history.

It's my opinion that the non-progressive world view is doomed, because history shows that all countries progress towards greater liberty and greater egalitarianism as they mature in power and prosperity. But many of those who hold those restrictive views perhaps see the US as the last bastion of the kind of world they think is the only good and proper one -- at least that's how a lot of them around here talk -- and they are determined not to go down easily.


Actually, that moving poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty was a French idea of what we are about. It happens to express the view of my country and of the world that I personally hold, but make no mistake, it was something that was said ABOUT us, not BY us.

As far as California is concerned, the fight for gay marriage rights is now out of the courts and legislature and back in the streets with the people. Prop 8 changed their constitution, so the state now has no power to act against it. For the next two years, there will be no same sex marriages performed or recognized in California. And for those two years, supporters of equal rights for all genders/sexualities are going to have to work hard to change the minds of a majority of their fellow California residents so they can get a repeal of the amendment on the ballot and get the votes to push it through.

Very nice post, really. I'd say I pretty much completely agree.

About Prop 8, though. I think there is a significant chance that marriages that took place between its legalization and this new ban have a good chance of being recognized, because they were fully legal when the marriage licenses were issued.

In any case, though, there will be no marriages of gay couples for two years. America's future looks brighter, but California's is definitely looking darker.


As to the Statue of Liberty... we ought to give the French something for their birthday, sometime. I mean, it was a belated present, sure, but it was still a pretty nice one.

It's my opinion that the non-progressive world view is doomed, because history shows that all countries progress towards greater liberty and greater egalitarianism as they mature in power and prosperity. But many of those who hold those restrictive views perhaps see the US as the last bastion of the kind of world they think is the only good and proper one -- at least that's how a lot of them around here talk -- and they are determined not to go down easily.

And it is right and good that they're determined not to go down easily. The world should progress to a state where everyone is equal, regardless of sex, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or social placement. Perhaps I'm sounding too idealistic, but it's something we should all strive for.

Why only the mormons? Lets go against all organized religions!!!

Lets ban religions alltogether...or at least make a tax so brutal for religious practices!!!

That would be nice

Um, no. The rage directed at the Mormon church here is for their actions in helping get a group of citizens' rights stripped away.

Not for simply being a religion. I'd have no problem with them if they kept out of politics. Other than the knocking on my door thing. The next time a Mormon knocks on my door, I hope their God is watching over him. For his sake.

The irony is that the Mormons were originally forced to move to Utah because of their unconventional views on marriage.

It's not like all Mormons are bigots, though. Steve Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Young_(athlete)) publicly opposed Prop 8, and he counts for at least a few million Mormons.

The irony is that the Mormons were originally forced to move to Utah because of their unconventional views on marriage.

It's not like all Mormons are bigots, though. Steve Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Young_(athlete)) publicly opposed Prop 8, and he counts for at least a few million Mormons.

Exactly - don't judge a whole people on the actions of the majority - some of them are alright.

Exactly - don't judge a whole people on the actions of the majority - some of them are alright.

All I know is that religion, the church be it Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, should stay out, clear, of the business of the state. That's why there's a clear separation between the two.

I'm sure the church would frown and be angry if the state came in and basically told it how to impart the teachings of the gospels. It doesn't compute.

Granted, I know, for example that the Church of England works closely with the governemnt and is, correct me if I'm wrong, regulated by the state. I guess Queen Elixabeth I took care of that so a schism between Catholic and Anglican didn't reach again the proportions it did during her reign.

All I know is that religion, the church be it Catholic, Protestant or Mormon, should stay out, clear, of the business of the state. That's why there's a clear separation between the two.

Oh, I agree there. My point was that not all members of a religion are bad.

I'm sure the church would frown and be angry if the state came in and basically told it how to impart the teachings of the gospels. It doesn't compute.

Again, too true.

Granted, I know, for example that the Church of England works closely with the governemnt and is, correct me if I'm wrong, regulated by the state.

Oh, the church actually has little say in modern politics within the UK, But there are many believers in seats of power.

I guess Queen Elixabeth I took care of that so a schism between Catholic and Anglican didn't reach again the proportions it did during her reign.

Ah, not true. One of the reasons for the English civil war was that Charles I was a Catholic, while parliament was devoutly protestant. Not the only reason mind, but one of the reasons.

Ah, not true. One of the reasons for the English civil war was that Charles I was a Catholic, while parliament was devoutly protestant. Not the only reason mind, but one of the reasons.


Thanks for the historical correction. I wasn't sure.:)

Thanks for the historical correction. I wasn't sure.:)

Now the English civil war is something I excel at. I spent nearly a whole year studying it. I also studied the short rule of "Protector" Cromwell. :)

The irony is that the Mormons were originally forced to move to Utah because of their unconventional views on marriage.

It's not like all Mormons are bigots, though. Steve Young (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Young_(athlete)) publicly opposed Prop 8, and he counts for at least a few million Mormons.

I know, I know. Otherwise I would be as bad as the bigots... I'm just feeling really pissed about this whenever I think about it.

As to the Statue of Liberty... we ought to give the French something for their birthday, sometime. I mean, it was a belated present, sure, but it was still a pretty nice one.
Maybe a nice muffin basket or a cookie bouquet. :D

http://www.awesomecreations.com/images/SmilingCookieBouquet.jpg

And it is right and good that they're determined not to go down easily. The world should progress to a state where everyone is equal, regardless of sex, nationality, religion, sexual orientation or social placement. Perhaps I'm sounding too idealistic, but it's something we should all strive for.
No, no, no! You misunderstand me!

The people who are not going down easy are the ones who DO NOT believe in equality.