NationStates Jolt Archive

No, no, no! You misunderstand me!

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

Oops, I missread you.:tongue:

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.
We are strictly talking about LEGAL marriage. It is my LEGAL rights that you bastards fought against.

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.
The law has nothing to do with your ceremonies. You could still do all your ceremonies even if the law did not grant any legal rights based on marriage at all. And if you allowed us to marry legally like anyone else, I assure you we have not have the slightest interest in getting dubious "blessings" from the likes of you.
It also has a basis on how we look at society. (Sorry, if this seems bigoted.)
It does.

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
Liar.
You want to boycott Mormon goods and businesses. Go ahead. No one is stopping you. You are by all means entitled to do so.
I will do so. And I will urge everyone 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.
I know. But the LDS was responsible for the viciousness and the deceit of this campaign.

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

Maybe they were just pissed that their marriages are not legal either, and therefor wished the same upon the gays ? Misery loves company, more media coverage and so on. Who knows.

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.

As has been mentioned before: if one chooses to affiliate oneself with an organisation and keeps supporting it when it does something bad, do not whine if people associate you with the bad stuff. One can always stop the affiliation after all.

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'd suggest growing up. They knock, you tell them politely "no thank you", and if they remain to continue their harangue, you contact the police, as is your right. Engaging in illegal (firebombing) or petulant (boycott) activities because you're annoyed is really asinine.

Oops, I missread you.:tongue:
No problem. All cleared up. *breaks cookie off France's bouquet and gives it to Nanatsu* Here, keep smiling, baby. :D

Tm, if you don't like the way the referendum came out, maybe you don't like democracy.

Every time someone gets elected, or a law passed, or a referendum passed, someone (probably a lot of someones) are pissed off.

You lost, and Obama isn't interested in your cause either. He's said very clearly that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states.

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

Broadly true, but:

Certain English bishops sit in the House of Lords
The government (in theory the Queen, but in practice the PM) still selects all English bishops
The Anglican Church is only the established church of England. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is the established church north of the border; Wales and Northern Ireland have no established church.


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.

Charles I was not a Catholic. He was a high church Anglican who believed in Episcopacy and the apostolic succession, and the religious conflicts leading up to the Civil War were based on:

Charles' attempts to move the Church of England in a more traditional sacramental direction against the wishes of the Calvinists in Parliament.
Charles' attempts to impose bishops on Scotland.

They had nothing to do with any Catholicism on Charles' part.

Charles I's sons Charles II and James II were, however, Catholics. Charles II secretly (he officially converted on his deathbed), and James II openly - which led to his deposition by William and Mary in 1688.

I regret to say that you might not be quite as much as an expert on the topic as you think you are. Sorry.



And couldn't quite get the thread back on topic with those Mormons. Apologies.

I'd suggest growing up. They knock, you tell them politely "no thank you", and if they remain to continue their harangue, you contact the police, as is your right. Engaging in illegal (firebombing) or petulant (boycott) activities because you're annoyed is really asinine.

Do read the topic. The reason for the OPs annoyance runs much deeper.

Tm, if you don't like the way the referendum came out, maybe you don't like democracy.

Every time someone gets elected, or a law passed, or a referendum passed, someone (probably a lot of someones) are pissed off.

You lost, and Obama isn't interested in your cause either. He's said very clearly that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states.

That's right, every time you don't get your will done by Democracy means you can never try again or undermine your opponents. This means the Republican party is disbanding yes?

Broadly true, but:

Certain English bishops sit in the House of Lords
The government (in theory the Queen, but in practice the PM) still selects all English bishops
The Anglican Church is only the established church of England. The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is the established church north of the border; Wales and Northern Ireland have no established church.


Ok then.

Charles I was not a Catholic. He was a high church Anglican who believed in Episcopacy and the apostolic succession, and the religious conflicts leading up to the Civil War were based on:

Charles' attempts to move the Church of England in a more traditional sacramental direction against the wishes of the Calvinists in Parliament.
Charles' attempts to impose bishops on Scotland.

They had nothing to do with any Catholicism on Charles' part.

Charles I's sons Charles II and James II were, however, Catholics. Charles II secretly (he officially converted on his deathbed), and James II openly - which led to his deposition by William and Mary in 1688.

I regret to say that you might not be quite as much as an expert on the topic as you think you are. Sorry.


Dammit, my teacher lied to me! :mad:

Do read the topic. The reason for the OPs annoyance runs much deeper.

Nothing in the OP justified firebombing.

I'd suggest growing up. They knock, you tell them politely "no thank you", and if they remain to continue their harangue, you contact the police, as is your right. Engaging in illegal (firebombing) or petulant (boycott) activities because you're annoyed is really asinine.
The remarks about committing violence against churches really pissed me off and struck me as stupid, frankly.

However, calling for a boycott of LDS controlled businesses is a perfectly legitimate political action. The LDS involved itself in politics in a way that had a direct and immediate effect to take away civil rights and promote discrimination against gays in California. I say gays and gay rights supporters have every right to express their displeasure by refusing to do business with the LDS, via a boycott of companies owned/controlled by them or supported heavily by them.

EDIT: I have every intention of supporting such a boycott (which will be easy for me since it turns out I don't use the goods/services listed by TCT earlier in this thread anyway).

Tm, if you don't like the way the referendum came out, maybe you don't like democracy.

The main problem in this topic is that a religious organisation directly influenced the outcome of that referendum. Which is a bad thing, regardless of whether one agrees with the outcome or not.

That's right, every time you don't get your will done by Democracy means you can never try again or undermine your opponents. This means the Republican party is disbanding yes?
Oh, of course. Since they love democracy, and they just lost an election, they're going to bow to the will of the people and disappear off the planet forever. We will never see another Republican running for office in the US.

Geez, where do people get some of the crap they say, I wonder?

Oh, of course. Since they love democracy, and they just lost an election, they're going to bow to the will of the people and disappear off the planet forever. We will never see another Republican running for office in the US.

Geez, where do people get some of the crap they say, I wonder?

I didn't say they had to "bow to the will".

Get your own people together, and try to pass your own referendum.

Otherwise, STFU.

Do read the topic. The reason for the OPs annoyance runs much deeper.

Read the topic? In order that I should excuse firebombing? Sorry, but no thank you. Let him portray a more realistic and constructive response, and I'll consider reading what he has to say.

Nothing in the OP justified firebombing.

If the mormons indeed influenced the political process in violation of the seperation of church and state for the express purpose of stripping fellow Americans of their rights, one could argue it is even your constitutional duty to form a well armed militia and kill them ;)

Of course,the lawyers will have fun with that one.

The remarks about committing violence against churches really pissed me off and struck me as stupid, frankly.

However, calling for a boycott of LDS controlled businesses is a perfectly legitimate political action. The LDS involved itself in politics in a way that had a direct and immediate effect to take away civil rights and promote discrimination against gays in California. I say gays and gay rights supporters have every right to express their displeasure by refusing to do business with the LDS, via a boycott of companies owned/controlled by them or supported heavily by them.

EDIT: I have every intention of supporting such a boycott (which will be easy for me since it turns out I don't use the goods/services listed by TCT earlier in this thread anyway).

Fair enough. What post was that?

If the mormons indeed influenced the political process in violation of the seperation of church and state for the express purpose of stripping fellow Americans of their rights, one could argue it is even your duty to form a well armed militia and kill them ;)

Of course,the lawyers will have fun with that one.

I'd be amused to hear your justification of that action.

If the mormons indeed influenced the political process in violation of the seperation of church and state for the express purpose of stripping fellow Americans of their rights, one could argue it is even your duty to form a well armed militia and kill them ;)

Of course,the lawyers will have fun with that one.

They are free to influence a political process as long as they're comfortable with then having to pay taxes. That's the way the law works here in the US.

Of course, they can get around this by having their members form a political action committee (which is legal), and then have that PAC do all sorts of fundraising and political action.

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.

I'd be amused to hear your justification of that action.

Interpreting the second amendment so that it states that one can form militias and bear arms to protect oneself against the stripping of rights ;)

Hey - it is less of a twist than the NRA has been abusing it for. It may in fact even resemble the intention of the writers.

I didn't say they had to "bow to the will".

Get your own people together, and try to pass your own referendum.

Otherwise, STFU.
You're funny. I suppose it never occurred to you to read the thread you're posting in? Because if you had, you'd know that I have already said exactly that. :D

Fair enough. What post was that?
This one:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14173740&postcount=115

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.

Loving v. Virginia.

You're funny. I suppose it never occurred to you to read the thread you're posting in? Because if you had, you'd know that I have already said exactly that. :D

Ah, so if Muravyets says it, no one else can post... lol

Ah, so if Muravyets says it, no one else can post... lol
No one else gets to tell Muravyets what to say or do, when she has already said or done it. Remember, you were responding to me in the first place. Your "oops", friend. Next time you want to make a suggestion to the thread in general, don't quote me in your comment.

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the case Loving v. Virginia

I really love the far-left Liberals here at NS, you always proclaim your selves to be the mighty lovers of peace and justice and equal rights and yet you will make a post stating how you want to fire bomb a church. Oh yeah you're real lovers of peace and tolerance all right.

I really love the far-left Liberals here at NS, you always proclaim your selves to be the mighty lovers of peace and justice and equal rights and yet you will make a post stating how you want to fire bomb a church. Oh yeah you're real lovers of peace and tolerance all right.
I really love the way some people post in net forums even though they are apparently allergic to reading. Because if they had read the thread, they would know that NOT ALL "far-left" Liberals at NS are advocating church bombing. Attack by generalization fails again.

They are free to influence a political process as long as they're comfortable with then having to pay taxes. That's the way the law works here in the US.

Of course, they can get around this by having their members form a political action committee (which is legal), and then have that PAC do all sorts of fundraising and political action.

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.

Loving v Virginia:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Loving v. Virginia.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the case Loving v. Virginia

And a gigantic double-fuck to you two :p. At least I quoted the relevant part of the decision.

I really love the way some people post in net forums even though they are apparently allergic to reading. Because if they had read the thread, they would know that NOT ALL "far-left" Liberals at NS are advocating church bombing. Attack by generalization fails again.

Has anyone advocated firebombing? Seriously, and not just as an ill-chosen way of expressing the extent of their anger?

Has anyone advocated firebombing? Seriously, and not just as an ill-chosen way of expressing the extent of their anger?
No one has seriously advocated it, but several people have talked about it and/or joked about it, and in my opinion, such comments are stupid, childish and in overwhelmingly bad taste, not to mention counter to the very principles of liberty they do advocate. And I and several other people have said so very clearly in this thread, and no one has mentioned it again since -- except a few people trying unsuccessfully to defend the LDS for or in spite of its actions.

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.

I don't think the original post was about that proposition...but the thread got hijacked :confused:

So I guess that makes sense, lets pass a law to put some restrictions on mormon marriage practices too. :hail:

I don't think the original post was about that proposition...but the thread got hijacked :confused:

So I guess that makes sense, lets pass a law to put some restrictions on mormon marriage practices too. :hail:

Actually yeah, that is what the OP was about.

I really love the far-left Liberals here at NS, you always proclaim your selves to be the mighty lovers of peace and justice and equal rights and yet you will make a post stating how you want to fire bomb a church. Oh yeah you're real lovers of peace and tolerance all right.

No, I'm not a lover of tolerance. I've never claimed to be such. I have little for religious fundamentalism and bigotry.

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 what if the United States has already PASSED its peak of power and prosperity, and will just get uglier as it spirals downward? Obama has a lot of work ahead of him if he is going to reverse the trends.
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.

Historically inaccurate: the statue itself is a French picture of us, but the poem itself is by an American, Emma Lazarus.
I feel like quoting it, since it makes me optimistic about my country, and I need a little of that feeling today:
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp, cries she:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me!
I lift my lamp, beside the golden door.

But what if the United States has already PASSED its peak of power and prosperity, and will just get uglier as it spirals downward? Obama has a lot of work ahead of him if he is going to reverse the trends.

Historically inaccurate: the statue itself is a French picture of us, but the poem itself is by an American, Emma Lazarus.
I feel like quoting it, since it makes me optimistic about my country, and I need a little of that feeling today:
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp, cries she:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me!
I lift my lamp, beside the golden door.

I think you guys need a new version of it... I propose this one:

Give me, on a temporary basis, your healthy skilled workers,
Your huddled masses yearning to be part of a permanent underclass
Please keep the rest of the wretched refuses on your teeming shore,
After eight years, send these, the homeless, back to their home country, to apply for permanent residence
I lift my searchlight besides the 370 miles of border fence!

:p

The main problem in this topic is that a religious organisation directly influenced the outcome of that referendum. Which is a bad thing, regardless of whether one agrees with the outcome or not.
The main problem is the whole concept of letting a majority vote on whether a minority is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The second problem is not just that a religious organization influenced the outcome, but that they do so by engaging in vicious dishonesty.
No one has seriously advocated it, but several people have talked about it and/or joked about it, and in my opinion, such comments are stupid, childish and in overwhelmingly bad taste, not to mention counter to the very principles of liberty they do advocate.
Yes, yes, I freely acknowledge I was being stupid, childish, and in overwhelmingly bad taste. But you know, if I am outside the protection of the laws, why should I care about the laws?

The main problem is the whole concept of letting a majority vote on whether a minority is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The second problem is not just that a religious organization influenced the outcome, but that they do so by engaging in vicious dishonesty.

Yes, yes, I freely acknowledge I was being stupid, childish, and in overwhelmingly bad taste. But you know, if I am outside the protection of the laws, why should I care about the laws?

Can you give an example of the vicious dishonesty?

Also, how do you explain the fact that 7 out of 10 blacks voted to ban gay marriage? Are they all Mormons? Are they all brainwashed by white Mormons (the very same people also voting for Obama in droves)?

Can you give an example of the vicious dishonesty?
We had a whole long thread on that at the time. No, I am not going to repeat the rubbish; you do that yourself, if you want it back.
Also, how do you explain the fact that 7 out of 10 blacks voted to ban gay marriage? Are they all Mormons? Are they all brainwashed by white Mormons (the very same people also voting for Obama in droves)?
Unfortunately most blacks belong to crazy-christian churches. I would not have thought they would have fallen for the crap the Mormons were selling, but obviously the Mormons know what sells to crazy-christians better than I do.

We had a whole long thread on that at the time. No, I am not going to repeat the rubbish; you do that yourself, if you want it back.


Translation: I haven't got a reasonable answer for you, so I'm simply going to pretend like proving my point is unworthy of my efforts and put the burden of proof on you to prove my vitriol.


Unfortunately most blacks belong to crazy-christian churches.

Translation: My racism will also go unchallenged as I contrive some idiotic bond between Black people (who may or may not be LDS) and Christianity in general, in a bizarre attempt to blame Mormons.


I would not have thought they would have fallen for the crap the Mormons were selling, but obviously the Mormons know what sells to crazy-christians better than I do.

Translation: And now watch as I support my bizarre connection with some sort of backhanded insult to black people while simultanously continuing my juvenile rant against Mormons.

Grow up. It's okay to be pissed off but you're making an ass of yourself in doing it. You want to be mad? Be mad at everybody who supports Prop 8, which, despite what convenient version of reality you're using to fuel your ranting and raving, is a LOT more than just Mormons. You're only going after a particular group because it's fashionable and easy to talk trash against it. Members of the LDS Church made the most donations? BFD. You're just mad because no group on the other side of the issue gave enough of a shit to counter them. Why don't you try tossing a little of your tantrum in THAT direction?

Obama out-spent McCain almost 2:1 in the Presidential campaign. Would you agree with an argument from a Conservative that the Democrats bought the election? Of course not. So try being a little consistent.

If you had any moral courage at all or a reasonable gripe, you'd acknowledge that the political landscape in CA isn't what you thought it was and deal with THAT reality, so that maybe, if you really are interested in changing things in a positive and constructive manner you'd be much better equipped to do so.

The main problem is the whole concept of letting a majority vote on whether a minority is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The second problem is not just that a religious organization influenced the outcome, but that they do so by engaging in vicious dishonesty.

Hmm, I disagree. To me the main problem IS that a religious group believes it is allowed to strive to politically oppress others if it suits their doctrine.

A religious group with a political wing that focusses on improving the lives of its members is fine. Let them lobby for polygamy, the right to form communes and whatever rights and legal recognition they desire as much as they want.
But striving to limit the rights of others because that happens to suit their religion ? HELL NO.

Translation: I haven't got a reasonable answer for you, so I'm simply going to pretend like proving my point is unworthy of my efforts and put the burden of proof on you to prove my vitriol.

You were ON that thread. YOU repeat it, YOU defend it, if you dare.
Translation: My racism will also go unchallenged as I contrive some idiotic bond between Black people (who may or may not be LDS) and Christianity in general, in a bizarre attempt to blame Mormons.
Not "Christianity in general", the Pentecostal and other fundamentalist churches, whose beliefs I have as much contempt for as for yours. Yes, I am angry with them too, for their willingness to believe crap, but not as angry as I am with those who propagated the crap.

Hmm, I disagree. To me the main problem IS that a religious group believes it is allowed to strive to politically oppress others if it suits their doctrine.
My point is, it would be equally offensive if it was a non-religious group, although it is true that in the United States it is usually the religious who feel entitled.

I really love the far-left Liberals here at NS, you always proclaim your selves to be the mighty lovers of peace and justice and equal rights and yet you will make a post stating how you want to fire bomb a church. Oh yeah you're real lovers of peace and tolerance all right.

Im not about peace and tolerance when it comes to bigots and hate mongers.

But what if the United States has already PASSED its peak of power and prosperity, and will just get uglier as it spirals downward?
I said "mature", not "rise."

Obama has a lot of work ahead of him if he is going to reverse the trends.
You'll get no argument from me on that one. I'm flabbergasted he won even though I was desperately praying he would. Shows you what I think of my fellow Americans.

Historically inaccurate: the statue itself is a French picture of us, but the poem itself is by an American, Emma Lazarus.
Ah, I stand corrected.

I feel like quoting it, since it makes me optimistic about my country, and I need a little of that feeling today:
Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp, cries she:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me!
I lift my lamp, beside the golden door.
Thanks. *gets misty*

The main problem is the whole concept of letting a majority vote on whether a minority is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. The second problem is not just that a religious organization influenced the outcome, but that they do so by engaging in vicious dishonesty.

Yes, yes, I freely acknowledge I was being stupid, childish, and in overwhelmingly bad taste. But you know, if I am outside the protection of the laws, why should I care about the laws?
Because you are superior to your enemies. It's not the laws you should be caring about. It's your principles.

Hmm, I disagree. To me the main problem IS that a religious group believes it is allowed to strive to politically oppress others if it suits their doctrine.

A religious group with a political wing that focusses on improving the lives of its members is fine. Let them lobby for polygamy, the right to form communes and whatever rights and legal recognition they desire as much as they want.
But striving to limit the rights of others because that happens to suit their religion ? HELL NO.

My point is, it would be equally offensive if it was a non-religious group, although it is true that in the United States it is usually the religious who feel entitled.
I agree with both of you wholeheartedly. Just mentioning. :)

Im not about peace and tolerance when it comes to bigots and hate mongers.

In other words (Bill Maher's, in fact): "we shouldn't tolerate intolerance."

Because you are superior to your enemies. It's not the laws you should be caring about. It's your principles.
You are, of course, correct. But my Inner Brat comes out when I am cranky.

Translation: I haven't got a reasonable answer for you, so I'm simply going to pretend like proving my point is unworthy of my efforts and put the burden of proof on you to prove my vitriol.



Translation: My racism will also go unchallenged as I contrive some idiotic bond between Black people (who may or may not be LDS) and Christianity in general, in a bizarre attempt to blame Mormons.



Translation: And now watch as I support my bizarre connection with some sort of backhanded insult to black people while simultanously continuing my juvenile rant against Mormons.

Grow up. It's okay to be pissed off but you're making an ass of yourself in doing it. You want to be mad? Be mad at everybody who supports Prop 8, which, despite what convenient version of reality you're using to fuel your ranting and raving, is a LOT more than just Mormons. You're only going after a particular group because it's fashionable and easy to talk trash against it. Members of the LDS Church made the most donations? BFD. You're just mad because no group on the other side of the issue gave enough of a shit to counter them. Why don't you try tossing a little of your tantrum in THAT direction?


Translation: I don't want to admit that my church is pro-bigotry, so I'll attempt to divert attention by means of insult and by pointing out that there are non Mormon bigots, too.

You know what? I'm pissed at Evangelical Churches. And Catholic Churches. I'm pissed at every Church that supports bigotry. I'm pissed at every organization that supports bigotry, be they religious or no. It just so happens that Mormon bigotry was instrumental in getting Prop 8 passed, and as such, a bigger part of my anger is towards them than the average indoctrinated voter, even if they get a bit, as well.


Obama out-spent McCain almost 2:1 in the Presidential campaign. Would you agree with an argument from a Conservative that the Democrats bought the election? Of course not. So try being a little consistent.

If you had any moral courage at all or a reasonable gripe, you'd acknowledge that the political landscape in CA isn't what you thought it was and deal with THAT reality, so that maybe, if you really are interested in changing things in a positive and constructive manner you'd be much better equipped to do so.


A better analogy than would be to say "do you think that people who donated money to the Obama campaign are partially to blame for getting him elected?"
To which I would answer with a resounding yes. People who donated time and money to Barack Obama are to "blame" to for getting him elected. The more money and time they donated, the more "blame" they get. It's just that in this case, it's something to be proud of. In the case of the LDS and their support for bigotry and discrimination, it's something to be ashamed of, as if they had supported racial discrimination.

Oh wait, that was official doctrine fairly recently too, until it became unpopular. But I bet the only shame that the LDS feels over that period is that they bowed to popular pressure instead of sticking with what they earnestly believe.

As for me, I'll gladly participate in any boycott of bigoted business owners, be they Mormon or a member of any other religion, or of none at all. Hurt their wallets, they deserve it.

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.

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.

Multiple posters have already referred you to Loving v. Virginia (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/388/1.html), 388 U.S. 1 (1967). The fact of the matter is the right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm)).

Moreover, the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law which is being denied to same-sex couples.

Finally, and more to the point, until Prop. 8 passed, the right of same-sex couples to be married was protected by the California Constitution. See In re Marriage Cases (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF), 43 Cal.4th 757, 76 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 183 P.3d 384 (2008). Prop. 8 takes that right away. Similarly, denial of equal protection under the law with regard to marriage discriminates against same-sex couples and/or homosexuals.

Grow up. It's okay to be pissed off but you're making an ass of yourself in doing it. You want to be mad? Be mad at everybody who supports Prop 8, which, despite what convenient version of reality you're using to fuel your ranting and raving, is a LOT more than just Mormons. You're only going after a particular group because it's fashionable and easy to talk trash against it. Members of the LDS Church made the most donations? BFD. You're just mad because no group on the other side of the issue gave enough of a shit to counter them. Why don't you try tossing a little of your tantrum in THAT direction?

Obama out-spent McCain almost 2:1 in the Presidential campaign. Would you agree with an argument from a Conservative that the Democrats bought the election? Of course not. So try being a little consistent.

If you had any moral courage at all or a reasonable gripe, you'd acknowledge that the political landscape in CA isn't what you thought it was and deal with THAT reality, so that maybe, if you really are interested in changing things in a positive and constructive manner you'd be much better equipped to do so.

Again, it is far from unreasonable to seek to retaliate against a group that was a major influence in the passage of Prop. 8. You are right that all supporters of Prop. 8 should be scorned, but the prominence of the LDS Church in that group elevates the degree to which they should be opposed.

Translation: I don't want to admit that my church is pro-bigotry, so I'll attempt to divert attention by means of insult and by pointing out that there are non Mormon bigots, too.


What's to admit? I KNOW my Church is against homosexuality. What are you accusing me of not admitting?

Oh, that I refuse to call it bigotry? Well, yeah I do refuse to call it bigotry. That puts me in pretty good company then, doesn't it, because I'm seeing a helluva lot of anti-religious bigotry right here in this thread. But I bet very few would admit it, or, admit it but then qualify that with some kind of lofty justification that says their brand of bigotry is just fine as long as the people it's directed against deserve it.

You can call my Church bigoted all you want to but it doesn't mean much coming from people who eat, sleep and breathe their own version of bigotry and re-brand it as moral outrage so they can sleep at night. At least I'm on the side where the adults are.

Yeah, I'm a Mormon but you know, I understand why you guys would be pissed. If I were in your shoes, I'd be pissed too. But here's the thing, you guys could take the high road and respond in a constructive manner. Instead I see just a bunch of hypocrisy that's only going to make things worse, not better.

I guess I have some pretty high standards. I've got a couple gay family members. I have a couple of gay friends. I have a gay co-worker. Guess what? We can talk about this stuff without all the bitterness, anger and threats. They're all annoyed too. They had the same stake in this as a lot of you guys. The difference is that they're channeling that in a way that will eventually lead to understanding between people instead of this crap that passes for reasonable discourse on this forum.

You want to do damage to the Mormon Church? That's a smart plan. Go ahead and galvanize a few million Americans to be even less likely to listen to your point of view than they already are. That's real smart. While you're at it go ahead and keep alienating the Catholics, Evangelicals and everybody else who has the audacity to disagree with you.

So yes, propagate your bitterness. Show them how much they hurt you by hurting them back. That's real mature.

What's to admit? I KNOW my Church is against homosexuality. What are you accusing me of not admitting?

Oh, that I refuse to call it bigotry? Well, yeah I do refuse to call it bigotry. That puts me in pretty good company then, doesn't it, because I'm seeing a helluva lot of anti-religious bigotry right here in this thread. But I bet very few would admit it, or, admit it but then qualify that with some kind of lofty justification that says their brand of bigotry is just fine as long as the people it's directed against deserve it.

You can call my Church bigoted all you want to but it doesn't mean much coming from people who eat, sleep and breathe their own version of bigotry and re-brand it as moral outrage so they can sleep at night. At least I'm on the side where the adults are.

Yeah, I'm a Mormon but you know, I understand why you guys would be pissed. If I were in your shoes, I'd be pissed too. But here's the thing, you guys could take the high road and respond in a constructive manner. Instead I see just a bunch of hypocrisy that's only going to make things worse, not better.

I guess I have some pretty high standards. I've got a couple gay family members. I have a couple of gay friends. I have a gay co-worker. Guess what? We can talk about this stuff without all the bitterness, anger and threats. They're all annoyed too. They had the same stake in this as a lot of you guys. The difference is that they're channeling that in a way that will eventually lead to understanding between people instead of this crap that passes for reasonable discourse on this forum.

You want to do damage to the Mormon Church? That's a smart plan. Go ahead and galvanize a few million Americans to be even less likely to listen to your point of view than they already are. That's real smart. While you're at it go ahead and keep alienating the Catholics, Evangelicals and everybody else who has the audacity to disagree with you.

So yes, propagate your bitterness. Show them how much they hurt you by hurting them back. That's real mature.

Calling somebody bigoted for holding a bigoted opinion is not bigotry.
Thinking gay people do not deserve the same equal rights that every other person is entitled to is.

Calling somebody bigoted for holding a bigoted opinion is not bigotry.


And if all of the vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church on this thread were solely about that issue, I'd concede the point. Too bad it isn't.

What's to admit? I KNOW my Church is against homosexuality. What are you accusing me of not admitting?

Oh, that I refuse to call it bigotry? Well, yeah I do refuse to call it bigotry. That puts me in pretty good company then,

If you consider bigots good company, yes it does.

And if all of the vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church on this thread were solely about that issue, I'd concede the point. Too bad it isn't.

Because something like 90% or so of the "vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church [in] this thread" IS solely about that issue, would you concede 90% or so of the point? :wink:

What's to admit? I KNOW my Church is against homosexuality. What are you accusing me of not admitting?

That your Church tells lies.
That puts me in pretty good company then, doesn't it, because I'm seeing a helluva lot of anti-religious bigotry right here in this thread.

We don't pass laws forbidding you to conduct your private affairs in whatever way, however silly we think it, that you see best. I did petulantly suggest passing such laws, precisely because I agree it would be unconstitutional and immoral to do that: in the hope that that might get you to see that equal protection of the law is an important principle.
Yeah, I'm a Mormon but you know, I understand why you guys would be pissed. If I were in your shoes, I'd be pissed too. But here's the thing, you guys could take the high road and respond in a constructive manner.

Like what? Your Church has driven things to the point where there is no possible response except to curb its power.
I guess I have some pretty high standards. I've got a couple gay family members. I have a couple of gay friends.

You are NOT their friend.
You want to do damage to the Mormon Church? That's a smart plan. Go ahead and galvanize a few million Americans to be even less likely to listen to your point of view than they already are.

That's not possible.

If you consider bigots good company, yes it does.

:rolleyes:

Because something like 90% or so of the "vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church [in] this thread" IS solely about that issue, would you concede 90% or so of the point? :wink:

If somebody has the honest opinion that voting for Prop 8 is bigotry and they call somebody on it, of course that, in itself isn't bigotry.

And if that were all this thread was about, I'd have nothing to add, because nobody who holds that opinion is gonna change it no matter what I write.

But please, TCT, I know how smart you are, I hope you're not pretending there isn't an alarming amount of anti-religious bigoted crap flying around this thread.

And if all of the vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church on this thread were solely about that issue, I'd concede the point. Too bad it isn't.

I have to admit, that seems interesting to me.

Just a few posts ago, you were saying you wouldn't admit that being anti-gay rights was bigotry.
Now you seem to be implying that it would be, that you'd concede the point if that was the problem that most posters were talking about.

That seems to be... a slight contradiction to me. Care to clarify?

I hope you're not pretending there isn't an alarming amount of anti-religious bigoted crap flying around this thread.
You are alarmed that we call bigots "bigots" when we see them. What else is the "crap", pray tell?

That your Church tells lies.


And I guess you're an expert, eh? Go take a nap.


We don't pass laws forbidding you to conduct your private affairs in whatever way, however silly we think it, that you see best. I did petulantly suggest passing such laws, precisely because I agree it would be unconstitutional and immoral to do that: in the hope that that might get you to see that equal protection of the law is an important principle.

I'm not aware of the Church passing any laws, either.

Hyperbole, much?


Like what? Your Church has driven things to the point where there is no possible response except to curb its power.


Excuse rejected.


You are NOT their friend.


They would beg to differ. What do you think you know about me that they don't?


That's not possible.

Excuse rejected.

I have to admit, that seems interesting to me.

Just a few posts ago, you were saying you wouldn't admit that being anti-gay rights was bigotry.
Now you seem to be implying that it would be, that you'd concede the point if that was the problem that most posters were talking about.

That seems to be... a slight contradiction to me. Care to clarify?

Certainly. I am well aware that, in your opinion, the actions of the Church in this matter constitute bigotry. I do not share that opinion, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding that to express your opinion is not an act of bigotry itself.

An open mind. Good thing to have.

Certainly. I am well aware that, in your opinion, the actions of the Church in this matter constitute bigotry. I do not share that opinion, but that doesn't prevent me from understanding that to express your opinion is not an act of bigotry itself.

An open mind. Good thing to have.

Thanks.

But that's interesting. If gay people do not deserve the rights other humans deserve, does that not imply that you believe that they are, in some way, inferior? I don't understand how that's not bigotry.

The use of the term "marriage" for homosexuals as opposed to "civil union" is not a right.


No, it's not. However, the specific institution of 'marriage' as aopposed to 'civil union' was identified in the "Defence of Marriage Act" as being accorded more than a thousand preferential rights/responsibilities.

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.


And, as of the Defence of Marriage Act (1997), 1049 rights were supressed by the specific disallowance of homosexuals to have their unions recognised as the absolute equivalebnt of marriage.


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.


I don't chose to punish people for being of a certain faith, and I challenge you, here and now, to find me saying I did. To find me EVER saying I did.

I have no care at all what you believe, that's a personal choice.

It's not 'beliefs' that I am objecting to in the Proposition 8 situation - it's the ACTIONS.

If a group holds that slavery is okay, because of their religion, fine. If they make slaves of people - that's where I have a problem.


Maybe you should be held accountable.

I should, and I am entirely willing to be held so.

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.

Kinda contradicted yourself there. Thanks for saving me the time.

They would beg to differ.
I would have to talk to them, privately, before I would believe that.

Thanks.

But that's interesting. If gay people do not deserve the rights other humans deserve, does that not imply that you believe that they are, in some way, inferior? I don't understand how that's not bigotry.

You and I come from different worldviews on this one. Specifically, you and I have very different ideas on what those rights are and where they come from.

For instance, if one believes that:

-Marriage is an institution of God
-homosexual behavior is sinful

Then the idea of gay marriage is non-sequitur. In terms of rights, a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. Just because he doesn't WANT to is no more relevant than if I choose not to exercise my right to operate a free press.

That's my answer. I know what the response is from the other side, I've had this debate before. I posted this only to answer your question, not to start a side debate. (I'm about to go home and get some dinner. Chicken tacos. Yum!)

I would have to talk to them, privately, before I would believe that.

yeah, I'll get right on that.

Tm, if you don't like the way the referendum came out, maybe you don't like democracy.


I don't like democracy, and I don't like referenda.

But you don't HAVE to like democracy, you just have to 'do' it.


Every time someone gets elected, or a law passed, or a referendum passed, someone (probably a lot of someones) are pissed off.


And, if those people that are pissed, are pissed because their ability to hold someone else subject to their will has been abridged, that is a GOOD thing.


You lost, and Obama isn't interested in your cause either. He's said very clearly that he's leaving gay marriage up to the individual states.

Where did he say he wasn't interested?

:rolleyes:



If somebody has the honest opinion that voting for Prop 8 is bigotry and they call somebody on it, of course that, in itself isn't bigotry.

And if that were all this thread was about, I'd have nothing to add, because nobody who holds that opinion is gonna change it no matter what I write.

But please, TCT, I know how smart you are, I hope you're not pretending there isn't an alarming amount of anti-religious bigoted crap flying around this thread.

Citation needed.

They would beg to differ. What do you think you know about me that they don't?

Do they know that you don't view them as having rights equal to yours?

I really love the far-left Liberals here at NS, you always proclaim your selves to be the mighty lovers of peace and justice and equal rights and yet you will make a post stating how you want to fire bomb a church. Oh yeah you're real lovers of peace and tolerance all right.

I'm pretty far left and liberal.

I always proclaim myself to be a lover of peace, justice and equal rights.

Show me where I said anything about firebombing churches?

You and I come from different worldviews on this one. Specifically, you and I have very different ideas on what those rights are and where they come from.

For instance, if one believes that:

-Marriage is an institution of God
-homosexual behavior is sinful

Then the idea of gay marriage is non-sequitur. In terms of rights, a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. Just because he doesn't WANT to is no more relevant than if I choose not to exercise my right to operate a free press.

That's my answer. I know what the response is from the other side, I've had this debate before. I posted this only to answer your question, not to start a side debate. (I'm about to go home and get some dinner. Chicken tacos. Yum!)

If you do return to to this thread after your dinner (which sounds delicious, by the way), I do have to ask you, what is your response to the response that I assume you're thinking of: "Well, could you not apply that same line to interracial marriage? 'They have a right to marry somebody of their race, same as I do?'"
Indeed, if we follow your reasoning, shouldn't all marriages except Christian ones be illegal, because they obviously aren't making an agreement with the "right" god and are therefore, under your definition of marriage, not married?
I've never even heard an attempt to answer it, religious people almost always ignore the question.

Because there's no reason-based distinction, as far as I can see, only a religious one, which, of course, should not apply to law.

You and I come from different worldviews on this one. Specifically, you and I have very different ideas on what those rights are and where they come from.

For instance, if one believes that:

-Marriage is an institution of God
-homosexual behavior is sinful

Then the idea of gay marriage is non-sequitur. In terms of rights, a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. Just because he doesn't WANT to is no more relevant than if I choose not to exercise my right to operate a free press.

That's my answer. I know what the response is from the other side, I've had this debate before. I posted this only to answer your question, not to start a side debate. (I'm about to go home and get some dinner. Chicken tacos. Yum!)

Marriage is an institution of god - to YOU. Homosexual behaviour is sinful - to YOU.

That's what makes those things belief.

If you weren't allowed to hold those beliefs, you'd have some space to call people like me bigots.

Other people acknowledge the fact that 'marriages' are not only religious, and certainly not only confined to your church. Other people acknowledge that we have evidence of 'marriage' ceremonies that not only precede YOUR church, but ALL the current churches.

For your church to be a party to setting laws that will take away rights from people that do not follow your religion, is wrong. To use your faith, to enforce the actual deliberate discrimination against a minority, is wrong.

That is why the church (collective) is the bigot in this drama.

For instance, if one believes that:

-Marriage is an institution of God

then one is factually incorrect. there is nothing else to say short of banning all non-mormon marriages.

You and I come from different worldviews on this one. Specifically, you and I have very different ideas on what those rights are and where they come from.

For instance, if one believes that:

-Marriage is an institution of God
-homosexual behavior is sinful

Then the idea of gay marriage is non-sequitur. In terms of rights, a gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I do. Just because he doesn't WANT to is no more relevant than if I choose not to exercise my right to operate a free press.

That's my answer. I know what the response is from the other side, I've had this debate before. I posted this only to answer your question, not to start a side debate. (I'm about to go home and get some dinner. Chicken tacos. Yum!)

1. If marriage is truly an "institution of God," doesn't having government involvement in marriage at all violate the First Amendment's separation of Church and State?

2. Are marriages other than temple marriages between Mormons marriages?

3. Denying marriage on the basis of gender of the parties is discrimination just as denying marriage on the basis of race of the parties.

4. How does allowing same-sex marriage make homosexual behavior any more sinful? Do people stop being homosexual if they can't marry?

5. As you raise the question, what are rights and where do they come from?

And if all of the vitriolic crap directed against the LDS Church on this thread were solely about that issue, I'd concede the point. Too bad it isn't.
As TCT pointed out the vast majority of statements against the LDS have been specifically about its political involvement in promoting a measure designed to take away civil rights from gays. What you are doing here is focusing on just a few statements by some posters that have been anti-LDS just for being LDS and a few others that have been anti-religion in general and trying to stretch those to appear as if they dominate the thread.

They do not, and your attempts are dishonest.

1. If marriage is truly an "institution of God," doesn't having government involvement in marriage at all violate the First Amendment's separation of Church and State?

2. Are marriages other than temple marriages between Mormons marriages?

3. Denying marriage on the basis of gender of the parties is discrimination just as denying marriage on the basis of race of the parties.

4. How does allowing same-sex marriage make homosexual behavior any more sinful? Do people stop being homosexual if they can't marry?

5. As you raise the question, what are rights and where do they come from?

While we're on the subject, perhaps after providing proof of "anti-religious bigotry" in the thread NB would like to address the points I made (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14174571&postcount=167) that Tygereyes consistently ignored before fleeing the thread.

I don't see anywhere in the US Constitution where it says anyone has the "right" to marry - heterosexual or homosexual. Maybe you have a different copy.a) Loving v. Virginia has already been mentioned several times
b) do we really want to start the debate about the number of rights that are not specifically enumerated within the constitution, but are still held to be rights? That's the entire reason for Amendment 9

do we really want to start the debate about the number of rights that are not specifically enumerated within the constitution, but are still held to be rights? That's the entire reason for Amendment 9

i'm impressed that both the federalists and anti-federalists managed to both be somewhat right on this issue, but even more impressed at the mental gymnastics of conservatives that have never really been down with the idea of people having rights in their attempt to get around the compromise.

"if we don't write down a list of rights, some people will claim said rights aren't protected."
"if we write down a list of rights, those people will claim that those are the only rights that are protected."
"i've got an idea - we'll write down a list of biggies, but include in the list a thing that explicitly says 'hey fucktards, just because it aint written down does not mean it is not a right'"
"that's foolproof!"

yeah, I'll get right on that.You know what I mean. The racist who says "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black!" is such a cliche' I'm surprised you wanted to echo it; if you talked to those black "friends" when he's not around, you might get a different impression of what the relationship was.

I have a lot of people in my life who are my personal enemies, in that profoundest sense of the word personal, but I have to get along with them, be civil and polite, do favors for them and receive favors for them. Some of them might think they are my "friends", but I know that when it comes right down to it, they are no friend to me. If I had you in my life, I am sure I would find it prudent to bite my tongue and speak to you more kindly than I do here on the internet, but that would not be the reality.

1. If marriage is truly an "institution of God," doesn't having government involvement in marriage at all violate the First Amendment's separation of Church and State?

First thing marriage is a social issue. It's generally prescribed by a church, as a structure of society. If churches believe that homosexuality is against society, then it's their right to fight against it. No amount of whining that it's bigotry is going to change that position.





2. Are marriages other than temple marriages between Mormons marriages?

By LDS standards, a marriage outside of a temple is a marriage. But.... that doesn't change the fact that homosexual marriage is not recognized.

3. Denying marriage on the basis of gender of the parties is discrimination just as denying marriage on the basis of race of the parties.

It's not the same thing. Despite your whineing that it is. Interacial marriage is about as diffrent as same gender marriage can get. One being based on ethnic and society diffrence and the other being based on biological diffrence.

4. How does allowing same-sex marriage make homosexual behavior any more sinful? Do people stop being homosexual if they can't marry?

It means that society is condoning a sinful act and promotes sinful behavior. No, people don't stop being homosexual. They choose that life and choose to live that way. Can't stop people for being who they are. But on the other hand, you keep whineing about our church pushing our way of life on you. The same thing happens in reverse by pushing a style and way of life that others don't accept in the form of marriage.

5. As you raise the question, what are rights and where do they come from?

Well to answer from a religious standpoint, they come from God. God gave man the right to choose: Right/Wrong. Good/Evil.

And from a secular postion: Man made the laws and gave rights to each other, they can never always be perfect because man is not a perfect being.

But since you're talking about Gay rights, and assume you are. The laws need to be rewritten that give rights to property, rights to vistitation etc, rights to insurance, rights to inherit. This doesn't have to involve marriage. These are not functions of society, they are functions of business and government. And they don't have to include marriage (which is a function of society.)



And that's it from me and my response to be torn down as you see fit. I promised not to say anymore but I have. I've thought long and hard about things.

By the way, for those of you who are interested in boycotting Mariott, here is a full listing of their brands:
Mariott Hotel and Resorts
JW Mariott Hotel and Resorts
Renaissance Hotels & Resorts
Marriott Conference Centers
Ritz-Carlton
BVLGARI Hotels & Resorts
Courtyard by Marriott
Fairfield Inn by Marriott
SpringHill Suites by Marriott
Residence Inn by Marriott
TownePlace Suites by Marriott
Marriott ExecuStay
Marriott Executive Apartments
Marriott Vacation Club International (MVCI)
Horizons by Marriott Vacation Club
Marriott Grand Residence Club
The Ritz-Carlton Club

First thing marriage is a social issue. It's generally prescribed by a church, as a structure of society.

NO. It's not. Believe it or not, there are lots of people who don't belong to any Christian denomination whatsoever, and lots who may consider themselves Christian but do not go to church, not even to get married in the church: like my parents for example; not until recent years did religious sons of bitches have the effrontery to deny they were really married. Marriage is a LEGAL institution. Your religious weddings are your own affair, but leave the LEGAL institution alone.
If churches believe that homosexuality is against society, then it's their right to fight against it. No amount of whining that it's bigotry is going to change that position.

It is NOT their right to attack me when I have done nothing to them. They may say as many nasty things about me as they like (and yes, that IS bigotry; but speech is their right), but when they interfere in my life, they are in the wrong.
By LDS standards, a marriage outside of a temple is a marriage. But.... that doesn't change the fact that homosexual marriage is not recognized.

I don't give a damn what your LDS standards are. You can "recognize" me or not "recognize" me as you please. What the standards of the LAW are is a separate matter.
Interacial marriage is about as diffrent as same gender marriage can get.

In one respect they are identical: the Mormon church fought interracial marriage tooth and nail. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
No, people don't stop being homosexual. They choose that life and choose to live that way.

It is not anything I CHOOSE; it is what I AM.
But on the other hand, you keep whineing about our church pushing our way of life on you. The same thing happens in reverse by pushing a style and way of life that others don't accept in the form of marriage.

Nobody is pushing anything on you. You don't want to marry another man? Then don't. You don't want to invite two married men into your church? Then don't. You don't want to grant religious recognition of any kind to the couple? Then don't. That's your own business. Just LEAVE US ALONE, GOD DAMN YOU!
The laws need to be rewritten that give rights to property, rights to vistitation etc, rights to insurance, rights to inherit. This doesn't have to involve marriage.

That is what marriage IS. We are strictly talking about the legal usage of the word "marriage", which consists of those rights (and many others). You have your private religious definition of the word "marriage": I don't care what that is; I don't want to hear about it. We are talking about your hypocrisy in SAYING we should have those rights, and ACTING to take them away.

"...same gender marriage... being based on biological diffrence..."

"They choose that life and choose to live that way..."



"I've thought long and hard about things."

Not long or hard enough, apparently.

Not long or hard enough, apparently.


I won't bend to break if that's what you mean. I've thought long and hard on my own personal stance and I've made it. Deal with it.

I've thought long and hard on my own personal stance
No, you haven't. It doesn't sound like you gave much thought at all to any of this before today, and you haven't learned much today, either.

I won't bend to break if that's what you mean. I've thought long and hard on my own personal stance and I've made it. Deal with it.
How do you reconcile this with your statement earlier in this thread that you don't really know much about this issue?

If thinking about it long and hard = my church says it's wrong so that's what I believe.

No, you haven't. It doesn't sound like you gave much thought at all to any of this before today, and you haven't learned much today, either.

And the same for you. Good day. Tis (really) the last time I post in this thread.

I won't bend to break if that's what you mean. I've thought long and hard on my own personal stance and I've made it. Deal with it.

You said it was a biological factor. One paragraph later, you said it was a choice.

You were wrong, obviously, on at least one occassion.

Thus, you can't have thought VERY long or VERY hard about it - because you contradict yourself.

If it IS biological - then it's EXACTLY like racial-inequality of marriage.

If it is not biological - then you are trampling the rights of others to choose.

Either way, it's an evil move on your part - and I mean evil in a 'against the will of god' way, not just in as much as it is OBVIOUSLY mean-spirited and uncaring.

And the same for you. Good day. Tis (really) the last time I post in this thread.

Spread the hate, and don't wait around to be held accountable?

Oh, if ONLY that tactic was original.

i'm impressed that both the federalists and anti-federalists managed to both be somewhat right on this issue, but even more impressed at the mental gymnastics of conservatives that have never really been down with the idea of people having rights in their attempt to get around the compromise.

"if we don't write down a list of rights, some people will claim said rights aren't protected."
"if we write down a list of rights, those people will claim that those are the only rights that are protected."
"i've got an idea - we'll write down a list of biggies, but include in the list a thing that explicitly says 'hey fucktards, just because it aint written down does not mean it is not a right'"
"that's foolproof!"
It is stunning. I have to say, I'm glad they wrote down atleast a few that we can promise can be defended...I just wish the others were that simple.
First thing marriage is a social issue. It's generally prescribed by a church, as a structure of society. If churches believe that homosexuality is against society, then it's their right to fight against it. No amount of whining that it's bigotry is going to change that position.
Wrong. Marriage is not a social issue, it is a legal issue and a social institution.
Let me give you two examples:
My parents. They were married in their home by a judge. By your conception, are they a married couple?
The correct answer is yes...they are LEGALLY married (strange where that term comes from, no?)

This does not change when I tell you that one was raised Episcopalean, one Jewish. Nor does it change when I tell you that both had been through a divorce previously. Nor does it change when I tell you that the judge was a man that was paid by the hour to oversee the proceedings.

My two friends. They were married by the ocean by a judge. By your conception, are they a married couple?
Again, the correct answer is yes...they are LEGALLY married.

This does not change when I let you in on the fact that my two friends both happen to have penises, and were married in California. Nor does it change when I tell you that one of them is a former Mormon. Nor does it change when I tell you that, upon hearing that their son was gay and wanted to marry this other man, that the family left the church. Nor does it change when I tell you that the judge who wed them was one of their fathers.

None of this is relevant. They met the requirements for a legal contract, and signed it in the presence of a judge. They are legally married. If either couple chooses to get divorced, they would seek the aid of a lawyer to disolve the contract, not a religious official.






By LDS standards, a marriage outside of a temple is a marriage. But.... that doesn't change the fact that homosexual marriage is not recognized.

The church does not have to recognize anything. Same as a Catholic church can say "We don't recognize a marriage if one person has been divorced" or any church can say "We won't wed an interracial couple" or "We won't wed a couple in which both members are not members of our church". No law could constitutionally force a church to recognize or perform any marriage.

Marriage has little to do with the church outside of the physical ceremony...which can occur in or out of a church, and with as little or as much religious pomp as desired.

It's not the same thing. Despite your whineing that it is. Interacial marriage is about as diffrent as same gender marriage can get. One being based on ethnic and society diffrence and the other being based on biological diffrence. Same arguments, different generation. It was claimed that interracial marriages were bad based on the bible, biology, etc.

How does one gay man getting married to another gay man impact you in the least? Oh, it doesn't? That's what I thought.



It means that society is condoning a sinful act and promotes sinful behavior. No, people don't stop being homosexual. They choose that life and choose to live that way.Yeah...people choose to live a life in which they are hated, discriminated against, ripped to shreds because they want equal rights. That's one fuck of a choice.

Can't stop people for being who they are. But on the other hand, you keep whineing about our church pushing our way of life on you. The same thing happens in reverse by pushing a style and way of life that others don't accept in the form of marriage. No one is forcing you to accept gay marriage into your church. No one is forcing you to have a gay marriage. No one is forcing anything upon you. At all.



Well to answer from a religious standpoint, they come from God. God gave man the right to choose: Right/Wrong. Good/Evil.
Right, wrong, good, and evil aren't rights. We're talking about the right to free speech, the right to practice ones chosen religion without interference from the government (you are big on that one), the right to bodily integrity, the right to wed, the right to bodily integrity, the right to freedom of choice, the right to due process. Rights. Not moral stances.

And from a secular postion: Man made the laws and gave rights to each other, they can never always be perfect because man is not a perfect being.
And so we should deny 10-20% of our population a set of rights, why?

But since you're talking about Gay rights, and assume you are. The laws need to be rewritten that give rights to property, rights to vistitation etc, rights to insurance, rights to inherit. This doesn't have to involve marriage. These are not functions of society, they are functions of business and government. And they don't have to include marriage (which is a function of society.)

Guess what? Those rights you just listed? Those are marriage.
Seperate the secular aspect of marriage from the religious. It can be done.

Spread the hate, and don't wait around to be held accountable?

Oh, if ONLY that tactic was original.

*pants* Fine. One. I've reafirmed my beliefs.

Two.

Either way, it's an evil move on your part - and I mean evil in a 'against the will of god' way, not just in as much as it is OBVIOUSLY mean-spirited and uncaring.

If it's my faith and my belief and I believe that my God sees it that way, then it's not 'against the will of god' at least in the way I see it.

Meansprited and uncareing. Don't make an assumption on who I am. You don't even know who I am or my personal life or my family life. So don't go there.

I won't bend to break if that's what you mean. I've thought long and hard on my own personal stance and I've made it. Deal with it.
Yeah...that's a good stance to take..."I won't bend to break it" essentially means that, regardless of what is presented to me, I won't change. It is not only accepting ignorance, but reveling in it.

*pants* Fine. One. I've reafirmed my beliefs.


Your beliefs bore me - I really, honestly, could not care less. What interests me, is why your religion authorises you to interfere in the choices and lives of people you don't know, who do not share your religion, and who have no connection to you.


If it's my faith and my belief and I believe that my God sees it that way...


Again, your faith is irrelevent.

You 'believe' your god sees it that way, but in order to HOLD that belief, you have to ignore the actual word of god.

Belief trumps scripture?


...then it's not 'against the will of god' at least in the way I see it.


Again, your own perspective is irrelevent. We're not talking about what you believe.

We're talking about the removal of rights from a minority.


Meansprited and uncareing.


Yes. Meanspirited and uncaring.

Going out of your way to do harm to other people is meanspirited, and even the slightest trace of empathy would mean you could identify with the pain you cause. Meanspirited and uncaring.


Don't make an assumption on who I am. You don't even know who I am or my personal life or my family life. So don't go there.

Why?

You belong to an organisation that has just gone way out of it's way to interfere (not just talk about) in the personal life and family life... for literally hundreds of thousands of people.

What makes you above that?

I don't care about your family life or your personal life. Even if your family life or personal life were relevent to the discussion, they'd be nothing but excuses, not reasons.

Yeah...that's a good stance to take..."I won't bend to break it" essentially means that, regardless of what is presented to me, I won't change. It is not only accepting ignorance, but reveling in it.

What it means is - even if presented with facts that contradict me, I will not change my mind. To me - that's a very dangerous state of mind.

What it means is - even if presented with facts that contradict me, I will not change my mind. To me - that's a very dangerous state of mind.
It is precisely the mindset that drove me to want to be a teacher. It is possibly the most dangerous state of mind I have ever seen. It is so rigid that any facts or arguments against are interpreted as attacks upon the self, rather than upon the viewpoint.

It is precisely the mindset that drove me to want to be a teacher. It is possibly the most dangerous state of mind I have ever seen. It is so rigid that any facts or arguments against are interpreted as attacks upon the self, rather than upon the viewpoint.

You see it on NS, all the time. Someone makes a comment like... 'was Jesus real?' and gets attacked. Not the argument, the poster. Like some questions aren't allowed to be asked. Like... asking if the stories I heard as a child are true... hurts me somehow.

It is precisely the mindset that drove me to want to be a teacher. It is possibly the most dangerous state of mind I have ever seen. It is so rigid that any facts or arguments against are interpreted as attacks upon the self, rather than upon the viewpoint.
That does seem to be what is happening here.

I understand that a Mormon may find themselves in a tough spot, not wanting to badmouth their church, but at the same time maybe not necessarily approve of their support for Prop 8. But unless said person is willing to look at what their church did and say categorically either they agree and think their church did the right thing or they disagree and their church did the wrong thing, then they can't help but get stuck in a rut of denying any of it ever happened while simultaneously trying to defend their beliefs against gay marriage. It's just not a supportable position. You either have to embrace that particular bigotry, or you have to acknowledge that your church did a bad thing.

That does seem to be what is happening here.

I understand that a Mormon may find themselves in a tough spot, not wanting to badmouth their church, but at the same time maybe not necessarily approve of their support for Prop 8. But unless said person is willing to look at what their church did and say categorically either they agree and think their church did the right thing or they disagree and their church did the wrong thing, then they can't help but get stuck in a rut of denying any of it ever happened while simultaneously trying to defend their beliefs against gay marriage. It's just not a supportable position. You either have to embrace that particular bigotry, or you have to acknowledge that your church did a bad thing.

And the crazy thing is - you can't debate the actions, without debating the belief. It doesn't matter that I'm not interested in the belief.

So - I say 'banning gay marriage' was wrong, and we have two pages of people complaining about 'why do you attack my beliefs'?

How about politly saying "No thank you, one religion is enough" and not trying to pass a law that violates multiple first amendment rights?

If they're really bugging you, why not put a sign up on your lawn or by your door that so "no prostelitizing?"

You could even have a funny doormat that says "welcome, unless you're trying to convery me. If so, pelase leave. Otherwise, have a nice day and come in!"

You see it on NS, all the time. Someone makes a comment like... 'was Jesus real?' and gets attacked. Not the argument, the poster. Like some questions aren't allowed to be asked. Like... asking if the stories I heard as a child are true... hurts me somehow.
We've seen it quite a bit this election cycle...it seems to be a product of the demonization of opposing view points...someone who disagrees can't possibly have a decent point...they must be wrong.

It is interesting...people percieve that someone contesting their viewpoint is an attack and could harm them, when in reality, it is much more dangerous to hold a viewpoint without questioning it.
That does seem to be what is happening here.

I understand that a Mormon may find themselves in a tough spot, not wanting to badmouth their church, but at the same time maybe not necessarily approve of their support for Prop 8. But unless said person is willing to look at what their church did and say categorically either they agree and think their church did the right thing or they disagree and their church did the wrong thing, then they can't help but get stuck in a rut of denying any of it ever happened while simultaneously trying to defend their beliefs against gay marriage. It's just not a supportable position. You either have to embrace that particular bigotry, or you have to acknowledge that your church did a bad thing.
Exactly. I understand that maybe a Mormon doesn't want to say something bad about their church (the gay ex-Mormon friend I mentioned earlier went through something of this before leaving), but it does come down to that choice: Is my church correct? Can I defend it? More importantly, should I defend it? Should I condemn it? More importantly, can I condemn it?

If you can't condemn it, you are in a bad place.

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 got an idea. Taxes on Religious Groups who lobby :D That way, Religion either stays out of politics, or gets taxed. It's a win-win for all. Except Jerry Fallwell and his crew, and I don't mind that, should've been taxed a while ago.

How about politly saying "No thank you, one religion is enough" and not trying to pass a law that violates multiple first amendment rights?

If they're really bugging you, why not put a sign up on your lawn or by your door that so "no prostelitizing?"

You could even have a funny doormat that says "welcome, unless you're trying to convery me. If so, pelase leave. Otherwise, have a nice day and come in!"

Read the OP. This has nothing to do with prostelitizing.

Ahh. Grave n idle I value your intelligent debate and reasoning. I tend to agree with all that I've read.. It just sucks that some people don't regard logic as important. Unfortunately, it's these people who are behind stupid laws such as this prop. 8 bullshit. If you think about it, it's almost third world-where human rights are ignored openly by governments all over the place. Sigh, it's a such a shame.

Ahh. Grave n idle I value your intelligent debate and reasoning. I tend to agree with all that I've read.. It just sucks that some people don't regard logic as important. Unfortunately, it's these people who are behind stupid laws such as this prop. 8 bullshit. If you think about it, it's almost third world-where human rights are ignored openly by governments all over the place. Sigh, it's a such a shame.

It does, however, provide me with yet another reason to be proud of my two home states (MA and CT). MA rejected even having a ballot initiative against gay marriage, and Jodi Rell (CT gov.) said she would do nothing to challenge the courts decision, despite her personal aversion to gay marriage.

I got an idea. Taxes on Religious Groups who lobby :D That way, Religion either stays out of politics, or gets taxed. It's a win-win for all. Except Jerry Fallwell and his crew, and I don't mind that, should've been taxed a while ago.
Yes. This has been brought up, and there does seem to be a case for revocation of tax exemption for the LDS, at least the "stake" of Salt Lake City ("stake" is their term for "diocese"). I am writing to my Senator (Carl Levin, good man, has been there for... like... forever, has some power) to ask him to look into this, and if what they did does not cross the current legal line or is unclear, I ask him to draft legislation to make clear they cannot do this again.

Ahh. Grave n idle I value your intelligent debate and reasoning. I tend to agree with all that I've read.. It just sucks that some people don't regard logic as important. Unfortunately, it's these people who are behind stupid laws such as this prop. 8 bullshit. If you think about it, it's almost third world-where human rights are ignored openly by governments all over the place. Sigh, it's a such a shame.

Thanks for the positive comments. :) A little while back, we had a thread on NSG where someone had hunted down all the nations that DO have legalised gay marriage.

The US really is backwards on this issue, I was surprised how backwards, when I saw some of the nations that were more 'progressive' on it than us.

Your beliefs bore me - I really, honestly, could not care less. What interests me, is why your religion authorises you to interfere in the choices and lives of people you don't know, who do not share your religion, and who have no connection to you.



Again, your faith is irrelevent.

Is it? It's my faith and the faith of the members of our church that makes us hold to our position.

You 'believe' your god sees it that way, but in order to HOLD that belief, you have to ignore the actual word of god.

Belief trumps scripture?

You don't know the scriptures or the revelation which in LDS mind is scripture. But since you consider my faith irrevelant than you won't care, but you should if you want to try and figure things out.



Again, your own perspective is irrelevent. We're not talking about what you believe.

Is it? It defines a peoples persepective, includeing my own.

We're talking about the removal of rights from a minority.

It's based on how we see and define the marriage. I see the religious aspect. You see the legal aspect. Last I checked this is a democracy. Compromise must be made. In fact it's probably the only way that the two viewpoints can be met. And you'll find some way to attack me on this, so there.



Yes. Meanspirited and uncaring.

Going out of your way to do harm to other people is meanspirited, and even the slightest trace of empathy would mean you could identify with the pain you cause. Meanspirited and uncaring.


Give me a break. Assumption, Assumption, Assumption. You assume. But you don't try to understand my viewpoints. My beliefs or anything of the sort. You don't try to look from the eyes of a member of my faith. And you probably won't. I've tried to explain my faith, I've tried to share my chruch's viewpoint and then you say it's all irrelevant. It can't be irrelevant if it's this is the reason why Prop 8 didn't pass.


Why?

You belong to an organisation that has just gone way out of it's way to interfere (not just talk about) in the personal life and family life... for literally hundreds of thousands of people.

What makes you above that?

I don't care about your family life or your personal life. Even if your family life or personal life were relevent to the discussion, they'd be nothing but excuses, not reasons

Nothing of the sort. People are free to live their lives anyway they wish or choose.

The legal rights, I grant should be given to people. I've stated that over and over again. But that doesn't make it marriage. In your mind yes, in my mind no. There are two sides to marriage, if you can't see it that way, then I am sorry.



What makes me above it? Walk a mile in anyones shoes, you'd see another aspect and another perspective. But you make assumptions based on my earlier statements. So you define me by that. Untill you can trancend that, which is quite impossible, then....you have no idea. Good night I have to work on my homework.

It's based on how we see and define the marriage. I see the religious aspect. You see the legal aspect. Last I checked this is a democracy. Compromise must be made. In fact it's probably the only way that the two viewpoints can be met. And you'll find some way to attack me on this, so there.

How's this for a compromise...we allow everyone the right to a legal marriage, and allow religions to choose who can and cannot wed within their church.

I suggest we eliminate the legal institution of marriage, and just give everyone civil unions. Then people are free to define "marriage" however they like without bugging anyone else.

Your beliefs don't give you an excuse to restrict other peoples rights.

Give me a break. Assumption, Assumption, Assumption. You assume. But you don't try to understand my viewpoints. My beliefs or anything of the sort. You don't try to look from the eyes of a member of my faith. And you probably won't. I've tried to explain my faith, I've tried to share my chruch's viewpoint and then you say it's all irrelevant. It can't be irrelevant if it's this is the reason why Prop 8 didn't pass.

Your idiocy, and the idiocy of your faith is not irrelevant...it's simply wrong. Fundamentally in opposition to human rights. The reason we have things like constitutional enshrinement of human rights is because we recognise that democracy is inherently flawed when the majority can vote away those human rights.

I'm sorry that your country is backwards in this regard, in terms of protection based on sexual orientation. That will eventually change.

You have your constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom, but your religion should never, ever be the justification for the stripping away of the rights of others.

How's this for a compromise...we allow everyone the right to a legal marriage, and allow religions to choose who can and cannot wed within their church.

I.e. the status quo before Prop 8 passed.

*nod*

It's based on how we see and define the marriage. I see the religious aspect. You see the legal aspect.

...

You don't know the scriptures or the revelation which in LDS mind is scripture. But since you consider my faith irrevelant than you won't care, but you should if you want to try and figure things out.

Which parts of the scripture, exactly, say that if gays have a legal right to marry, children are in danger?

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5263/yeson8gw8.jpg

It doesn't even matter, though, if you find a Bible verse with Jesus actually saying, "Yea, my followers, ye shall vote yes on Proposition 8."

The Proposition 8 campaign was exceptionally well-funded, and it relied on plain and simple paranoid bigotry as evidenced above in order to pass. It was and is ugly, and shameful.

And next time we get a chance, people like me in this state are going to make this right.

How's this for a compromise...we allow everyone the right to a legal marriage, and allow religions to choose who can and cannot wed within their church.

No idea. *pauses and thinks* Would I guess depend on how it's legally worded. I am no law person. And anyone can see that. I just want people to be able to have their rights. I grant that. I understand that. But how it's done is another matter. I can't figure out how, and maybe because that's not my job. And please don't make it my job.

If you do return to to this thread after your dinner (which sounds delicious, by the way), I do have to ask you, what is your response to the response that I assume you're thinking of: "Well, could you not apply that same line to interracial marriage? 'They have a right to marry somebody of their race, same as I do?'"

Actually, the reply I was expecting was something more along the lines of being able to marry who you love as opposed to who's available.

Frankly, the comparison between homosexual rights and equal rights among races has always struck me as something of a stretch. There's another thread on here at the moment going into the question of why there's a perception of greater intolerance for homosexuality within the black community, and my answer was basically that I think black people chafe at the analogy as well. I've asked, and had that opinion confirmed.

So it's a matter of apples and oranges. I don't expect people on the other side of the debate to accept that, but it's as far as I can go with it.


Indeed, if we follow your reasoning, shouldn't all marriages except Christian ones be illegal, because they obviously aren't making an agreement with the "right" god and are therefore, under your definition of marriage, not married?
I've never even heard an attempt to answer it, religious people almost always ignore the question.


No, because you're adding an extra element there. I can't speak for other religions, as I know they're all different (Old school Catholicism, for example, recognizes no marriage unless it's performed by the Catholic clergy.) but the institution of marriage itself is of God, the actual procedure is irrelevant. The point is for a man and a woman to make a lifelong commitment to each other for the purpose of raising a family, so it doesn't matter whether those commitments are made under the auspices of an LDS chapel, a Catholic Church, a Justice of the Peace, a mosque, etc.


Because there's no reason-based distinction, as far as I can see, only a religious one, which, of course, should not apply to law.

I understand where you're coming from, but the big problem here is that marriage seems to straddle the secular and the religious. It exists in both spheres, yet nobody can authoritatively say where it belongs.

A co-worker of mine, the gay man I referenced earlier, and I were discussing this and he said that the biggest mistake the gay rights movement made with respect to this issue was to push gay unions as a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union, because doing so provoked the religious Right to jump in and oppose it. He's of the opinion, and I agree with him, that if it were done as a civil union, the vast majority of people, even Christians, would get out of the way of it.

1. If marriage is truly an "institution of God," doesn't having government involvement in marriage at all violate the First Amendment's separation of Church and State?


As a Libertarian, I would say yes.


2. Are marriages other than temple marriages between Mormons marriages?


Yep. See my comments to PC above for details.


3. Denying marriage on the basis of gender of the parties is discrimination just as denying marriage on the basis of race of the parties.


Your opinion is noted.


4. How does allowing same-sex marriage make homosexual behavior any more sinful? Do people stop being homosexual if they can't marry?


I don't recall ever having evaluated the relative "sin level" of married vs. unmarried homosexual behavior. I do recall saying that it's a non-sequitur.


5. As you raise the question, what are rights and where do they come from?

As Mr. Thomas Jefferson noted, we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. That same Creator had some rather specific things to say about homosexuality.

You know what I mean. The racist who says "I'm not a racist, some of my best friends are black!" is such a cliche' I'm surprised you wanted to echo it; if you talked to those black "friends" when he's not around, you might get a different impression of what the relationship was.


That's an awfully jaded point of view. Are you suggesting a lack of honesty among people whom you've never met and have no knowledge of? Are you assuming facets of my friendship with them of which you have no experience?

(Hint:Those are rhetorical questions.)


I have a lot of people in my life who are my personal enemies, in that profoundest sense of the word personal, but I have to get along with them, be civil and polite, do favors for them and receive favors for them. Some of them might think they are my "friends", but I know that when it comes right down to it, they are no friend to me. If I had you in my life, I am sure I would find it prudent to bite my tongue and speak to you more kindly than I do here on the internet, but that would not be the reality.

If you had me in your life, you'd know that such two-facedness wouldn't be necessary around me. I respect openness over false courtesy. But again, O don't judge people so if they're acting one way around me and another when I"m not around, it's their fault, not mine.

But then again, I know them, you do not. Don't pretend otherwise.

Which parts of the scripture, exactly, say that if gays have a legal right to marry, children are in danger?

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5263/yeson8gw8.jpg

It doesn't even matter, though, if you find a Bible verse with Jesus actually saying, "Yea, my followers, ye shall vote yes on Proposition 8."

Search or Google anything Mormon and Family and read the procumation, my church has given. It's a statement yes. But to my people it's scripture. Anything the Church leaders give is scripture. Irrelevant to you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the basis of it states, marriage as between man and woman. It's our scripture. You don't have to recongize it. But the LDS church is diffrent from other faiths in the fact that we believe in revelation as scripture and as Doctrine. It's true positons change, such as Blacks having the priesthood. But it's more on the factor that God reveals things on whether or not people are ready to accept things, at least that's how it seen through a Mormon's eyes. I've tried to show another persepective. You may choose to see it as irrelevant. But.... it's a portion as to why things are the way they are. You may also want to read what the church leaders say about homosexuality and see what it says, and read why they fund for prop 8. It is another persepective, and you may not agree with it. But try and understand why Mormons choose the position they do, instead of crying bigot, bigot. That's all I can say. In fact that's all I can recomend.

I.e. the status quo before Prop 8 passed.

*nod*
Quiet you ;)
No idea. *pauses and thinks* Would I guess depend on how it's legally worded. I am no law person. And anyone can see that. I just want people to be able to have their rights. I grant that. I understand that. But how it's done is another matter. I can't figure out how, and maybe because that's not my job. And please don't make it my job.
"Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of ones choice resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

How's that?

By constitution, US law cannot infringe upon religion. No law ever passed could force mormons to accept gay members, allow gays to wed within the church, or recognize their marriages. All the law does is the civil aspect: tax benefits, property rights, visitation rights, insurance, etc.

What I outlined is exactly the situation that prop 8 shot down. It shot down the ability for all citizens of CA tol egally wed the person of their choice. No church in CA was ever forced to accept gays or to wed them. Ever.

Frankly, the comparison between homosexual rights and equal rights among races has always struck me as something of a stretch. There's another thread on here at the moment going into the question of why there's a perception of greater intolerance for homosexuality within the black community, and my answer was basically that I think black people chafe at the analogy as well. I've asked, and had that opinion confirmed.It may not be comparable as social struggle, but the legal and ethical questions involved are identical. The government does not have the right to discriminate based on gender any more than it has a right to discriminate on the basis of race.

I understand where you're coming from, but the big problem here is that marriage seems to straddle the secular and the religious. It exists in both spheres, yet nobody can authoritatively say where it belongs.Not true. Marriage exists completely separately in the civil and religious spheres. We only care about the secular, legal definition of marriage. Religious institutions can define it however they like.

The problem with civil unions is that they do not confer the same benefits as legal marriage. Otherwise we wouldn't care what they were called.

As Mr. Thomas Jefferson noted, we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. That same Creator had some rather specific things to say about homosexuality.Thomas Jefferson was a deist and did not believe that the Bible was the word of God. Your suggestion that we consider your religious sect's interpretation of scripture as carrying legal weight speaks volumes about your understanding of our democratic system.

It is another persepective, and you may not agree with it. But try and understand why Mormons choose the position they do, instead of crying bigot, bigot. That's all I can say. In fact that's all I can recomend.

I could care less why Mormons did what they did or how they justify it to themselves.

At the root of it, no matter how you spin it, is bigotry. Period.

Search or Google anything Mormon and Family and read the procumation, my church has given. It's a statement yes. But to my people it's scripture. Anything the Church leaders give is scripture. Irrelevant to you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the basis of it states, marriage as between man and woman. It's our scripture.

That's nice dearie, now back to the question I asked: where does your scripture say that gay marriage is a threat to California Children?

You don't have to recongize it. But the LDS church is diffrent from other faiths in the fact that we believe in revelation as scripture and as Doctrine. It's true positons change, such as Blacks having the priesthood. But it's more on the factor that God reveals things on whether or not people are ready to accept things, at least that's how it seen through a Mormon's eyes. I've tried to show another persepective. You may choose to see it as irrelevant. But.... it's a portion as to why things are the way they are. You may also want to read what the church leaders say about homosexuality and see what it says, and read why they fund against prop 8. It is another persepective, and you may not agree with it. But try and understand why Mormons choose the position they do, instead of crying bigot, bigot. That's all I can say. In fact that's all I can recomend.

No one is 'crying bigot,' here. You are being bigoted, and defending a bigoted proposition (not very well either I might add), and you are getting called on it.
One doesn't "cry spade, spade," one just calls it what it is. ;)

I could care less why Mormons did what they did or how they justify it to themselves.

At the root of it, no matter how you spin it, is bigotry. Period.

It's the open-mindedness and free exchange of ideas that I've always admired on this forum.
:p

It may not be comparable as social struggle, but the legal and ethical questions involved are identical. The government does not have the right to discriminate based on gender any more than it has a right to discriminate on the basis of race.

Wow... I always thought that gay men and straight men were both the same sex... But the only way what you just said could make sense is if they weren't...


Not true. Marriage exists completely separately in the civil and religious spheres. We only care about the secular, legal definition of marriage. Religious institutions can define it however they like.


That's not a universally held opinion.


The problem with civil unions is that they do not confer the same benefits as legal marriage. Otherwise we wouldn't care what they were called.


I see no reason why they couldn't be crafted to do just that.


Thomas Jefferson was a deist and did not believe that the Bible was the word of God. Your suggestion that we consider your religious sect's interpretation of scripture as carrying legal weight speaks volumes about your understanding of our democratic system.

Don't distort my meaning. You're taking quite a leap there.

It's the open-mindedness and free exchange of ideas that I've always admired on this forum.
:p

Mormons' beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. No one has denied their right to their beliefs. What we have challenged is their right to force those beliefs on others.

It's the open-mindedness and free exchange of ideas that I've always admired on this forum.
:p

It's like people trying to explain why they're racist.

I honestly don't care.

They can go ahead and be racist...but no, I don't need to be 'tolerant' of intolerance, and when it is actively used to strip rights away from others, I'm going to be extremely intolerant. The great thing is, my position doesn't strip away rights...religion should never give one the power to infringe upon the human rights of others.

Search or Google anything Mormon and Family and read the procumation, my church has given. It's a statement yes. But to my people it's scripture. Anything the Church leaders give is scripture. Irrelevant to you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the basis of it states, marriage as between man and woman. It's our scripture. You don't have to recongize it. But the LDS church is diffrent from other faiths in the fact that we believe in revelation as scripture and as Doctrine. It's true positons change, such as Blacks having the priesthood. But it's more on the factor that God reveals things on whether or not people are ready to accept things, at least that's how it seen through a Mormon's eyes. I've tried to show another persepective. You may choose to see it as irrelevant. But.... it's a portion as to why things are the way they are. You may also want to read what the church leaders say about homosexuality and see what it says, and read why they fund against prop 8. It is another persepective, and you may not agree with it. But try and understand why Mormons choose the position they do, instead of crying bigot, bigot. That's all I can say. In fact that's all I can recomend.

First of all, the whining about how no one is trying to understand your perspective is pretty fucking pathetic and annoying when (1) you are making no effort to understand the perspective of a same-sex couple and (2) your perspective is that certain humans are less worthy of rights than others.

Second, many segregationists (and many slavers) believed blacks were inferior and should be treated differently because of their religious beliefs. Why should we give any more credence to your beliefs than we did to theirs?

Third, I grew up in Mormon country (Southern Idaho) and most of my friends and teachers were members of the LDS Church. I've read the Book of Mormon and other tomes like The Pearl of Great Price. I understand your point of view perfectly well. I JUST DON'T FUCKING AGREE WITH IT. And, whether I agreed with it or not, I don't think your beliefs should be imposed on other people.

Finally, given the history of the LDS Church, the struggles of Mormon to get the right to vote and to not be harassed, and the issue of polygamy, it really takes some fucking chutzpah for Mormons to be so gung-ho to limit other people's rights (especially to marriage).

I could care less why Mormons did what they did or how they justify it to themselves.

At the root of it, no matter how you spin it, is bigotry. Period.

Then you'll never understand how we feel. So much for knowing and understanding and trying to extend beyond your limited mind. You try and get me to see your viewpoints but you refuse to understand mine.

Wow... I always thought that gay men and straight men were both the same sex... But the only way what you just said could make sense is if they weren't...

Um. Let's try an experiment. I propose we enact a law that restricts marraige ONLY to couples of the same sex. Would such a law discriminate on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation?

Mormons' beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. No one has denied their right to their beliefs. What we have challenged is their right to force those beliefs on others.

If that's so, then why do people keep challenging those beliefs?

Um. Let's try an experiment. I propose we enact a law that restricts marraige ONLY to couples of the same sex. Would such a law discriminate on the basis of gender and/or sexual orientation?

Sounds like sexual orientation to me.

It's the open-mindedness and free exchange of ideas that I've always admired on this forum.
:p

The same open-mindedness that makes you so tolerant of homosexuals and their rights?

Methinks thou doest protest too much.

Then you'll never understand how we feel. So much for knowing and understanding and trying to extend beyond your limited mind. You try and get me to see your viewpoints but you refuse to understand mine.

You've made no attempt to understand anything at all.

Your viewpoints deprive others of their rights.

I don't need to understand, I see the effects. Nothing you say can justify them.

Then you'll never understand how we feel. So much for knowing and understanding and trying to extend beyond your limited mind. You try and get me to see your viewpoints but you refuse to understand mine.

No one understands. No one understands your art. The full depth of meaning and passion, the faith and glory that is you! Philistines, that's what they all are! They mock your failed arguments, but that's only because they don't know - the power of faith will resurrect them again, and again!

Wow... I always thought that gay men and straight men were both the same sex... But the only way what you just said could make sense is if they weren't...
The government can't say, "You can't marry this person because she is black." It shouldn't be able to say, "You can't marry this person because she is a woman."

That's not a universally held opinion.Doesn't matter, it's a fact. Marriage as a legal institution is not defined in religious terms.

I see no reason why they couldn't be crafted to do just that.So you wouldn't care if we gave gay people all the rights we're trying to give them? All you care about is what we call it? That makes no sense to me.

Don't distort my meaning. You're taking quite a leap there.You claimed specific knowledge about what the creator of the universe believes about homosexuality, and you implied that it is relevant to a discussion about legal rights. What exactly is your meaning?

Actually, the reply I was expecting was something more along the lines of being able to marry who you love as opposed to who's available.

Frankly, the comparison between homosexual rights and equal rights among races has always struck me as something of a stretch. There's another thread on here at the moment going into the question of why there's a perception of greater intolerance for homosexuality within the black community, and my answer was basically that I think black people chafe at the analogy as well. I've asked, and had that opinion confirmed.

So it's a matter of apples and oranges. I don't expect people on the other side of the debate to accept that, but it's as far as I can go with it.

It's less apples to oranges, and more a green apple to a yellow apple. Same discrimination, different color. All discrimination is of the same tree...it's just the minor specifics that vary.

No, because you're adding an extra element there. I can't speak for other religions, as I know they're all different (Old school Catholicism, for example, recognizes no marriage unless it's performed by the Catholic clergy.) but the institution of marriage itself is of God, the actual procedure is irrelevant. The point is for a man and a woman to make a lifelong commitment to each other for the purpose of raising a family, so it doesn't matter whether those commitments are made under the auspices of an LDS chapel, a Catholic Church, a Justice of the Peace, a mosque, etc.

Well, this goes back to the old "if they're all claiming they're the right religion, then can any be?" If a Catholic refuses to recognize any non-Catholic marriage, and a Jew refuses to recognize any non-Jewish marriage, then no marriages will be recognized between the two.

I understand where you're coming from, but the big problem here is that marriage seems to straddle the secular and the religious. It exists in both spheres, yet nobody can authoritatively say where it belongs.
Actually, it isn't that hard. All of the benefits of marriage are (and must be) afforded by the state. The state gets control of it, as it determines exactly what the benefits are. If there are any benefits within a specific church, the church may have authority over those.
It goes back to the last point I made. If Catholics won't recognize non-Catholic marriages, and Jews won't recognize non-Jewish marriages, then there is the perfect reason why religion cannot control a social institution.

A co-worker of mine, the gay man I referenced earlier, and I were discussing this and he said that the biggest mistake the gay rights movement made with respect to this issue was to push gay unions as a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union, because doing so provoked the religious Right to jump in and oppose it. He's of the opinion, and I agree with him, that if it were done as a civil union, the vast majority of people, even Christians, would get out of the way of it.
Seperate is never equal. Either everyone gets civil unions, or everyone gets marriages. I don't see the purpose in re-writing the law so that people don't have to deal with the "ick" factor and be faced with their own bigotry. If straights can wed, so must gays. If gays can only get civil unions, then that is all straights must be afforded.


As a Libertarian, I would say yes.
So as a Libertarian, you are prepared to give up your tax benefits, your right to visit your wife in the hospital, your right to be her next of kin, etc?
Seems like quite a position to take.


I don't recall ever having evaluated the relative "sin level" of married vs. unmarried homosexual behavior. I do recall saying that it's a non-sequitur.
To you, it may very well be. And to your church, it may very well be. But that doesn't apply to all of us. No one is forcing your church to do it. No one is forcing you to do it.


As Mr. Thomas Jefferson noted, we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. That same Creator had some rather specific things to say about homosexuality.TJ never mentioned which creator. Also, there is no reference to religion within the Constitution, except in the date...which was the traditional way of listing it.

Sounds like sexual orientation to me.

1. So you admit it discriminates?

2. As to whether it discriminates on the basis of gender as well, please explain the distinctions among these laws:

A. Only people of the same race may marry.

B. Only people of different races may marry.

C. Only people of the same gender may marry.

D. Only people of different genders may marry.

3. A woman and a man can get married. A lesbian and a gay man can get married to each other. Two men can't. Two women can't. Sounds like a distinctions based on gender to me.

Mormons' beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. No one has denied their right to their beliefs. What we have challenged is their right to force those beliefs on others.

If that's so, then why do people keep challenging those beliefs?

With perhaps a stray comment here or there, the focus of this discussion has been on Mormon's attempts to force their beliefs on others.

You are welcome to believe marriage is a sacred bond under God. We may disagree, but you have a right to believe what you believe.

You are welcome to believe homosexual behavior is a sin. We may disagree, but you have a right to believe what you believe.

YOU ARE NOT BLOODY WELCOME TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM OTHERS BASED ON YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Got it?

YOU ARE NOT BLOODY WELCOME TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM OTHERS BASED ON YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Got it?

Ex-fucking-actly.

You've made no attempt to understand anything at all.

Your viewpoints deprive others of their rights.

I don't need to understand, I see the effects. Nothing you say can justify them.


I've listen/read them. I understand that people want to live free or die, more or less. What more do you want? For me to accept them? Not likely going to happen nor is it going to happen with you with mine. You want to attack against my church. Then you should know who they are. What they believe and why they believe it. It makes understanding an enemy better, at least that's the old philosphy. If you spent any time figuring out a people's belief then you could figure out how to go against it. Why am I saying this, because that's the way any person learns how to do anything. Whether I agree with it or not. You have the right to attack I have the right to defend. Simplistic.

Mormons' beliefs are not relevant to the discussion. No one has denied their right to their beliefs. What we have challenged is their right to force those beliefs on others.

Yet I suppose you have the right to force your beliefs onto others.

I've listen/read them. I understand that people want to live free or die, more or less. What more do you want? For me to accept them? Not likely going to happen nor is it going to happen with you with mine. You want to attack against my church. Then you should know who they are. What they believe and why they believe it. It makes understanding an enemy better, at least that's the old philosphy. If you spent any time figuring out a people's belief then you could figure out how to go against it. Why am I saying this, because that's the way any person learns how to do anything. Whether I agree with it or not. You have the right to attack I have the right to defend. Simplistic.


Your syntax is odd.

I don't care about your church...your church could never vote in a ban on gay marriage in my country...because sexual orientation has been read into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I don't need to understand why you are so, so wrong.

The government can't say, "You can't marry this person because she is black." It shouldn't be able to say, "You can't marry this person because she is a woman."

Apples and oranges. I know you guys are really in love with the idea of equating the two issues, but if it floats your boat...


Doesn't matter, it's a fact. Marriage as a legal institution is not defined in religious terms.


And it's apparently defined as a man and a woman. If the legal definition were really as set in stone as you're making it sound, there'd be nothing to argue over, would there?


So you wouldn't care if we gave gay people all the rights we're trying to give them? All you care about is what we call it? That makes no sense to me.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You just have to understand that this is the compromise that would be on the table if there wasn't this utter stubornness on the part of those on your side. I mean, if it's nothing but a game of semantics, why are the gay rights advocates so adamant on calling it "marriage?"


You claimed specific knowledge about what the creator of the universe believes about homosexuality, and you implied that it is relevant to a discussion about legal rights. What exactly is your meaning?
[/quote]

I was asked a specific question and I answered it.

It's less apples to oranges, and more a green apple to a yellow apple. Same discrimination, different color. All discrimination is of the same tree...it's just the minor specifics that vary.


I disagree.


Well, this goes back to the old "if they're all claiming they're the right religion, then can any be?" If a Catholic refuses to recognize any non-Catholic marriage, and a Jew refuses to recognize any non-Jewish marriage, then no marriages will be recognized between the two.


Which does seem to be the case.


Actually, it isn't that hard. All of the benefits of marriage are (and must be) afforded by the state. The state gets control of it, as it determines exactly what the benefits are. If there are any benefits within a specific church, the church may have authority over those.
It goes back to the last point I made. If Catholics won't recognize non-Catholic marriages, and Jews won't recognize non-Jewish marriages, then there is the perfect reason why religion cannot control a social institution.


Unless you separate the religious aspect from the secular aspect, which is what has been suggested.


Seperate is never equal. Either everyone gets civil unions, or everyone gets marriages. I don't see the purpose in re-writing the law so that people don't have to deal with the "ick" factor and be faced with their own bigotry. If straights can wed, so must gays. If gays can only get civil unions, then that is all straights must be afforded.


Fine with me. But then within the churches they could call it "marriage" and everybody wins. Is that so unreasonable?


So as a Libertarian, you are prepared to give up your tax benefits, your right to visit your wife in the hospital, your right to be her next of kin, etc?
Seems like quite a position to take.


That, my friend, is a strawman argument, although I hope my last couple of responses have made it clear why that is.


To you, it may very well be. And to your church, it may very well be. But that doesn't apply to all of us. No one is forcing your church to do it. No one is forcing you to do it.


But here's the thing: As soon as the state legalizes such a union, then, on some level, it does force those with religious objections to go along.


TJ never mentioned which creator. Also, there is no reference to religion within the Constitution, except in the date...which was the traditional way of listing it.

Beside the point I was making.

Is it? It's my faith and the faith of the members of our church that makes us hold to our position.


I don't care about your faith or which positions you hold.

I'm talking about a church acting as a political entity. I'm talking about the things you have done to OTHER people.


You don't know the scriptures or the revelation which in LDS mind is scripture.


I don't?

Now who is assuming?


But since you consider my faith irrevelant than you won't care, but you should if you want to try and figure things out.


I don't want to figure things out. I want people to have equal rights without the intrusion of OTHER people's religion.


Is it? It defines a peoples persepective, includeing my own.


I don't care about your perspective. It has no place in MY business.


It's based on how we see and define the marriage. I see the religious aspect.


Ceremonies. Rituals.


You see the legal aspect.


That's because THAT is what marriage is.

I don't understand why you don't understand that. All religion does for marriage, is give it ceremonies and rituals - that isn't 'marriage', that's the 'marriage ceremony'.

If you don't want homosexuals to amrry in your church, don't let them. But you have no right to stop them marrying in other ways or other churches.


Last I checked this is a democracy. Compromise must be made.


Fuck compromise.

Compromise would have been allowing blacks to BUY their freedom, like Ancient Rome did. Compromise would have been letting women vote - with their husband or father's permission. Compromise would have been letting the black kids sit with the white kids in some parts of the school.

Fuck compromise.


In fact it's probably the only way that the two viewpoints can be met. And you'll find some way to attack me on this, so there.


The two viewpoints don't have to be met.

You have a religious belief, and you are matching it against civil rights. Your belief doesn't matter.


Give me a break. Assumption, Assumption, Assumption. You assume. But you don't try to understand my viewpoints. My beliefs or anything of the sort.


I don't WANT to understand you. Don't you get it? I don't CARE about your motivations.

What I care about, is the fact that the LDS told parishioners to oppose Proposition 8. To send money. To campaign. They made a matter of belief into a political policy.


You don't try to look from the eyes of a member of my faith. And you probably won't. I've tried to explain my faith, I've tried to share my chruch's viewpoint and then you say it's all irrelevant.


It is irrelevent.

Let's put this a different way - if I were to say that the Church of Latter-Day Saints should be declared illegal, and all it's assets seized by the state, and anyone found practising should be incarcerated or driven out of the country...

Would you care WHY?


It can't be irrelevant if it's this is the reason why Prop 8 didn't pass.


And there is the problem. You stopped acting like a church and started acting like a pressure group.


Nothing of the sort. People are free to live their lives anyway they wish or choose.


Unless they are gay, and in California?

Hypocrite.


The legal rights, I grant should be given to people. I've stated that over and over again. But that doesn't make it marriage.


Yes, it does. That is EXACTLY what makes it a marriage, and that is ALL that is required for it to be a marriage.

You seem to be confusing what a marriage is, and what a wedding is.


In your mind yes, in my mind no. There are two sides to marriage,


For you, there might be. The legal side, and the belief side. You still haven't explained why YOUR 'belief' side has ANY place in MY marriage.


...if you can't see it that way, then I am sorry.


I'm not. You are quite simply wrong. That's it.


What makes me above it? Walk a mile in anyones shoes, you'd see another aspect and another perspective.


And you did this?

You thought about the marriages you'll threaten and put in jeapordy? You thought about the couples you will be causing heartache for? The families you could break?

You thought about the children who are already being raised by gay couples, that were finally able to feel some degree of comfort in the recognition of the permanence of their parent's status? The ones for whom your church just helped smash their lives to pieces?

You are asking me to do more than you are willing to do yourself.

Again, I call you hypocrite.


But you make assumptions based on my earlier statements. So you define me by that. Untill you can trancend that, which is quite impossible, then....you have no idea. Good night I have to work on my homework.

I judge you based on what you said, yes. That is the only way to judge you.

You judged people in California on even less. ANd you found them wanting in YOUR eyes, so you helped to strip them of rights that EVERY other American has - the right to marry the person of their choice, and all that comes with that.

Don't whine to me about judging you. The scripture tells you not to judge, and you judged. The scripture tells you to be a separate people, and you failed. The scripture tells you to honour the law, not to make it... and you failed.

Before you talk about the mote in my eye, brother, take care of the splinters of the cross in your own.

Yet I suppose you have the right to force your beliefs onto others.

False.

No one is forcing Mormons to believe anything. No one is saying Mormons can't be bigots. What we are saying is that being Mormon does not confer upon a person the power to infringe upon the rights of others.

Religious bigotry is a human right.... the shaping of policy based on said religious bigotry, is NOT a human right.

YOU ARE NOT BLOODY WELCOME TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY FROM OTHERS BASED ON YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Got it?

Other beliefs fine, no problem but beliefs that may be based on a religion no. Yes I have got it.

1. So you admit it discriminates?


Nope, that was me answering your question within the context it was asked. Next time shall I just refuse to answer on the grounds that the base premise is false, so that you can then accuse me of dodging it?

Your traps aren't as clever as you think they are, dude.

Search or Google anything Mormon and Family and read the procumation, my church has given. It's a statement yes. But to my people it's scripture. Anything the Church leaders give is scripture. Irrelevant to you. Perhaps. Perhaps not. But the basis of it states, marriage as between man and woman. It's our scripture. You don't have to recongize it. But the LDS church is diffrent from other faiths in the fact that we believe in revelation as scripture and as Doctrine. It's true positons change, such as Blacks having the priesthood. But it's more on the factor that God reveals things on whether or not people are ready to accept things, at least that's how it seen through a Mormon's eyes. I've tried to show another persepective. You may choose to see it as irrelevant. But.... it's a portion as to why things are the way they are. You may also want to read what the church leaders say about homosexuality and see what it says, and read why they fund for prop 8. It is another persepective, and you may not agree with it. But try and understand why Mormons choose the position they do, instead of crying bigot, bigot. That's all I can say. In fact that's all I can recomend.

Why should I care what your church's position on it is? Nobody's going to force them to perform gay weddings. Nobody's going to make them stop being bigoted.

But my church already does perform them.

Why should the law be written from your church's perspective and not mine?

Why should the law be written from ANY church's perspective?

Your personal beliefs are your own, your church's beliefs are their own. But that doesn't mean that they should be the legal basis for the matter in the state of California.

Other beliefs fine, no problem but beleifs that may be based on a religion no. Yes I have got it.

You missed the whole 'taking away rights' part. Deliberately.

I've listen/read them. I understand that people want to live free or die, more or less. What more do you want? For me to accept them? Not likely going to happen nor is it going to happen with you with mine. You want to attack against my church. Then you should know who they are. What they believe and why they believe it. It makes understanding an enemy better, at least that's the old philosphy. If you spent any time figuring out a people's belief then you could figure out how to go against it. Why am I saying this, because that's the way any person learns how to do anything. Whether I agree with it or not. You have the right to attack I have the right to defend. Simplistic.

Belief.

Not the issue.


What you do with it?

The issue.


You are being attacked NOT for your belief, but for what you do with it.

Nope, that was me answering your question within the context it was asked. Next time shall I just refuse to answer on the grounds that the base premise is false, so that you can then accuse me of dodging it?

Your traps aren't as clever as you think they are, dude.

Dude just creamed your assertion that it wasn't gender discrimination.

That must sting.

If that's so, then why do people keep challenging those beliefs?

Because they keep getting dragged in.

Despite the fact that every non-Mormon currently debating has distinctly stated "I don't care what Mormons believe, we are saying that those should be restricted to the Church and not go into the State", they keep getting dragged in as defence.

So I'll say it yet again. We don't give a damn what happens in your church. I have never been to a Mormon church, and, in all probability, won't be to one for quite a while. I couldn't care less who they wed, what they wed, who they hate, who they love, what their prayers are, what their prayers aren't. This isn't specifically about Mormons...I just generally don't give a damn about religion.

What I do give a damn about is specifically selecting a segment of the population, and denying them rights that are afforded to every other member of society. Same as I would be pissed if women couldn't vote, blacks couldn't own property, or Mormons were prevented from practicing their religion.

Discrimination and bigotry are wrong. Not in one case, not in some cases, but every case. Every time. There is no question.

Other beliefs fine, no problem but beleifs that may be based on a religion no. Yes I have got it.

For the last bloody time, we are not talking about anyone's beliefs. We are talking about their efforts to institutionalize discrimination.

I would still LOVE to hear an explanation from NB, BE or Tygereyes to explain exactly HOW gay marriage being legal --->>> children are threatened.

Threatened by what, exactly? I want to hear your reasoning. You can't just support "Protect the Children!" and not explain how what we're doing is protection. I want to know. Should be easy to explain your rational reasons.

Quit whining about how we don't "understand your faith." If you can't answer a fairly simple question about your beliefs, you can't expect us to give a shit about 'understanding' them. Plain and simple.

Nope, that was me answering your question within the context it was asked. Next time shall I just refuse to answer on the grounds that the base premise is false, so that you can then accuse me of dodging it?

Your traps aren't as clever as you think they are, dude.

It wasn't a trap. (If it was, it would have been more clever. :wink:)

It was a straight-forward question: Would a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex be discriminatory? Yes or no? Why? How?

On what grounds, if any, would you object to such a statute?

The REAL reason you guys are so snippy:

Your advocacy groups failed you. The people of California aren't as liberal as you always thought they were, and for the first time you're starting to realize that maybe, just maybe, that high horse you've been sitting on all this time might not be as high as you thought.

The people of California have spoken, and you don't like it. And now you want someone to blame other than your precious little (and apparently non-functioning) advocates. There's your mistake. All you're doing is galavnizing your "enemies" and letting your "allies" off the hook.

By all means keep it up, and make it easy for us.

I would still LOVE to hear an explanation from NB, BE or Tygereyes to explain exactly HOW gay marriage being legal --->>> children are threatened.

Threatened by what, exactly? I want to hear your reasoning. You can't just support "Protect the Children!" and not explain how what we're doing is protection. I want to know. Should be easy to explain your rational reasons.

Quit whining about how we don't "understand your faith." If you can't answer a fairly simple question about your beliefs, you can't expect us to give a shit about 'understanding' them. Plain and simple.

When have I said a word about children in this thread? Keep your strawman off of me, my friend.

Oh, and we're not "whining" about people not understanding our faith. We know perfectly well what you think of it and your desire not only to NOT understand it, but to try to force us to come around to your way of thinking.

It's not whining, it's an acknowledgement of the facts that, for some reason, you seem to object to. I find that telling.

You missed the whole 'taking away rights' part. Deliberately.

Not really I left that in my quote and said "you are not allowed to take away rights from other based on your religious beliefs"

Nope, that was me answering your question within the context it was asked. Next time shall I just refuse to answer on the grounds that the base premise is false, so that you can then accuse me of dodging it?

Your traps aren't as clever as you think they are, dude.

An evasion, and a declaration that you intend to continue evading?

Is banning gay marriage discrimination?

Would banning 'straight' marriage be discrimination?

Your syntax is odd.

Thank you. I like to sound odd. :p

I don't care about your church...your church could never vote in a ban on gay marriage in my country...because sexual orientation has been read into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I don't need to understand why you are so, so wrong.

Whatever you say. I guess, know your enemy doesn't apply. Even if that's an old addage. It can apply. Your country is your own. I am currious how Mormons treat it there. If you find one to talk to, please ask them and let me know. I'd like to know how a Mormon in another country treats the issue.

False.

No one is forcing Mormons to believe anything. No one is saying Mormons can't be bigots. What we are saying is that being Mormon does not confer upon a person the power to infringe upon the rights of others.

Religious bigotry is a human right.... the shaping of policy based on said religious bigotry, is NOT a human right.

Exactly. Nobody's talking about forcing them to perform gay marriages. They can still hate the ebi1 gayz as much as they want.

But that hatred should not be what California's law is based on.

Because even if every church hated gays, which isn't the case, it would still be no legal basis. Because there is separation of church and state in this country, and in this state.
The courts exist for a reason. In this case, unfortunately, they were unable to protect the minority from abuse.

This is a clear example of tyranny by majority.

The REAL reason you guys are so snippy:


The 'real reason' I'm 'snippy' is that I just saw another provincial government strip rights away from a minority.

End of story.

Don't presume to tell me my motivations.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You just have to understand that this is the compromise that would be on the table if there wasn't this utter stubornness on the part of those on your side. I mean, if it's nothing but a game of semantics, why are the gay rights advocates so adamant on calling it "marriage?"

So you're fine with gay marriage, as long as it's not called "marriage?" Even if it's identical in every other way? That's completely and utterly pointless.

I suggest we pass the "Gay Zablax Legalization Act" immediately.

Thank you. I like to sound odd. :p



Whatever you say. I guess, know your enemy doesn't apply. Even if that's an old addage. It can apply. Your country is your own. I am currious how Mormons treat it there. If you find one to talk to, please ask them and let me know. I'd like to know how a Mormon in another country treats the issue.

Why do you care whether other people, who are not mormons, marry those they love?

A co-worker of mine, the gay man I referenced earlier, and I were discussing this and he said that the biggest mistake the gay rights movement made with respect to this issue was to push gay unions as a "marriage" as opposed to a civil union, because doing so provoked the religious Right to jump in and oppose it. He's of the opinion, and I agree with him, that if it were done as a civil union, the vast majority of people, even Christians, would get out of the way of it.

We have found that this is not true. It is the equivalent of the Bradley Effect: there are a large number of people who TELL POLLSTERS, and likewise will say when they are talking where gay people might hear them, because it sounds polite to say, that they are all in favor of granting equal legal rights to same-sex couples under the name "civil union" or whatever, as long as the M-word isn't used. It turns out, however, that they will VOTE to deny us equal rights, regardless. In Michigan, this was most explicit, since the ballot proposal was a ban not just on marriage but also on any kind of "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or anything else of the kind. Add the percentage in the polls who claim to be in favor of civil union, just not "marriage", to those who will vote against it.
As Mr. Thomas Jefferson noted, we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights. That same Creator had some rather specific things to say about homosexuality.

Mr. Jefferson REJECTED the belief that the Creator had any such things to say. Jefferson believed that the Creator made a self-sufficient universe, with no need for further tinkering; endowing Man with sufficient reason to figure out for themselves the right way to live, with no need for "revelations" and "commandments". Do not make the error of thinking that the Creator he believed is the "same" as the Creator you believe in.
That's an awfully jaded point of view. Are you suggesting a lack of honesty among people whom you've never met and have no knowledge of? Are you assuming facets of my friendship with them of which you have no experience?

(Hint:Those are rhetorical questions.)
I can only speak from my own experience. Before you criticize the wariness that results from having to live around people who never have and never will consider me to have the same rights as they do, you need to walk a mile in my shoes.

The 'real reason' I'm 'snippy' is that I just saw another provincial government strip rights away from a minority.

End of story.

Don't presume to tell me my motivations.

Exactamente.

It wasn't a trap. (If it was, it would have been more clever. :wink:)

It was a straight-forward question: Would a statute that restricted marriage only to couples of the same sex be discriminatory? Yes or no? Why? How?

On what grounds, if any, would you object to such a statute?

An evasion, and a declaration that you intend to continue evading?

Is banning gay marriage discrimination?

Would banning 'straight' marriage be discrimination?

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

Yet I suppose you have the right to force your beliefs onto others.

Yeah, that's what I meant. :rolleyes:

We live in a society founded on notions of liberty and equality.

People have a right to believe (and generally even do) whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

Depriving other people of rights because you don't like who they are attracted to is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

When have I said a word about children in this thread? Keep your strawman off of me, my friend.

Ads for Proposition 8 clearly argued that children were threatened, and that Proposition 8 would "protect" them. Do I need to post and re-post the image every few posts, so you don't keep conveniently ignoring it?

And since you are clearly arguing in favor of Propositon 8 - gloating over how the "people have spoken." OK, so you and people like you 'spoke.' Now defend what you have 'spoken.'

Or do you suddenly not want to now that its passed and you can tell us how we're just "snippy?" Too difficult to defend what you champion?

The 'real reason' I'm 'snippy' is that I just saw another provincial government strip rights away from a minority.

End of story.

Don't presume to tell me my motivations.

Why not? You do it to me all the time.

Hypocrisy never gets old, does it?

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

Hahahahahaahaa.....

You suck at logic.

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

Are you kidding me? You're equating a legal union between two consenting adults with defiling dead bodies?

When have I said a word about children in this thread?
Never. That's one of the major bones I have to pick with you. All that garbage about the "threat to the children" that you briefly tried to defend on the other thread and then slunk away from: THAT is what made me most angry. Doesn't it bother you that your holy Church tells vicious lies? Do you want to defend it now?

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

I accept the latter.

I also think that the prohibition on necrophilia is mainly concerened with the fact that corpses cannot give consent.

So - now you admit that homosexuality is discrimination, that's good. But - since we're talking about CONSENTING adults, I don't see how there's any parallel.

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

First, your evasion of some rather basic questions speaks volumes.

Second, the ban isn't on homosexual marriage, but on same-sex marriage. Hence the gender discrimination.

Third, a same-sex marriage involves two consenting adults. Necrophilia doesn't.

Ads for Proposition 8 clearly argued that children were threatened, and that Proposition 8 would "protect" them. Do I need to post and re-post the image every few posts, so you don't keep conveniently ignoring it?

So... you post the sign, and now I'm responsible for it?


And since you are clearly arguing in favor of Propositon 8 - gloating over how the "people have spoken." OK, so you and people like you 'spoke.' Now defend what you have 'spoken.'

Or do you suddenly not want to now that its passed and you can tell us how we're just "snippy?" Too difficult to defend what you champion?

First of all, I'm not gloating. I'm pointing out that the people have spoken because, according to a number given by TCT a few hours ago, 98% of those people are NOT Mormons, and yet this is a long whiny hatefest against the LDS Church.

Second, I don't have to defend a damn thing. What's done is done. Don't like it? Tell your advocacy groups to do a better job of camaigning next time.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

God damn you to the deepest pit of hell. How could you say such a thing?

Why not? You do it to me all the time.

Hypocrisy never gets old, does it?

What do I do to you?

In other threads, you have constantly condemned me for - by your claims - misinterpreting what you said. You're not 'misiniterpreting what I've said', you're 'making shit up'.

I haven't ascribed motivations to you that you haven't ascribed to yourself.

Physician, heal thyself.

Oh, and we're not "whining"

This is whining:

Then you'll never understand how we feel. So much for knowing and understanding and trying to extend beyond your limited mind. You try and get me to see your viewpoints but you refuse to understand mine.


We know perfectly well what you think of it and your desire not only to NOT understand it, but to try to force us to come around to your way of thinking.

I notice you haven't actually answered the question. You are STILL whining about "not understanding," yet you won't ANSWER A SIMPLE BLOODY QUESTION!

It's not whining, it's an acknowledgement of the facts that, for some reason, you seem to object to. I find that telling.

It's whining. Sorry bub. You're playing the victim, claiming anyone is attacking your faith, doesn't understand you, blah blah blah. I know whining when I see it.

First, your evasion of some rather basic questions speaks volumes.

Gawd, you're predictable. lol.

yeah, yeah, yeah your point is so brilliant I'm just terrified of it. etc etc etc.

Your ego feel better now?


Second, the ban isn't on homosexual marriage, but on same-sex marriage. Hence the gender discrimination.


Your syntax is noted.


Third, a same-sex marriage involves two consenting adults. Necrophilia doesn't.

:shrug:

So... you post the sign, and now I'm responsible for it?

First of all, I'm not gloating. I'm pointing out that the people have spoken because, according to a number given by TCT a few hours ago, 98% of those people are NOT Mormons, and yet this is a long whiny hatefest against the LDS Church.

Second, I don't have to defend a damn thing. What's done is done. Don't like it? Tell your advocacy groups to do a better job of camaigning next time.

The whole point of this thread is that money (hugely disproportionate amounts of money) from LDS members paid for the copious ads that said Prop. 8 was necessary to protect children.

If you want to defend the actions of your fellow Mormons, then, yes, you have to defend those ads. If you can't or won't, that speaks for itself.

Those of us that object to the deceptive campaign for Prop. 8 that was funded by the LDS Church and LDS members have every right to bitch about, whine about, and boycott against the LDS Church and its members.

God damn you to the deepest pit of hell. How could you say such a thing?

Hey I was just throwing out an analogy for the benefit of the syntax warriors.

But your objectivity, reasoned arguments, and general ease of discussion have opened my eyes.

There will come a day, my friend, where the irony of that sentence comes back to haunt you.

Gawd, you're predictable. lol.

yeah, yeah, yeah your point is so brilliant I'm just terrified of it. etc etc etc.

Your ego feel better now?

Your syntax is noted.

:shrug:

So you won't answer my simple questions?

And we're supposed to believe this is not because you can't answer them but rather because you are above them somehow?

yet this is a long whiny hatefest against the LDS Church.


Hatefest?

Hyperbole, much?

Yes - THIS thread is an attack on what the LDS contributed to Proposition 8. This is NOT the be all and end all of Proposition 8.

The LDS are only one of the responsible parties, but - since they alone raised 40% of the money used in those attack ads, they are earning some special attention.

Curious that you consider this thread to be unacceptable vitriol against mormons, but you are party to REAL hate against homsexuals. Your church was an instrument in running advertisements that told people that gay people were less deserving than straight people, that told them it was okay to hurt the gay community.

Curious, and hypocritical.

It doesn't have to make sense to you. You just have to understand that this is the compromise that would be on the table if there wasn't this utter stubornness on the part of those on your side. I mean, if it's nothing but a game of semantics, why are the gay rights advocates so adamant on calling it "marriage?"
Because it is termed "marriage" for straights. When straights willingly swap to being in civil unions rather than weddings, I'll be satisfied.
Seperate is not equal.

Unless you separate the religious aspect from the secular aspect, which is what has been suggested.
The religious and secular aspects have NEVER been intertwined. They legally cannot be. The state cannot influence the church. Legally, the church cannot influence the state. The religious and secular are seperate. Stop pretending they aren't.



Fine with me. But then within the churches they could call it "marriage" and everybody wins. Is that so unreasonable?
Why can't it be called marriage in the state realm as well?


That, my friend, is a strawman argument, although I hope my last couple of responses have made it clear why that is.
No, it isn't. You signed a marriage license and filed it with the state, no?
Well, guess who gives you those rights? That's right. The state. It is the state, not the church, that affords you the right to visit your sick wive. It is the state, not the church, that affords you tax benefits.
The church CANNOT fill this role.

There is absolutly zero reason to change the terminology beyond that it makes you feel "icky". As it stands now, it is termed marriage, and the state controls all rights and responsibilities. There is no strawman.



But here's the thing: As soon as the state legalizes such a union, then, on some level, it does force those with religious objections to go along.Not in the least. We allow people to get divorced, but do not require the Catholic church to recognize divorces. Yes, you may encounter a married gay couple. This is no different than meeting any other gay couple, except for the legal ramifications.

Your discomfort is not my problem. If it isn't discomfort, then there is zero reason to reject marriage for gays.


Yet I suppose you have the right to force your beliefs onto others.
Who is forcing their beliefs upon you? Who is saying the Mormon church must perform and/or recognize gay marriage? Show me one quote. Anywhere. If we are being so damn forceful, show us.

Other beliefs fine, no problem but beliefs that may be based on a religion no. Yes I have got it.No. You can have your own beliefs. I don't care if you go out and scream about how much you hate Jews and Gypsies and cripples and how they should all be shot. Keep it out of the laws and constitutions of our country.

The REAL reason you guys are so snippy:

Your advocacy groups failed you. The people of California aren't as liberal as you always thought they were, and for the first time you're starting to realize that maybe, just maybe, that high horse you've been sitting on all this time might not be as high as you thought.

The people of California have spoken, and you don't like it. And now you want someone to blame other than your precious little (and apparently non-functioning) advocates. There's your mistake. All you're doing is galavnizing your "enemies" and letting your "allies" off the hook.

By all means keep it up, and make it easy for us.
I oppose and blame every person who voted for prop 8. I oppose and blame every person who would have voted no, but didn't.
The Mormon church did more than its fair share, and gets the equal reaction.

I know you guys want me to either call it discrimination or rephrase it in such a way as to appear unable to accept your point of view on what reality is.

I'll offer you this: If a ban on homosexual marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals, then a ban on necrophilia is discriminatory on necrophiliacs.

If you can accept the latter, then I'll accept the former in the same spirit.

Wait... wat?

Dead people can't consent.

Two women can. My friend had two moms. They were married, in a religious fashion, though the state did not recognize it.

I don't see why it matters what the person has downstairs for them to be married. And even if it does, how does it affect YOU? Tell me that. In what way does two women getting married affect your beliefs or your life?

Hey I was just throwing out an analogy for the benefit of the syntax warriors.

But your objectivity, reasoned arguments, and general ease of discussion have opened my eyes.

There will come a day, my friend, where the irony of that sentence comes back to haunt you.

"syntax warriors"

Sorry, but discrimination based on the suspect classifications of gender, race, and sexual orientation is about more than mere "syntax." It is about equal protection under the law and how we guarantee it.

So... you post the sign, and now I'm responsible for it?

That was a Vote Yes on Proposition 8 sign. It's been posted everywhere by people who made Proposition 8 a successful campaign. You agree with the results, you support Prop 8, and you defend it.

You have placed yourself in the position of defending it. Unless you want to quit talking about your views on Prop 8 and what the people of California think.

Maybe we could talk about the weather instead.


Second, I don't have to defend a damn thing. What's done is done. Don't like it? Tell your advocacy groups to do a better job of camaigning next time.

It's indefensible, and that's why you won't defend it.

It's irrational, it plays on obvious fear of homosexuals (ZOMG THEY'RE HARMING CHILDREN!), to ignorance and bigotry.

And it's what made Prop 8 squeeze through.

It's OK, you don't have to defend your argument, you can just continue being wrong.

Why do you care whether other people, who are not mormons, marry those they love?

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage? Why are you so adment on calling it that.

Call it a civil union. Call it Living rights. Go to a clerk and have them state you have these rights, that's it. I am not against anyone's lifestyle. But to call it marriage is like putting a dagger to many people. To call it marriage gets people up in arms. And therefore people get all paranoid and worked up and spend lots of money on it and it gets defeated. If people in the homosexual community put it up as something other than marriage than I believe it would pass.

You keep saying it's not about beliefs, it's not about beliefs. But it is. A belief for people to live the way they choose. And another on the way they choose. It's all about belief. Whether you choose to accept it or not.

Hatefest?

Hyperbole, much?

Yes - THIS thread is an attack on what the LDS contributed to Proposition 8. This is NOT the be all and end all of Proposition 8.

The LDS are only one of the responsible parties, but - since they alone raised 40% of the money used in those attack ads, they are earning some special attention.

Curious that you consider this thread to be unacceptable vitriol against mormons, but you are party to REAL hate against homsexuals. Your church was an instrument in running advertisements that told people that gay people were less deserving than straight people, that told them it was okay to hurt the gay community.

Curious, and hypocritical.

The anger directed against the LDS church is not because of what they believe.

It's because of what they did.

If they believe it's wrong for people to be gay or whatever, that's fine. I don't care, they're entitled to that. It's their own business.

However, taking people's rights away I will not forgive. When they pour huge amounts of money into a campaign to strip my friends of their rights, it becomes my business.

It does, however, provide me with yet another reason to be proud of my two home states (MA and CT). MA rejected even having a ballot initiative against gay marriage, and Jodi Rell (CT gov.) said she would do nothing to challenge the courts decision, despite her personal aversion to gay marriage.

I had read about Jodi Rell, I like that. I can remember thinking 'quality human'. Leaving personal views out of it-particularly relevant here perhaps? Shows her intelligent to realise, 'who the fuck am I to say gay people can't marry?', in a nutshell.

Thanks for the positive comments. :) A little while back, we had a thread on NSG where someone had hunted down all the nations that DO have legalised gay marriage.

The US really is backwards on this issue, I was surprised how backwards, when I saw some of the nations that were more 'progressive' on it than us.

Here in NZ we have civil unions.. It's not marriage, but it's getting there I guess. Gives gay couples recognition by the state, at the least.

I'm just pissed off I don't have enough time to get in on the fun here :(

Hey I was just throwing out an analogy for the benefit of the syntax warriors.

But your objectivity, reasoned arguments, and general ease of discussion have opened my eyes.

There will come a day, my friend, where the irony of that sentence comes back to haunt you.

You compared homosexuality between consenting adults with fucking corpses. How dare you try to suggest that someone else is being non-objective, or failing to use a 'reasoned' argument?

The 'irony' of the situation would be that the person who is party to actual physical harm to a minority, here, feels that he can condescend towards someone who spoke vehemently when you called him a grave-rapist.

Hey I was just throwing out an analogy for the benefit of the syntax warriors.


A flawed, stupid and obviously bigoted analogy. But yes, you did throw it out there!

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage? Why are you so adment on calling it that.

Because that's what it is. Marriage is a state-given status, legally.

Call it a civil union. Call it Living rights. Go to a clerk and have them state you have these rights, that's it. I am not against anyone's lifestyle. But to call it marriage is like putting a dagger to many people. To call it marriage gets people up in arms. And therefore people get all paranoid and worked up and spend lots of money on it and it gets defeated. If people in the homosexual community put it up as something other than marriage than I believe it would pass.
You're not getting the point. They had the right to marriage, for several months running. Not a civil union, not "living rights," full blown, legal marriage.

This proposition has taken that right away.

You keep saying it's not about beliefs, it's not about beliefs. But it is. A belief for people to live the way they choose. And another on the way they choose. It's all about belief. Whether you choose to accept it or not.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Nobody was forcing Mormons to live a certain way. They took away the rights of my friends. Mormon rights were not threatened.

So you won't answer my simple questions?

And we're supposed to believe this is not because you can't answer them but rather because you are above them somehow?

Actually, indirectly he has answered.

He said he would accept that premise if we accepted the premise that necrophilia is discriminatory.

I accept that it is discriminatory.

I also enlightened him on why the two things aren't parallel, and why 'discrimination' in that case is acceptable.


Unless Neo is a liar, we can take that as his tacit admission that a same-sex marriage ban is discrimination.

So you're fine with gay marriage, as long as it's not called "marriage?" Even if it's identical in every other way? That's completely and utterly pointless.

I suggest we pass the "Gay Zablax Legalization Act" immediately.

So... why is it pointless for me to object to calling it "marriage," but it's not pointless for others to insist on calling it "marriage," even if the idea of a civil union is the same?

So, let me see if I'm fully caught up since my dinner break:

The only two people who are so far trying to defend the LDS church's influence in getting Prop 8 passed are:

2) Tygereyes, who, by his/her own admission, has no knowledge of the issue, does not understand what his/her own church actually did in regards to it or how, goes on and on forever about how Mormons don't believe that gays should get married, but that Mormons do recognize the validity of marriages by other religions and civil marriages, yet refuses to even address objections such as other religions marry gays, civil marriage is not religious marriage and is not bound by the rules of any religion, and that nothing about Mormon belief concerning gays says anything at all about justifying Mormons forcing their religious beliefs over the beliefs of non-Mormons. Tygereyes has ignored or flatly refused to answer every question asking him/her to reconcile such issues or contradictions in his/her stance, and instead has settled on complaining about how nobody understands.

3) Neo Bretonnia, who has launched into his usual victim routine, accusing everyone and his brother of attacking Mormon beliefs, even though he and Tygereyes are the only ones who insist on discussing them, as opposed to this one specific political action by the LDS; who has also refused to answer direct questions asking for explanations of his position and LDS views on the issue; and who has recently given up on addressing points at all in favor of insulting and ridiculing his challengers while also accusing his challengers of attacking him and his religion.

Does that about sum it up?

EDIT: Oh, and 3) they both think it's really, really unfair of us to blame the LDS for helping to strip civil rights away from American citizens, and to call them to account for the LDS's action, even though they present themselves on this forum as some of our resident Mormons?

Does that about do it?

So anyway, since NB won't, I am now opening this question up to ANYONE. ANYONE AT ALL.

Again, the Proposition 8 sign in question:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5263/yeson8gw8.jpg

In what way does Proposition 8 protect California children, from who, and how?

A flawed, stupid and obviously bigoted analogy. But yes, you did throw it out there!

Your opinion is noted.

So... why is it pointless for me to object to calling it "marriage," but it's not pointless for others to insist on calling it "marriage," even if the idea of a civil union is the same?

Separate is not equal.

So... why is it pointless for me to object to calling it "marriage," but it's not pointless for others to insist on calling it "marriage," even if the idea of a civil union is the same?

For the last time, it is not the same. There are legal differences.

So, let me see if I'm fully caught up since my dinner break:

The only two people who are so far trying to defend the LDS church's influence in getting Prop 8 passed are:

2) Tygereyes, who, by his/her own admission, has no knowledge of the issue, does not understand what his/her own church actually did in regards to it or how, goes on and on forever about how Mormons don't believe that gays should get married, but that Mormons do recognize the validity of marriages by other religions and civil marriages, yet refuses to even address objections such as other religions marry gays, civil marriage is not religious marriage and is not bound by the rules of any religion, and that nothing about Mormon belief concerning gays says anything at all about justifying Mormons forcing their religious beliefs over the beliefs of non-Mormons. Tygereyes has ignored or flatly refused to answer every question asking him/her to reconcile such issues or contradictions in his/her stance, and instead has settled on complaining about how nobody understands.

3) Neo Bretonnia, who has launched into his usual victim routine, accusing everyone and his brother of attacking Mormon beliefs, even though he and Tygereyes are the only ones who insist on discussing them, as opposed to this one specific political action by the LDS; who has also refused to answer direct questions asking for explanations of his position and LDS views on the issue; and who has recently given up on addressing points at all in favor of insulting and ridiculing his challengers while also accusing his challengers of attacking him and his religion.

Does that about sum it up?

Basically.

You compared homosexuality between consenting adults with fucking corpses. How dare you try to suggest that someone else is being non-objective, or failing to use a 'reasoned' argument?

The 'irony' of the situation would be that the person who is party to actual physical harm to a minority, here, feels that he can condescend towards someone who spoke vehemently when you called him a grave-rapist.

And y'all accuse ME of playing the victim...

Even if I meant it in the way you're characterizing it, (which I didn't) that was MILD compared to some of the crap I've gotten from y'all so man up.

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage?


Because it IS a marriage.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on that term.


I am not against anyone's lifestyle.


You are if you support banning gay marriage.


But to call it marriage is like putting a dagger to many people.


And banning gay marriage is like telling someone that their love for one another isn't allowed to be recognised with all the rights and repsonsibilities that other couples get.

I don't care about hurting your feelings with the name. It IS a marriage.

So, maybe I hurt your feelings... maybe that makes me a bad person.

In response, you allow rights to be stripped away from other people, based on no condition other than their chosen partner.


You keep saying it's not about beliefs, it's not about beliefs. But it is. A belief for people to live the way they choose. And another on the way they choose. It's all about belief. Whether you choose to accept it or not.

We're not talking about articles of faith, we're talking about the rights that should be allowed to people.


Should rights be denied to certain groups of people, because of which god they worship (or don't)?

For the last time, it is not the same. There are legal differences.

Only as currently written. That can change.

(This is now the second time I've said this. If you won't take the time to read, don't expect me to take the time to repeat myself.)

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage? Why are you so adment on calling it that.

Call it a civil union. Call it Living rights. Go to a clerk and have them state you have these rights, that's it. I am not against anyone's lifestyle. But to call it marriage is like putting a dagger to many people. To call it marriage gets people up in arms. And therefore people get all paranoid and worked up and spend lots of money on it and it gets defeated. If people in the homosexual community put it up as something other than marriage than I believe it would pass.

You keep saying it's not about beliefs, it's not about beliefs. But it is. A belief for people to live the way they choose. And another on the way they choose. It's all about belief. Whether you choose to accept it or not.

If what is called doesn't make a fucking difference, why do YOU care whether a same-sex union is called marriage? Hypocrite.

The truth of the matter is that marriage contains more than a thousand rights, privileges, and benefits under federal law that are not extended to civil unions.

Moreover, as the California Supreme Court explained at length in In Re Marriage Cases, denying the right to marriage is denying a fundamental right and setting up some "separate but equal" system is not the same.

BTW, the LDS Church and its members HAVE OPPOSED CIVIL UNIONS in other states like Michigan. So your argument that you would accept such a "compromise" is hollow.

Separate is not equal.

Except in public restrooms, apparently.

So anyway, since NB won't, I am now opening this question up to ANYONE. ANYONE AT ALL.

Again, the Proposition 8 sign in question:

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5263/yeson8gw8.jpg

In what way does Proposition 8 protect California children, from who, and how?

There is a horrible belief held by some that children raised in gay households are somehow 'worse' than children raised by straight parents.. Although there is plenty of research to suggest that's complete bullshit. I used to have a source for that, but lost it-new comp. :(

Edit: Btw, I guess you kinda figured this. There is no way this legislation protects children at all-if anything it damages lots.

And y'all accuse ME of playing the victim...

Even if I meant it in the way you're characterizing it, (which I didn't) that was MILD compared to some of the crap I've gotten from y'all so man up.

When did someone tell you that what you do equates to fucking a dead body?

You ARE playing the victim - you posted a complaint just moments ago about 'whiney hatefests' or words to that effect.


Your church has been instrumental in something evil. It has stripped away rights from a minority.

Do you think they did the right thing in stripping rights from a minority, and are you willing to stand by that?

Or do you think your church did a bad thing in stripping away rights from a minority?

So, let me see if I'm fully caught up since my dinner break:

The only two people who are so far trying to defend the LDS church's influence in getting Prop 8 passed are:

2) Tygereyes, who, by his/her own admission, has no knowledge of the issue, does not understand what his/her own church actually did in regards to it or how, goes on and on forever about how Mormons don't believe that gays should get married, but that Mormons do recognize the validity of marriages by other religions and civil marriages, yet refuses to even address objections such as other religions marry gays, civil marriage is not religious marriage and is not bound by the rules of any religion, and that nothing about Mormon belief concerning gays says anything at all about justifying Mormons forcing their religious beliefs over the beliefs of non-Mormons. Tygereyes has ignored or flatly refused to answer every question asking him/her to reconcile such issues or contradictions in his/her stance, and instead has settled on complaining about how nobody understands.

3) Neo Bretonnia, who has launched into his usual victim routine, accusing everyone and his brother of attacking Mormon beliefs, even though he and Tygereyes are the only ones who insist on discussing them, as opposed to this one specific political action by the LDS; who has also refused to answer direct questions asking for explanations of his position and LDS views on the issue; and who has recently given up on addressing points at all in favor of insulting and ridiculing his challengers while also accusing his challengers of attacking him and his religion.

Does that about sum it up?

EDIT: Oh, and 3) they both think it's really, really unfair of us to blame the LDS for helping to strip civil rights away from American citizens, and to call them to account for the LDS's action, even though they present themselves on this forum as some of our resident Mormons?

Does that about do it?

Bingo! We have a winner!

You assume that. But as NB has said, why call it marrage? Why are you so adment on calling it that.

Call it a civil union. Call it Living rights. Go to a clerk and have them state you have these rights, that's it. I am not against anyone's lifestyle. But to call it marriage is like putting a dagger to many people. To call it marriage gets people up in arms. And therefore people get all paranoid and worked up and spend lots of money on it and it gets defeated. If people in the homosexual community put it up as something other than marriage than I believe it would pass.
Here is the best advice I have possibly ever given.

GET. OVER. IT.
Accept the fact that some things other people do, you will disagree with. Some things other people do will repulse you. And yet, it won't impact you. Two men getting married does not impact you. A man and a woman having hardcore BDSM sex doesn't impact you. A couple having sex with multiple partners safely does not impact you. A parent choosing to send their child to public school does not impact you. A parent choosing to not pay for their childs college tuition does not impact you. A man choosing to buy a motorcycle does not impact you.

People can make their own choices. And guess what? They. do. not. impact. you.
Get over your discomfort. Get over your paranoia. Rather than resorting to fear and hysteria, educate yourself. Figure out what we are fighting for. What the law actually says. Why it doesn't impact you. Then speak.

You keep saying it's not about beliefs, it's not about beliefs. But it is. A belief for people to live the way they choose. And another on the way they choose. It's all about belief. Whether you choose to accept it or not.Yes. The beliefe that people should be allowed to live the way they choose is exactly what is being argued. And your church has done more than its fair share to make sure this doesn't happen.

I say it YET AGAIN. No one. Not a single person. is saying that the Mormon church must do anything. They are not saying you must accept homosexuality. They are not saying you must accept gays. They are not saying you must perform gay marriages.

What they are saying is that everyone has the same basic rights. That gays can get married. And when they do, guess what?

It won't impact you.

[QUOTE=Peisandros;14179254]I had read about Jodi Rell, I like that. I can remember thinking 'quality human'. Leaving personal views out of it-particularly relevant here perhaps? Shows her intelligent to realise, 'who the fuck am I to say gay people can't marry?', in a nutshell.
/QUOTE]
She is a great governor...one of the few of the true "New England" republicans left. She understands her state and, while some in the state disapprove of gay marriage, she understands that most support gay marriage and, more over, the court was right.

What's more, CT gave full rights to gays under the guise of civil unions. In that law, we said that marriage was specifically between a man and a woman, but that both could get equal rights. And the supreme court said "No. It isn't the same. Everyone must have marriage". And I couldn't have been more proud of my state than in that moment.

Because that's what it is. Marriage is a state-given status, legally.


You're not getting the point. They had the right to marriage, for several months running. Not a civil union, not "living rights," full blown, legal marriage.

This proposition has taken that right away.


Then you admit to calling it marriage. See. That's what causes people to go against it. You take what you can get. If you went for a civil union, or something that gives everything like marriage. You'd win. instead of saying we want marriage, then you'd have your rights. Otherwise you have all the religious groups on your back. You're expecting everything over night. The LGBT group have come far, it's an encouraging thing. But it is a syntax and meaning thing that gets people up in arms.


I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Nobody was forcing Mormons to live a certain way. They took away the rights of my friends. Mormon rights were not threatened.

You're right. But... you have to work with people not against. Calling it marriage isn't gong to help.

Only as currently written. That can change.

(This is now the second time I've said this. If you won't take the time to read, don't expect me to take the time to repeat myself.)

And I already responded to what you said.

The Mormon church did not wage a multimillion dollar campaign to change a word. Proposition 8 did not rename gay marriages "civil unions." It took away those rights entirely. And you are defending that. You are saying that although you support gays having the exact same marriage rights, you care so much about the word "marriage" that you are willing to take away those rights to control a matter of semantics.

It makes no sense, and frankly, it's hard to believe.

So... why is it pointless for me to object to calling it "marriage," but it's not pointless for others to insist on calling it "marriage," even if the idea of a civil union is the same?

Asked and answered. (And if you know jackshit about Prop. 8 and the In re Marriage Cases decision, you should know the answer.)

Now, you answer the reverse, why do object to calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage" but not to a civil union which "is the same"?

When did someone tell you that what you do equates to fucking a dead body?

You're so cute when you play the innocent. It's why I just can't stay mad at you.


You ARE playing the victim - you posted a complaint just moments ago about 'whiney hatefests' or words to that effect.


... strange logic you use. But I understand, you need to save face. It's alright.


Your church has been instrumental in something evil. It has stripped away rights from a minority.


That's a crock. First of all, your gripe is with the voters of CA. To say that my Church "stripped away" anybody's rights is dishonest. You know it, and if the situation were reversed you'd NEVER let me get away with crap like that.


Do you think they did the right thing in stripping rights from a minority, and are you willing to stand by that?

Or do you think your church did a bad thing in stripping away rights from a minority?

What minority? At what point did sexual preference constitute a minority? This is the part that blows my mind. This artificial minority status given to a group of people based on who they are sexually attracted to. And then you equate that with race. That's a complete bogus argument.

Bingo! We have a winner!
Except I screwed up the numbering. :(

Then you admit to calling it marriage. See. That's what causes people to go against it. You take what you can get. If you went for a civil union, or something that gives everything like marriage. You'd win.

Afraid not. States have actually specifically banned civil unions, also... or any relationship-status-recognition that is anything like them.

So, it's not JUST the word.

Conveniently, no one really wants to defend the Prop 8 advertising. I think I'm gonna keep bringing this up for a while, lest it be conveniently forgotten altogether.

Funny, because I was thinking of taking the actual signs and pissing on them - but on here prop-8 supporters want to do the exact metaphorical equivalent.

Here is the best advice I have possibly ever given.

GET. OVER. IT.


Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...


And I already responded to what you said.

Then why did you ask me again?

Asked and answered. (And if you know jackshit about Prop. 8 and the In re Marriage Cases decision, you shoud know the answer.)

Now, you answer the reverse, why do object to calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage" but not to a civil union which "is the same"?

Asked and answered.

She is a great governor...one of the few of the true "New England" republicans left. She understands her state and, while some in the state disapprove of gay marriage, she understands that most support gay marriage and, more over, the court was right.

What's more, CT gave full rights to gays under the guise of civil unions. In that law, we said that marriage was specifically between a man and a woman, but that both could get equal rights. And the supreme court said "No. It isn't the same. Everyone must have marriage". And I couldn't have been more proud of my state than in that moment.

Should be more governors, politicians and people in general like her, by the sounds of things.

Wait, lemme get this straight. The supreme court said, 'Nah, civil unions ain't enough. Gay people can get married. End. of. story.' ?!? Or am I dreaming here.

Asked and answered.

Bullshit.

Conveniently, no one really wants to defend the Prop 8 advertising. I think I'm gonna keep bringing this up for a while, lest it be conveniently forgotten altogether.

Funny, because I was thinking of taking the actual signs and pissing on them - but on here prop-8 supporters want to do the exact metaphorical equivalent.

I'm feelin' ya-responded to your earlier post.

Advertising looks like shit.

Bullshit.

mmkay.

You're so cute when you play the innocent. It's why I just can't stay mad at you.


I, on the other hand, am mad as hell. Not with you, but with every single person that voted for Proposition 8 or the like, or contributed money to it.


... strange logic you use. But I understand, you need to save face. It's alright.


Pointing out that you were playing the victim just a post or two ago is 'strange' logic?


That's a crock. First of all, your gripe is with the voters of CA. To say that my Church "stripped away" anybody's rights is dishonest. You know it, and if the situation were reversed you'd NEVER let me get away with crap like that.


My gripe is largely with voters, yes.

My gripe is also with those who applied the pressure. I don't care who the source of the propaganda is, I still hold them accountable.


What minority? At what point did sexual preference constitute a minority? This is the part that blows my mind. This artificial minority status given to a group of people based on who they are sexually attracted to. And then you equate that with race. That's a complete bogus argument.

A minority is a group that is outnumbered by a larger group. It doesn't have to be an ethnic divide to constitute as a minority.

Answer the question.

Here is the best advice I have possibly ever given.

GET. OVER. IT.
Accept the fact that some things other people do, you will disagree with. Some things other people do will repulse you. And yet, it won't impact you. Two men getting married does not impact you. A man and a woman having hardcore BDSM sex doesn't impact you. A couple having sex with multiple partners safely does not impact you. A parent choosing to send their child to public school does not impact you. A parent choosing to not pay for their childs college tuition does not impact you. A man choosing to buy a motorcycle does not impact you.

What you do in your bedrooms is not my affair. I agree. Same thing for straight people. That all. Tell me to GET OVER it is a lame argument.

People can make their own choices. And guess what? They. do. not. impact. you.
Get over your discomfort. Get over your paranoia. Rather than resorting to fear and hysteria, educate yourself. Figure out what we are fighting for. What the law actually says. Why it doesn't impact you. Then speak.

Yes. The beliefe that people should be allowed to live the way they choose is exactly what is being argued. And your church has done more than its fair share to make sure this doesn't happen.

I have no paranoia or discomfort. I use to work with people who were gay. I never had any discomfort in the way they lived their lives. My church has a viewpoint on homosexuality and it will stand for a long time. You can't expect it to change.

I say it YET AGAIN. No one. Not a single person. is saying that the Mormon church must do anything. They are not saying you must accept homosexuality. They are not saying you must accept gays. They are not saying you must perform gay marriages.

What they are saying is that everyone has the same basic rights. That gays can get married. And when they do, guess what?

It won't impact you.[quote]

That's true. Love or Leave it how my church stands.

[QUOTE=Peisandros;14179254]I had read about Jodi Rell, I like that. I can remember thinking 'quality human'. Leaving personal views out of it-particularly relevant here perhaps? Shows her intelligent to realise, 'who the fuck am I to say gay people can't marry?', in a nutshell.
/QUOTE]
[quote]She is a great governor...one of the few of the true "New England" republicans left. She understands her state and, while some in the state disapprove of gay marriage, she understands that most support gay marriage and, more over, the court was right.

What's more, CT gave full rights to gays under the guise of civil unions. In that law, we said that marriage was specifically between a man and a woman, but that both could get equal rights. And the supreme court said "No. It isn't the same. Everyone must have marriage". And I couldn't have been more proud of my state than in that moment.


Then I disagree with that. Sorry, but I can choose to disagree. Your state is your state. You have it anyway you want it. I don't dispute it.

Here is the best advice I have possibly ever given.

GET. OVER. IT.
Accept the fact that some things other people do, you will disagree with. Some things other people do will repulse you. And yet, it won't impact you. Two men getting married does not impact you. A man and a woman having hardcore BDSM sex doesn't impact you. A couple having sex with multiple partners safely does not impact you. A parent choosing to send their child to public school does not impact you. A parent choosing to not pay for their childs college tuition does not impact you. A man choosing to buy a motorcycle does not impact you.

People can make their own choices. And guess what? They. do. not. impact. you.
Get over your discomfort. Get over your paranoia. Rather than resorting to fear and hysteria, educate yourself. Figure out what we are fighting for. What the law actually says. Why it doesn't impact you. Then speak.

And this is why the two arguments will never be equal. What Neo B, and this dude Tygereyes are championing is butting in. Pretending that other people's decisions in these matters somehow deprive THEM of rights of some sort. This is patently false.

And y'all accuse ME of playing the victim...

Even if I meant it in the way you're characterizing it, (which I didn't) that was MILD compared to some of the crap I've gotten from y'all so man up.Show us specifics.

Then you admit to calling it marriage. See. That's what causes people to go against it. You take what you can get. If you went for a civil union, or something that gives everything like marriage. You'd win. instead of saying we want marriage, then you'd have your rights. Otherwise you have all the religious groups on your back. You're expecting everything over night. The LGBT group have come far, it's an encouraging thing. But it is a syntax and meaning thing that gets people up in arms.




You're right. But... you have to work with people not against. Calling it marriage isn't gong to help.Accepting anything less than equality won't work either.

Asked and answered. (And if you know jackshit about Prop. 8 and the In re Marriage Cases decision, you shoud know the answer.)

Now, you answer the reverse, why do object to calling a same-sex relationship a "marriage" but not to a civil union which "is the same"?
Cat...do you have a good resource on CT's decision? I lost mine.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...
Please, do elaborate.

I'm supposed to get over the fact that a church...hell, let's say every church of every religion, decides to impose itself upon the government to discriminate against citizens?

No. Get over the fact that marriage is not "your" term. It doesn't belong to your church. Or any church. Get over the fact that it might make you feel "icky" to talk to a gay guy, and that, even with that feeling, he still deserves full legal rights and equal protection under the law.

Quite different. I say nothing that even comes close to implying that your church should be discriminated against. You, however, have defended discrimination against gays...not within your church, but within the state.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

False.

Your position supports the stripping away of people's rights despite the fact that exercising those rights harms you in no way.

Ours is that this should never be allowed.

Sorry. Our position IS superior to yours.

False.

Your position supports the stripping away of people's rights despite the fact that exercising those rights harms you in no way.

Ours is that this should never be allowed.

Sorry. Our position IS superior to yours.

This ^^

I, on the other hand, am mad as hell. Not with you, but with every single person that voted for Proposition 8 or the like, or contributed money to it.


No problem.


Pointing out that you were playing the victim just a post or two ago is 'strange' logic?

In your opinion I was playing the victim. (Although this is really hilarious coming from you ;) )


My gripe is largely with voters, yes.

My gripe is also with those who applied the pressure. I don't care who the source of the propaganda is, I still hold them accountable.


Fine, as long as you realize how little that matters. I didn't contribute any money toward the campaign for Proposition 8 but this argument is starting to make me wish I had.


A minority is a group that is outnumbered by a larger group. It doesn't have to be an ethnic divide to constitute as a minority.

Answer the question.

The question was a non-sequitur. We've seen what happens when those get answered.

I'm feelin' ya-responded to your earlier post.

Advertising looks like shit.

Yeah totally.

But the problem with the "gay households harm children" is - aside from how they don't - but preventing gay marriage is not going to magically erase homosexuality from any household! So Proposition 8 doesn't even "protect" anyone even according to their own bigoted standpoint!

Then you admit to calling it marriage.
OK, now I'm getting annoyed with you. What the fuck do you mean "admit" to calling it marriage. How many times do you have to be told that it IS marriage?

See. That's what causes people to go against it. You take what you can get.
YOU don't get to dictate what other people can get in life.

The LDS does not get to dictate what other people can get in life.

If you and they try, you will reap the repercussions of that, in terms of boycotts, public denunciations, political opposition, and social approbation.

You want gays to learn to deal with your prejudice against them? Well, then YOU and the LDS can learn to deal with the consequences of your choice to try to enshrine your bigotry into law. You are the ones who will lose in the end. That I can promise you.

If you went for a civil union, or something that gives everything like marriage. You'd win. instead of saying we want marriage, then you'd have your rights.
You don't own the word marriage. You have been told that over and over, yet you choose to ignore that fact in the very same breaths with which you acknowledge other forms of marriage. How can you talk out of so many sides of your mouth at once?

Otherwise you have all the religious groups on your back.
NOT ALL religious groups. Only some. Another fact you choose to ignore no matter how many times it is thrown at you. You complain about people presuming to tell you what your beliefs are, yet you seem totally comfortable declaring what other religion's views are. Too bad you are entirely wrong.

You're expecting everything over night. The LGBT group have come far, it's an encouraging thing.
See my comment above about what YOU and the LDS don't get to decide for others. It includes deciding how long people have to wait for their rights to suit you.

But it is a syntax and meaning thing that gets people up in arms.
No, it isn't. What gets SOME people up in arms is their bigotry against gays. Possibly also their desire to claim some kind of social/moral privilege for themselves, which obviously they can only do if they deny it to someone else. Selfishness and bigotry -- that's what gets the LDS up in arms on this issue.

You're right. But... you have to work with people not against. Calling it marriage isn't gong to help.
Tough shit. It is marriage, therefore it gets called marriage.

False.

Your position supports the stripping away of people's rights despite the fact that exercising those rights harms you in no way.

Ours is that this should never be allowed.

Sorry. Our position IS superior to yours.

Your opinion is noted.

OK, now I'm getting annoyed with you. What the fuck do you mean "admit" to calling it marriage. How many times do you have to be told that it IS marriage?


Ah, Muravyets, this is why it's always a joy to see you in a thread.

Your most endearing trait is when you don't "get" somebody's post so you just treat them like they're stupid rather than trying to see it from their side. You defeat yourself by doing it and I always find it incredibly entertaining. Your cheering section kinda insulates you from seeing the reality of that though, so I also kinda feel sorry for you. Tyger's point went right over your head and you'll never even know it.

Fine, as long as you realize how little that matters. I didn't contribute any money toward the campaign for Proposition 8 but this argument is starting to make me wish I had.


That would make you more culpable. Still I suppose that doesn't amtter, sicne you are trying to defend it...


The question was a non-sequitur. We've seen what happens when those get answered.

A question asked, as straight as I can put it, and you refuse to answer?

This doesn't strike you as dishonesty in debate?

Your opinion is noted.

its a bit more than an opinion. there are arguments involved, and they are inherently better than "some con artist wrote down in a book somewhere that we should oppress people"

Your opinion is noted.

That does not constitute a rebuttal, in case you were wondering.

mmkay.

Fine, although I have answered the question, here is more from the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases:
As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that
have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to
marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic,
inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution),
we conclude that, under this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to
marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive
legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral
to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated
or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative
process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the
same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.
As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an
individual’s capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship
with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend
upon the individual’s sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual’s
sexual orientation — like a person’s race or gender — does not constitute a
legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore
conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental
constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution
properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians,
whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex
couples.

...

We need not decide in this case whether the name “marriage” is invariably
a core element of the state constitutional right to marry so that the state would
violate a couple’s constitutional right even if — perhaps in order to emphasize and
clarify that this civil institution is distinct from the religious institution of
marriage — the state were to assign a name other than marriage as the official
designation of the formal family relationship for all couples. Under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all
couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples
while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.

Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a
different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as
contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex
couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right
to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.
...
A number of factors lead us to this conclusion. First, the exclusion of
same-sex couples from the designation of marriage clearly is not necessary in
order to afford full protection to all of the rights and benefits that currently are
enjoyed by married opposite-sex couples; permitting same-sex couples access to
the designation of marriage will not deprive opposite-sex couples of any rights and
will not alter the legal framework of the institution of marriage, because same-sex
couples who choose to marry will be subject to the same obligations and duties
that currently are imposed on married opposite-sex couples. Second, retaining the
traditional definition of marriage and affording same-sex couples only a separate
and differently named family relationship will, as a realistic matter, impose
appreciable harm on same-sex couples and their children, because denying such
couples access to the familiar and highly favored designation of marriage is likely
to cast doubt on whether the official family relationship of same-sex couples
enjoys dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples. Third, because of the
widespread disparagement that gay individuals historically have faced, it is all the
more probable that excluding same-sex couples from the legal institution of
marriage is likely to be viewed as reflecting an official view that their committed
relationships are of lesser stature than the comparable relationships of opposite-sex
couples. Finally, retaining the designation of marriage exclusively for oppositesex
couples and providing only a separate and distinct designation for same-sex
couples may well have the effect of perpetuating a more general premise — now
emphatically rejected by this state — that gay individuals and same-sex couples
are in some respects “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated
differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex
couples. Under these circumstances, we cannot find that retention of the
traditional definition of marriage constitutes a compelling state interest.
Accordingly, we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.


Your fucking turn.

Your opinion is noted.

Are you just going to continue blurting out these idiotic, one-line, "I'm rubber and you're glue" dismissals anytime anyone rips your arguments to shreds?

Fine, as long as you realize how little that matters. I didn't contribute any money toward the campaign for Proposition 8 but this argument is starting to make me wish I had.

Once again, you wished you had supported the Prop 8 campaign.

But for some reason you mysteriously can't say exactly, you absolutely refuse to defend one of Prop 8's most popular campaign ads.

How veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery convenient!

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery convenient for you! But a complete waste of everyone's time. We might as well be arguing with a necrophiliac or something.

Ah, Muravyets, this is why it's always a joy to see you in a thread.

Your most endearing trait is when you don't "get" somebody's post so you just treat them like they're stupid rather than trying to see it from their side. You defeat yourself by doing it and I always find it incredibly entertaining. Your cheering section kinda insulates you from seeing the reality of that though, so I also kinda feel sorry for you. Tyger's point went right over your head and you'll never even know it.

ROFL.

Only in bizarro world, Neo B.

Yeah totally.

But the problem with the "gay households harm children" is - aside from how they don't - but preventing gay marriage is not going to magically erase homosexuality from any household! So Proposition 8 doesn't even "protect" anyone even according to their own bigoted standpoint!

Exactly-it's a ridiculous statement. And great point you make, it won't remove homosexuality from households. So all it does is make those households where gay parents are bringing up children harder for those involved. I guess they miss out on tax benefits and the like. Also imagine how that kid feels? Growing up in a household which should be considered absolutely fine, instead could get bullied and the like. Not good.

A question asked, as straight as I can put it, and you refuse to answer?

This doesn't strike you as dishonesty in debate?

I've been quite open and honest about why I don't answer it.

That does not constitute a rebuttal, in case you were wondering.

If there were an actual argument in there, I could offer a rebuttal.

Fine, although I have answered the question, here is more from the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage Cases:

Kinda irrelevant, now that the CA Constitution has changed.

its a bit more than an opinion. there are arguments involved, and they are inherently better than "some con artist wrote down in a book somewhere that we should oppress people"

What I particularly like about it, is that our position defends his right to be a religious bigot, and does not in any way abrogate his religious freedoms, or any other of his human rights.

To in any way suggest that a position which supports abrogating rights can ever be equal is laughable at best.

Conveniently, no one really wants to defend the Prop 8 advertising. I think I'm gonna keep bringing this up for a while, lest it be conveniently forgotten altogether.

Funny, because I was thinking of taking the actual signs and pissing on them - but on here prop-8 supporters want to do the exact metaphorical equivalent.

Has anybody on here said they agreed with that particular advertising?

Ah, Muravyets, this is why it's always a joy to see you in a thread.

Your most endearing trait is when you don't "get" somebody's post so you just treat them like they're stupid rather than trying to see it from their side. You defeat yourself by doing it and I always find it incredibly entertaining. Your cheering section kinda insulates you from seeing the reality of that though, so I also kinda feel sorry for you. Tyger's point went right over your head and you'll never even know it.

I think there's been a huge misunderstanding here. All along we thought Neo B was interested in defending his position, when all he wanted to do was be a massive douchebag.

Are you just going to continue blurting out these idiotic, one-line, "I'm rubber and you're glue" dismissals anytime anyone rips your arguments to shreds?


I'm not obligated to respond to every little snit and gripe in a discussion like this. Cry me a river if you don't like it.


Once again, you wished you had supported the Prop 8 campaign.

But for some reason you mysteriously can't say exactly, you absolutely refuse to defend one of Prop 8's most popular campaign ads.

How veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery convenient!

Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery convenient for you! But a complete waste of everyone's time. We might as well be arguing with a necrophiliac or something.

What are you even talking about? You want to gripe and cry and demand I respond to that little sign? I didn't design it, I don't know why they put that on there, thus I don't feel qualified to argue that particular point.

I feel sorry for someone like you, who sees some kind of asinine conspiracy behind every little thing. Are you so jaded? Really?

Cat...do you have a good resource on CT's decision? I lost mine.

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health (http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf) (pdf)