NationStates Jolt Archive

no, they didn't. they wanted you to argue in favor of them. you know, defend them using reason and whatnot.

Pfff.... I can't do that without using the texts of my people, which are based in faith and religion. (Which you knock as irrelevant.) You can surely look up that up on your own. You don't need me. Really you don't. I am just a member. You want to know how they stand. You can look up on Mormon.org. You can go to LDS.org. Search and read everything on why Mormons blocked Prop 8. Why they stand against homosexual 'marriage'? You really don't need me except as a scratching post to scratch against.

That's your fault for making an intelligent point on the true nature of this debate.

No no, I wasn't being sarcastic. It really is kinda satisfying to me. It means I stated my point clearly and effectively.

Agreed. I do not bear Mormons any ill will for simply being what they are, religiously.

My anger is purely over the grossly political and dishonest actions in my state that recently deprived my friends and fellow Californians of their rights.

I don't live in California, I'm fortunate that in Canada, my rights are protected in spite of our conservative overlords...
Still, part of me died on Tuesday watching those results come through. I desperately hope that America wakes up and realizes just what they're doing to their own countrymen.

You know, that's not a bad idea actually. I doubt people would vote for something that takes away the rights of their family...we should have all the LGBT people of the country unite and show who they are and put a face to the issue instead of just someone else.

Now, now, she could be all three.





(I say she because of a remark about taking contraceptives for health reasons. I've never heard of a male doing so.)

True. I forgot about that.

I may have been a bit harsh before, actually.

Don't apologize. Improve.

All I can offer is an applogy. And try not to speak out of turn like that. Hurts me to feel ashamed that I hurt you on that more than anything.

True. I forgot about that.

I may have been a bit harsh before, actually.

*coughs* I am female. I am a female, damn it. You never knew my gender. Here all this time I thought you knew I was female. LOL

I don't live in California, I'm fortunate that in Canada, my rights are protected in spite of our conservative overlords...
Still, part of me died on Tuesday watching those results come through. I desperately hope that America wakes up and realizes just what they're doing to their own countrymen.

You know, that's not a bad idea actually. I doubt people would vote for something that takes away the rights of their family...we should have all the LGBT people of the country unite and show who they are and put a face to the issue instead of just someone else.

I think some ads featuring straight people talking about how their brother/sister/son/daughter/niece/nephew/cousin/best friend had their rights taken away.

That isn't what we are saying. We are saying that the legal aspect of marriage is seperate from the religious aspect. Every citizen deserves the right to marry whomever they choose.

Damn it, just when I had my horns filed off from playing Devils Advocate the last time!

You mean someone could marry a three year old girl?

Perhaps better to say "Every citizen deserves the right to marry any consenting adult they choose."

*coughs* I am female. I am a female, damn it. You never knew my gender. Here all this time I thought you knew I was female. LOL

No, I did not. Most posters seem to be male and conservative posters even more so. Sorry about my assumption.

Pfff.... I can't do that

we know. this should worry you. the fact that it doesn't scares the crap out of us.

All I can offer is an applogy. And try not to speak out of turn like that. Hurts me to feel ashamed that I hurt you on that more than anything.

You didn't speak "out of turn." You said something that perhaps you should have thought better of beforehand.

What Mur is basically saying, is that it would be better, instead of apologizing, for you to try and see things from the point of view of the people who really did just have their civil rights violated. Their struggle is similar to that of the African-American civil rights movement.

Look, Tyger, I don't think you're at heart a bad person.

But you need to understand that we can't base our laws off of what your Church believes. It would be just as wrong if we based our laws on what a church that wants yours outlawed believes. It's just not fair, and any way you do it, basing state law on any religion results in favoritism to that religion and discrimination to everybody else.

At the same time, nobody's going to make the Mormon church marry gay people.

We're not mad at your church because it believes as it does, but because it took away the rights of citizens who were not hurting it at all.

The ability for gay couples to get a legally binding marriage license from the government is all we're asking for here. We're just asking for them to get that right back.
I will second this (though at the moment I am not competent to deliver an opinion about Tyger as a person), and go to bed.

I expect all this matter to be sorted out by breakfast. *waves dismissively and slams door on everyone.*

No, I did not. Most posters seem to be male and conservative posters even more so. Sorry about my assumption.

I thought the bit about contreceptives gave it away. *shrugs* I won't spout any more religious drivel though. I feel bad (wounded) that I've hurt Muravyets. I am crying about it actually, so a very watery teareyed female at the moment. I have friends that are black and I realize I've hurt myself more than I realize.

However, people won't respect my view points or consider them and I get ramrodded with viewpoints I don't agree with. And vice versa. I accept that. Compromise is much nicer than a nasty fight. But since you won't accept a compromise based on the viewpoints that some others do share, as well as me. Than, you leave it open for me to do the same that you are doing. I will fight back as well.

But you aren't fighting back nearly as well . . .

Pfff.... I can't do that without using the texts of my people, which are based in faith and religion. (Which you knock as irrelevant.) You can surely look up that up on your own. You don't need me. Really you don't. I am just a member. You want to know how they stand. You can look up on Mormon.org. You can go to LDS.org. Search and read everything on why Mormons blocked Prop 8. Why they stand against homosexual 'marriage'? You really don't need me except as a scratching post to scratch against.

If you plan on holding your own in any debates on this site, you're going to need to learn to form rational, non-religious foundations for your arguments. If you cannot find one, then perhaps you should question whether you should really be arguing on that side or not.

But you aren't fighting back nearly as well . . .

Because I am a dogmatic Mormon, dang it. Cut me open and I bleed Mormon. :p

But you aren't fighting back nearly as well . . .

Well, there's a dozen of us and only one of her. Not having a logically-based argument doesn't help either.

I thought the bit about contreceptives gave it away. *shrugs* I won't spout any more religious drivel though. I feel bad (wounded) that I've hurt Muravyets. I am crying about it actually, so a very watery teareyed female at the moment. I have friends that are black and I realize I've hurt myself more than I realize.

This has been a fast moving thread. Nobody has caught all of the replies.

I think some ads featuring straight people talking about how their brother/sister/son/daughter/niece/nephew/cousin/best friend had their rights taken away.

ooooh, great idea! It did work on Dick Cheney after all, what with his daughter...

Because I am a dogmatic Mormon, dang it. Cut me open and I bleed Mormon. :p

Doesn't mean you have to want Mormon rules applied to everybody. I don't want pagan or Unitarian Universalist rules applied to everyone. Then again, our rules are a bit less stringent.

If you plan on holding your own in any debates on this site, you're going to need to learn to form rational, non-religious foundations for your arguments. If you cannot find one, then perhaps you should question whether you should really be arguing on that side or not.

That's a bit hard to do really, since the issue at hand at least for the Church is a religious one. I've been trying to say that. I can point out what my people say, but...based mostly in religion. So it's an unequal advantage to say, found it on a non-religious foudation, when their really isn't any to be found but religious.

ooooh, great idea! It did work on Dick Cheney after all, what with his daughter...

Did you not notice how anti-gay legislation was often quietly killed during the last eight years? Let live long enough to stir up the base and then suddenly not an issue any more?

I don't have an answer. And since I am being speared on the altar. It doesn't really matter. I run into something head on and....bam.... bam.... bam.... Okay. I have the right to fight back against something I don't believe in, don't I. As well as you have the right to fight against my church. So there.

Once more. I don't give a flying fuck about your church. I have, in fact, defended your church on more than one occasion when it was attacked unfairly. The only thing I'm attacking here is your churches actions that resulted in the removal of gay peoples right to marry and non-Mormon religions rights to conduct these marriages. You have yet to explain why your religion trumps mine. My religion actually discourages me from performing standard monogamous opposite sex marriages, should I campaign to outlaw them?

Doesn't mean you have to want Mormon rules applied to everybody. I don't want pagan or Unitarian Universalist rules applied to everyone. Then again, our rules are a bit less stringent.

No. I was joking. Trying to get myself from not tearing up. You've...no I've hurt myself.

That's a bit hard to do really, since the issue at hand at least for the Church is a religious one. I've been trying to say that. I can point out what my people say, but...based mostly in religion. So it's an unequal advantage to say, found it on a non-religious foudation, when their really isn't any to be found but religious.

As said before, we don't want the Church to change its beliefs or internal practices.

The only thing we take issue with is the robbing gays and lesbians of their rights bit. Because we object to discrimination.

You do know of course, that even if you share your church's beliefs, you don't have to agree with their actions.

The reason for that is that your arguments don't hold water. You evidently entered this thread completely unprepared to debate, and yet you persisted in trying to argue against people who had come prepared. That was foolish of you.

Whats sad is the fact that I didn't come prepared and he still can't answer my arguments.

Once more. I don't give a flying fuck about your church. I have, in fact, defended your church on more than one occasion when it was attacked unfairly. The only thing I'm attacking here is your churches actions that resulted in the removal of gay peoples right to marry and non-Mormon religions rights to conduct these marriages. You have yet to explain why your religion trumps mine. My religion actually discourages me from performing standard monogamous opposite sex marriages, should I campaign to outlaw them?

I've decided not to talk about religion anymore, okay. Respect that from me. You're going from past posts and I've said I won't talk about it anymore.

No. I was joking. Trying to get myself from not tearing up. You've...no I've hurt myself.

I do not object to your faith. Only to the political actions of the church. I do not want the Mormon church to be forced to change their beliefs or anything like that.

I do want my gay and lesbian friends, neighbors and countrymen and women to have their rights back.

Sorry. All my arguments are based on my religion. So there. And since you define them as irrelevant than, I really have nothing to stand on.

So you admit that there is no valid legal basis for banning gay marriage, as long as Mormons are not required to perform them?

As said before, we don't want the Church to change its beliefs or internal practices.

The only thing we take issue with is the robbing gays and lesbians of their rights bit. Because we object to discrimination.

You do know of course, that even if you share your church's beliefs, you don't have to agree with their actions.

I agree with my church but only partially. I know you want rights. I know that I see that.Not my right to take them away. But I've got 26 years of being born and raised Mormon. So.... it runs pretty deep...deep....deep. So I am conflicted as what I see and feel what I believe and what others need and want.

I've decided not to talk about religion anymore, okay. Respect that from me. You're going from past posts and I've said I won't talk about it anymore.

Don't overdo it. Nobody wants that. We'd rather convince you that you can still believe in your faith while disagreeing with the political actions it has taken. That you can be personally against gay marriage because of your religion but also support the repeal of proposition 8 because not everyone shares your beliefs and that the state should value fairness, since gays and lesbians getting married will not actually affect you or your faith.

Talking about religion is fine. However, this debate is not about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This debate is about the church's political actions.

Heard it. Some call us a cult others a faith and religion. It's nothing new. Stick and stones etc.

But as a religious cult you would not have the legal protections you have as a religion. Much the same as "civil unions" don't have the same rights and legal protections as marriages, which was in fact my point.

So you admit that there is no valid legal basis for banning gay marriage, as long as Mormons are not required to perform them?

Just a religious basis. Which views things in a very society view. So You've got me there. It's more of a fight against what we see as wrong, and what we view as 'moral' decay. That's not a legal basis. But that's the only thing I can give you as to why the Church does what it does.

That's neither logical nor workable. If, on that basis, we took away it's status as a recognized religion, we would have to deny recognition to Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Ba'hai, Buddhism and multiple scores of other religions.

I think you're confusing a hyperbolic analogy meant to convey a point with an argument that's actually being made. I believe you have been Poed.

I agree with my church but only partially. I know you want rights. I know that I see that.Not my right to take them away. But I've got 26 years of being born and raised Mormon. So.... it runs pretty deep...deep....deep. So I am conflicted as what I see and feel what I believe and what others need and want.

Guys and gals, let it go for tonight...lots has been said and I think we all need to step back and take a day to breathe before we take this issue up again.

Callisdrun, I did notice it in fact; its the one thing that can almost make me forgive Dick Cheney (assuming it was him).

I agree with my church but only partially. I know you want rights. I know that I see that.Not my right to take them away. But I've got 26 years of being born and raised Mormon. So.... it runs pretty deep...deep....deep. So I am conflicted as what I see and feel what I believe and what others need and want.

There is a difference between believing in the tenets of one's religion and supporting political actions undertaken by the religious leadership to force those upon others.

My father was Catholic. He was quite devout, but opposed the Church's interference in contraception and condom distribution in Africa. He also opposed their stance on gay rights. None of this precluded him from believing in Jesus Christ. While he lived, he went to mass every sunday, despite often voting the opposite way of what the church leadership wanted in elections.

Nobody can say you are unfaithful if you still believe in your religion, in this case LDS, no matter if you agree with the church leaders and political actions they use church money for or not.

Guys and gals, let it go for tonight...lots has been said and I think we all need to step back and take a day to breathe before we take this issue up again.

Callisdrun, I did notice it in fact; its the one thing that can almost make me forgive Dick Cheney (assuming it was him).

I think it was. I have heard some insider things before suggesting that it was. I can't recall specifically who said it though, it was a long time ago, before 2006 (as the issue became irrelevant at the 2006 elections).

It doesn't outweigh all the horrible things Dick Cheney has done. But it does make him human.

Don't overdo it. Nobody wants that. We'd rather convince you that you can still believe in your faith while disagreeing with the political actions it has taken. That you can be personally against gay marriage because of your religion but also support the repeal of proposition 8 because not everyone shares your beliefs and that the state should value fairness, since gays and lesbians getting married will not actually affect you or your faith.

Talking about religion is fine. However, this debate is not about the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This debate is about the church's political actions.

I agree with some, not all. of my church's postions. I can understand the reasoning as to why, I agree partially with it, but not entirely. (Sorry) I can't give a you an argument based on political because on it, because it's based on people's faith and religion. Irrational to you it may be, but it's very pertinant to others.

That's a bit hard to do really, since the issue at hand at least for the Church is a religious one. I've been trying to say that. I can point out what my people say, but...based mostly in religion. So it's an unequal advantage to say, found it on a non-religious foudation, when their really isn't any to be found but religious.

The point we have been consistently trying to make is that Californian law is not and should not be a "church issue". The only things that should be church issues are matters that deal directly with church members.

I agree with some, not all. of my church's postions. I can understand the reasoning as to why, I agree partially with it, but not entirely. (Sorry) I can't give a you an argument based on political because on it, because it's based on people's faith and religion. Irrational to you it may be, but it's very pertinant to others.

I am a religious man. But I know that the laws of the state cannot and should not be based on my religion, as that would be unfair to all those who aren't members of it.

I think it was. I have heard some insider things before suggesting that it was. I can't recall specifically who said it though, it was a long time ago, before 2006 (as the issue became irrelevant at the 2006 elections).

It doesn't outweigh all the horrible things Dick Cheney has done. But it does make him human.

I assumed it was because there's not actually widespread popular support for it. The Bush administration put a lot of energy into pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment, but even John McCain voted against it.

I've decided not to talk about religion anymore, okay. Respect that from me. You're going from past posts and I've said I won't talk about it anymore.

I got back home and over ten pages had been added at the maximum post per page setting, I was still catching up. Very few people here want you to give up your religious beliefs (although many more of us DO want you to think about them and decide for yourself rather than just accepting what you're told by your church elders) but we did want you to acknowledge the fact that they are nothing to base laws on. It looks like we've finally reached that point. Keep at it, learn from both your successes and your mistakes, and you could actually go far here as a poster.

I think it was. I have heard some insider things before suggesting that it was. I can't recall specifically who said it though, it was a long time ago, before 2006 (as the issue became irrelevant at the 2006 elections).

It doesn't outweigh all the horrible things Dick Cheney has done. But it does make him human.

You know, even though I'm not an American Citizen, I e-mailed him once and asked him, as one private citizen to another, what his views were about LGBT rights. I didn't really expect an answer, heaven only knows just how busy the man is... I hope he answers one day, just to prove to us progressives that he's not entirely evil.

I am a religious man. But I know that the laws of the state cannot and should not be based on my religion, as that would be unfair to all those who aren't members of it.

True. But it isn't just my church, there are others. I can understand the members fighting for Prop 8. They are told to, I am told to. They donated quite a bit of money to it. Yet, I admit it does not seem right for the church, the head, to donate money to the cause for it. But I looked on wikipedia earlier, it may have changed and it stated that the church can do this because they are not campagning for a canidate and are campaging on a society/moral issue and therefore can not lose their tax exempt status. So it's a law that favors the Church and other churches as well. If you wish to fight that and take an issue with that.

I agree with my church but only partially. I know you want rights. I know that I see that.Not my right to take them away. But I've got 26 years of being born and raised Mormon. So.... it runs pretty deep...deep....deep. So I am conflicted as what I see and feel what I believe and what others need and want.

I sense you are confused. This is good. Confusion and enlightenment are one and the same.

True. But it isn't just my church, there are others. I can understand the members fighting for Prop 8. They are told to, I am told to. They donated quite a bit of money to it. Yet, I admit it does not seem right for the church, the head, to donate money to the cause for it. But I looked on wikipedia earlier, it may have changed and it stated that the church can do this because they are not campagning for a canidate and are campaging on a society/moral issue and therefore can not lose their tax exempt status. So it's a law that favors the Church and other churches as well. If you wish to fight that and take an issue with that.

Despite the fact that gays and lesbians getting married has no effect whatsoever on the church or its members.

If you're against gay marriage, don't have one. That is the attitude society should take. Gays and lesbians aren't harming anyone just by getting marriage licenses. Weren't, I should say.

True. But it isn't just my church, there are others. I can understand the members fighting for Prop 8. They are told to, I am told to. They donated quite a bit of money to it. Yet, I admit it does not seem right for the church, the head, to donate money to the cause for it.

But there have also been Mormons who have publicly opposed it. People should never let religious authority overrule what they know is right. That's how progress gets made. The Mormon church used to oppose interracial marriage, and the Catholic Church used to deny evolution. Someone had to stand up to them.

You know, even though I'm not an American Citizen, I e-mailed him once and asked him, as one private citizen to another, what his views were about LGBT rights. I didn't really expect an answer, heaven only knows just how busy the man is... I hope he answers one day, just to prove to us progressives that he's not entirely evil.

Believing my political opponents to be entirely evil was a mistake I used to make when I was a little bit younger.

I may disagree with everything they say and stand for. But they are human, just the same as me.

But there have also been Mormons who have publicly opposed it. People should never let religious authority overrule what they know is right. That's how progress gets made. The Mormon church used to oppose interracial marriage, and the Catholic Church used to deny evolution. Someone had to stand up to them.

Yes. Today the Mormon church no longer opposes interracial marriage, and the Catholic Church accepted evolution some time ago. During the 90's, I think.

OK people, we seem to have gotten her argued around to the point we were aiming for. Time to back off now.

I'll second Redwulf's motion.

Despite the fact that gays and lesbians getting married has no effect whatsoever on the church or its members.

If you're against gay marriage, don't have one. That is the attitude society should take. Gays and lesbians aren't harming anyone just by getting marriage licenses. Weren't, I should say.

Well.... that's a matter of debate for the church and for me to debate. They/we do see it that way. Irrational or not. That's the point the church takes. They see it as the ruin of society. Don't take offense, get proactive if you disagree.

OK people, we seem to have gotten her argued around to the point we were aiming for. Time to back off now.

I think I may take this debate style that I've switched to in this debate as my default for the future. It seems to result in a much greater chance of my argument being considered, and results in considerably less flaming.

Yes. Today the Mormon church no longer opposes interracial marriage, and the Catholic Church accepted evolution some time ago. During the 90's, I think.

I don't think the church accepts evolution. We just admit that's it's a theory. Accept it as a theory and leave it at that. It's theory. It's a theory, perhaps God is behind it. :rolleyes:

You know, even though I'm not an American Citizen, I e-mailed him once and asked him, as one private citizen to another, what his views were about LGBT rights. I didn't really expect an answer, heaven only knows just how busy the man is... I hope he answers one day, just to prove to us progressives that he's not entirely evil.

His views are actually public. Circa 2004: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5817720/)

At a campaign rally in this Mississippi River town, Cheney spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying “freedom means freedom for everyone,” when asked about his stand on gay marriage.

“Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with,” Cheney told an audience that included his daughter. “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone. ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to.

He also said he believes it's a matter for the states to decide. That's the same position McCain and Ron Paul take.

Believing my political opponents to be entirely evil was a mistake I used to make when I was a little bit younger.

I may disagree with everything they say and stand for. But they are human, just the same as me.

Would that everyone shared your enlightened view.

Well.... that's a matter of debate for the church and for me to debate. They/we do see it that way. Irrational or not. That's the point the church takes. They see it as the ruin of society. Don't take offense, get proactive if you disagree.

I believe that society can only be ruined if people are harming others. My friend was raised by two mothers (they were a lesbian couple). He turned out just fine. For my friend, and for his family, Tuesday was a tragedy.

In any case, I believe that faith is a very personal thing, and that is why I am against the state taking any particular stance in favor of any one religion or any particular religions.

I think that I'm done with this particular debate for the day. It's almost midnight and I haven't had dinner yet. I think I'll go watch some Stargate (because I'm a nerd like that).

Would that everyone shared your enlightened view.

I'm not that enlightened, don't be so quick to admire. I can still be considerably less tolerant than I really should.

I'm not that enlightened, don't be so quick to admire. I can still be considerably less tolerant than I really should.

As can we all, returning to your main point. Humanity.

Recognizing that is a large step in the right direction, and deserves praise.

II think that I'm done with this particular debate for the day. It's almost midnight and I haven't had dinner yet. I think I'll go watch some Stargate (because I'm a nerd like that).

LOL same here. And a homework assignment that's partially finished. Woops.

I don't think the church accepts evolution. We just admit that's it's a theory. Accept it as a theory and leave it at that. It's theory. It's a theory, perhaps God is behind it. :rolleyes:

Are you Catholic? Lol, I was referring to the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution. At least Pope John Paul II's official acceptance of it, which I believe carries some weight in that particular religion.

Obviously it has no bearing on the LDS position on that subject. I was referring to the LDS acceptance of interracial marriage, which was less recent. Didn't mean any confusion.

As can we all, returning to your main point. Humanity.

Recognizing that is a large step in the right direction, and deserves praise.

You also forget humility. Humanity and Humility. Both go hand in hand. I've learn a bit of humility tonight. :)

I don't think the church accepts evolution. We just admit that's it's a theory. Accept it as a theory and leave it at that. It's theory. It's a theory, perhaps God is behind it. :rolleyes:

Well, the Catholic church has officially accepted it, and if you go to Catholic school you're taught the same science as in secular schools. And my impression is that for the most part Orthodox Jews and lots of Mormons don't have a problem with it. It's mainly the Southern Baptists and such who are making the fuss.

Are you Catholic? Lol, I was referring to the Catholic Church's acceptance of evolution. At least Pope John Paul II's official acceptance of it, which I believe carries some weight in that particular religion.

Obviously it has no bearing on the LDS position on that subject. I was referring to the LDS acceptance of interracial marriage, which was less recent. Didn't mean any confusion.


LDS actually. I was trying to change the subject just slightly. I know about the LDS on interracial marriage, since it effects me.

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?
You know they walk around in pairs at times.
Keep your eye on the impressionable. The rest will fall into place.
Examples for conversation: The curse of the fig tree, and free will of a plant.
Does a dog and/or a chimpanzee have a soul.
Turn the other cheek vs. eternal damnation.
Why the tablets were gold and not platinum (sounds silly, but it's worth it) or even diamond (less malleable).
Why shame has replaced the natural dignity of nudity, especially in youth (careful with this one).
Infliction of suffering for the nature of childbirth.
The irresistible force/immovable object (Homer's Burrito).
The curse of Jeconiah.
God's "real" name.

Of course, you could just invite 'em over to watch some Sarah Silverman, Drawn Together, and StileProject (only read it for the interviews) and ask for their official opinion. And perhaps bring up the Sarah Palin thong line of merchandise and how it would obviously be holy.

Those are just ideas. There's plenty more somewhere else.

Well, the Catholic church has officially accepted it, and if you go to Catholic school you're taught the same science as in secular schools. And my impression is that for the most part Orthodox Jews and lots of Mormons don't have a problem with it. It's mainly the Southern Baptists and such who are making the fuss.

I don't have a problem with it. We just say it's a theory, in otherwords, it's not proven, it goes along with the Big Bang theory. Or that God's behind the mix. hehe.

You know they walk around in pairs at times.
Keep your eye on the impressionable. The rest will fall into place.
Examples for conversation: The curse of the fig tree, and free will of a plant.
Does a dog and/or a chimpanzee have a soul.
Turn the other cheek vs. eternal damnation.
Why the tablets were gold and not platinum (sounds silly, but it's worth it) or even diamond (less malleable).
Why shame has replaced the natural dignity of nudity, especially in youth (careful with this one).
Infliction of suffering for the nature of childbirth.
The irresistible force/immovable object (Homer's Burrito).
The curse of Jeconiah.
God's "real" name.

Of course, you could just invite 'em over to watch some Sarah Silverman, Drawn Together, and StileProject (only read it for the interviews) and ask for their official opinion. And perhaps bring up the Sarah Palin thong line of merchandise and how it would obviously be holy.

Those are just ideas. There's plenty more somewhere else.


Some of this is very funny. Other parts I have no idea. You'll confuse those 19 year old boys. Sarah Palin. *snorts* Oh please.

I don't have a problem with it. We just say it's a theory, in otherwords, it's not proven, it goes along with the Big Bang theory. Or that God's behind the mix. hehe.

I find the latter the most elegant explanation.

Anyway, off to watch some nerdy stuff for me now.

I sense you are confused. This is good. Confusion and enlightenment are one and the same.

Aaaand this would be a good place to give up. My beloved husband can make the sky orange and firetrucks purple when he sets his mind to it. And don't even get me started on how he plays Fluxx... Or fences, Lord and Lady, his fencing style is almost more annoying than his arguments.

Some of this is very funny. Other parts I have no idea. You'll confuse those 19 year old boys. Sarah Palin. *snorts* Oh please.My personal experience with the missionaries is ... they're actually usually fun, and readily admit that they don't know some things, and what they're hoping to do is learn more about the world they're in.
And they do tend to help people with obvious, real problems in public.
Nonetheless, the kind of abstract stuff they want to choose to believe in (like anyone) is a fine target for specific, focused, structured criticism (if you're into intelligent debate), or juvenile ridicule, as i often engage in here.

Or fences, Lord and Lady, his fencing style is almost more annoying than his arguments.
Do you mean yardwork or lockerroom swordplay?

Do you mean yardwork or lockerroom swordplay?

Fencing. With actual swords. Well, okay, they're theater blades, but they still hurt when you get hit.

My personal experience with the missionaries is ... they're actually usually fun, and readily admit that they don't know some things, and what they're hoping to do is learn more about the world they're in.
And they do tend to help people with obvious, real problems in public.
Nonetheless, the kind of abstract stuff they want to choose to believe in (like anyone) is a fine target for specific, focused, structured criticism (if you're into intelligent debate), or juvenile ridicule, as i often engage in here.

Well.... many of them are just out of high school, a couple of months of college at the most. All that list. Well I'd have to pull a Sarah Palin myself and say, I'd have to get back to you on that. I don't know all the answers and some only have vague answers to it.

Example: Every animal has a soul. After all the donkey with Baalem (?) spoke and begged of it's master not to be struck. If that's not proof of a soul, then I rest my case. heh.

Fencing. With actual swords. Well, okay, they're theater blades, but they still hurt when you get hit.N't foils?
I thought that was the standard. :confused:

N't foils?
I thought that was the standard. :confused:

Schlagers. A type of heavy stage blade. They recreate, sort of, the feel of pre-1600 blades while being deemed safe by the Grand High Poobah of SCA Combat. Or, well, okay, the Society Marshal.

Aaaand this would be a good place to give up. My beloved husband can make the sky orange and firetrucks purple when he sets his mind to it. And don't even get me started on how he plays Fluxx... Or fences, Lord and Lady, his fencing style is almost more annoying than his arguments.

Fluxx is a fun game. Your hubby must be one hell of a synaesthete.

Well.... many of them are just out of high school, a couple of years of college at the most. All that list. Well I'd have to pull a Sarah Palin myself and say, I'd have to get back to you on that. I don't know all the answers and some only have vague answers to it. Pull a Sarah? Do you mean you're gonna model her thong? o.9
Well, hang around here long enough and you're bound to consider a few more opinions on most of those.

Example: Every animal has a soul. After all the donkey with Baalem (?) spoke and begged of it's master not to be struck. If that's not proof of a soul, then I rest my case. heh.Nicely done, actually. :)
*bows*

Fluxx is a fun game. Your hubby must be one hell of a synaesthete.

I dunno about that, redwulf mostly plays chaotic chaos. Anything to make the game more of a pain in the arse, he loves it. Draw five, card limit zero? One of his favorite combos.

Schlagers. A type of heavy stage blade. They recreate, sort of, the feel of pre-1600 blades while being deemed safe by the Grand High Poobah of SCA Combat. Or, well, okay, the Society Marshal.Ah, gotcha.

Pull a Sarah? Do you mean you're gonna model her thong? o.9
Well, hang around here long enough and you're bound to consider a few more opinions on most of those.

I don't think her thong would fit. It would be a fashion disaster. I was telling my mom about a 2012 fight...I mean Election with Hillary. And she said don't get me started. I see mud wrestling actually.

I don't think her thong would fit. It would be a fashion disaster.Well, only if you weren't comfortable in it. Just imagine what comfortable things people are wearing when they post here.
>.>
<.<
I was telling my mom about a 2012 fight...I mean Election with Hillary. And she said don't get me started. I see mud wrestling actually.Keep posting like this, and i suspect you'll get quite popular around here. :)

On a more tone to the thread, I told my mom, who like me is opposed to marriage, about the head of the church donated money to the passage of prop 8. She was a bit shocked, I don't think she agreed with it. But again I *don't think*....

Afterall there are plenty of rich members who could easily donate and not be bothered by tax exhemption. Unless you want to tax them and spread the wealth around. :p

Unless you want to tithe them and spread the wealth around. :pFixed. :p
Otherwho ...first hit's free.

Fixed. :p
Otherwho ...first hit's free.

Ouch. *bong* You've hit the mark.

Church I am sure, at least the ones in Red state Utah. Were very much into the spead the wealth issue and socialism.

However, they don't know or want to realize church doctrine and teachings. Little something call the United Order. Very socalistic in manner. The church practiced it in it's early days but gave it up, they couldn't cut it. As human beings are greedy in nature.

Anyway the pratice consisted of giving everything to the church, because it really doesn't belong to you anyway, it belongs to God. Then the church distributes it back to you according to what you need. Socialistic and very communistic in some respects. And it's been noted in the bible as well. The saints selling property and laying it at the appostles feet. *sighs* My poor church is mixed up in the head

Ouch. *bong* You've hit the mark.

Church I am sure, at least the ones in Red state Utah. Were very much into the spead the wealth issue and socialism.

However, they don't know or want to realize church doctrine and teachings. Little something call the United Order. Very socalistic in manner. The church practiced it in it's early days but gave it up, they couldn't cut it. As human beings are greedy in nature.

Anyway the pratice consisted of giving everything to the church, because it really doesn't belong to you anyway, it belongs to God. Then the church distributes it back to you according to what you need. Socialistic and very communistic in some respects. And it's been noted in the bible as well. The saints selling property and laying it at the appostles feet. *sighs* My poor church is mixed up in the headRemember when i said certain posting styles would make you popular?
I may have to repost this on a different thread, seriously. :)

Remember when i said certain posting styles would make you popular?
I may have to repost this on a different thread, seriously. :)

*nods* Well and to think it took three hours and then some.

Anyway, slightly this view that makes me a democrat actually. That and I think the Republicans are facists or have facist leanings, Neocons scare me. :P

The church is suppose to pratice this belief when everything in the millineial day, a time of peace after Jesus comes again. Not sure how the Church will feel then. But we need to remember this pratice. Because now we're on the tithing bit. 10% factor of income. How would they feel if the church demanded everything. I think I could live with it, although again, 'I think'.

*nods* Well and to think it took three hours and then some.

Anyway, slightly this view that makes me a democrat actually. That and I think the Republicans are facists or have facist leanings, Neocons scare me. :P

The church is suppose to pratice this belief when everything in the millineial day, a time of peace after Jesus comes again. Not sure how the Church will feel then. But we need to remember this pratice. Because now we're on the tithing bit. 10% factor of income. How would they feel if the church demanded everything. I think I could live with it, although again, 'I think'.*curiosity strikes*
Did the church have much to say to you at the last presidential election?

...

Any other ideas?

Don't join them.

*curiosity strikes*
Did the church have much to say to you at the last presidential election?

Not suppose to endorse a candiate and I haven't been going to my church lately. I've been catching up on assignments for school. Shame on me. heh. But most Mormons are Republican. And as far back as I've seen, they've always, always voted Republican, even when Clinton was in office. And I bet they did well under him regardless what they think. And... unless you're Harry Reid, who is also Mormon an a Democrat. An oddity for sure. Anyway the Church, They are not suppose to tell us who to vote for. We're suppose to decide for ourselves who to vote for. For me it was obvious. I voted for Obama. And yes I called one of the old women in my ward, church district, a racist. She bought the muslim, arab crap like water. Didn't say it in front of her face though. I have respect for old people, she's not in good health anyway and she's old. I just said that to my family, no one else.

But.... I was rather peeved off when GWB offered our last prophet a medal for some sort of religious thing. It made it look like we did select and condone a presidential canidate. The prophet should have waited till after the election, but GWB is a sly old fox.

Not suppose to endorse a candiate and I haven't been going to my church lately. I've been catching up on assignments for school. Shame on me. heh. But most Mormons are Republican. And as far back as I've seen, they've always, always voted Republican, even when Clinton was in office. And I bet they did well under him regardless what they think. And... unless you're Harry Reid, who is also Mormon an a Democrat. An oddity for sure. Anyway the Church, They are not suppose to tell us who to vote for. We're suppose to decide for ourselves who to vote for. For me it was obvious. I voted for Obama. And yes I called one of the old women in my ward, church district, a racist. She bought the muslim, arab crap like water. Didn't say it in front of her face though. I have respect for old people, she's not in good health anyway and she's old. I just said that to my family, no one else.

But.... I was rather peeved off when GWB offered our last prophet a medal for some sort of religious thing. It made it look like we did select and condone a presidential canidate. The prophet should have waited till after the election, but GWB is a sly old fox.Whoa ... i hadn't heard that, actually. A medal? Did your prophet nibble on it, as they did in olden days upon coins?

Whoa ... i hadn't heard that, actually. A medal? Did your prophet nibble on it, as they did in olden days upon coins?


Heh. It was in a church publication. My dad nearly flipped his lid. You think I am bad in repeating stuff over. He's worse than me. He'll talk it over and over again, he kept mention it to democrats. I think he maybe partial senile, they do do that, I think? Me I get it through genetics. :) I can't remember what the reason for the medal was. Humanitarian efforts? Faith? etc. It was something based on something like that.

*yawns* I should go to bed. It's almost two am PST.

Heh. It was in a church publication. My dad nearly flipped his lid. You think I am bad in repeating stuff over. He's worse than me. He'll talk it over and over again, he kept mention it to democrats. I think he maybe partial senile, they do do that, I think? Me I get it through genetics. :) I can't remember what the reason for the medal was. Humanitarian efforts? Faith? etc. It was something based on something like that.

*yawns* I should go to bed. It's almost two am PST.
Well, nasdravlje, and thank you for your candor.
*bows*

Thank you for trying to understand my viewpoints. However, you're not willing to compromise either. Not in the way I see it either. You say GIVE ME FULL MARRIAGE. AND WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS. WE WON'T ACCEPT THEM SO DAMN IT GIVE US MARRIAGE. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR SOCIETY VIEWS. WE DON'T CARE HOW YOU VIEW IT. YOUR VIEWS ARE IRRATIONAL ANYWAY SO ACCEPT IT OR GET LOST.

That's not compromise either. Not in the ways you try to explain it away. So it's not much of a compromise either way. This is what you are posting. But my views and the views of others are just as important as yours. Even if they be irrational. That's democracy. So it just gets in a headlock, but again Democracy. Democracy. *sighs*

Where is your compromise?

Why do the gay minority, and the straights who are siding with them, have to compromise, when you're not willing to?

Do you even know what compromise means?

Perhaps so.

I agree no buts on this....


However, people won't respect my view points or consider them and I get ramrodded with viewpoints I don't agree with. And vice versa. I accept that. Compromise is much nicer than a nasty fight. But since you won't accept a compromise based on the viewpoints that some others do share, as well as me. Than, you leave it open for me to do the same that you are doing. I will fight back as well. My right as well. You should have no problem with my fighting back on my view and my chruch and my faith.

You haven't compromised.

Redwulf has REPEATEDLY pointed out that SOME churches aren't bothered by gay marriage, and are willing to perform them. You keep bleating about us not valuing YOUR religious beliefs - but YOU are not valuing THEIRS.

Not only that, but you are not valuing inherent civil rights.

So - you don't care about religious beliefs - except your own, and you don't care about rights - except your own... and you won't compromise.

What exactly do you think you bring to the table?

Where is your compromise?

Why do the gay minority, and the straights who are siding with them, have to compromise, when you're not willing to?

Do you even know what compromise means?

Look, I refuse to talk on this. I have my opinons. Like it or leave it. I spent hours talking about it. Just let it drop. You're not going to change my opinons on everything.

Well I've 'reafirmed my beliefs' as I choose to call it. And I have learned something very intresting. You people won't yield, marriage or nothing. We shall overcome, right?


Let me clue you in on something.

'Liberals' are weak. You know why? Because being 'liberal' is basically about being tolerant, and trying to make a best world for all people, trying to make it equal for you and for me.

See that?

Why does that make them weak? Because there's no organisation to it. You never hear of 'liberal regimes' in the way you hear of say fascist regimes. It's a path of kindness and understanding.... which is its greatest strength, yes... but also it's greatest weakness.

It's the greatest strength because - as Obama showed on November 4th - people eventually respond to a reasoning voice, even if it speaks quietly.

It's it's greatest weakness because it talks about eventuality and inevitability (and it's right), but that doesn't help NOW. It doesn't have the jackboot-on-the-throat that organised conservatism can muster.


What you are seeing here, is a new generation of 'liberals'. A new wave. Liberals who are tolerant until a point. Liberals who have decided that you can draw a line in the sand and say 'this far, and no further'.

I won't yield. It is marriage or nothing.

Because YOUR beliefs have no place dictating the RIGHTS of other people. Just because I don't impose my beliefs on you, doesn't mean I'm going to LET you impose yours on me.

Look, I refuse to talk on this. I have my opinons. Like it or leave it. I spent hours talking about it. Just let it drop. You're not going to change my opinons on everything.

I don't care about changing your opinion.

I think forbidding rights to minorities is spiteful and cruel. I think that makes an element of your beliefs, spiteful and cruel. But I don't CARE about the spite and the cruelty - so long as you keep them where they belong - in YOUR head, and in YOUR church.

I'm not going to let it drop. Ever. Like it or leave it - this debate is going to continue until people are treated equally.


The crazy thing is - you agree with me. You don't think minorities should be stripped of rights either. If the 'minority' was Mormons, and we were banding together to remove YOUR right to marry, you'd fight.

Let me clue you in on something.

'Liberals' are weak. You know why? Because being 'liberal' is basically about being tolerant, and trying to make a best world for all people, trying to make it equal for you and for me.

See that?

Why does that make them weak? Because there's no organisation to it. You never hear of 'liberal regimes' in the way you hear of say fascist regimes. It's a path of kindness and understanding.... which is its greatest strength, yes... but also it's greatest weakness.

It's the greatest strength because - as Obama showed on November 4th - people eventually respond to a reasoning voice, even if it speaks quietly.

It's it's greatest weakness because it talks about eventuality and inevitability (and it's right), but that doesn't help NOW. It doesn't have the jackboot-on-the-throat that organised conservatism can muster.


What you are seeing here, is a new generation of 'liberals'. A new wave. Liberals who are tolerant until a point. Liberals who have decided that you can draw a line in the sand and say 'this far, and no further'.

I won't yield. It is marriage or nothing.

Because YOUR beliefs have no place dictating the RIGHTS of other people. Just because I don't impose my beliefs on you, doesn't mean I'm going to LET you impose yours on me.

Fine. Fine. Fine. Dig up past threads on it. I have my opinons on it. The rest of the group spent hours argueing with me on it. I am at peace with your postion, after spending hours and hours discussing it. I accept that you have a valid argument. But you seem to want to want to stir the hornet's nest again on me. You have not READ all the posts and seem to be wanting to reply to each and everyone against me. I suggest you read all the past posts and stop being such a vidictive ....

Well.... that's a matter of debate for the church and for me to debate. They/we do see it that way. Irrational or not. That's the point the church takes. They see it as the ruin of society. Don't take offense, get proactive if you disagree.

What if someone sees your religion as the ruin of society?


Put yourself in the shoes of the people that have been harmed by what your church did. Instead of hearing Prop 8 as being about taking away the rights of gay couples... hear 'Mormons'. Instead of hearing something about 'marriage', hear 'right to worship'.

Then listen to the reasons you use to defend it. Instead of hearing 'the Mormon church believes that homosexuality is the ruin of society'... try hearing 'Mormonism is the ruin of society'.


You paint people like me as your enemy.

I'm not, unless you MAKE me your enemy. I have fought for your rights, too. People like me, have DIED for the rights of people like you.

Think about it... really think. Empathise.

What if someone sees your religion as the ruin of society?


Put yourself in the shoes of the people that have been harmed by what your church did. Instead of hearing Prop 8 as being about taking away the rights of gay couples... hear 'Mormons'. Instead of hearing something about 'marriage', hear 'right to worship'.

Then listen to the reasons you use to defend it. Instead of hearing 'the Mormon church believes that homosexuality is the ruin of society'... try hearing 'Mormonism is the ruin of society'.


You paint people like me as your enemy.

I'm not, unless you MAKE me your enemy. I have fought for your rights, too. People like me, have DIED for the rights of people like you.

Think about it... really think. Empathise.

I just...

No, I won't respond anymore to this. Look. You have valid arguments. You say you don't care about my opinion. I have news for you, I have an opinion. Now leave it.

I just...

No, I won't respond anymore to this. Look. You have valid arguments. You say you don't care about my opinion. I have news for you, I have an opinion. Now leave it.

I think we should all go to bed.

Grave does have a point, though. I must sleeeeep.

Fine. Fine. Fine. Dig up past threads on it. I have my opinons on it. The rest of the group spent hours argueing with me on it. I am at peace with your postion, after spending hours and hours discussing it. I accept that you have a valid argument. But you seem to want to want to stir the hornet's nest again on me. You have not READ all the posts and seem to be wanting to reply to each and everyone against me. I suggest you read all the past posts and stop being such a vidictive ....

I identify with the more liberal side.

But... we're not a hivemind.

Many of those posting here reached a peace with you, sometime between me leaving work last night (which was when I last posted) and now.

I'm glad they did.

But, I'm not satisfied.

You keep making it about opinions. About beliefs.

I'm not talking about opinion or belief. I DEFEND opinion and belief, WHILE they are opinion and belief.

But when the Catholic church tells parishioners that they will be forbidden from receiving communion if they vote for a pro-life candidate? I think that crosses a line. I think that makes their church a political pressure group, and I think they should be treated as such.

When the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints issues a formal statement that it's members should back legislation that will change the nature of the law in a state? I think that makes the church a political pressure group, and it should be treated as such.

You said you believed in equality. That's what I want to see. I want to see you take on the actual rights, rather than talk about opinions and beliefs.

I think we should all go to bed.

Grave does have a point, though. I must sleeeeep.

Point. Match. Point. Match. I have opinions, not always going to be agreed with the group. I know that. I have reasons, but that's not to say I don't agree with eveything you've stated. Your ideas and your opinions have truth in them as well. I admit that. You have the right to fight back and gain everything you want. I accept that fundmental principle.

I have mixed feelings about it. You're not going to compleatly change my opinons or my beliefs. I am in a place between light and shadow. This is how I am. Between the core values and my faith and between the fundemental righs of man. This is true. So peace.

Between the core values and my faith and between the fundemental righs of man.

If you arent a lap dog this shouldnt seem like a tough choice for you...

This shouldnt seem like a tough choice for you...

Well it is. Again that's an issue of my opinion and belief and the duelistic nature of Religion and secular matters. Understand that. I won't turn my back on my religion, so don't ask me to. And despite the fact no one has said that. This is a part of my religion. If you can't understand that, then you ask me to be less than who I am.

Look, I refuse to talk on this. I have my opinons. Like it or leave it. I spent hours talking about it. Just let it drop. You're not going to change my opinons on everything.
Then I have bad news for you: You're tired of talking about this after just a few hours? This debate is going to go on for YEARS, if necessary, until equal rights are achieved.

"Like it or leave it."

If you don't like having your statements attacked, then don't come into a forum debating this issue and start defending the LDS action, as if you are presuming to speak for them.

And if you do want to grab the spotlight and tell us all what you think about this, then you had better be prepared to defend YOUR reasoning on such things as:

> Why your religion gets to dictate the rules for the whole of a diverse society.

> Just how exactly your religion is harmed by gays getting married outside your religion.

> Just what it is that makes you think anyone is going to try to force your church to perform gay marriages.

> On what grounds you justify abandoning the priniciple of separation of church and state by forcing through a law that conforms to your religious belief, in light of your admission that there is no other foundation for your opposition to gay marraige except your religion.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to stand up as a defender of the LDS's political action and make assertions like those above, and then run away from challenges with this lame "I have my opinion. Like it or leave it" nonsense.

This is a real world, real time issue of civil rights, and no, we are not going to let anyone who declares they they have some right or authority to strip rights from gays just slide on it.

Well it is.

You just admitted its a fundamental right.

You believe in God, correct? Well, if its a fundamental right, that would mean God made it such. Thus, God really has no problem with gay people getting married, and your church leaders got it wrong.


Unless you think your church leaders are always right. Which would make you a lap dog.

You just admitted its a fundamental right.

You believe in God, correct? Well, if its a fundamental right, that would mean God made it such. Thus, God really has no problem with gay people getting married, and your church leaders got it wrong.


Unless you think your church leaders are always right. Which would make you a lap dog.

I don't agree with everything. But other things.... call me a lap dog if you wish.

I don't agree with everything. But other things.... call me a lap dog if you wish.
You know, that's actually not cute.

I don't agree with everything. But other things.... call me a lap dog if you wish.

You dodged the question.

If it is a fundamental right, like you said it was, than God made it as such.

Thus, your Church is denying a fundamental, God given right.

And youre ok with this? And you assume God is too?

You know, that's actually not cute.

Really, this posters answers are bordering on infuriating. I can only take intellectual laziness and dishonosty for so long.

You know, that's actually not cute.

I am trying. But... I am leaving this thread. If you can't accept that I am a product of my religion (which you may state is irrelvant) than I can't stay. Religion for my people is not irrevelvant. Leave me alone than.

If I believe that my God doesn't accept homosexuality, then I can't say it's a fundemental right given by God. So leave me alone.

*snip the badly needed pummeling*

The crazy thing is - you agree with me. You don't think minorities should be stripped of rights either. If the 'minority' was Mormons, and we were banding together to remove YOUR right to marry, you'd fight.

Absolutely.

I am trying. But... I am leaving this thread. If you can't accept that I am a product of my religion (which you may state is irrelvant) than I can't stay. Religion for my people is not irrevelvant. Leave me alone then.

No, you don't get to play the harassed martyr card. You've been called on your crap and now you're leaving. That's what you should have done a while ago if you didn't like the fact that people were going to see through your fake sympathy for a minority without the same rights as the rest of the citizens in the country. Your religion may make you feel better about that, but NSG won't play along. You're hiding behind your faith and some of the better posters here have held up a mirror. If you don't like what you're seeing, that's not the mirror's fault.

I am trying. But... I am leaving this thread. If you can't accept that I am a product of my religion (which you may state is irrelvant) than I can't stay. Religion for my people is not irrevelvant. Leave me alone than.

Quit the fucking victim act and be an adult. No one is saying we cant "accept" your religion. Neo Bretonnia is a very outspoken Mormon here, and hes one of my favorite posters.

But just because I dont have a problem with Mormons doesnt mean I dont have a serious bone to pick with your church leadership, or your pitiful "logic". Not does it mean I dont have a problem with your church forcing its 13th century concepts onto the rest of society as a whole.

If I believe that my God doesn't accept homosexuality, then I can't say it's a fundemental right given by God. So leave me alone.

So, you dont believe its a fundamental right given by God? But a few posts ago you said it was a fundamental right. So which is?

And if you believe that God doesnt accept gays, then your God is just as much of a bigoted asshole as other Christian's God. Which very well might be the case, and that just means I look foward to you wondering into one of the many NSG religion threads like a lamb to the slaughter.

No, you don't get to play the harassed martyr card. You've been called on your crap and now you're leaving. That's what you should have done a while ago if you didn't like the fact that people were going to see through your fake sympathy for a minority without the same rights as the rest of the citizens in the country. Your religion may make you feel better about that, but NSG won't play along. You're hiding behind your faith and some of the better posters here have held up a mirror. If you don't like what you're seeing, that's not the mirror's fault.

Harrased Martyr. Please.....

I've given my tolerance for your right for acceptance. I believe that you have rights. I've stated that. The odd thing is you certaintly have a lack of tolerance for my faith. Despite the fact you disagree with it. I am leaving because. I can't have my religion with me in the thread. As it seems. GOOD BYE.

Harrased Martyr. Please.....

I've given my tolerance for your right for acceptance. I believe that you have rights. I've stated that. The odd thing is you certaintly have a lack of tolerance for my faith. Despite the fact you disagree with it.

Look, Ive been nice, but Im done with that. No one has been intolerant of your faith (baring maybe one exception). No one has called seriously for the destruction of the Mormon church or demanded that you cease practicing it.

What we have said is your church should show the same decency and not force itself on others. Which it has.

Get down from that cross, its just not you.


Either grow the fuck up and stop hiding behind your faith and pretending like the mean world is out to get you, or leave.

Quit the fucking victim act and be an adult. No one is saying we cant "aceept" your religion. Neo Bretonnia is a very outspoken Mormon here, and hes one of my favorite posters.

I am not Neo Bretonnia. So sorry I don't meet up to your 'expectations.'

You have valid arguments.
...
I have an opinion.

honestly, how can someone write this and not think to themselves, "my god, what the fuck is wrong with me?!"

I am not Neo Bretonnia. So sorry I don't meet up to your 'expectations.'

Oh for the love of-


Thats it. If the next post from you is some pathetic little victim act or you totally missing the point, youre going on ignore.

Do you really keep missing the point? Are you that dense? Or do you just like attention and so are acting like you dont see what others are saying?

Stop making this about you.

unwieldy thread is losing communication

No one has been intolerant of your faith (baring maybe one exception). No one has called seriously for the destruction of the Mormon church or demanded that you cease practicing it.

i'll be the one, if necessary. the world would be a better place if the mormon church was shut down, its property confiscated, and its teachings prominently debunked and mocked. this goes for most religions, obviously, but mormonism is its own special brand of dangerous stupidity.

Harrased Martyr. Please.....

I've given my tolerance for your right for acceptance. I believe that you have rights. I've stated that. The odd thing is you certaintly have a lack of tolerance for my faith. Despite the fact you disagree with it. I am leaving because. I can't have my religion with me in the thread. As it seems. GOOD BYE.

Oh, that's rich. I DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SO I'M GOING TO MAKE UP A LINE ABOUT YOU NOT TOLERATING MY FAITH AND STORM OUT!

Except that I didn't. Your silence on the actions of your faith's leadership is telling. Mormons aren't the problem. Mormon leadership who approved and funded the tissue of lies that helped pass Prop 8 is the problem. If you can conflate the leadership with you personally then either A) you are PART of the leadership, and you SHOULD feel guilty, or B) you're no worse than those who badmouth an entire country because of the actions of its leaders.

Either way, I'm not certain I'd want to know you. I would piss on you if you were on fire, and I would even cross a dangerous freeway to do it, but I'd just as soon not have lunch with you. If you can tell me how that is, in ANY way, intolerance of your faith, then you are the most fiendish disputant since Deep Thought.

i'll be the one, if necessary. the world would be a better place if the mormon church was shut down, its property confiscated, and its teachings prominently debunked and mocked. this goes for most religions, obviously, but mormonism is its own special brand of dangerous stupidity.

See, whether I agree or not (and youve been around long enough to know the answer to that;)) I still wish you hadnt said that, because now Tygereyes will just respond to this and ignore every other comment, so she can continue to make this thread about her and how the mean secular world is persecuting her faith.


One doesnt have to respond to the discrimination they caused if one can pretend that they are the victim.

Oh for the love of-


Thats it. If the next post from you is some pathetic little victim act or you totally missing the point, youre going on ignore.

Do you really keep missing the point? Are you that dense? Or do you just like attention and so are acting like you dont see what others are saying?

Stop making this about you.

Easy now. No need to get carded on account of someone who can't separate reality from the puppet show in his head.

Every person of faith is on a different path on that particular journey. Not all paths are easy or pretty.

Oh for the love of-


Thats it. If the next post from you is some pathetic little victim act or you totally missing the point, youre going on ignore.

Do you really keep missing the point? Are you that dense? Or do you just like attention and so are acting like you dont see what others are saying?

Stop making this about you.

Victim.

Go ahead put me on ignore if you want. I have been an out spoken Mormon. NB most definatly has a diffrent approach than me. I've read some of his posts. They are diffrent. I have a diffrent way in expressing my views than he does. Putting me on ignore will be exactly what you want anyway. So feel free to do what you wish.

I am not Neo Bretonnia.

And you know what? Youre right, youre not. At least he can argue with the big boys (girls in the case of Mur).

Victim.

Go ahead put me on ignore if you want. I have been an out spoken Mormon. NB most definatly has a diffrent approach than me. I've read some of his posts. They are diffrent. I have a diffrent way in expressing my views than he does. Putting me on ignore will be exactly what you want anyway. So feel free to do what you wish.

Tell me, what is this means you have of expressing your views? Crying persecution whenever someone disagrees?

angry people are hilarious.

Victim.

Go ahead put me on ignore if you want. I have been an out spoken Mormon. NB most definatly has a diffrent approach than me. I've read some of his posts. They are diffrent. I have a diffrent way in expressing my views than he does. Putting me on ignore will be exactly what you want anyway. So feel free to do what you wish.

Cue the soaring violins and the choir! D major to F# minor...and zoom to the single tear in his eye.

Yup. Victim.

One doesnt have to respond to the discrimination they caused if one can pretend that they are the victim.

its not like anything anyone said thus far was making any progress. they have explicitly said that their beliefs can't stand up to rational inquiry and are fucking utterly hypocritical, but they are sticking with 'em.

their ain't shit to be done in the face of such a position but ridicule and marginalization.

And you know what? Youre right, youre not. At least he can argue with the big boys (girls in the case of Mur).

I am a girl. But anyways I've had enough of this, apprently.

self-fulfilling prophecy imminant.

At least he can argue with the big boys

well, for a bit. until we get down to the fundamentally stupid nature of his religion in the face of, for example, historical facts. or when we get to the trivially demonstrable fundamental moral repugnance of the pro-life position, etc. after that its all a bunch of really pathetic attempts to dodge.

well, for a bit. until we get down to the fundamentally stupid nature of his religion in the face of, for example, historical facts. or when we get to the trivially demonstrable fundamental moral repugnance of the pro-life position, etc. after that its all a bunch of really pathetic attempts to dodge.

Neo-Bret came to the pro-choice dark side a while ago;)


And regardless, we all have our inconsistancies.

I am trying. But... I am leaving this thread. If you can't accept that I am a product of my religion (which you may state is irrelvant) than I can't stay. Religion for my people is not irrevelvant. Leave me alone than.

I am a product of my religion (and it is a product of me, but that's another discussion). Religion is not irrelevant to me. I try to live my life by my religious principles.

That doesn't mean I feel any need to force those principles on others. Why do you feel this need?

I am a product of my religion (and it is a product of me, but that's another discussion). Religion is not irrelevant to me. I try to live my life by my religious principles.

That doesn't mean I feel any need to force those principles on others. Why do you feel this need?

Stop persecuting her.

Tell me, what is this means you have of expressing your views? Crying persecution whenever someone disagrees?

I've never *cried persecution* I've given you my view, my religious view. You don't accept them. So you very much disagree. Agreed. Anyway. I am done.

Neo-Bret came to the pro-choice dark side a while ago;)

i missed that

I am a product of my religion (and it is a product of me, but that's another discussion). Religion is not irrelevant to me. I try to live my life by my religious principles.

That doesn't mean I feel any need to force those principles on others. Why do you feel this need?

Then why do you feel the need to force YOUR own principals on us?

Then why do you feel the need to force YOUR own principals on us?

I don't. That's the point.

Then why do you feel the need to force YOUR own principals on us?

Saying even lives according to what makes them happy isnt forcing our principles on you.


Churches wont have to marry gays. No forcing.

Crying "youre intolerant because you wont let me be bigoted!" is not a good arguement.

Nor is "waaaah you are forcing your morals on us because you wont let me enshrine my religious views into law!"

I am trying. But... I am leaving this thread. If you can't accept that I am a product of my religion (which you may state is irrelvant) than I can't stay. Religion for my people is not irrevelvant. Leave me alone than.

If I believe that my God doesn't accept homosexuality, then I can't say it's a fundemental right given by God. So leave me alone.
You keep saying that, yet you stay and keep arguing.

Look, throughout this entire argument, you have admitted time and again that you do not have the information necessary to form a full opinion and present a fully developed argument. You have said over and over that you are confused by internal conflicts and contradictions on this issue.

My question would be, why don't you take a break from trying to argue it and instead spend some time THINKING about it?

You have your religious beliefs. You say you have points on which you disagree with your church's opinions/policies. You have been given information about how your church's political action has affected others. You have been reminded that LDS is not the only church in the country and that other religions, some of which support gay marraige, have the same First Amendment rights as LDS. Etc.

If I were in your position, right about now I would be taking all of that and using it to figure out what I want MY position to be, based on MY conscience.

i'll be the one, if necessary. the world would be a better place if the mormon church was shut down, its property confiscated, and its teachings prominently debunked and mocked. this goes for most religions, obviously, but mormonism is its own special brand of dangerous stupidity.
Token "No you DIDN'T!" on the grounds of "I may not agree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" (even if it makes my blood boil).

Aren't you glad I took you off ignore already? ;)

Token "No you DIDN'T!" on the grounds of "I may not agree with what they say, but I will defend to the death their right to say it" (even if it makes my blood boil).

Aren't you glad I took you off ignore already? ;)

even accepting that sentiment, why should we go out of our way to aid the continued existence of stupidity? the world really would be better off without it, even if there is a right to be privately stupid, and so we have an obligation to do what we can to undermine and diminish it - even within the confines of equal protection and such.

no need to have them rounded up and shot. tax religious property and organizations, require and prioritize science and critical thinking in all schooling, refuse to shy away from officially calling nonsense nonsense, and as far as possible close the avenues through which religious idiocy can harm the world at large. also, sex, drugs, and rock and/or roll (and post-industrialism in general) seem to be generally sound policy positions to favor here.

even accepting that sentiment, why should we go out of our way to aid the continued existence of stupidity? the world really would be better off without it, even if there is a right to be privately stupid, and so we have an obligation to do what we can to undermine and diminish it - even within the confines of equal protection and such.

no need to have them rounded up and shot. tax religious property and organizations, require and prioritize science and critical thinking in all schooling, refuse to shy away from officially calling nonsense nonsense, and as far as possible close the avenues through which religious idiocy can harm the world at large. also, sex, drugs, and rock and/or roll (and post-industrialism in general) seem to be generally sound policy positions to favor here.
1) Not aiding continued existence is different from taking action to end or reduce existence, which is what your original statement suggested.

2) You are not the one to decide what the world would be better off without. For all you know, the world might be even more better off without you and other people who think they know what's best for the world. Following the logic of "the world would be better off without", you can easily end up on the trash heap along with the ones you got rid of. I say the world would be better off if religions left non-members alone and if non-members left religions alone, so that gives me an incentive to get rid of you for trying to get rid of the LDS.

3) I personally do not believe religious organizations should be tax exempt anyway, but that's just me. I also personally believe there should be much higher, thicker, bright neon painted wall between church and state than exists now and that churches should not be permitted to donate money to political causes or to express public opinions on political issues (such as preaching on how parishioners should vote or publishing a church stance on Prop 8), period. But that's also just me, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to be rid of any church.

4) Don't even bother to type the word "sex," brother, 'cause that is not coming into this issue, no way, not for you. :p

4) Don't even bother to type the word "sex," brother, 'cause that is not coming into this issue, no way, not for you. :p

hey I'm here :p

I identify with the more liberal side.

But... we're not a hivemind.

Many of those posting here reached a peace with you, sometime between me leaving work last night (which was when I last posted) and now.

I'm glad they did.

But, I'm not satisfied.

You keep making it about opinions. About beliefs.

And she stopped doing so a page or so ago and admitted that we have a valid point. Now back off.

Now back off.

No, because shes still arguing.

You keep saying that, yet you stay and keep arguing.

Look, throughout this entire argument, you have admitted time and again that you do not have the information necessary to form a full opinion and present a fully developed argument. You have said over and over that you are confused by internal conflicts and contradictions on this issue.

My question would be, why don't you take a break from trying to argue it and instead spend some time THINKING about it?

You have your religious beliefs. You say you have points on which you disagree with your church's opinions/policies. You have been given information about how your church's political action has affected others. You have been reminded that LDS is not the only church in the country and that other religions, some of which support gay marraige, have the same First Amendment rights as LDS. Etc.

If I were in your position, right about now I would be taking all of that and using it to figure out what I want MY position to be, based on MY conscience.

She had admitted that we had a point, admitted that there was no reason to pass laws in this regard. I go to sleep and when I wake up everyone has piled back on her again. The changes I saw to her posting style early this morning before I went to sleep? Gone. Those cracks that had started forming in her armor of ignorance? Walled up with fucking cement. Congratulations everybody on undoing all our hard work with her.

She had admitted that we had a point, admitted that there was no reason to pass laws in this regard. I go to sleep and when I wake up everyone has piled back on her again. The changes I saw to her posting style early this morning before I went to sleep? Gone. Those cracks that had started forming in her armor of ignorance? Walled up with fucking cement. Congratulations everybody on undoing all our hard work with her.

What are you talking about? What she essentially said was "Youre right, but Im going to keep believing gays are teh ebil anywayz!"

What are you talking about? What she essentially said was "Youre right, but Im going to keep believing gays are teh ebil anywayz!"

But not that there should be laws passed against gay marriage. She had finally stated that we were correct in that her beliefs were not a basis for law.

I have mixed feelings about it. You're not going to compleatly change my opinons or my beliefs.

No one has asked you to 'completely change your opinions and beliefs'.

Worship how you wish. Believe what you will.

Even those who disagree with your beliefs would fight to protect your right to HAVE them.

But, maybe your church is wrong. Maybe they've overstepped the mark. If this is integral to your faith (I know lots of religious groups teach that the higher-ups are infallible), then maybe you DO need to re-evaluate what you really believe from what your church tells you. As you said yourself, (earlier) they are human and fallible.

1) Not aiding continued existence is different from taking action to end or reduce existence, which is what your original statement suggested.

my proposed steps are aimed at ending or reducing existence. without special protection, mormonism (and organized religion more generally) goes the way of the flat earth society.

2) You are not the one to decide what the world would be better off without.

no, that's why we make arguments. personal whim doesn't enter into it. naive majoritarianism doesn't either. some things, by their very nature, are demonstrably opposed to any reasonable set of values/virtues.

churches should not be permitted to donate money to political causes or to express public opinions on political issues (such as preaching on how parishioners should vote or publishing a church stance on Prop 8), period. But that's also just me, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with wanting to be rid of any church.

wow, you know, i think my way is way less intrusive on the rights of the religious. i mean, effectively this declares that churches cannot have, or at least cannot talk about, positions on certain issues.

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/ <=== Apparently existing tax law has some bearing on the matter. The LDS organization believes that propositions are a loophole to federal tax law barring tax-exempt organizations of the type it is from propaganda and political manipulation; critics disagree.

Take action against LDS on Prop 8 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/6/14360/8381/69/655898)
by Blissable

Thu Nov 06, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM PST

I'm furious that a church can use it's massive outreach and raise funds to manipulate the political process in such a blatant and outrageous manner.

If it upsets you as much as me that a church can meddle with another state's political statutes, here's something simple you can do:

Blissable's diary (http://blissable.dailykos.com/) :: ::
To report the LDS Church to the IRS, simply take 5 minutes to print
these articles out and any others you can find:

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10839546
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10842051

Then print, sign, and send the following form

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f3949a.pdf

List the taxpayer as:

Thomas S. Monson, et al
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

List his occupation as President and the business as The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Check the boxes for False Exemption and Public/Political Corruption.

Then in the Comments section demand that the LDS Church be fined and
their tax-exempt status revoked for repeated and blatant violations of
the IRS's separate of church and state rules, and for conspiring to
interfere with a state's political process.

Check Yes under "Are books/records available?" and write in "campaign
finance records."

You don't have to provide any of your own personal info. Mail the form
and the printed articles to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/ <=== Apparently existing tax law has some bearing on the matter. The LDS organization believes that propositions are a loophole to federal tax law barring tax-exempt organizations of the type it is from propaganda and political manipulation; critics disagree.

Too bad for them. The IRS seems explicit about it:

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

If you arent a lap dog this shouldnt seem like a tough choice for you...

Hey now, it can be hard to reconcile what you know deeply to be right with your religion when the religious leadership is saying something the opposite. I know, because I've been there. And it's especially hard if you want to remain in that religion. Conundrums like this resulted ultimately in me leaving the Roman Catholic church. I get the impression that Tyger wants to stay Mormon.

Hey now, it can be hard to reconcile what you know deeply to be right with your religion when the religious leadership is saying something the opposite. I know, because I've been there. And it's especially hard if you want to remain in that religion. Conundrums like this resulted ultimately in me leaving the Roman Catholic church. I get the impression that Tyger wants to stay Mormon.

'Wanting to stay' in your religion, is not a good enough reason to avoid confronting problems.

Or maybe it is. I couldn't do it... but then, I'm the kind of person who couldn't stay in a romantic relationship where I was lied to, even though 'I want to'.

If the Mormon heirarchy is wrong, Tiger should confront that, and decide what it means to her. If she can move past it, well and good. If not, well and good. But enlightenment doesn't come from avoiding confrontation.

Well, thanks KoL, and GnI.

We had her gradually coming around, through you know, not being assholes about it. And then you guys had to come back and fuck it all up.

You totally destroyed the more peaceful atmosphere that was proving far more effective in actually getting our points across and helping Tyger come to terms with the disconnect between what she knew to be human rights and what her religion said, which I know from personal experience is a difficult thing.

I know I'm usually one of the more asshole posters on this board, but here I was trying to actually change someone's mind, a rare occurrence on NSG. And then you guys had to fuck it up by putting her back on the defensive. You can't change anybody's mind by putting them on the defensive.

And guess what? Changing people's minds is how Prop 8 has to be repealed. In the time between now and 2010, at least 300,000 people must switch sides. I don't know where Tyger lives, but she mentioned she was PST, which could mean California. Do you know how hard it is to actually get through to someone? Do you know how much less possible it gets when they feel like they're being attacked?

Thanks for wrecking it guys, by turning this from a conversation back into a fight. You know, for some reason, I expected better of you two. I'm so angry partly because normally I like you guys. But wow. You may have just hurt the repeal effort. Assholes.

'Wanting to stay' in your religion, is not a good enough reason to avoid confronting problems.

Or maybe it is. I couldn't do it... but then, I'm the kind of person who couldn't stay in a romantic relationship where I was lied to, even though 'I want to'.

If the Mormon heirarchy is wrong, Tiger should confront that, and decide what it means to her. If she can move past it, well and good. If not, well and good. But enlightenment doesn't come from avoiding confrontation.

Enlightenment also doesn't come quickly or easily.

And it sure doesn't help when liberals prove themselves to be jerks.

Well, thanks KoL, and GnI.

We had her gradually coming around, through you know, not being assholes about it. And then you guys had to come back and fuck it all up.

You totally destroyed the more peaceful atmosphere that was proving far more effective in actually getting our points across and helping Tyger come to terms with the disconnect between what she knew to be human rights and what her religion said, which I know from personal experience is a difficult thing.

I know I'm usually one of the more asshole posters on this board, but here I was trying to actually change someone's mind, a rare occurrence on NSG. And then you guys had to fuck it up by putting her back on the defensive. You can't change anybody's mind by putting them on the defensive.

And guess what? Changing people's minds is how Prop 8 has to be repealed. In the time between now and 2010, at least 300,000 people must switch sides. I don't know where Tyger lives, but she mentioned she was PST, which could mean California. Do you know how hard it is to actually get through to someone? Do you know how much less possible it gets when they feel like they're being attacked?

Thanks for wrecking it guys, by turning this from a conversation back into a fight. You know, for some reason, I expected better of you two. I'm so angry partly because normally I like you guys. But wow. You may have just hurt the repeal effort. Assholes.

No offence taken. I appreciate that blood is running hot in a lot of veins.

There is no hivemind here. I don't always think like you do, or agree with what you say. But, that's okay - I don't have to.

You think the work is done. Okay. Maybe you're right. I was addressing some points I thought still needed addressing. Maybe I'm right, eh?

I can be an asshole. I'd be an asshole not to admit that.

But I think somethings are more important than sparing feelings. I think it is important that Tiger confront what is wrong. Not just for the good of whatever finally topples this latest injustice - but for Tiger, herself. Then - the next time an issue comes up like this, there'll be less of a disconnect, and more of an ability to empathise.

If you want to talk about this a little more, take it to TG, and I'll listen to what you have to say, and maybe explain to you a little better why I'm an asshole.

Enlightenment also doesn't come quickly or easily.

And it sure doesn't help when liberals prove themselves to be jerks.

Comme Ci, Comme Ça

'Wanting to stay' in your religion, is not a good enough reason to avoid confronting problems.

Or maybe it is. I couldn't do it... but then, I'm the kind of person who couldn't stay in a romantic relationship where I was lied to, even though 'I want to'.

If the Mormon heirarchy is wrong, Tiger should confront that, and decide what it means to her. If she can move past it, well and good. If not, well and good. But enlightenment doesn't come from avoiding confrontation.
Personally, I don't think it's our place to try to lead her to enlightenment, whatever that means in this context. I'm not asking her to rethink her relationship to her church for my sake over this issue.

What I AM asking her to do is realize that she is not an island. She does not live in isolation, and her "opinions," which she seems to think she should not be challenged on because they are personally meaningful to her, do actually have a direct and detrimental effect on other people.

She has expressed, no doubt sincerely, personal conflict over this issue and its effect on civil rights, but when confronted with the reality of that effect, she seems to want to retreat into denial, to withdraw into herself, back to Tygereyes Island, as it were, and act as if somehow it's not happening the way it appears to be.

I can understand that. This must be a very difficult situation for lots of Mormons.

But one of the cornerstones of my belief system is to accept and embrace the truth always, no matter how painful it may be, and that's why I have been trying to show her the effects her lifestyle choices are having on the rest of us. It is my hope that, if her awareness of the world outside Mormon can be raised (for crying out loud, her entire argument is based solely on Mormon texts), it will help her define what kind of a role she wants to play in the world.

Maybe in the end she will opt to buck the LDS leadership on this point and come out against the Prop 8 amendment. Or maybe she'll decide the opposite way and get more dedicated to following dogma. Either way is fine with me. I just want it to be HER decision based on HER thoughts in full acceptance of all the realities that go with it, not some knee-jerk parroting of something she read in a text or was told by a leader once upon a time, combined with ignorance of what happens to the people her beliefs are pushed upon.

Comme Ci, Comme Ça

Nice retort. Nothing says you're most definitely not a smug liberal like using French. :wink:

Nice retort. Nothing says you're most definitely not a smug liberal like using French. :wink:

Down our way, we all learn a bit of French, I don't even notice I use it most of the time.

However, there it was used for nuance. Maybe there's something to what was said, maybe not... I'm kind of not inclined to digress further into motivations, etc as part of the ongoing debate.

Personally, I don't think it's our place to try to lead her to enlightenment, whatever that means in this context. I'm not asking her to rethink her relationship to her church for my sake over this issue.

What I AM asking her to do is realize that she is not an island. She does not live in isolation, and her "opinions," which she seems to think she should not be challenged on because they are personally meaningful to her, do actually have a direct and detrimental effect on other people.

She has expressed, no doubt sincerely, personal conflict over this issue and its effect on civil rights, but when confronted with the reality of that effect, she seems to want to retreat into denial, to withdraw into herself, back to Tygereyes Island, as it were, and act as if somehow it's not happening the way it appears to be.

I can understand that. This must be a very difficult situation for lots of Mormons.

But one of the cornerstones of my belief system is to accept and embrace the truth always, no matter how painful it may be, and that's why I have been trying to show her the effects her lifestyle choices are having on the rest of us. It is my hope that, if her awareness of the world outside Mormon can be raised (for crying out loud, her entire argument is based solely on Mormon texts), it will help her define what kind of a role she wants to play in the world.

Maybe in the end she will opt to buck the LDS leadership on this point and come out against the Prop 8 amendment. Or maybe she'll decide the opposite way and get more dedicated to following dogma. Either way is fine with me. I just want it to be HER decision based on HER thoughts in full acceptance of all the realities that go with it, not some knee-jerk parroting of something she read in a text or was told by a leader once upon a time, combined with ignorance of what happens to the people her beliefs are pushed upon.

I agree with most of what you say, except two little points:

1) I guess I'm actually agreeing with you here, now - the point I was going to make is that, I'm not really making this a mission for Tiger's enlightenment, either. That would be kind of pretentious. I'm trying to open Tiger's eyes to empathy on the matter, and hopefully, maybe, a little of it will rub off.

2) 'Either way' is not 'fine' with me. If she chooses to follow dogma, and to ACTUALLY follow it - as in, act on it, like people did on Prop 8 - then she will be one of the people I have to contend with. I am happy for her to BELIEVE anything, but I'll be unhappy if she acts to strip rights from people, just because Big Daddy Church says so.

There is no possible way to completely harm the Church. Even going in guns blazing would only condemn the individual(s) in public opinion.

Maybe in the end she will opt to buck the LDS leadership on this point and come out against the Prop 8 amendment. Or maybe she'll decide the opposite way and get more dedicated to following dogma. Either way is fine with me. I just want it to be HER decision based on HER thoughts in full acceptance of all the realities that go with it, not some knee-jerk parroting of something she read in a text or was told by a leader once upon a time, combined with ignorance of what happens to the people her beliefs are pushed upon.

I've always wondered: isn't it a little paradoxical to say people must make their own decisions? What if I decide to do whatever the LDS tells me, no questions asked? Or would that count as my decision, because I decided to knee-jerk parrot what the leader says?

There is no possible way to completely harm the Church. Even going in guns blazing would only condemn the individual(s) in public opinion.

I'm not sure 'guns blazing' was tabled.

You must be thinking of Waco.

I agree with most of what you say, except two little points:

1) I guess I'm actually agreeing with you here, now - the point I was going to make is that, I'm not really making this a mission for Tiger's enlightenment, either. That would be kind of pretentious. I'm trying to open Tiger's eyes to empathy on the matter, and hopefully, maybe, a little of it will rub off.

2) 'Either way' is not 'fine' with me. If she chooses to follow dogma, and to ACTUALLY follow it - as in, act on it, like people did on Prop 8 - then she will be one of the people I have to contend with. I am happy for her to BELIEVE anything, but I'll be unhappy if she acts to strip rights from people, just because Big Daddy Church says so.
Oh, I didn't mean that I would accept it happily and let it slide. No, I'd consider her my enemy on the civil rights front and fight her tooth and nail every step of the way to the inevitable victory for gay rights.

I just meant I would respect her more if she didn't weasel about it so much.

I've always wondered: isn't it a little paradoxical to say people must make their own decisions? What if I decide to do whatever the LDS tells me, no questions asked? Or would that count as my decision, because I decided to knee-jerk parrot what the leader says?
Sure. It would be her decision to hand over control of her life to someone else and act solely as their agent in the world. And if she came to me and said, "This is who I am and this is how I've chosen to live. I realize it hurts you, but my masters command it and it must be so," I'd respond with, "Okay, nice to meet you. Now, we fight."

But if she comes to me with "I don't know how to feel about it because I respect others' rights, but I have my beliefs and they mean so much to me and I know there's a conflict and maybe it isn't right but maybe it is and I know these are rights but the church says something else, I'm not sure what, so I can't call them rights and it all hurts me so terribly, and that's why I'm going to support other people getting screwed, only not really because I still have questions about it even though I'll never yield and that's your fault for being mean", yeah, that's going to wear thin on me pretty quickly.

I'm not sure 'guns blazing' was tabled.

It wasn't.

But now I'm so thinking about Mur in one of those Trinity outfits from the Matrix.

You know the one.

lol, not if the Martrix is rated 'R'

Comme Ci, Comme Ça

Don't know what that means, but you have a TG

It wasn't.

But now I'm so thinking about Mur in one of those Trinity outfits from the Matrix.

You know the one.

I think I can honestly say I have never envisioned Mur in one of those trinity outfits.





I'm not going to say which one I haven't enivioned, though...

:D

It wasn't.

But now I'm so thinking about Mur in one of those Trinity outfits from the Matrix.

You know the one.

I think I can honestly say I have never envisioned Mur in one of those trinity outfits.





I'm not going to say which one I haven't enivioned, though...

:D
Ahem....

Ahem....

oh you love it.

What...is...Mur? Google tells me it is a Mauritian rupee.

What...is...Mur? Google tells me it is a Mauritian rupee.

Short for Muravyets, I'm guessing.

oh you love it.
That depends on which outfit you mean.

Don't know what that means, but you have a TG

Something along the lines of "so-so" (basically, "Like this, Like that" would be a good translation).

I'm neither disagreeing, nor agreeing, per se. But I'm using the nuance to suggest there might be more to it, that I'm choosing to leave unsaid. Like... because it's off-topic.

EDIT: TG

What...is...Mur? Google tells me it is a Mauritian rupee.
Mur is a legendary lost land reputed to be somewhere in the high Himalayas, like near Bhutan or something.

I always envisioned it as more of a catsuit. Murrrrrr :p

Short for Muravyets, I'm guessing.

Ah, that makes more sense. Mauritius does not have very attractive currency.

Mur is a legendary lost land reputed to be somewhere in the high Himalayas, like near Bhutan or something.

Always thought that was Mu. *wikis*

Ahem....

Wah?

*whistles, so MUST be innocent.*

I always envisioned it as more of a catsuit. Murrrrrr :p

Things I Like About Being Male #48: Strangers on forums don't picture me wearing funny outfits.

Things I Like About Being Male #48: Strangers on forums don't picture me wearing funny outfits.
Don't count on it.

Always thought that was Mu. *wikis*
That's a common misconception based on some 19th century conspiracy nut's horrible handwriting.

things i like about being male #48: Strangers on forums don't picture me wearing funny outfits.

orly?

don't count on it.

yarly.

Don't count on it.

If it happens now, I have no one to blame but myself.

That's a common misconception based on some 19th century conspiracy nut's horrible handwriting.

Interesting. So I take it it has some significance in mysticism?

Things I Like About Being Male #48: Strangers on forums don't picture me wearing funny outfits.

wait, who said she was a stranger? ;)

That depends on which outfit you mean.

whichever one you want. She looked good in all of 'em

Interesting. So I take it it has some significance in mysticism?
Oh, sure. You bet. Madam Blavatsky and all that lot. And how. *nods*

whichever one you want. She looked good in all of 'em
Some looked like they'd be a little hard to get her out of...

Guess I'll go for one of those. :tongue:

Some looked like they'd be a little hard to get her out of...

Guess I'll go for one of those. :tongue:

...ow. And, by the way, tg.

Things I Like About Being Male #48: Strangers on forums don't picture me wearing funny outfits.

If it helps, I am now picturing you dressed as a Moogle.

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Moogle_FFX2.jpg

...ow. And, by the way, tg.
answered.

If it helps, I am now picturing you dressed as a Moogle.

http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Image:Moogle_FFX2.jpg
*staggers away, aghast.*

So....horrible....

answered.

right back atcha

What...is...Mur? Google tells me it is a Mauritian rupee.

The toughest debater you are ever going to meet.
I will beat you one day Mur :p

right back atcha
Tag, you're it. ;)

The toughest debater you are ever going to meet.
I will beat you one day Mur :p
You bet, kiddo. Keep working on it. :D

Tag, you're it. ;)

Already served back.

Already served back.
Ye gods, man, get a tv. :p

Ye gods, man, get a tv. :p

I'm waiting for the good cartoons to start.

I'm waiting for the good cartoons to start.
Excellent! :fluffle:

Want to attack the mormon "church"? Support the proposal to strip their tax-exempt status (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com).

Want to attack the mormon "church"? Support the proposal to strip their tax-exempt status (http://lds501c3.wordpress.com).Agreed wholeheartedly!

Well, thanks KoL, and GnI.

We had her gradually coming around, through you know, not being assholes about it. And then you guys had to come back and fuck it all up.

You totally destroyed the more peaceful atmosphere that was proving far more effective in actually getting our points across and helping Tyger come to terms with the disconnect between what she knew to be human rights and what her religion said, which I know from personal experience is a difficult thing.

I know I'm usually one of the more asshole posters on this board, but here I was trying to actually change someone's mind, a rare occurrence on NSG. And then you guys had to fuck it up by putting her back on the defensive. You can't change anybody's mind by putting them on the defensive.

And guess what? Changing people's minds is how Prop 8 has to be repealed. In the time between now and 2010, at least 300,000 people must switch sides. I don't know where Tyger lives, but she mentioned she was PST, which could mean California. Do you know how hard it is to actually get through to someone? Do you know how much less possible it gets when they feel like they're being attacked?

Thanks for wrecking it guys, by turning this from a conversation back into a fight. You know, for some reason, I expected better of you two. I'm so angry partly because normally I like you guys. But wow. You may have just hurt the repeal effort. Assholes.


You guys were changing no ones mind, you were letting her get away with totally idiotic and assinine comments and pretending like her saying "Well I think its ok if my church denys someone what I just admitted is a fundamental right!" is somehow "changing her mind".

Look, I have no issue with you, but dont you and Redwulf pretend like we somehow turned some lovefest into a fist fight. I was here last night too. I was being totally civil until she pulled the victim complex shit. Im sorry, but Im not going to let someone whos church just helped insitute CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION pretend that people are out to get them.

Fuck. That. Shit.


EDIT: And youve been lied to if you ever expected me to be anything but an ass ;)

You guys were changing no ones mind, you were letting her get away with totally idiotic and assinine comments and pretending like her saying "Well I think its ok if my church denys someone what I just admitted is a fundamental right!" is somehow "changing her mind".

Look, I have no issue with you, but dont you and Redwulf pretend like we somehow turned some lovefest into a fist fight. I was here last night too. I was being totally civil until she pulled the victim complex shit. Im sorry, but Im not going to let someone whos church just helped insitute CONSTITUTIONAL DISCRIMINATION pretend that people are out to get them.

Fuck. That. Shit.


EDIT: And youve been lied to if you ever expected me to be anything but an ass ;)

People don't change their minds that drastically overnight.

I'm not interested in "winning" a thread. And aggressive tactics are exactly what let people delude themselves that you are out to get them. Because that's sure the impression I would get, in her position.

In lashing out and being an asshole, you will only help the opposition.

And I don't know where you're from, but since it's my state I have a problem with that. A big one. You being an asshole hurts the cause I support. If you want to discuss it more, take it to TG.

I think NSG has mentioned the best way of affecting the Mormon Church: Since they all but directly meddled in politics, their Religious Tax Exemption Status ought to be challenged and possibly revoked.

I think NSG has mentioned the best way of affecting the Mormon Church: Since they all but directly meddled in politics, their Religious Tax Exemption Status ought to be challenged and possibly revoked.
I'll have my forms in the mail to the IRS by Monday. There are two different links in two threads for this. People need to do it.

For those who feel queasy about "targeting" the Mormons in particular -- even though I think they did plenty to earn some political targeting this time, this actually goes beyond them.

The line between acceptable and unacceptable political action for church organizations is fine but not blurry. More and more since the rise of the religious right in US politics (since the 80s, really), churches have been pushing that line around, pulling all kinds of manipulative stunts to try to hide the extent of their political involvement. They are as bad as the most corrupt lobbyists trying to hide excessive gifts and donations to politicians. Some churches have been so successful in getting away with invading politics that they are hardly even trying to hide it anymore.

I say enough is enough. If you believe in the separation of church and state -- if you believe in secular government and the rule of law, rather than the rule of a church -- if you believe that government should stay out of the affairs of religion and religion should stay out of the affairs of government, then it is high time these political churches were put back in line.

And the LDS has made themselves an excellent and legitimate target for anyone who wants to fight for the real benefit to our society that the First Amendment and the separation of church and state brings us.

Why? Because they took direct political action that resulted in the removal of existing rights from a segment of the population. They took direct action that institutionalized discrimination, constitutionalized discrimination against a minority. And the did it for no reason other than their religion, which they have now instituted over all the citizens of California as law.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time this has ever happened in US history. In any case, it is not acceptable. If we are going to draw a line anywhere, it should be here. And it should be with the LDS and what they did in regards to Prop 8.

Regardless of what the IRS does or doesn't do about it, it is time to send a message to these political churches that we can see what they are doing, and we will not let them erase our way of life by stealth, as it were.

So don't even worry about whether the LDS might actually lose their tax exemption. That is very unlikely to happen. What we want, though, is to inundate the IRS with requests for them to review the matter. Inundate. Enough to make news.

I applaud all the legitimate actions I've read about here with regard to this debacle.

My forms, too, will be in the mail soon.

However, with that process underway, I feel the need to do something a little more...petty.

HENCEFORTH, until the LDS cops to its role and coughs up its tax-exempt status, I shall refer to what was once "California" as "CaliMormia", and change my use of its abbreviation to "CM" from "CA".

Yeah, I know, useless. But it makes me feel better, and I'm tired of being pissed at this 24/7.

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.

If you tithe to that sect, then you already have contributed.

If you tithe to that sect, then you already have contributed.

Check your TGs.

EDIT: And youve been lied to if you ever expected me to be anything but an ass ;)

Totally. KoL is a TOTAL Ass.

But I still like him.

;)

Don't know what that means, but you have a TG

That means ¨So and so¨. Not too good and not too bad.

That and I think the Republicans are facists or have facist leanings
They discriminate against ugly people?

That and I think the Republicans are facists or have facist leaningsThey discriminate against ugly people?


no, its more about the importance of facial solidarity.

BTW, folks, you may notice I've just changed the title of this thread. "How can I do damage to ...?" suggests physical harm.

Why let the title stand so long? Because I rarely actually read titles, that's why.

I know a way you can oppose Mormons. On the day they worship get a bunch of gays to gather outside their church. On the public Property like the side of the road or a sidewalk.

Then when they walk out, have the gays all start making out... Loudly.

Repeat every week.

I know a way you can oppose Mormons. On the day they worship get a bunch of gays to gather outside their church. On the public Property like the side of the road or a sidewalk.

Then when they walk out, have the gays all start making out... Loudly.

Repeat every week.

Funny, but doesn't get our side any votes. So yeah, not interested.

Funny, but doesn't get our side any votes. So yeah, not interested. Like you're going to get their vote anyway... (I'm joking)

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

Of course, I myself have been attacked for this position in the past.
Is that in the same way that all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all blacks are criminals, all hispanics are drug dealers and all whites were slave owners?

Just curious.

Is that in the same way that all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all blacks are criminals, all hispanics are drug dealers and all whites were slave owners?

Just curious.

more like how all members of the westboro baptist church bear responsibility for that church's actions.

Is that in the same way that all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all blacks are criminals, all hispanics are drug dealers and all whites were slave owners?

Just curious.

Anyone who affiliates with and financially supports the LDS Church bears some responsibility for its actions, just as members of al Qaeda, criminal gangs, drug cartels, and slave-trading rings are responsible for those groups' actions.

I know that they own ROSS stores. I don't know if they have those outside of CA, but it's a good place to start (not that I every shopped at ROSS to begin with).

I've also heard Black&Decker and AmEx.

more like how all members of the westboro baptist church bear responsibility for that church's actions.

But pretty much (by my understanding, I'm no expert on their dogma) the prominent defining feature of the Westboro Baptist Church is their extreme bigotry in belief and in behavior.

What makes the LDS Church distinct from other religions, however, is a particular belief set about things that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Their religious stance on homosexuality is pretty much identical to the traditional Christian stance, echoed by the Catholic Church and other conservative religious institutions.

True, their actions in contributing huge sums to Yes on 8 were exceptional, but there's nothing inconsistent in a person accepting the LDS Church's teaching while rejecting their intervention in the issue of same-sex civil marriage in California.

But pretty much (by my understanding, I'm no expert on their dogma) the prominent defining feature of the Westboro Baptist Church is their extreme bigotry in belief and in behavior.

What makes the LDS Church distinct from other religions, however, is a particular belief set about things that have nothing to do with homosexuality. Their religious stance on homosexuality is pretty much identical to the traditional Christian stance, echoed by the Catholic Church and other conservative religious institutions.

True, their actions in contributing huge sums to Yes on 8 were exceptional, but there's nothing inconsistent in a person accepting the LDS Church's teaching while rejecting their intervention in the issue of same-sex civil marriage in California.
The LDS Church is only one sect in the Latter Day Saint movement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement) If someone really disagreed with the the LDS Church's stance on homosexuality, they could join a group like this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Church_of_Jesus_Christ)

So enlighten me as to why you aren't looking to politically oppose the politicians and the Californian voters as well?

So enlighten me as to why you aren't looking to politically oppose the politicians and the Californian voters as well?

Because they didnt pour unbelievabl amount of funds into an issue outside their state.

If someone really disagreed with the the LDS Church's stance on homosexuality, they could join a group like this one. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Church_of_Jesus_Christ)

First, you're ignoring any number of factors that influence people's religious choice beyond their stance on homosexuality--upbringing, social influences, tradition, the artificiality of changing one's religious affiliation so that it accords with one's social views.

Second, I was not speaking of people who oppose the Church's opposition to homosexuality, but of people who oppose the Church's intervention in the Prop. 8 battle (and secular political debates more broadly).

Is that in the same way that all Muslims are responsible for the 9/11 attacks, all blacks are criminals, all hispanics are drug dealers and all whites were slave owners?

Just curious.
Um... are you comparing a religious vocation to a person's race? You know, as much as belief means to people there IS an element of choice involved in it. Not like skin color.

Also, I think most people here have made it clear -- or maybe it's not clear if it got broken up over several threads, but anyway -- that we know perfectly well that not all Mormons supported Prop 8. But that is not the point anymore. Just like the whole Republican party got hit hard for the failings of the president, so too is the entire LDS organization going to get hit, at least to some degree, by what their leadership chose to do in California.

So enlighten me as to why you aren't looking to politically oppose the politicians and the Californian voters as well?
Because not all of us are California residents. But when a religious organization uses its resources OUTSIDE of California to help influence voters IN California to change the state constitution in a way that suits their religious beliefs, that makes WHAT THAT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION did a national (i.e. interstate) matter.

Because not all of us are California residents. But when a religious organization uses its resources OUTSIDE of California to help influence voters IN California to change the state constitution in a way that suits their religious beliefs, that makes WHAT THAT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION did a national (i.e. interstate) matter.

Seems to me like a bit of a double standard. What gives you the right to meddle in the politics of California if you don't live there?

Despite the way people have tried to frame this, it's not a human rights issue. Everyone involved still has all of the same freedoms they did before (with the lack of one perceived right.) Residents who don't like the majority policy could certainly move to a more permissive state. States are not obligated to bend to a group's will just because they are the most vocal - that's why this process went to legislation in the first place.

Seems to me like a bit of a double standard. What gives you the right to meddle in the politics of California if you don't live there?

Because we arent a religious organization with tax exempt status that we get as long as we stay out of politics.

Despite the way people have tried to frame this, it's not a human rights issue. Everyone involved still has all of the same freedoms they did before (with the lack of one perceived right.) Residents who don't like the majority policy could certainly move to a more permissive state. States are not obligated to bend to a group's will just because they are the most vocal - that's why this process went to legislation in the first place.

I love this arguement.

Seems to me like a bit of a double standard. What gives you the right to meddle in the politics of California if you don't live there?

Despite the way people have tried to frame this, it's not a human rights issue. Everyone involved still has all of the same freedoms they did before (with the lack of one perceived right.) Residents who don't like the majority policy could certainly move to a more permissive state. States are not obligated to bend to a group's will just because they are the most vocal - that's why this process went to legislation in the first place.
A) I'm not a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION. Have you ever heard of this little thing we have in the US called the separation of church and state? Amazingly, there actually are rules controlling how much political action a church can do before it stops being a church that doesn't have to pay taxes and becomes a political organization or political pressure group that does have to. Those rules, apparently, are monitored and enforced by the IRS, as they are the people in charge of keeping track of peoples/groups' tax exempt status. It is the opinion of many that the LDS broke those rules and should have its tax status reviewed by the IRS.

B) Since I am not a church, I don't have that limitation, now do I? So that makes me different from the LDS.

C) Also, I didn't do anything to influence California's voters. I figured California gets to run California's business. That's another way I'm different from the LDS.

Because we arent a religious organization with tax exempt status that we get as long as we stay out of politics.



I love this arguement.
Why? Because bullshit makes you laugh?

Why? Because bullshit makes you laugh?

If it didn't, the internet would be much less fun.

Why? Because bullshit makes you laugh?

That, and its so easy to defeat its not worth the effort to try anymore.

If it didn't, the internet would be much less fun.
This is true. :D

True, their actions in contributing huge sums to Yes on 8 were exceptional, but there's nothing inconsistent in a person accepting the LDS Church's teaching while rejecting their intervention in the issue of same-sex civil marriage in California.

it's not inherently inconsistent, but the nature of mormonism makes such a stance a bit more problematic than in the big mainline churches. it operates more like a really big version of very tiny leader-driven sects.

True, their actions in contributing huge sums to Yes on 8 were exceptional, but there's nothing inconsistent in a person accepting the LDS Church's teaching while rejecting their intervention in the issue of same-sex civil marriage in California.
The problem is that the LDS church went beyond soliciting its membership to contribute (which the members could do, or not do, as they pleased), and also used church funds derived from member tithes. To dissociate from that requires the members to stop tithing to the church, which would be more of a break than most of them seem willing to do.

The problem is that the LDS church went beyond soliciting its membership to contribute (which the members could do, or not do, as they pleased), and also used church funds derived from member tithes. To dissociate from that requires the members to stop tithing to the church, which would be more of a break than most of them seem willing to do.

I wanted to ask the thread -- did any other church do this? Was there tithe-based money donated to Prop 8 from the Catholic church or Baptist or Methodist, etc. as well? I don't know where to look for the answer to this question, but it strikes me as important in order to stop the LDS reply of being singled out for persecution on this issue (I've already had to deal with that in discussions in person and online).

Any help here?

I wanted to ask the thread -- did any other church do this? Was there tithe-based money donated to Prop 8 from the Catholic church or Baptist or Methodist, etc. as well? I don't know where to look for the answer to this question, but it strikes me as important in order to stop the LDS reply of being singled out for persecution on this issue (I've already had to deal with that in discussions in person and online).

Any help here?As far as we know, that is unique to the LDS church. I am asking my Senator to look into the conduct of the Archdiocese of Detroit in the Michigan Prop 2 (stem-cell research) campaign as well, but I would be surprised to find they had actually taken money from the collection plates and spent it on that.

First, you're ignoring any number of factors that influence people's religious choice beyond their stance on homosexuality--upbringing, social influences, tradition, the artificiality of changing one's religious affiliation so that it accords with one's social views.

This last part confuses me. What is artificial about choosing a religious affiliation that actually fits with one's views. Seems to me that it is much more artificial to choose a religious affiliation that does not coincide with one's views.


Despite the way people have tried to frame this, it's not a human rights issue.

Yes, it is.

Everyone involved still has all of the same freedoms they did before (with the lack of one perceived right.)

LOL. "Everyone still has all the same freedoms they had before, except for this one that the legislation was about."

Is that sort of like saying, "I still have all the same apples I did before, except for the one I just ate."??

Residents who don't like the majority policy could certainly move to a more permissive state. States are not obligated to bend to a group's will just because they are the most vocal - that's why this process went to legislation in the first place.

States are, however, obligated to provide equal protection under the law to their citizens. California (and most states, in fact) is not doing that.

This last part confuses me. What is artificial about choosing a religious affiliation that actually fits with one's views. Seems to me that it is much more artificial to choose a religious affiliation that does not coincide with one's views.

Why not create your own religion that completely fits your views while you are at it ? If one starts cherrypicking, just go all the way. Who cares about "truth" - you know better than "God" after all.

Is that sort of like saying, "I still have all the same apples I did before, except for the one I just ate."??


More like "I still have all the same apples I did before, except for the one Bobby just ate."

After all, until you digest the apple and excrete whats left you still technically HAVE the apple . . .

Why not create your own religion that completely fits your views while you are at it ? If one starts cherrypicking, just go all the way. Who cares about "truth" - you know better than "God" after all.

Why not? It's not like we have anything written by the gods themselves. Everything is open for interpretation. You act like that's somehow a silly response to none of them matching ones beliefs.