NationStates Jolt Archive

I understand that the NSG community is angry at Mormonism because of their underhanded political move. But before you generalize you must realize that most if not all cults are like this. They are ruthless and annoyingly meticulous, they are not bound by morals, law or even their own health.

Now don't get me wrong, support resistance against destructive sects wholeheartedly yet at the moment it seems that NSG just isn't ready for a crusade against any cult for that matter.

First NSG must rid itself of cultist behaviors in order to be able to tackle a cult since unbias and truth are a cults two worst enemies.

Secondly after doing that one must research and study cults or else one isn't going to go far. Cults are annoying ridiculous and fighting one without beforehand research will prove to be cumbersome. Cultists are dedicated fanatics on nearly every level, this includes politics. Waving signs and protest will do little, it won't stop them from finding another way to cheat an election. Also this move will allow this movement to know how the enemy thinks which is ALWAYS an advantage.

Thirdly I'd like to add that this is just one example of cultist fascism influencing American politics. Cults in structure mirror Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, in fact those two are really good examples of what happens when a cult gets to have it's way with a nation and people for extended periods of time. Cults are like the diet version of those two dark regimes so to speak, true defenders of freedom will never allow the likes of them to control any democracy.

Thanks for your time.

...riiiiight

I wouldn't call Mormons cultists. You can leave the LDS church (the mainstream Mormon church) at any time, and many Mormons do. Of course, ex-Mormons risk being shunned by their family or the local community, but that can happen for any number of reasons, religious or secular. They might be more rigorous than many other religious denominations, but aside from things like alcohol/caffeine prohibition and tithing, you can't really tell them from other Christians. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of a Mormon hive mind yet.

I wouldn't call Mormons cultists. You can leave the LDS church (the mainstream Mormon church) at any time, and many Mormons do. Of course, ex-Mormons risk being shunned by their family or the local community, but that can happen for any number of reasons, religious or secular. They might be more rigorous than many other religious denominations, but aside from things like alcohol/caffeine prohibition and tithing, you can't really tell them from other Christians. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of a Mormon hive mind yet.

My grandfather was raised Mormon. He consequently couldn't stand them. The only reason he didn't call the cops on the couple of guys they sent around every so often to try to bring him back into the church was because he (as a scientist) enjoyed running circles around them in debate.

There's Warren Jeffs and his Talibanesque polygamist splinter group, but nobody has seriously tried to implicate them as being closer to mainstream Mormonism than is generally perceived.

Of course the whole Proposition 8 brouhaha is a glaring example of Mormonism's hypocrisy as well as an example of how an abuse cycle works. Their history is about fleeing persecution and seeking out a place where they could practice their beliefs in relative peace. They find such a place in Utah, and then centuries later they indirectly oppress homosexuals by contributing to an amendment that takes away their right be a happily wedded family unit.

...riiiiight

cult lover :eek: So tell me, exactly which part of my OP do you disagree with?


I wouldn't call Mormons cultists. You can leave the LDS church (the mainstream Mormon church) at any time, and many Mormons do. Of course, ex-Mormons risk being shunned by their family or the local community, but that can happen for any number of reasons, religious or secular. They might be more rigorous than many other religious denominations, but aside from things like alcohol/caffeine prohibition and tithing, you can't really tell them from other Christians. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of a Mormon hive mind yet.

It is good that you can discern the actual Mormons from the sick and twisted cultist variants. I harbor no hard feelings toward that church or any non-cult church whatsoever, however like in most religions sects claiming to be of the mainstream religion pop up. Just recently one of those sects manipulated the outcome of a ballot.

...riiiiight

What he said.

What he said.

Then I'll repeat my question, what do you disagree with?

I don't believe in blaming Mormonism, blacks, latinos, or any other vague and generalized ethnic or religious group for Prop 8.

Sooooo.....

Conflating Mormons, cults, and Nazi Germany. Fun stuff.

Sooooo.....

Conflating Mormons, cults, and Nazi Germany. Fun stuff.

Nazism was a cult, one that took over a nation by manipulation it's policies, a rogue sect is now influencing the policies of a state other than Utah. And here's the scary bit, they're not the only whack jobs that want to bend America to their will. I brought up nazism because being in a cult is like being in the reich, there's no freedom, all the control goes to a bunch of power hungry tyrants, saying anything contrary to what the leadership believes or doing anything other than what the leadership wants or disobeying their fascist nitpicky commands gets one in a world or hurt. Fun isn't how I'd describe it.

Godwin's law.

Godwin's law.

Reality Check Corollary to Godwin's Law: Nowhere in Godwin's Law does it state that anyone making a Nazi comparison, much less an inappropriate one automatically loses the ongoing debate.

Reality Check Corollary to Godwin's Law: Nowhere in Godwin's Law does it state that anyone making a Nazi comparison, much less an inappropriate one automatically loses the ongoing debate.

Nazism was a cult, most other cults operate in similar ways and use similar tactics the only difference is the amount of power modern ones get.

So they funded one side of the debt this is nothing new for a church in American politics.

Nazism was a cult, most other cults operate in similar ways and use similar tactics the only difference is the amount of power modern ones get.

Exactly. Godwin has become a lazy catchphrase attempt to stifle debate. I was just pointing out the corollary especially since the comparison here is valid.

Of course whether or not Mormonism as a whole is a cult is up for debate.

Reality Check Corollary to Godwin's Law: Nowhere in Godwin's Law does it state that anyone making a Nazi comparison, much less an inappropriate one automatically loses the ongoing debate.

Braaainsss' corollary to Godwin's Law: If the debate is in itself premised on a comparison to the Nazis, then this response is wholly warranted:

...riiiiight

Exactly. Godwin has become a lazy catchphrase attempt to stifle debate. I was just pointing out the corollary especially since the comparison here is valid.

Of course whether or not Mormonism as a whole is a cult is up for debate.

Braaainsss' corollary to Godwin's Law: If the debate is in itself premised on a comparison to the Nazis, then this response is wholly warranted:

What Gauthier said ;)

Exactly. Godwin has become a lazy catchphrase attempt to stifle debate. I was just pointing out the corollary especially since the comparison here is valid.

Of course whether or not Mormonism as a whole is a cult is up for debate.

Sorry, but comparing a ballot initiative to the wholesale murder of 10 million people is disgusting and not open to debate.

Sorry, but comparing a ballot initiative to the wholesale murder of 10 million people is disgusting and not open to debate.

And this is another lazy shortcut that's become a problem in debate. Everyone assuming that Nazi = Holocaust when he was discussing how religious cults employ tactics similar to those used by the Nazi government when it came to power.

Sorry, but comparing a ballot initiative to the wholesale murder of 10 million people is disgusting and not open to debate.

Thats not the case, Nazism was a cult of the political variety. I merely compared their structures not their actions. My point was that allowing sects to manipulate politics may land us in a similar situation Germany was in if left unchecked. All cults are totalistic and if one claimed dominion over the US the nation would become totalitarian like in Germany. Thats why I am stating that such fanatics should not be allowed to cheat democracy.

And this is another lazy shortcut that's become a problem in debate. Everyone assuming that Nazi = Holocaust when he was discussing how religious cults employ tactics similar to those used by the Nazi government when it came to power.

The lazy shortcut is comparing everything you don't like to the Nazis. There are 5 million Mormons in America. They are not cultists, fascists, or in any way like the Nazis.

The lazy shortcut is comparing everything you don't like to the Nazis. There are 5 million Mormons in America. They are not cultists, fascists, or in any way like the Nazis.

He mentioned "splinter groups" when referring to the Mormons who pushed for Amendment 8. Given that I've had to go up against people who paint Muslims as a terrorist network hivemind I'd be just as ready to clamp down on anyone who painted every single Mormon in a similar manner.

The lazy shortcut is comparing everything you don't like to the Nazis. There are 5 million Mormons in America. They are not cultists, fascists, or in any way like the Nazis.

Post #6 adresses this. As somebody who plans wants to be cult expert in the future I must be able to discern a cult from a mainstream religion. Many cults take cover and pretend to be Christian, Mormon ect in order to target unsuspecting minds. There are many sects that claim to be Christian but are far from it. As I said earlier I have nothing against the religion in general, just the cultists that use it's name as a mask in order to further their agenda.

Post #6 adresses this. As somebody who plans wants to be cult expert in the future I must be able to discern a cult from a mainstream religion. Many cults take cover and pretend to be Christian, Mormon ect in order to target unsuspecting minds. There are many sects that claim to be Christian but are far from it. As I said earlier I have nothing against the religion in general, just the cultists that use it's name as a mask in order to further their agenda.

And as someone who wrote a thesis paper on the rise of the Nazi Party, I can say that drawing a comparison between Prop 8 and Hitler is unwarranted and offensive.

And as someone who wrote a thesis paper on the rise of the Nazi Party, I can say that drawing a comparison between Prop 8 and Hitler is unwarranted and offensive.

Did you have to report the structure of of the Nazi party on how it operated?

Secondly I have told you multiple times, nazism is a sect and operates like one, since sects are totalitarian in nature a successful power grab by any sect would result in totalitarianism. The structures and ruthless power grabbing was all that was compared.

Did you have to report the structure of of the Nazi party on how it operated?

Secondly I have told you multiple times, nazism is a sect and operates like one, since sects are totalitarian in nature a successful power grab by any sect would result in totalitarianism. The structures and ruthless power grabbing was all that was compared.

My focus was on the seizure of power within a democratic system by a totalitarian minority party. My two main examples were the Nazi Party and the Czechoslovak communist party. Neither worked within the framework of the democratic system; they subverted it through force and deceit. History would have turned out differently if Hitler had just raised money to influence a democratic vote in Bavaria.

There's Warren Jeffs and his Talibanesque polygamist splinter group, but nobody has seriously tried to implicate them as being closer to mainstream Mormonism than is generally perceived.


Jeffs bunch are rogue Mormons, if you don't know that. There was an article in a Mormon magazine (local magazine) about the diffrence between them and other Mormons. When I have the time, I'll see if I can find a version of it online. If you wish to see how Mormons view this rogue counterpoint.

My dad is a conspircy buff, he thinks Bush went after Jeffs, to ruin Mitt Romney's chances at the presidency. He believes this due to partly due on how the law enforcers have acted in the past with it, in the past they left alone because states didn't have the resources to deal with all the kids and women who were in jail. But this is a side issue. My dad maybe just a nut.

I have personal issues with the LDS. I consider them WAY too involved in politics. I think their tactics for gaining converts in many different countries often borders on unethical. I find a lot of the business practices and political practices apparently approved by the church leadership to be definitely unethical. I find their social policies to be repugnant, and I find that, to my mind, they exhibit some pretty amazing hypocrisy in those social policies, considering their own history.

But I disagree with the description of the LDS as a whole as being cult-like. They do have one jaw-droppingly extreme example of a cult splinter group, but that hardly describes the whole church.

I wouldn't call my sentiment anger. I'm just disappointed that the Mormon Church is using it's influence to opress. I, foolishly, never expected them to do something as crude as support and help pass Proposition 8.

I dont blame the Mormons for Prop 8.


I blame the LDS Church leadership for promoting fear and bigotry, and I blame the idiots in Cali who bought it.

Mormonism? More like MORONism. Amirite? :p

They're obviously all on hallucogenic drugs. Look at their Church's initials. LDS. LSD? Clearly created by dyslexic hippies.

Mormonism? More like MORONism. Amirite? :p

Mormons aren't morons. This is the Mormon equivalent of the Vatican stepping on people's rights with politics.

It was an election. One side won, one side lost. If your side lost, get over it and start working on winning next time. That sure is a lot more productive than whining about how the Mormons affected the outcome and how we should burn the state on a march to the Great Salt Lake.

But that would take some real work. Much more than what most of you are willing to do, I suspect.

It was an election. One side won, one side lost. If your side lost, get over it and start working on winning next time. That sure is a lot more productive than whining about how the Mormons affected the outcome and how we should burn the state on a march to the Great Salt Lake.

Yep. And there is a whole thread dedicated to that.

But that would take some real work. Much more than what most of you are willing to do, I suspect.

Awwww. Myrmi is cranky.

Awwww. Myrmi is cranky.
Can't help it, some of you can't even be bothered to vote.

Can't help it, some of you can't even be bothered to vote.

Yep, who that has posted here didnt vote?


Just admit it. Youre bitching just for the sake of bitching.

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

I have yet to see evidence of this bigotry towards Mormons

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.

If you dont support the president youre unpatriotic and anti-American, remember?

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.
*snorts coffee out nose* HAHAHAHAHA!!! "Dark Lord"! Classic! :D

*snorts coffee out nose* HAHAHAHAHA!!! "Dark Lord"! Classic! :D

I do love the double speak of the right wing. When Bush fails to receive a popular vote win, and an electoral college victory comes down to a few thousand votes in florida, in a state with a dubious counting process, where his brother just happens to be governor...well the man was legitimately elected, and as president we must respect him.

But Obama sweeps the election with 7 million votes, and a 2:1 decisive trouncing in the electoral college...well that bastard just bought the election, he's not REALLY the president.

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.

It is not intolerant to call bullshit on stupidity. Being tolerant does not mean you have to accept other people's views or lifestyles as equally valid. It simply means that you do not seek to make them illegal. Which is what the LDS did, hence why they qualify as intolerant and us on the 'left' do not, as we're not arguing for banning the Church. kthxbai.

I do love the double speak of the right wing. When Bush fails to receive a popular vote win, and an electoral college victory comes down to a few thousand votes in florida, in a state with a dubious counting process, where his brother just happens to be governor...well the man was legitimately elected, and as president we must respect him.

But Obama sweeps the election with 7 million votes, and a 2:1 decisive trouncing in the electoral college...well that bastard just bought the election, he's not REALLY the president.

But...but...hes black! What dont you people get?

But...but...hes black! What dont you people get?

HOLY SHIT! Obama is black? Why did no-one in the media tell me this? I just thought he had a nice even tan.

I think some of the attacks on Mormons have gone too far. I objected strongly to the Nazi comparison.

But it takes some balls to support a multimillion dollar campaign to take away others' rights, and then cry discrimination when you get called bad names.

HOLY SHIT! Obama is black? Why did no-one in the media tell me this? I just thought he had a nice even tan.
You must listen to the Italian media. ;)

I think some of the attacks on Mormons have gone too far. I objected strongly to the Nazi comparison.

But it takes some balls to support a multimillion dollar campaign to take away others' rights, and then cry discrimination when you get called bad names.
Indeed. This, if nothing else, we can give to the LDS: They've got solid brass balls.

You must list to the Italian media. ;)

Yes, yes I do. Now, some might think that odd, but using his studly powers, Berlusconi built a giant transmitter so large that his TV stations can be received even on my TV in the UK :p

I think some of the attacks on Mormons have gone too far. I objected strongly to the Nazi comparison.

But it takes some balls to support a multimillion dollar campaign to take away others' rights, and then cry discrimination when you get called bad names.

You can't take away "rights" that don't exist in the first place. The fact that four black-robed arrogant sociopaths took it upon themselves to manufacture such a "right" out of thin air and their personal ideologies does not establish that "right." And now the people have bitch slapped those four idiots and regained control of their government, at least with respect to this particular issue. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012, we will also vote not to retain those four idiots.

California may be like a bowl of granola, but fortunately the nuts and flakes still outnumber the fruits.

I understand that the NSG community is angry at Mormonism because of their underhanded political move. But before you generalize you must realize that most if not all cults are like this. They are ruthless and annoyingly meticulous, they are not bound by morals, law or even their own health.

Now don't get me wrong, support resistance against destructive sects wholeheartedly yet at the moment it seems that NSG just isn't ready for a crusade against any cult for that matter.

First NSG must rid itself of cultist behaviors in order to be able to tackle a cult since unbias and truth are a cults two worst enemies.

Secondly after doing that one must research and study cults or else one isn't going to go far. Cults are annoying ridiculous and fighting one without beforehand research will prove to be cumbersome. Cultists are dedicated fanatics on nearly every level, this includes politics. Waving signs and protest will do little, it won't stop them from finding another way to cheat an election. Also this move will allow this movement to know how the enemy thinks which is ALWAYS an advantage.

Thirdly I'd like to add that this is just one example of cultist fascism influencing American politics. Cults in structure mirror Nazi Germany or Stalin's USSR, in fact those two are really good examples of what happens when a cult gets to have it's way with a nation and people for extended periods of time. Cults are like the diet version of those two dark regimes so to speak, true defenders of freedom will never allow the likes of them to control any democracy.

Thanks for your time.
Harmless extremism is fun,

Thanks for your time.

Jesus Christ, it's a ban on gay marriage, not authorizing T-4 euthanasia or the Nuremberg Laws. Sure, it's a terrible move and a step backward but you guys make it sound like you didn't expect these institutions to support it. I swear, some of the things said on here make them sound like the victims, and I can guarantee you these bans will never be repealed unless your arguments appeal to the majority of Americans.

I can guarantee you these bans will never be repealed unless your arguments appeal to the majority of Americans.

I hate agreeing with this sort of thing, but for once the anti-militant stance is right.

They win politically every time this is framed as a fight against religion. Any religion.

I think what's happening here is that some people who either have always had something against the LDS or something against religion in general are reacting to the shameful vote in California and the LDS's unethical (in my opinion) involvement with it by pointing and yelling something akin to, "See? See? That's what I've been on about! They have to be stopped and stopped now! They're a cult! They're crazy! They're out to oppress us!"

In fact, what they are is called American rightwingers. It is true that Mormons did not, by a long shot, make up a significant number of the ignorant bastards who actually cast those disgraceful votes. It is true, tragically, that the Mormons are far from the only American group consumed with unreasoning bigotry against gays, nor the only group in America that thinks they should have a vote on other people's rights or that their religion should form the basis of the law. The LDS is far from the one driving force behind this disgusting vote.

However, all that said, I also think it is true that the LDS overstepped its bounds and potentially violated the law concerning allowable church involvement in political issues and that an argument could be made that it should have its tax exempt status reviewed. I think that should definitely be done. And I do think they had a lot of damned hypocritical gall to do it. And yes, I would like to see something of an example made of the LDS, either in terms of their tax status or in terms of public condemnation, or both, because I think there is far too much blurring of the separation of church and state going on in the US and that many churches -- particularly fundamentalist ones -- are getting way too direct and high-handed in their political involvements. It's high time to refresh that separation.

But does any of that make the LDS a cult? No, it does not. And frankly, the arguments otherwise sound like demonization to me. All they are -- and by "they" I mean the particular LDS leaders who pushed for Prop 8; not all were in favor of it -- is a bunch of rightwing jackasses who decided they could get away with anything they liked to make society conform to their whims. For that, they deserve to get slapped back into their places, but that does not make them cultists.

You can't take away "rights" that don't exist in the first place. The fact that four black-robed arrogant sociopaths took it upon themselves to manufacture such a "right" out of thin air and their personal ideologies does not establish that "right."

Ignoring the rest... where do you think 'rights' come from, then?

I hate agreeing with this sort of thing, but for once the anti-militant stance is right.


I'm not convinced. I think maybe the reason we've not been winning hearts and minds is because we're seen as the passive, quiet side of the debate. That, and we're always fighting defence.

Maybe the time is right to make a splash. Maybe people will change their hearts and minds when we're filled with vim and vigour.

You can't take away "rights" that don't exist in the first place. The fact that four black-robed arrogant sociopaths took it upon themselves to manufacture such a "right" out of thin air and their personal ideologies does not establish that "right." And now the people have bitch slapped those four idiots and regained control of their government, at least with respect to this particular issue. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012, we will also vote not to retain those four idiots.

California may be like a bowl of granola, but fortunately the nuts and flakes still outnumber the fruits.

Prop 8 took away legal rights. That is a fact. You can't cover up a fact with a stream of insults.

I'm not convinced. I think maybe the reason we've not been winning hearts and minds is because we're seen as the passive, quiet side of the debate. That, and we're always fighting defence.

Maybe the time is right to make a splash. Maybe people will change their hearts and minds when we're filled with vim and vigour.
Ah, you mean like how the US has won hearts and minds by blowing the shit out of things?

Sorry, I don't see how angrily screaming is going to do much more than get the majority more entrenched.

Ignoring the rest... where do you think 'rights' come from, then?
As of January 20, 2009, they will come from our Dark Lord. *nod*
:hail:

I'm not convinced. I think maybe the reason we've not been winning hearts and minds is because we're seen as the passive, quiet side of the debate. That, and we're always fighting defence.

That may very well be true. I don't mean to challenge active, offensive tactics as such.

But a great deal of the popular appeal for same-sex marriage bans is the impression on the part of many religious people that the social left is trying to impose its non-traditional values on them, that same-sex marriage signifies some attack on their religious beliefs and their freedom to exercise their religion. We all know this is nonsense, part of the delusional caricature of Christianity as somehow being "oppressed" in this country, but it's a politically powerful message, and the best way to fight it is to prevent the same-sex marriage debate from being about religion: to emphasize that they and their church/synagogue/mosque/whatever can do whatever they please.

Attacking religious institutions for their stances on the subject is fairly clearly the wrong way to go about it. Whether it is genuinely "intolerant" in an important moral sense or not, we all know it will be portrayed that way, and by all the evidence such a portrayal works very well.

Ah, you mean like how the US has won hearts and minds by blowing the shit out of things?

Sorry, I don't see how angrily screaming is going to do much more than get the majority more entrenched.

I wasn't actually suggesting blowing the shit out of things, actually.

I was rather more thinking of young ladies throwing themselves in front of the King's horse... or (to a lesser extent) the civil unrest at the Stonewall Inn.

As of January 20, 2009, they will come from our Dark Lord. *nod*
:hail:

Literally 'lol'.

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes

Church Responds to Same-Sex
Marriage Votes

SALT LAKE CITY 5 November 2008 COMMENTARY

"Since Proposition 8 was placed on the ballot in June of this year, the citizens of California have considered the arguments for and against same-sex marriage. After extensive debate between those of different persuasions, voters have chosen to amend the California State Constitution to state that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Voters in Arizona and Florida took the same course and amended their constitutions to establish that marriage will continue to be between a man and a woman.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life — family, identity, intimacy and equality — stirs fervent and deep feelings.

Most likely, the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in this country.

We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

It is important to understand that this issue for the Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage — a union between a man and a woman.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

Before it accepted the invitation to join broad-based coalitions for the amendments, the Church knew that some of its members would choose not to support its position. Voting choices by Latter-day Saints, like all other people, are influenced by their own unique experiences and circumstances. As we move forward from the election, Church members need to be understanding and accepting of each other and work together for a better society.

Even though the democratic process can be demanding and difficult, Latter-day Saints are profoundly grateful for and respect the ideals of a true democracy.

The Church expresses deep appreciation for the hard work and dedication of the many Latter-day Saints and others who supported the coalitions in efforts regarding these amendments."

so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

...which same-sex marriage does not ever do.

If you want to have a "traditional family", go ahead. No one's stopping you, not even in MA and CT.

If you want to exercise your freedom of religion to not marry same-sex couples, go ahead. No one's stopping you, not even in MA and CT.

This is more of the absurd dishonesty that characterized their campaign in California.

Harmless extremism is fun,

Thanks for your time.

Don't threadjack, this is a discussion concerning potentially destructive and destructive extremism. You can discuss harmless extremism on a different thread.

Thanks but no thanks for your time. ;)

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

The question really is how the fuck would it?

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

Because any man who wants to marry a woman is not impeded in the slightest.

It is only "infringe[d] on" if part of the value of "traditional family marriage" is straight privilege: "Yay, our relationship still has a superior legal status to theirs!"

But that's obviously bigotry, and transparently a violation of equal protection.

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

'Traditional Family Marriage'.... for YOU... is one man and one woman.

One of the things churches seem to have forgotten (somewhat conveniently) is that the nuclear family is, for the most part, an extraordinarily new invention in our culture(s). A century ago, a 'traditional family' consisted of two married partners, their children, probably at least one set of parents of the couple, probably some brothers and/or sisters of at least one side of the marriage.

This 'one man one woman' family is largely revisionist bullshit.


But, to answer the other question - how wouldn't same sex marriage not infringe on it (sic)... quite simply, because what I do with my spouse, has absolutely no relation at all, to what you do.

My marriage ends with the partners involved in it, as will/does yours. Mine doesn't affect yours, yours doesn't affect mine.

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

Unless married couple stan and steve burst into the marital bedroom of these one man, one woman marriage and make the husband suck cock until he discovers he likes it, I'm not really sure how stan and steve infringe on anyone's marriage, any moreso than me watching ABC infringed on you watching CBS.

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes


So let me see if I understand this...

The LDS don't think they're bigots.

Is that about it?

Okay, well, thanks for letting us know that. Say, does that website say anything on the LDS stance on how wet water is?

Let me pose a rhetorical open question to the LDS:

If they're so supportive of equal rights for gays, why didn't they insist that the California constitutional amendment proposition contain clauses specifying a legal status for same sex couples, listing their legal rights (equal to that of hetero married couples) and setting forth a legal process for the state to recognize such couples?

Why did they get their followers to pony up more than 30% of the funding for a proposition that leaves gays with NOTHING, marriage rights-wise?

I'd just love to see an answer to that.

Why did they get their followers to pony up more than 30% of the funding for a proposition that leaves gays with NOTHING, marriage rights-wise?

They didn't. Same-sex couples in civil unions already have substantially equivalent legal rights in California. Prop. 8 did not affect that.

Traditional Family Marriage is that of one man and one woman. How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

I think you need to demonstrate, as has been asked, how it would affect religious marriage.

Good luck with that.

I think you need to demonstrate, as has been asked, how it would affect religious marriage.

Well, it might increase the temptation for closeted people in opposite-sex marriages.

But that's not really much of an argument for prohibiting it.

Why did they get their followers to pony up more than 30% of the funding for a proposition that leaves gays with NOTHING, marriage rights-wise?

It's not just gays. Even though I am heterosexual, I am just as barred from marrying another man as someone who would want to is.
I'm trying to think how to use that point in an argument without it failing miserably. I'm not sure I can.

I'm trying to think how to use that point in an argument without it failing miserably. I'm not sure I can.

Don't. In fact, don't even discuss that idea. Don't even suggest that there might be an equal protection argument from a gender stand point, not a sexuality stand point.

Seriously, nobody discuss it.

And nobody, nobody on this forum what so ever just so happens to be researching and writing a law review article on that exact subject and wants to get it finished before someone else takes the idea.

No, certainly not.

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible? As in a gay Prophet or something. Homosexuality was in fact a great sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as were other factors.)

It's not just gays. Even though I am heterosexual, I am just as barred from marrying another man as someone who would want to is.
I'm trying to think how to use that point in an argument without it failing miserably. I'm not sure I can.

True, though.

It discriminates mainly against gay couples, obviously... but it is just as punitive on straight people that might decide they want to marry one another. It discriminates based on sex, rather than orientation.

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible? As in a gay Prophet or something. Homosexuality was in fact a great sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as were other factors.)

David and Johnathan were a gay couple, and David is greatly cherished by Jehovah god.

Also - homosexuality wasn't the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as Jesus alludes to when he talks about towns being unwelcoming.

Homosexuality was in fact a great sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as were other factors.)

The great sin that destroyed them was not homosexuality, but inhospitably. For someone who claims to follow the bible, you don't know much about it, do you? To whit:

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
—Ezekiel 16:49-50

Don't even suggest that there might be an equal protection argument from a gender stand point, not a sexuality stand point.

I understand the logic of this--"Why can't men marry men if women can?"--but I have trouble buying it.

Most simply, laws banning same-sex marriage in no sense designate either gender as inferior to the other: they both are denied a particular right that is comparable to the one the other is denied, so as to enshrine opposite-sex relationships into the law.

That's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender.

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible?

If you want the Bible to rule your life, that's your business.

But do not try to make it rule mine.

The great sin that destroyed them was not homosexuality, but inhospitably. For someone who claims to follow the bible, you don't know much about it, do you? To whit:

Now this was the sin of Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.
—Ezekiel 16:49-50
Wasn't there also raping of angels? That's a good way to make God angry.

They didn't. Same-sex couples in civil unions already have substantially equivalent legal rights in California. Prop. 8 did not affect that.
"Substantially equal"?

Is that like "not equal"?

You know, the way separate but equal isn't equal, according to SCOTUS?

If these religious types wanted to claim the right to define marriage according to their standards, then they should have proposed an amendment to do away with state recognition of marriage of all kinds, across the board, replacing all "marriages" with "civil unions" from date of passage on. That way, they could claim the exclusive right to define marriage as a religious institution, by removing it from the purview of the state altogether. Thus, any couple, het or gay, could, if they wanted to, get a religious marriage from a church willing to give them one, and then go to the state just as they do now for a marriage license, but instead get their civil union papers, which would legally recognize them for the purpose of granting whatever rights and privileges California gives to couples who do that sort of thing.

That way, whatever rights the state grants would be granted equally to all citizens without discrimination, and the religios could keep marriage for themselves, all neat and sacred.

But they chose not to do that, didn't they? Nope, they chose to push gays back into their position of inequality.

The mormons must be destroyed! I'm prepared to have a holocaust against them if they don't get out of my country!

Wasn't there also raping of angels?

There was a threat of rape.

It says a lot about the Christian Right that they always emphasize the "homosexuality" part over the "rape" part.

I understand the logic of this--"Why can't men marry men if women can?"--but I have trouble buying it.

Most simply, laws banning same-sex marriage in no sense designate either gender as inferior to the other: they both are denied a particular right that is comparable to the one the other is denied, so as to enshrine opposite-sex relationships into the law.

That's discrimination based on sexual orientation, not gender.

The other way of looking at it though is to deny each gender a right, equally. A woman has the right to marry a consenting male of her choice, a man does not. Ergo the woman has a right the man does not. The converse is also true.

From a constitutional jurisprudence standpoint, it's easier to get a law declared unconstitutional for gender discrimination rather than sexuality discrimination

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible?
If we were to recognize only things that appear in the Bible, we wouldn't be having this discussion on an internet forum.

Is that like "not equal"?

You know, the way separate but equal isn't equal, according to SCOTUS?

Yes. But that wasn't your argument.

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible? As in a gay Prophet or something. Homosexuality was in fact a great sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as were other factors.)

That's not a thought, that's a stupid and invalid excuse.

Sin belongs to religion. In fact, sin belong to a specific religion. What is a sin to your religion is not a sin to your neighbors religion and for those like me, there is no such thing as sin. Apparently even within the christian religions (yes, there are more than one) same sex marriage and homosexuality are not always sins.

Furthermore, that has nothing to do with
How wouldn't same-sex marriage not infringe on it?

That is however a good example of how religion supports bigotry towards homosexuals.

Try again.

And what country is that?

Wasn't there also raping of angels?

Yes, the attempt to rape Lot's guests. Christian theology has tried to use that to say that it was for homosexuality (look, they wanted to have sex with other men!), and conveniently forget that the root of it was inhospitably, as trying to forcibly rape the tourists of your fair city is pretty damned inhospitable.

The attempted rape of the angels is used to show not that the residents were gay, but that they denied the basic civility and hospitality, things that were of paramount importance in the greek and jewish traditions, far more than stopping a dude from gettin' it on with another dude. As if god were more offended by the "wanting to have sex with another man" part more than "wanted to rape somebody" part. The fact that the religious right has turned a story about attempted rape, and the punishment therefrom into a lesson why god doesn't like consensual gay sex is sickening.

Don't. In fact, don't even discuss that idea. Don't even suggest that there might be an equal protection argument from a gender stand point, not a sexuality stand point.

Seriously, nobody discuss it.

And nobody, nobody on this forum what so ever just so happens to be researching and writing a law review article on that exact subject and wants to get it finished before someone else takes the idea.

No, certainly not.
Type faster. :D

A woman has the right to marry a consenting male of her choice, a man does not. Ergo the woman has a right the man does not. The converse is also true.

Couldn't it be argued that this is an equal right--"Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex"--that simply happens to take into account relevant difference?

From a constitutional jurisprudence standpoint, it's easier to get a law declared unconstitutional for gender discrimination rather than sexuality discrimination

I know. And, hey, however they pull it off, as long as they pull it off more power to them.

It's just that it's never struck me as a particularly good way of thinking about this sort of discrimination. Perhaps convenient against the "Gay people can marry people of the opposite sex, too" types, but not helpful to understanding the phenomenon of legal discrimination against same-sex couples.

The mormons must be destroyed! I'm prepared to have a holocaust against them if they don't get out of my country!

http://www.freewebs.com/willy_wonka_fan/20050705-johnnydepp.jpg

"You're Weird."

Yes, the attempt to rape Lot's guests. Christian theology has tried to use that to say that it was for homosexuality (look, they wanted to have sex with other men!), and conveniently forget that the root of it was inhospitably, as trying to forcibly rape the tourists of your fair city is pretty damned inhospitable.

That's what I figured, that rape superseded homosexuality as a no-no.
In fact, it doesn't say they were male angels, does it? I don't think angels even have gender.

Couldn't it be argued that this is an equal right--"Everyone can marry a person of the opposite sex"--that simply happens to take into account relevant difference?

One COULD, except for the fact that this specific argument was soundly rejected in Loving v. Virginia.

Yes, it's a good argument, just as, theoretically "everyone can marry a person of their own race" granted everyone the same right. SCOTUS didn't buy it then.

Yes. But that wasn't your argument.
Oh really? Do tell me what MY argument was. :rolleyes:

That's what I figured, that rape superseded homosexuality as a no-no.
In fact, it doesn't say they were male angels, does it? I don't think angels even have gender.

I'm fairly certain it states, but doesn't place much emphasis on, that they took the form of men.

@ Gauthier:
lol

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.

Dude, when did he become Obamamort, I mean "he who must not be named"? Or is it more along the lines of Darth Bama?

Type faster. :D

It's too late. As soon as I saw that I went through law school, joined my state bar, and have just submitted an article to the Columbia Law Review. Better luck next time, Neo Art.

The great sin that destroyed them was not homosexuality, but inhospitably. For someone who claims to follow the bible, you don't know much about it, do you?

You sound surprised,... Before I realized it was all BS, I had ministers and elders tied up in knots with their own holy books. This was when I was 12 or 13 so, it's not that difficult if you actually read it.

One COULD, except for the fact that this specific argument was soundly rejected in Loving v. Virginia.

Wasn't Loving based at least in part on the judgment that anti-miscegenation laws were designed to entrench white supremacy?

It would be hard to make the same case for gender classifications in marriage law.

HOLY SHIT! Obama is black? Why did no-one in the media tell me this? I just thought he had a nice even tan.

You must be Italian.

And what country is that?

What country is what? (Hint: include either a short quote or the name of the person you are responding to.)

Ignoring the rest... where do you think 'rights' come from, then?

My best guess is that he thinks they come from holy Jeebus.

What country is what? (Hint: include either a short quote or the name of the person you are responding to.)
Maybe he was asking about the country that just sideswiped his car.

Wasn't Loving based at least in part on the judgment that anti-miscegenation laws were designed to entrench white supremacy?

It would be hard to make the same case for gender classifications in marriage law.

That had more to do with the defeating of the "interest" prong. A state CAN deny equal protection given a sufficiently compelling reason. The court's finding in Loving was not so much that the laws were invalid because they were designed to do that, but they were invalid because they violated due process and equal protection, and the only justification for those laws was to promote and entrench white supremacy, which was hardly a sufficiently compelling reason to violate due process and equal protection.

So it's not exactly that the law was rejected BECAUSE it did that, rather, that the justification for such a law was found lacking.

Unless married couple stan and steve burst into the marital bedroom of these one man, one woman marriage and make the husband suck cock until he discovers he likes it, I'm not really sure how stan and steve infringe on anyone's marriage, any moreso than me watching ABC infringed on you watching CBS.

OK, that's enough gay porn for you Neo A.

It's not just gays. Even though I am heterosexual, I am just as barred from marrying another man as someone who would want to is.
I'm trying to think how to use that point in an argument without it failing miserably. I'm not sure I can.

What if you wanted official recognition of your status as hetero-lifemates?

Don't. In fact, don't even discuss that idea. Don't even suggest that there might be an equal protection argument from a gender stand point, not a sexuality stand point.

Seriously, nobody discuss it.

And nobody, nobody on this forum what so ever just so happens to be researching and writing a law review article on that exact subject and wants to get it finished before someone else takes the idea.

No, certainly not.

Well, if it makes you feel better you can use my suggestion in the law article you're obviously not writing. You have my permission.

Wasn't there also raping of angels? That's a good way to make God angry.

I'm kinda surprised the angels in question didn't do their Cuisinart impression with their flaming swords . . .

Unless that's actualy what made it go boom.

The mormons must be destroyed! I'm prepared to have a holocaust against them if they don't get out of my country!

And what country is that? Also, because of the Holocaust, such an event will never take place again. And when you say 'holocaust' I'm sure you mean genocide, but the religious term for it.

I'm kinda surprised the angels in question didn't do their Cuisinart impression with their flaming swords . . .

Unless that's actualy what made it go boom.

it was this guy:

http://thetvaddict.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/robertwisdom.jpg

I'm kinda surprised the angels in question didn't do their Cuisinart impression with their flaming swords . . .

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

Not quite as violent, but, well....

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

Not quite as violent, but, well....
I've had parties like that.

What if you wanted official recognition of your status as hetero-lifemates?

Unfortunately, "hetero-lifemates" sounds considerably gayer than "same-sex marriage."

Unfortunately, "hetero-lifemates" sounds considerably gayer than "same-sex marriage."

Unfortunately? You have no taste. :p

In any case, maybe you just want to be Parties A and B....

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they wearied themselves to find the door."

Not quite as violent, but, well....

You might not have noticed it in there...

"...smote the men... both small and great..."

The word that's being translated, can perhaps be translated much better as the gender ambivalent way we often use 'man' now (like 'man-kind'). Literally - the 'men of the town' are 'all the people of the town'. The 'both small and great' thing tells us that - not only are we not just talking men here, we're actually not just talking adults.

You have to be REALLY determined (and choose to really ignore the text, especially the native text) in order to read the sin of Sodom as being anything to do with homosexuality.

Wow, same sex marriage is going to destroy traditional marriage. May I ask, what about divorce? I think traditional marriage is pretty much on life support already. I think marriage is a complete joke because most of the people who supposedly believe in it take it so lightly anyway.
If homosexuals want to get married good luck to them. If heterosexuals want to get married good luck to them. The facts are that getting married means nothing unless you are ready to commit for life. In addition if you don't communicate and don't try relentlessly to make it work you should save time and effort and not get married.
I don't trust anyone enough to be married so I won't bother. To me the whole "defending traditional marriage" thing is lunacy. Homosexuals just want the same rights as the rest of us fools so let them have it.
As to where Humans get these rights some think they come from a God. I don't. I think if you got the power and the strength to stand for yourself, your ideals and the ones you love you can have whatever rights your willing to fight and die for. To hell with organized religion, to hell with the law, to hell with any bunghole (individual or in groups) that thinks they can tell you what to do.
Don't tread on me.
If you do me that courtesy I won't tread on you because I think people got to decide for themselves how they want to live and it's not my business to judge them.
Funny how many Christians forget the "Judge not less thou be judged" stuff. And for all those keeping score I am not a Christian or in any other organized cult. The nuns of Immaculate Conception beat that out of me a long time ago. I think for myself. I don't believe in any miracles except the ones God (who I think is the whole cosmos) gave us through science and mathematics. Otherwise it is a bunch of silly fairy tales that probably had some truth once but was blown out of proportion and mis-translated to the point of being garbage.
Now all you tribal shaman and you backwards fools who follow those foolish cults can damn me to hell, pray for my soul or do a fatwa on me if it will make you feel better cause it won't matter a lick to me.

As for anyone who wants to live their own way and have the guts enough to take their rights I say good luck to them and good day to you all!

P.S. Sorry about taking the topic on a joy ride. When I get my Irish up I tend to want to get it all out. Take that for what you will :)

I hate agreeing with this sort of thing, but for once the anti-militant stance is right.

They win politically every time this is framed as a fight against religion. Any religion.

True. While this is definitely a terrible decision, it should be framed in the context of denying rights and equal protection under the law, not as a religious matter. If you were to specifically delineate the terms of these laws so as to protect religious institutions from being forced to marry gay couples or to recognize them as valid within their religious sphere, I think you'd be able to overcome the majority of objections to gay marriage.

That's the thing; people aren't so much bothered by gay marriage as they are by the prospect of their church being forced to marry gay people and to recognize it as valid. That's an objection I can understand, but they need to understand that these laws will not threaten their religious institutions but rather extend equal rights to all people while still protecting the ability of religious institutions to discriminate within the framework of their beliefs.

Church Responds to Same-Sex
Marriage Votes

[quote]We hope that now and in the future all parties involved in this issue will be well informed and act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different position. No one on any side of the question should be vilified, intimidated, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

Wow that took balls. They told lies such as the public schools will start teaching the kiddies all about homosexual marriage.

Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong.

Eh? Denying the rights shared by hetros is not bigotry?

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.

Oh that makes it all better. Do they spend the same kind of money they spent on this bill to make sure hostility against gays doesn't happen?

Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.


So gay marriage is is an establishment of Religion? So when has a church been forced to marry gays? Hmmm what was that about misinformation?

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues.

And give all sorts of money to legislation. What other "morality" do they want to see legislated now that the door is open?

If anybody feels like lodging a complaint on their "tax free status"

http://lds501c3.wordpress.com/2008/10/29/how-to-file-an-irs-501c3-complaint/

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible? As in a gay Prophet or something. Homosexuality was in fact a great sin that resulted in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (as were other factors.)

Did you....did you ever even...read your own Holy Book?

No. No you probably did not. I have yet to meet a Christian who has.

Don't. In fact, don't even discuss that idea. Don't even suggest that there might be an equal protection argument from a gender stand point, not a sexuality stand point.

Seriously, nobody discuss it.

And nobody, nobody on this forum what so ever just so happens to be researching and writing a law review article on that exact subject and wants to get it finished before someone else takes the idea.

No, certainly not.

I think I may take this idea.

I think I may take this idea.I made mention earlier, perhaps on another thread, that implicit in terms of agreement/use for NationStates, all matters of intellectual property are negligible regarding poster opinions and materials and easily made usable by NationStates administrators and facilitators.

Did you....did you ever even...read your own Holy Book?

No. No you probably did not. I have yet to meet a Christian who has.
Well now you have, numerous times, backwards and forwards, and even side to side once just in case it said something interesting.

If you dont support the president youre unpatriotic and anti-American, remember?

And going to hell, according to a recent VP candidate's pastor - a comment she supported by her silence...

Well now you have, numerous times, backwards and forwards, and even side to side once just in case it said something interesting.

That seems to be a defining characteristic among the one's who don't drive me bananas.

Did you....did you ever even...read your own Holy Book?

No. No you probably did not. I have yet to meet a Christian who has.

We've got a few of them here. You can usually tell, because they tend NOT to be the ones who make the sort of comments that are doing your head in. :)

Ummm .... coming late to this thread, but anger towards Mormonism seems to be a bit knee-jerk.

It's America; America requires advanced citizenship to function best.

Regrets: there are more than a few people who want someone else or something to do their thinking for them -- a holy book, a charismatic religious leader who "interprets" the book, opinion polls, the daily horoscope or Cosmopolitan magazine. Why do you think that the "Eight Ball" toy is so popular?

There are people ("wolves"?) who knowingly exploit this "sheep and shepherd" phenomenon. The vast majority of Mormons probably like the security of having their lives dictated to them ... because they really do want to feel they are doing the right thing, and living an open-minded/independent judgment form of existential philosophy requires courage, especially in a modern, rapidly changing world.

Pity them instead of scorning them. They are broken as citizens, hobbled by their own indoctrination, as are all religious zealots. Belief is often just a politically correct term for delusion. (Either god talks to everyone, everyday, or not. Don't try to sell me that he had a private chat with the founder(s) of your religion and has nothing to say to anyone else.)

So I suggest that you recognize them for what they are -- deluded. A form of mental illness. Pathologically insecure. Kept 'busy as bees' in the hive by their masters to produce more honey tithed to the ward and motherhouse. Not worthy of your anger.

But learn from them. Those wolves use the economic success of their sheep. Fight $$ with $$, even if it seems an uphill battle.


And also take comfort; this discrimination isn't going to last, just keep speaking on topic honestly and with integrity. Old people die sooner rather than later. I wish it wasn't so, but old people afraid they are going to lose their homes -- or starve to death -- or be struck down by god -- will do silly things, things they haven't thought through since they were 20.

And it might turn out that Prop 8 wasn't a valid amendment anyway.

Dude, when did he become Obamamort, I mean "he who must not be named"? Or is it more along the lines of Darth Bama?

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

There was a threat of rape.

It says a lot about the Christian Right that they always emphasize the "homosexuality" part over the "rape" part.

Actually, might not have even been that. I'd have to find the source again, but I remember reading something that said the Hebrew verb used in the text actually means "to know", and is not the one that is euphemistically translated as "to know".

Actually, might not have even been that. I'd have to find the source again, but I remember reading something that said the Hebrew verb used in the text actually means "to know", and is not the one that is euphemistically translated as "to know".

No, the verb is right. We just don't know which version of it it's supposed to be.

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

What LOTR are you watching (because I know you cant read) were an oppresive dark lord is a symbol for anything but the Republica party?

Are you really claiming the side that is about protecting rights is the oppreive side? And the side thats about taking away rights is the good side?


And you called the CA Supreme Court judges sociopaths? Oh my.

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

I could have sworn that was an aspirin I took.

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

Why Do You Hate Freedom?™

:rolleyes:

Regardless of whatever theological differences I may have with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I stand foursquare with my LDS brothers and sisters against the hatred and lies of the left (who are "tolerant" of every single person who agrees with them).

And to the OP's proposal to eliminate "cults": you can start with the new cult of the Dark Lord that has seized control of the US.

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.


See the problem here is you've cast yourself in the role, apparently, of Frodo. But not only are you, almost certainly, overwhelmingly less attractive than Elijah Wood, but you're preaching a message of hate, bile, lies and bitter anger.

It helps that you have the charm of a cave troll.

I'm not one to try to act out my fantasy melodrama needs by comparing people I disagree with (like for example, half the entire fucking USA) to 2-dimensional embodiments of sub-human evil (unlike you), but it's obvious right away that your petty, angry bigotry places you firmly on the side of Tolkien's evil side.

See the problem here is you've cast yourself in the role, apparently, of Frodo. But not only are you, almost certainly, overwhelmingly less attractive than Elijah Wood, but you're preaching a message of hate, bile, lies and bitter anger.

It helps that you have the charm of a cave troll.

I'm not one to try to act out my fantasy melodrama needs by comparing people I disagree with (like for example, half the entire fucking USA) to 2-dimensional embodiments of sub-human evil (unlike you), but it's obvious right away that your petty, angry bigotry places you firmly on the side of Tolkien's evil side.

Given that New Mitanni was one of the biggest gloating cheerleaders for The Bushevik Revolution, seeing him bitch, howl and whine about the Obama Presidency is just a hilarious riot.

Given that New Mitanni was one of the biggest gloating cheerleaders for The Bushevik Revolution, seeing him bitch, howl and whine about the Obama Presidency is just a hilarious riot.

I admit the melodrama coming from him is, if not hilarious, amusing. His melodramatic rallying call "Fort Sumpter!", his braying about "I put my trust in the people... they let me down, now democracy and the USA suck!" and his ranting about "sexual deviants" were memorable. Casting himself in the lead role of Lord of the Rings just says it all.

it says New Mitanni is living in a fantasy world.

You can't take away "rights" that don't exist in the first place. The fact that four black-robed arrogant sociopaths took it upon themselves to manufacture such a "right" out of thin air and their personal ideologies does not establish that "right." And now the people have bitch slapped those four idiots and regained control of their government, at least with respect to this particular issue. Hopefully in 2010 and 2012, we will also vote not to retain those four idiots.

California may be like a bowl of granola, but fortunately the nuts and flakes still outnumber the fruits.

I personally think you're being rude Mitanni. Although I do agree with my LDS church's ideology, much to the chagrin of many people on the board. The fact is Prop 8 did pass and you rubbing it in is insulting and degrading to those who are against it.

You could easily state, I agree with prop 8, your stating you were with the LDS on this issue was enough to state your viewpoint. Instead you go on and on about it figratively rubbing the salt into the wound. Not to mention you seeming to think you're some epic hero out of a fictional text is laughable.

EDIT: Plus your moaning over a Obama presidency is laughable as well. Contrary to your belief the world isn't going to end.

It is a LOTR reference. BO = The Dark Lord. That goofball symbol of his = the Ring of Power. Wright, Ayers, Dorn, Pflager, Farrakhan, etc. = Nazgul. Obammunists = Orcs, Haradrim, Variags, Corsairs of Umbar, etc.

I see. I assumed you were just being racist, when in fact you're a delusional dork.

I see. I assumed you were just being racist, when in fact you're a delusional dork.

He's both really.

I personally think you're being rude Mitanni. Although I do agree with my LDS church's ideology, much to the chagrin of many people on the board. The fact is Prop 8 did pass and you rubbing it in is insulting and degrading to those who are against it.

You could easily state, I agree with prop 8, your stating you were with the LDS on this issue was enough to state your viewpoint. Instead you go on and on about it figratively rubbing the salt into the wound. Not to mention you seeming to think you're some epic hero out of a fictional text is laughable.

EDIT: Plus your moaning over a Obama presidency is laughable as well. Contrary to your belief the world isn't going to end.
New Mitanni knows no other way to express himself. He is best ignored, unless he says something too funny to ignore.

However, to bring this back to topic:

Tyger, I might suggest you could take this as a clue to understanding the anger against the LDS over Prop 8. It is the same anger that is directed against individuals like New Mitanni.

Take a good look at him and his ilk. When it comes to gay rights, they are your fellow club members, and there is that old saying, "You will be known by the company you keep."

It's just unavoidable. You cannot support the agenda of a New Mitanni and not be seen as being like New Mitanni. That's all there is to it. There's another old saying: "When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

It's one thing to hold a belief and want to live by it. But choosing the way to do that is an entirely different question. The LDS picked the wrong path. It picked the New Mitanni path. It was not the only path available. THAT is the cause of the anger, right there.

Heres a though, why aren't there same-sex couples in the Bible?
The relationship between David and Jonathan is described as explicitly as the authors could get without veering into soft porn.

Did you....did you ever even...read your own Holy Book?

No. No you probably did not. I have yet to meet a Christian who has.

I have...

They didn't. Same-sex couples in civil unions already have substantially equivalent legal rights in California. Prop. 8 did not affect that.You are mistaken. There is no such thing as "civil unions" in California. There is a "domestic partner" registry, which confers no legal rights but has some minor symbolic value and might convince an employer to give you joint insurance, if they are so inclined.

The anger towards Mormonism, their church, and those who supported Prop 8 is more than appropriate. They interfered with the state's constitution by using their funds to launch one of the most despicable propaganda campaigns in recent history in an attempt to sway voters to agree with them. They supported a proposition that strips away the rights of a minority they don't happen to like when that minority was doing nothing against them.

I already don't use products/services from any of the listed companies so I'm already boycotting them and urge other people angry over this to do the same. This is more than enough reason to have their tax-exempt status removed. As a Canadian citizen, I will be unable to send a message to the IRS about their interference with this travesty as much as I'd like to.

Luckily in my country they don't have this kind of influence to force a province or the country to write discrimination into its law.

Thank you.

New Mitanni knows no other way to express himself. He is best ignored, unless he says something too funny to ignore.

However, to bring this back to topic:

Tyger, I might suggest you could take this as a clue to understanding the anger against the LDS over Prop 8. It is the same anger that is directed against individuals like New Mitanni.

Take a good look at him and his ilk. When it comes to gay rights, they are your fellow club members, and there is that old saying, "You will be known by the company you keep."

It's just unavoidable. You cannot support the agenda of a New Mitanni and not be seen as being like New Mitanni. That's all there is to it. There's another old saying: "When you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas."

It's one thing to hold a belief and want to live by it. But choosing the way to do that is an entirely different question. The LDS picked the wrong path. It picked the New Mitanni path. It was not the only path available. THAT is the cause of the anger, right there.

Stop persecuting her for her beliefs!

Stop persecuting her for her beliefs!
Hehe, it will be good for her to start developing some callouses.

I personally think you're being rude Mitanni. Although I do agree with my LDS church's ideology, much to the chagrin of many people on the board. The fact is Prop 8 did pass and you rubbing it in is insulting and degrading to those who are against it.

You could easily state, I agree with prop 8, your stating you were with the LDS on this issue was enough to state your viewpoint. Instead you go on and on about it figratively rubbing the salt into the wound. Not to mention you seeming to think you're some epic hero out of a fictional text is laughable.

EDIT: Plus your moaning over a Obama presidency is laughable as well. Contrary to your belief the world isn't going to end.

Although you are right that New Mitanni is being rude -- deliberately and obnoxiously so --and you are right to disassociate yourself from him, you should take a page out of the book you keep preaching to us: put yourself in the shoes of those who are being denied fundamental rights and equal protection under the law. Is a polite bigot that wants to take away rights and equality really that much better than a rude one?

Wasn't Loving based at least in part on the judgment that anti-miscegenation laws were designed to entrench white supremacy?

It would be hard to make the same case for gender classifications in marriage law.

Actually, I don't read that as critical to the analysis in Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

Although the Court noted the "rational bases" that Virginia alleged justified the statute "endorsed the doctrine of White Supremacy," the Court then explained that the statute denied equal protection of the laws regardless. I think you are overreading a couple of passages.

The Court also separately held that anti-miscegenation laws violated the Due Process Clause.

Regardless, laws that deny same-sex marriage do reinforce gender classifications that are harmful to all genders. And they deny the fundamental right to marry.

And for those who don't consider marriage a right, would they accept a constitutional change that banned ALL marriage? I mean hey, it's no big deal, and you can still get a civil union - right?

The thing is the gay movement wants to define religous faith. Marriage to christians and jews is between one man and one woman. America is a christian-judaic society. But the gay movement wants more than something which is essentially the same but with a different name.

There are two opposite beliefs on marriage. one vote won but to the hardcore supporters on the other side that lost suddenly this isnt about democracy and public belief. It is just about theirs

The thing is the gay movement wants to define religous faith.

No, it doesnt. Show me one group that wants to make religions allow them to marry in their churches. Ill wait.


Marriage to christians and jews is between one man and one woman.

Good for them.

America is a christian-judaic society. But the gay movement wants more than something which is essentially the same but with a different name.

Marriage and civil unions are different.


There are two opposite beliefs on marriage. one vote won but to the hardcore supporters on the other side that lost suddenly this isnt about democracy and public belief. It is just about theirs

Its not about democracy and belief, youre right. Its about the Constitution, the law, and equality.

At one time, the vast majority of people were also against inter-racial marriage.

The thing is the gay movement wants to define religous faith.


Bullshit.

First - it's not a 'gay movement'. A lot of 'straight' people want equality for their 'gay' brethren and sistren.

Second - it's not about religious faith. Believe what you want, just don't impose YOUR religion on ME.


America is a christian-judaic society.


No, it's not. Absolutely not. Constitutionally, even.


There are two opposite beliefs on marriage. one vote won but to the hardcore supporters on the other side that lost suddenly this isnt about democracy and public belief. It is just about theirs

Pick a characteristic of yourself... one that probably represenst less than half the population.

For example - since women are estimated at about 52% of the population, if you are a man, you are already IN a slight minority.

Now imagine that that majority, decides to start removing the protections of the Constitution and Constitutional Amendments from you, based on that characteristic.


That would be 'democratic'. That would be 'public belief'


How would you respond?

There's Warren Jeffs and his Talibanesque polygamist splinter group, but nobody has seriously tried to implicate them as being closer to mainstream Mormonism than is generally perceived.

Of course the whole Proposition 8 brouhaha is a glaring example of Mormonism's hypocrisy as well as an example of how an abuse cycle works. Their history is about fleeing persecution and seeking out a place where they could practice their beliefs in relative peace. They find such a place in Utah, and then centuries later they indirectly oppress homosexuals by contributing to an amendment that takes away their right be a happily wedded family unit.

The FLDS is one scary group. It reminds me of "The handmaid's tale". Only thing I have against them is that pretty much it's a made up religion(1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_About_Mormons)) (2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement)), It used to be racist(Blacks and Native Americans couldn't join (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Racism)) and there tendency to want a 50's utopia. Other than that mormons are ok as long as you tell them that u don't want to join.

FLDS: Fundementalist Latter day saints. Not the mainstream Mormons

The thing is the gay movement wants to define religous faith. Marriage to christians and jews is between one man and one woman. America is a christian-judaic society. But the gay movement wants more than something which is essentially the same but with a different name.

There are two opposite beliefs on marriage. one vote won but to the hardcore supporters on the other side that lost suddenly this isnt about democracy and public belief. It is just about theirs
Amazing. There is not one accurate statement in that entire post.

1) There is no "gay movement." There are a lot of people very seriously concerned with civil rights, and at the moment they tend to focus most on equal rights for gays because gays are currently the most actively oppressed minority in the US. But that's not a "gay movement."

2) Nobody wants to do anything with your precious religious beliefs. Get over it. Nobody cares what you believe. We don't care so much that we don't want to even hear about it -- especially not in our state constutions.

3) No, the US is NOT a "christian-judaic society" (and believe me, I know plenty of Jews who would also like to know where you got that notion).

4) What gays want and what heteros who believe in equality and civil rights also want is for everyone who lives a "married" life to get the SAME legal protections from their government, whatever those might be. That is not currently the case. Separate but equal is not equal -- especially when it really isn't equal.

5) The gays are permitted to want equal protection under the law. You don't get to criticize them for wanting equality. You also don't get to claim ownership of the word "marriage" for your religion.

6) There are more than two opinions about marriage, my friend. And I don't know what planet you're from, but on Earth, democratic processes are never really over. Prop 8 is only a temporary setback.

7) And while we're at it, let me pick this bone: Referring back to your crack about wanting to redefine religious belief -- you've got some nerve, you know that? There are plenty of churches and religions that most certainly do accept, allow and recognize same sex marriage. You don't get to wish them out of existence by claiming that it is "religious belief" in general, as if that describes just one thing, that some imagined boogeyman wants to mess with. The only one trying to define other people's religious beliefs around here is you, from my point of view.