The Mormon backlash
I have never met a Mormon I did not hugely like.
Well, alright, the presidential candidate fellow was a touch reserved when I had a sandwich with him and his jolly Welsh wife many moons ago in Des Moines, but he had his reasons for caution and he certainly was not hostile.
Normally, a Mormon is a decent person, that is my experience.
And none more so than the amiable Michael Otterson, who speaks for the church - and with whom I have had many dealings over the years.
What a surprise then, this terrible mess where the church appears to have got itself into the position of enemy-in-chief of gay liberty, as one might put it and is now facing a backlash far more potent and worrying than the low-level nastiness about Mitt Romney's religious views.
The case against the church is made with typical cogency and passion by Andrew Sullivan (whose experience of Mormons appears to have been been at odds with mine) but it seems to me that a wider, dispassionate view of the spat suggests that gay people will win - history is on their side.
The Mormon church itself - let us be blunt - did not do much for monogamous marriage in the early years of its existence; Mormons did not think much of black people until God told them (in 1978!) to change their ways. In the long term, He will be back...
Hello, I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~05~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
They are nice as individuals, yes.
For accurate information about the beliefs of the lds church see
Complain about this comment
They are nice as individuals, yes.
For accurate information about the beliefs of the lds church see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Well of course marriage should be between a man and a woman; who go to Vegas, get drunk, stand in front of an Elvis impersonator, and then get it annulled just as soon as they sober up, truly a sacred instutution!
Complain about this comment
Normally, a Mormon, is a decent person? I never met Normally.
Complain about this comment
while i don't agree with proposition 8 and i think that anyone should be free to marry anyone else campaigners shouldn't blame the Mormon church that a majority of californians passed it.
Complain about this comment
There are plenty of christians out side the LDS, who consider gay marriage an assault on an ancient and commonly held tradition.
If Gays and Lesbians had been patient they might have gotten legal equality in under the law through civil unions, without offending common Religious mores of the heterosexual majority.
Activist judges tried to legislate from the bench and ram their agenda down the throat of Californians, but the will of the people won out in Proposition 8.
The Mormons are not the only church against gay marriage. They are simply the richest contributors to the cause.
Complain about this comment
Yes, Mormons are generally nice people.
Like many other ex membes I consider their faith a cult. They subscribe to a belief which teaches belief in God and an eternal family, bound together by temple rituals, which must be undertaken posthumously for those who have not benefited from Mormon baptism and temple marriage in their lifetimes.
The church prescribes every aspect of marriage and family life, the belief being that parents go on to become Gods in the afterlife, and that women in heaven spend eternity pregnant or giving birth.
It is a religion which preaches male dominance, which until recently denied full participation to blacks, which opposes abortion rights. It excommunicated women in the 1970's for campaigning for the Equal RIghts Amendment to the American Constitution.
Most objectionable, in my opinion, is the Churches doctrine of 'milk before meat'. It withholds some teachings, deliberately, from people investigating the church with a view to baptism, and even after baptism.
That is why I posted the address of a website containing information about the lds church.
The church stresses fellowship and social activity, in a way which isolates its members from the general community, and which makes it difficult to leave.
The church itself dictates its members political views, and tends towards right wing republicanism.
Complain about this comment
luacene,
Why not? The LDS pumped vast amounts of money into an utterly dishonest and bigoted campaign. Blacks got civil rights in the USA because the cost of anti-black bigotry was increased until the bigots (such as the LDS) knuckled under. Defeating anti-gay bigotry demands the same approach. The LDS have got it coming to them; make an example of them. Demos, lawsuits, mockery of their ludicrous doctrines, sending their missionaires away with a flea in the ear and telling them why - any peaceful means. Force them to see they made a big mistake, and make other churches think twice before they do the same.
Complain about this comment
I’ve never understood why organized religion in the US is so in your face when it comes to legally banning behavior they don’t agree with—if their faith is true, God will surely strike down all the naughty gays who get married and the legislators who make it possible.
As vile as it is that gay men and women are still fighting for civil rights in 2008, I can’t help but be amused that the already unpopular and easy to vilify Mormons are being targeted because politically correct gay activists dare not confront the groups who really engineered this backward step—African American and Hispanic voters!
Complain about this comment
Mormons have quite a large stigma here in the U.S. If someone mentions they are Mormon to a non Mormon, usually you see an eyebrow raise. I have met many normal very nice Mormons that I have considered friends. Having said that, I would like know why it's okay for some of the religious sector of America to push all their views on the rest of America? The Mormon Church pumped millions of dollars into prop 8. Maybe they should pump millions into charity instead. They should lose their tax exempt status for this. I know they lose it for choosing sides in a political campaign, but this should count as well. This is like banning interracial marriage; it's totally unfair and unconstitutional. Discrimination isn't okay in some circumstances, it's never okay.
Complain about this comment
dceilar(from previous thread):
The Geneva Convention, The Law of Armed Conflict, and The Uniform Code of Military Justice do not prohibit the US from using cluster bombs.
So how exactly are they illegal?
Complain about this comment
#6 Rueben34g:
"If Gays and Lesbians had been patient they might have gotten legal equality in under the law through civil unions, without offending common Religious mores of the heterosexual majority."
thing is that when it comes to Civil Rights patience often eqautes to the preservation of the status quo. There is no reason for change to occur without pressure being applied.
Also if these chruches are so concerned about preserving the sanctity of marriage why not take on Las Vegas or liberal divorce laws? Surely those are far more damaging to the institution than a few gay couples?
Complain about this comment
I was engaged to marry a Mormon in 1999.
I really liked her, she had a fun kind of wackiness. And then I went to church with her. After that her wackiness wasn't so amusing, and while she seemed to have a lot of the same values that I do, I no longer thought of her as suitable mate.
Maybe that's why I broke up with her, re-united a couple of years later for one date, and then broke up again.
My only regret is that I didn't have the tact to break up nicely.
Complain about this comment
#11 Reuben34g:
"dceilar(from previous thread):
The Geneva Convention, The Law of Armed Conflict, and The Uniform Code of Military Justice do not prohibit the US from using cluster bombs.
So how exactly are they illegal?"
Here's a suggestion, if anyone wants to carry on this discussion go back to the previous thread or start one on a blog of your own, quit hijacking threads and burying them in this endless rubbish.
Complain about this comment
When organized religion enters the political wars, it can't claim refuge for its behavior under a cloak of sanctity.
Other conservative religious bodies worked on and funded the Prop 8 initiative, in addition to the Mormon church. What they have in common is the assertion that their faith justifies and demands this behavior. No doubt some are sincere in that belief. But many were equally sincere in their belief 200 years ago that God made black people to be slaves of white people
People can believe many strange things, even things that are wrong.
Complain about this comment
I like Mitt Romney. I miss the fights he and McCain used to have in the presidential debates.
"How is it Senator, that you're suddenly an expert on MY policies?"
Governor Mitt Romney, CNN Reagan Library Debate
"You should save your money for your kids inheritance."
Senator John McCain, CNN Reagan Library Debate
ah... memories.
Complain about this comment
The Mormons should remember their fight for freedom. What I can't understand is why do these Right-wing Christians want with so many sinners in Heven. If they keep on proteletizing Heven will be full and Hell will be empty.
The secret of America's greatness has always been to accomodate and tolerate difference. Of course there has always been the occassional lynching, but that goes with the territory. However beginning in 2000 the US became a Theocracy, which had its beginnings in 1978. This means that we have been fighting our own 30 Years War without let-up since.
The American War of the Roses has to be settled before we have to hit the bricks like in the 1960. African Americans have to understand that differences have to be protected and that every public right is a Civil Right. Right and race are not twins, but Right and Civil are.
Let the Mormons morm and the Quakers quake and the Baptist dance and the Holy Roller shout; But like Langton Hughes said, LET AMERICA BE AMERICA AGAIN.
Complain about this comment
#9 I too have noted this occurrence. I was amazed to see a man on TV in Southern California, so excited to vote, yet so ready to extinguish the rights of someone else.
I am am married and have children within the Latino community and surprised at the blatant religious fervor that seems to teem just under the surface.
Maybe some rights are more important than others???
There is a story about crabs in a bucket, when one makes it to the tops one comes along to pull it back down.
The crabs never leave the bucket.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Here's the democratic backlash. Well wrist slap, apparently.
This is probably #43 in the list of things I just don't get about the US political system. My thank (to Gary, mostly) for those who have explained so far.
Lieberman last ran as an independent, as he was dumped by the democrats. So how does he get hauled in front of the Dems to explain himself?
How are the chairs of all the committees decided? Is it really something as simple as years served? If so, it seems to fly in the face of what I thought the US stood for - meritocracy over old-fashioned first born (longest serving) succession.
Complain about this comment
Mormons are highly discriminatory. Try reaching the top of the heap in areas dominated by Mormons.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Our pastor recently commented on the culture war in a way that was not overly religious. To paraphrase: Progressives see adult freedoms as the most important part of a modern society because society exists for adults to self-actualize. Traditionalists see society as having responsibly to raise the next generation to be better than them; society exists for the children and adult freedoms that do not foster the betterment of children have no place in civil society.
Complain about this comment
jimjoy,
Sorry to break it to you, but your pastor was talking a load of hooey, as pastors are wont to do. One of the ways I want the next generation to be better than the current one is to be free from anti-gay bigotry.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Justin. I appreciate the kind words. I'm a Mormon and it's nice to hear we're at least likable by some. Can't please everybody of course, but we'd like to be given a chance.
It'll probably never make it to world news anywhere, but in the western US, there's been a rash of aggressive protesting and even vandalism of LDS church buildings since proposition 8 passed. It's sad that those screaming for their "rights" are willing to harrass and trample on the rights of others.
My only beef with gay "marriage" is that it isn't marriage. Men and women are different. A relationship between a man and a woman is just plain different than the relationship between a man & a man. So let's not call it marriage, because it's NOT the same. For me, its simply an issue of syntax.
I do support all insurance, hospital visiting rights, etc. for gays. I'd be really in favor of civil unions with all the rights of a married couple, I'm just not comfortable with the relationship being called a marriage.
Complain about this comment
Apparently it's not ok to be a bigot against gays, but a lot of people have no problems being bigots against mormons.
Thanks Justin. I appreciate your kind words - I'm a Mormon and it's nice to hear we're at least likable by some. Can't please everybody of course, but we'd like to be given a chance.
It'll probably never make it to world news anywhere, but in the western US, there's been a rash of aggressive protesting and even vandalism of LDS church buildings since proposition 8 passed. It's sad that those screaming for their "rights" are willing to harrass and trample on the rights of others.
And as for ex-members trying to tell the world what our church teaches, I wouldn't recommend it as a reliable source of information. Would you ask an apostate Catholic what the Catholic church teaches?
Complain about this comment
oooh, i got 2 comments for the price of one... oops. I got an error the first time, so I shortened my comment and resubmitted. Looks like the first made it in anyway.
Complain about this comment
Don't make the Mormons the scapegoat for some gay activists deplorable behavior after questions 8 passed.
I am saying this as someone who has no problem with gay marriage. It's none of my business.
But the extremists have gone into several different churches and disrupted services. They have no tolerance for other points of view.
Complain about this comment
Nobody, I repeat nobody, has a "right" to get married. State sanction of marriage has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with simple public policy. We, the overwhelmingly heterosexual public, have, for the past six thousand years (and certainly longer, but I'll limit myself to the written record), chosen to acknowledge and incentivize men and women building strong, stable families that produce children to further our society. Even those couples that are barren are upholding the institution on which the propagation of our civilization depends. Human biology and the interests of the community together defined marriage a long time ago.
For homosexuals to now come and say that we are denying them the "right" to get married, is like someone being turned away from a soccer game because he insists on using his hands and then saying he's being denied his "right" to play. That's just not how the rules of the game work.
Complain about this comment
I do not understand the civil union vs marriage arguement for gay and lesbian couples. Can someone explain this to me? It's just a word...marriage is just a word. So, I can understand it from both points as far as civil unions go and marriage. But, I think too much emphasis is being put on a word. It's amazing that this whole issue boils down to something as simple as a word (looking at both the arguements of those who prefer civil union and those who prefer the word marriage). From a personal aspect, it amazes me how important simple symbols are; such as an 8 letter word. However, religion does not own the word marriage. I do agree that reciprocated bigotry agaisnt religious folks is not a way to get people to empathize with your cause.
Complain about this comment
why is it that people think it's ok to have a vote to decide how someone else wants to live their life? then when the outcome goes to their favor, and people negatively react, all the sudden there's a "wow-factor"? shouldn't the law not have even been considered to be one in the first place?
here's another fun story:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/17977308/detail.html
feel free to read the responses! there's a treasure trove of beautiful quotes ripe for the copying and pasting! regardless, there are multitudes of christian-related billboards throughout america, and there's no backlash that ever occurs; however, an atheist group wants to put up a billboard, and it makes the cnn news.
i've read on justin's forum, as well as other online forums, from certain christian individuals that they are getting upset at the idea that it's ok to point jokes at them. however, if certain religious groups/individuals don't/didn't want rebuke, maybe they shouldn't involve themselves in other people's lives.
just a thought.
Complain about this comment
31. At 04:31am on 19 Nov 2008, hontogaijin wrote:
"however, if certain religious groups/individuals don't/didn't want rebuke, maybe they shouldn't involve themselves in other people's lives."
Good call, but that's not going to happen. How could life be rewarding if you don't try to legislate every microscoptic part of everyone's lives?
Complain about this comment
29, racebrutton.
I agree with your stand on gay marriage. I think it is ridiculous and feel it is largely an effort to gain respectibiility. I support gay rights, just not gay marriage.
Don't all yell at me at the same time.
Complain about this comment
33, allmymarbles:
I don't want to yell at you. So please don't read any of this as yelling.
What's wrong with an effort to gain respectability? In our society, the best way to safeguard our rights is to be respected by our peers.
Related to that need for respect is the notion that separate-but-equal does not work. If same-gender couples are given a "union" as a replacement for "marriage," it puts their legal protections in jeopardy.
What if someone decides that people in "unions" don't have the right to make medical decisions for their partner, or don't have the right to custody of their child?
By separating "unions" from "marriages," we allow society to strip away rights from "unions" without affecting "marriages"---so the straight people are safe, and the gay people are in a terrifying legal limbo.
The right to marry is not about the word "marriage." The right to marry means:
1. The right to be the one to make medical decisions for your love.
2. The right to raise a child, and not have her taken away by legal force.
3. The right to be recognized by the government as someone in the same financial position as a straight married couple.
4. The right to any other legal, governmental protection that other married couples have.
5. To have no fear that these rights will be taken away.
It's not about co-opting your religion or your ideals. It's about making sure gay people have the same chances for happiness that straight people do---the same chance to achieve the universal American dream. It's about not living in fear. It's about respect.
Complain about this comment
20, seanspa.
Lieberman probably considers himself a Democrat. He lost the Democratic primary (against a very weak opponent) in Connecticut because he was outspokenly in favor of the war in Iraq while his Democratic constitutents were staunchly against it.
Lieberman then ran as an independent. He won the election, largely through Republican crossover votes. By some peculiar reasoning, Lieberman felt betrayed by his party. (It never occured to him that his Democratic constituents might feel he betrayed them.) Back in the Senate he palled with Republican hawks, notably McCain, and ultimately campaigned against the Democrats.
He has his committee chairmanship largely through seniority. (It is because Hillary Clinton is a junior senator that can not get a plumb chairmanship.) As to why they have not taken the committee from him, there are several reasons, the most important of which is that the Senate wants him to vote with the Democrats. I am sure this has been made plain to him. If he is a bad boy no doubt they will take action.
Complain about this comment
34, Iris.
You are equating gay marriage with respect. What I actually said was that it was a desire for respect, which is not the same thing. If marriage conferred respect, and living together without marriage didn't, then there are a hell of a lot of heterosexual couples out there who are not respected. It doesn't wash. In fact fewer and fewer heterosexuals are getting married which rather proves my point.
As for caring for each other medically, a simple legal document can take care of that.
I said I thought gay marriage was ridiculous. If there were a referendum in my state I would vote against it. Would I vote against gay rights, other than marriage? No.
Complain about this comment
#21, Ms. Marbles, the top of the heap is overrated.
If most people at the top of the heap understood
what was under their feet, they would jump off.
Complain about this comment
37, guns.
I have not spoken with you for some time. I missed you.
Complain about this comment
Ms. Marbles, what would we do without a little
sanity?
Complain about this comment
You know, Ms. Marbles, someday God is going
to create a gay Mormon legislator, and confuse
the heck out of a lot of folks.
Complain about this comment
@ #29:
"For homosexuals to now come and say that we are denying them the "right" to get married, is like someone being turned away from a soccer game because he insists on using his hands and then saying he's being denied his "right" to play. That's just not how the rules of the game work."
Your analogy implies sexual orientation is a *choice* (i.e. the player 'chooses' to use his hands instead of his feet), which is NOT true, and which nobody seems to get (just like you can't choose the colour of your skin). Little wonder then that they voted the way they did.
Complain about this comment
39, guns.
"Ms. Marbles, what would we do without a little sanity?"
This is the first time I have ever been accused of being sane.
40, Guns.
"You know, Ms. Marbles, someday God is going to create a gay Mormon legislator, and confuse the heck out of a lot of folks."
The Morman religion is so goofy anyway that a little more goofiness won't be noticed. Would he be allowed to be polyandrous, do you think? That should fit right in.
Anyone who takes hombrage at my calling Mormonism goofy, should know I think all religions are goofy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
42, addendum.
The last sentence is equal-opportunity bias.
Complain about this comment
Chary8,
I will grant you that, for some small portion of the homosexual population, it is probably not a choice. They are people who have an entirely natural urge (an instinct to sexual activity), but in whom that natural urge is directed toward an unnatural object (a person of the same sex). I sympathize with their condition, like I do with that of people suffering from pica (a condition in which hungry people compulsively eat stones). They deserve our compassion and our help.
However, the LGBT movement, by its conduct, convinces me that, for many, it is indeed a choice. Why else do I hear so many homosexuals boast about their having "turned" straight people? Examine the writings of Oscar Wilde or Charles Baudelaire, among many others; their homosexuality was most definitely a consciously chosen form of protest against the morality and political structure of bourgeois society. They admitted as much. Finally, turn to the ancient Persian chroniclers of the 5th and 4th centuries BC who record that sodomy was unknown in their country until it was "introduced" by Greek traders.
Today, homosexuality has become an acceptable form of social protest, actively encouraged in Newberry-award winning literature as a path to self-discovery. Katy Perry hit number one on the charts in the US and the UK with a song about a homoerotic encounter with her "experimental game". "Just human nature," she says. If it isn't learned, how is it promotable?
Complain about this comment
@ 45:
"I sympathize with their condition, like I do with that of people suffering from pica (a condition in which hungry people compulsively eat stones). They deserve our compassion and our help."
Nobody needs your 'compassion' or 'help' or understanding. Just like your personal opinion on my brown skin should not matter legally (unless you get really nasty about it), your personal opinion on someone else's love life shouldn't either. Your personal prejudices (which you are more than welcome to keep) should never be grounds for discrimination.
Turning straight people gay LOL!! I'm speechless! :-))
Complain about this comment
36, allmymarbles
First of all, alot of people don't respect unmarried couples. The government doesn't, certainly.
You did not address the financial implications, and even more importantly you did not address child custody issues.
If there is a legal document that makes your unmarried partner have the right of consent on medical decisions when the other partner is unconscious, then I am unaware of it. Please enlighten me---tell me how to get this document, and how to make sure that doctors, in the heat of the moment, are aware of its existence.
While you may vote for other gay rights, other people might not. Unions can never be *guaranteed* equal to marriage, which is why they are merely a stopgap measure.
Despite your relative logic, and absence of evident hatred, you have not articulated a coherent position that indicates why gay marriage is ridiculous---and, more to the point, why you would vote against it even if you believe it is frivolous (if it's important to some people, why does it bother you?).
I will add: You can marry someone you love, if you're straight. I can't marry someone I love, if I'm gay. Marriage DOES confer respect, to some people, whether you agree with those people's ideals or not. It DOES legitimize, in the strange eyes of society, love, whether you think society is being silly or not. If I'm together with someone 20 years, is it not strange that I cannot think myself married?
Complain about this comment
45, Racebrunton.
I agree that a proportion of homosexuals are simply born that way, but that perhaps a larger proprtion adopt that life style by choice. The causes are complicated. For some it is very fashionable, but other factors are at work.
The family unit gets smaller and smaller. People divorce or never marry in the first place leading to single-parent homes. The number of children in a family has decreased.
Homosexuals often do not have permanent partners and generally do not have chidren, so they are reduced to a family of one. I wonder if homosexuality isn't in part due to nature's way of controlling overpopulation, a need to insulate yourself from the mass of humanity.
Complain about this comment
47, Iris.
No, I did not address any of those questions because they are irrelevent. These are merely arguments advanced to justify gay marriage. To my way of thinking gay marriage is, of itself, ridiculous, which makes any arguments in its favor meaningless.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles, 49 (and keeping in mind the first paragraph of 48),
Okey dokey. o.O
Complain about this comment
Children are raised that at one point in their lives, they will meet someone they want to spend the rest of their lives with. That person they want to marry, because its all they have ever known, and as they grew up, they saw married couples everywhere. Not to mention the minor details that people are choosing to ignore/disregard on all those little legal powers over your immediate family, or federal programs you can apply for, when you are married.
Personally in how marriage is treated in the past century, they need to scrap the whole concept. Or at least strip it of every legal benefit it currently bestows, and move that into a civil "marriage". I use the word marriage because its the concept behind the idea, marriage as it is meant to be is becoming a mockery of what it is intended to be, due to the ease it you can get married by either a priest, or a court clerk, and then the ease of its removal which doesnt require a high ranking priests approval to dissolve.
Complain about this comment
Sigh, allright, my last post, allmymarbles:
Regardless of whether you feel gay marriage is ridiculous or not, and regardless of why, my arguments matter. My arguments are not abstract. They are about real people in horrible situations. And you---your opinion---are the reason they are in horrible situations.
Go to the wikipedia page on "Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States." Civil marriage is not an abstract thing. Every one of those rights, every one of those safeguards, every one of those testaments to the value of love in our society---you risk denying every one to a loving couple. To real people. Real people who will not have all those rights guaranteed in civil unions. Real people who are just like you. Who want to love, and to live well and safely.
You can say you're in favor of gay rights, but you're the one denying the rights that a marriage grants a couple.
You, because every vote counts.
You
Are hurting real people.
It's not about you not being able to wrap your head around gay marriage. That's okay. I can almost, if not quite, understand that. You don't need to understand homosexuality.
It's not about that.
It's about you hurting people.
Denying them help they need.
Denying them acceptance and love and respect they need.
Hurting them.
I'm sure you have a good argument in response. I'm sure you believe you aren't hurting people. Don't bother typing it out---I've heard it. Have a nice life
Complain about this comment
Mormons are nice people, when they stand at your front door, smartly dressed in identical suits. It's just that their teachings are bizarre, having no basis in the Bible, or in history. They are not Christian in any orthodox way. What troubles me is why these people come over to the UK to try to push their weird ways on us Brits.
Complain about this comment
Just because Mormons do their best to come across as decent fellows doesn't mean they are. Every time the BBC reports on Mormons, I am shocked to see how they copy Mormon press releases verbatim without ever checking the facts.
Frequent examples? The Mormons "are the world's fastest growing church", they "make substantial contributions to humanitarian aid" and above all, "they number 13 million believers worldwide".
That, to use their alternative profanities, is pigeon crap! Even in small-town Utah, where social control is still strong, less than 40% of the people this sect claims as "members" ever still visit their church. Outside North America, the figures are typically below 1%!
But to this cult, once a member, always a member. Until you are buried in their church, or "presumed dead" 110 years after your date of birth.
Apart from LDS dot org, perhaps the BBC should also consult exmormon dot org once in a while...
Complain about this comment
To Highly_Honoured (53)
When Mormon Missionaries stand on your doorstep, tell them you are a Catholic. They go. You do not have to say what sort of a catholic you are!
Now I live in Spain I an a member of my local parish church, which is naturally Catholic. Nobody has ever tried to push dogma or doctrine onto us.
For what it is worth, I give you two Catholic quotes:
On same sex marriage when it was legalized in Spain. "It is not going to make anyone become homosexual. I have no problem with that" by the former abbot of the most important monistary in this part of Spain.
On the ordination of women in the Church of England on what then them Pope would think about it. "Humm - he is a Pole. He can think what he likes". said by a French Catholic nun in full habit and garb at a joint church supper.
Complain about this comment
These religious types would get more respect from me if they cared as much for the poor and for peace as they do for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion. They seem to be full of hate.
Why can't they be anti-poverty and anti-war? I suppose that would be too Christian! Until then they have nothing to say
Complain about this comment
Andrew Sullivan posts a list of all the organisations and individuals who have contributed more than $5,000 to the Yes on Prop. 8 vote and the largest single donation comes from the Knights of Columbus (which acts as the political arm of the Catholic Church).
I wish someone could explain to me why it is that the two Churches, Mormons and Catholics, who both have recent and well-publicised problems with families and children, should be the ones who interfere the most in politics in an attempt to enforce their views on peoples' lives.
Complain about this comment
Old Man Mike
You confirm my belief that European Catholicism has largely developed a healthy scepticism towards the narrow-mindedness of the Vatican.
Complain about this comment
To #57, eightypercent,
Because its God's will? God told them?
"I don't mind God, it's the fan club I can't stand"
Putting aside my reservations about religion/cults/extremists, why don't they just let homosexuals get married? What is the worst thing that can happen?!?! Those that are gay go to hell? The religous worshippers go to hell because they didn't try and stop it? Comon people this is silly!
Peace
Complain about this comment
ref #20 and 35
First Lieberman has been a Democrat and no matter what extremist on the left say he votes with them over 90% of the time.
Second Ned Lamont was financed by George Soros and other liberals who wanted to make him an example of what happens if you don't kiss thier feet.
Third the only way Senate has been able to get many things done especially judicial nominees has been with crossover votes.
Both Lieberan and McCain were part of the gang of 14 that unfroze the filabuster by the narrow minded Barbara Boxer.
And unless the Ds reach 60, a republican can do the same thing
Complain about this comment
When will Americans realise this is a new civil right movement over there?
You can't all be born equal and free if you don't grant the same rights to everyone, regardless of colour, gender and sexual preference.
As a straight white non-religious male... if two people love each other, who are we, they, or anyone, to question their love?
I love this part of the LA Times article that you link to...
==
"Many in the church were shocked that Romney's Mormon faith was a source of discomfort for some voters.
"Latter-day Saints were just amazed to think there was such bigotry in the country," church spokesman Michael Otterson said."
==
That is nothing short of hilarious. Pot, kettle, black? They've only allowed black members for thirty years... Talk about bigotry!
Complain about this comment
I'd love to know why people fight over a word?
I'm sure gay and lesbian couples will ditch the word "marriage" as long as they are given equal rights under the other word used, like civil partnerships in this country. Everyone I know calls them marriages anyway!
Complain about this comment
The Gay movement and the Republicans have a lot in common at the moment, both are blaming fringe groups for their poor strategy and policy. The GOP blames liberals and gays in hollywood for their defeat while the Gays blame Mormons. The truth is Prop 8 lost by a huge margin, the Gays will have to win by at least 60% to fully secure their rights otherwise this will go on and on. A number of liberals are put off by the militancy and vehemence of the Gay movement, as well as the blame game, like blaming Mormon and Blacks. They need to present a more civil side to society and not the tactics of intimidation and "shock tactics" such as making out for cameras on the news bulletins and loud protests. I am against Gay marriage but looking objectively their case was never made properly.
Complain about this comment
NO no, All mormons are NOT nice people! I was in the so called church for five years and I was bullied to tears! I was attacked by a woman who was afraid that I was going to tell on her because she was having sex and smoking and after punching me in the tummy I ran to the bishops office saying I wanted to call the police and he locked me in his office saying that it would look bad for the church if the police were there and that jesus would want me to forgive her! I was only 17 years old and after this event I was seen as a trouble maker and was made to feel like I was an evil person. These people really do believe that this church is the only way to heaven Or the Celestrial kingdom as they call it and that basically that all the rest of us are unguided. They are big heads and think they know it all. the fact of it is that there is so much going on in the latter day saints that they dont want told!
Please publish this comment as im sick of always seeing nice things about this church when its all smiles on the outside and not on the inside!
Complain about this comment
Just a wee observation on the syntax;
"If mere pieces of iron (or any metal) can marry, why not any sort of folk?In metalworking, when a weld is properly made, the metal is said to "marry".
Peace and Forging Relationships
ed
Complain about this comment
Religion and politics should not mix. End of story.
...except that it isn't, because our semi-advanced society is not yet enlightened enough (although plenty of individuals are) to deal with the fact that human morality and law-making will not fall into chaos if they are built entirely on secular grounds.
So, because this unfortunate situation persists, we are stuck here arguing - which is faintly ridiculous - the notion of whether gay people can get "married". I put that in quotes as I appreciate the semantics of the issue.
Anyone who is against gay "marriage" must possess the trappings of religious-based morality, be it at the forefront of their character or deep-seated/subconcious, with which they are making, at the very least, that decision. I say this because anyone who derives their morality from a secular
stance cannot possibly argue against gay "marriage", for the simple fact that there is nothing logically wrong with it.
Marriage, of course, has an intrinsically religious basis in history. It should simply be redefined as the union under law of two people who freely and willingly wish to enter into loving partnership, with all the inherent rights that such a union guarantees, regardless of the sexes of the two people.
On a related note, genetically, sexuality is an intriguing issue. Presumably natural selection would tend to 'de-select' homosexual tendencies, if they have a genetic origin, as they are not conducive to the continuation of the genetic line. My
current inclination is that heterosexuality and homosexuality are likely the result of both nature and nuture (though as to the percentage split, I have no idea). One of the pleasures of being human is that we are not exclusively beholden to our genetic coding. We are hugely a product of our environment and for a large part that is an environment that we are actively involved in creating.
In short, redefine marriage, stop using religion to justify interfering with other peoples rights under law, and in the end leave people alone to pursue their own happiness because it really is none of your business.
Complain about this comment
NO 6; Reuben 34g:
what are you on about ?
'...without offending common Religious mores of the heterosexual majority.'
You don't own the views of the wider heterosexual world out there. Don't assume because someone is heterosexual that they share your views. Your 'common religious mores' as you call them are simply selective religious mores. Views held be some which people like you obviously assume are views held by the majority. Knock the gay bashing on the head it helps no none and just reinforces out dated and bigoted views of a community of people who have suffered for years at the hands of gay haters and religious zealots.
Complain about this comment
Not sure, but I think most of the civil rights sought for gay life partners can be accomplished by other legal means...medical decisions with a power of attorney, property succession with agreements. Adoptions in some states are already permitted and even with 'marriage' rights adoptions might not be permitted. Taxes I think are the big difference.
Complain about this comment
Sometimes I do worry about the effect that this blog is having on our correspondent.
He was on BBC Radio 4 making perfectly eloquent sense when introducing David Mamet's Alistair Cooke Memorial Lecture, and yet less than an hour later he posts this blog, which becomes increasingly gnomic in its pronouncements.
He writes "gay people will win - history is on their side". I agree with him that gay people will win, but the history he talks about is so recent in the scheme of things as to be more like current affairs.
His next paragraph ends with "In the long term, He will be back .... " which effectively acts as a counter to the argument of history being on gay peoples' side.
I don't know if this is known as hedging your bets or whether the Palin-non-sentence is beginning to insinuate its way into British journalism. I very much hope it is bet-hedging.
Complain about this comment
80%,
Dit you not notice the capitalisation? Expect a Message...Peace and the Word of God
ed
Complain about this comment
# 70
I even copied the capitalisation in my post.
There's definitely a Message in there somewhere but so far its meaning eludes me.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile...., did anyone catch Bremner, Bird and Fortune in their excellent series on "Silly Money"?
Peace and a sense of humour
ed
Complain about this comment
Killing them softly with his song....
Peace and subtlety
ed
Complain about this comment
She will be back (on the matter of gays)Complain about this comment
dceilar, you wrote, "These religious types would get more respect from me if they cared as much for the poor and for peace as they do for anti-homosexuality and anti-abortion. They seem to be full of hate.
Why can't they be anti-poverty and anti-war? I suppose that would be too Christian! Until then they have nothing to say"
May I suggest that the anti-poverty activities of the LDS Church are not quite as newsworthy as this current story? They are in fact highly substantial if you take the trouble to look into it, funded by regular contributions from me and millions of other Mormons.
As for the anti-war remark, isn't being anti-war a bit like being anti-horridness? Rather futile, since there's little you can do about it other than try to persuade others to be nicer. Which we do anyway.
Your perception that we are full of hate is curious. Marriage and human life are sacred to us. Why should defending these sacred and cherished principles be motivated by hatred for those who do not share them?
I am sorry that I am not Christian enough for you. I hope that if we ever meet in the real world I may change that perception.
Complain about this comment
# 74
And on the subject of 'She will be back' I'm getting very concerned that briefings are emerging from casa Clinton to the effect that she's not sure whether she wants SoS after all.
Which can only mean that they have run into problems with Bill's doings with his Foundation which could cause future problems for the administration. Which, in turn, can only lead to trouble all round.
Complain about this comment
Burrowing like badgers...Senators Urge Bush To Halt Job Shifts
Officials Deny Sheltering Appointees
Peace and a cushy job
ed
Complain about this comment
# 69 eightypercent wrote:
"His next paragraph ends with "In the long term, He will be back .... " which effectively acts as a counter to the argument of history being on gay peoples' side./I don't know if this is known as hedging your bets or whether the Palin-non-sentence is beginning to insinuate its way into British journalism. I very much hope it is bet-hedging."
Mr Iglehart may have dealt with this point.
The relevant JW para is "The Mormon church itself - let us be blunt - did not do much for monogamous marriage in the early years of its existence; Mormons did not think much of black people until God told them (in 1978!) to change their ways. In the long term, He will be back..."
While this is a tad cryptic, I took it to mean that if The Almighty informed the Mormons in '78 that African-Americans have equal rights (granted, he probably said 'Blacks', as I don't think "African-Americans" was commonly used then), then hopefully at some time in the future He will pop back and have a word with them about Gays.
A few other general points
1. I don't know a vast amount about the issue - but I'm fairly sure it's not that easy for gay couples to legally arrange to have the same rights as straight couples with regard to inheritance, adoption, medical care etc
2. Sullivan has written a no of books and I believe at least one deals at length with the case for gay marriage.
3. I think churches have the same rights to express their political views as any other organisations - though it is an interesting point as to whether they should lose whatever tax-free charitable status they hold if they become very political
4. According to Sullivan the Mormons made a massive effort financially in the California debate. It has been suggested that they were trying to ingratiate themselves with the Christian Right, who appear to mistrust them. He also referred to reports that their canvassers were told not to identify themselves as being Mormons.
5. Someone else said there was an overwhelming vote against gay marriage. I thought it was c 52%? [I may be wrong on that.]
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I'm rather dismayed that a long standing right recognized definitively in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a pronouncement of the wisest of the wise for many generations--that of freedom of conscience and religion--is being substituted in the rhetoric of today with a right that has not been recognized until recently--a right of same gender marriage. This is a new "right" and should not be taken on lightly by society, especially at the expense of those already recognized. It's easy to pick on the Mormons because they are unpopular in many circles (not because people know them, but because of what they've HEARD about them). By tying the movement to preserve the sacredness of man-woman marriage to Mormons, the opponents of Proposition 8 made a brilliant and not unwitting maneuver: Hey, how could you vote for this thing, after all Mormons are behind it? This tactic obscures what's really going on. There's a lot more hate coming from those that lost in this democratic opportunity for choice than has ever come from the pro-traditional marriage side. The world is full of ironies. But won't it be fun to have the Mormons to kick around again?
Complain about this comment
If I'm a citizen of a country with the right to vote, what difference does it make why I vote my choice on an issue? Is it objectionable because a religious leader suggested a religion takes a particular view of morality? Does that mean I will always be limited in the way I can vote because my choice my coincide with the direction of traditional morality or religion? What if I read a thought in a Holy Book of any religion (name it: Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, Talmud) and it spurs my idea to vote in a particular direction? Am I not allowed to do so, citizen though I am, because I got the idea from a religious book? What if a religious friend urges me to vote a particular direction? Can I not do so because he's religious? Since when does religion make one persona non grata? The separation of Church and State that we like to tout was originally meant to keep the State out of my church. It was never meant to keep people who believe in God out of the political process.
Complain about this comment
#78
I see that Andrew Sullivan is tipped to take over William Kristol's column in the New York Times (I hope that doesn't mean that he would have to give up his Sunday Times column).
Whilst Kristol has spent the past year yapping about the powers of political persuasion of Sarah Palin, Sullivan has been dissecting the lost soul of the conservative momvement. I do not know whether his early and passionate support for Obama would count against him.
There is currently a good example of two opposing conservative viewpoints on their respective blogs. Whereas Drudge (who is full of doom and gloom on everything) predicts that Obama's inauguration will bankrupt DC, Sullivan points out the many Washington entrepreneurs who are wading in to make money out of the million or so expected visitors.
If the DC administration is in such a blue funk about hosting the event, I am sure we could send them some expertise from the UK where we are quite accustomed to dealing with numbers of this scale (and, yes, we have to worry about security too)
Complain about this comment
#
"There's a lot of hate coming from those that lost ...."
And there was an awful lot of fund-raising done by those that won.
The 'godly' seem to have been very happy to turn to Mammon in order to extinguish freedom.
Complain about this comment
Goats4fun,
Aren't you discriminating (by omission) against TabB on TabB activity? And what about GoatA on TabB?Peace and Equality
ed
Complain about this comment
No.75 "Marriage and human life are sacred to us. Why should defending these sacred and cherished principles be motivated by hatred for those who do not share them?"
May I refer in part to my previous point (no.66): Religion should be bound by the law and the law should not be bound or influenced by religion. That way you can keep your cherished and sacred principles and you don't have to defend them. And, at the same time, those who disagree with your stance can keep their own cherished and sacred principles.
Doubtless there are plently of people who are motivated by underlying or thinly-veiled hatred on this issue. However, for what is presumably the majority, the motivation comes from a sense of religious morality, which sadly many parts of society still deem fit to have influence over the morality of those who choose a different path.
The problem is that your statement attempts to lend credence to the defense of certain rights by denying others the very same rights.
I firmly hold that the future of enlightened humanity will be the gradual marginalisation of and eventual rejection of religion by the vast majority. In that event I would not wish to see those who wish to worship gods and get married under religious auspices have their right to voted away. And the reverse should not be allowed now.
Complain about this comment
No. 81: "The separation of church and state... was originally meant to keep the state out of my church."
The operative word here being "originally". And your statement uses the past tense.
This is not a concept set in stone. Just as laws are meant to be altered and updated to reflect the modernisation of human attitudes and society, so the separation of church and state concept must be updated to keep the churches (plural) out of the state (singular).
Complain about this comment
#30 ladycm wrote:
I do not understand the civil union vs marriage arguement for gay and lesbian couples. Can someone explain this to me? It's just a word...marriage is just a word. So, I can understand it from both points as far as civil unions go and marriage.
May I explain it to you?
Civil unions marginalizes couples by placing them into a separate category. Separate but equal shows prejudice; therefore, not equal. It's like being labeled a second-class citizen.
Complain about this comment
Them's fighting words!
Peace and temperate languageed
Complain about this comment
goats4fun@79,
You contemptible bigot; all you are demonstrating is your prurient obsession with other peoples' sex lives. Marriage is a socially recognised contract between two people - which need not even involve sex; goats are not people, in case you hadn't noticed.
Incidentally, "unnatural" has no useful meaning whatever. Everything that happens is part of nature, and so is natural.
Complain about this comment
In the Sudan a couple of years ago a man was forced to marry a goat. It wasn't his goat so he had to pay a dowry for it.
Complain about this comment
To lighten the mode:
Whats the difference between a Mormon and a Muslim?
The Mormon wants his 72 vrigins now.
Please, no one take offence to this! My best friend is a muslim he told me this joke :)
Peace
Complain about this comment
The problem with organized religion of any stripe is a presumption that the teachings of their particular flavor of Christianity or whatever theological belief are the perfect solution of society's social and political ills.
I have found this a common thought among evangelicals and also of hard line Catholics such as the Knights of Columbus and especially so for the Mormons.
I repsect their right to their opinions but we move to another level when active involvement with issues becomes an attempt to dictate behaviors.
My observation would also apply to the militant gay groups that insisit on attempting to coerce acceptance of their particular lifestyles on the rest of society with the same rigor as the religious .
Beware of zelots of any kind
Complain about this comment
The homosexual community has chosen to attack the Mormons on the California repudiation of their political activism because Mormons are seen as conservative religious people, and as a group are overwhelmingly white. Mormons did take political action in favor of reaffirming the voice of the people of California, who voted against legal "marriages" of homosexuals two years ago. A liberal judge overturned the will of the people and ordered that these "marriages" could be legally peformed. It took a second vote of the people of California to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the judge's decision. As far as I know, he still has a job. Too bad.
But the homosexuals have failed to criticize blacks for their role in this decision. Blacks and other people of color voted in unprecedented numbers in the excitement to vote for Barack Obama for president. As a group, blacks are largely Christian, and favor Judeo-Christian morality over the new age vision of a godless society. Their numbers helped reaffirm the true definition of marriage in California.
It's easier to condemn white, religious people than black Democratic voters.
Complain about this comment
To #90,
Lol poor guy, whipped by a goat :(
Peace
Complain about this comment
80%,
Doesn't the dowry usually come with the bride?Peace and Convention
ed
Complain about this comment
To # 92, LawChicago
I think your observation is shared with most rational men and women :)
There is nothing wrong with religion until they try and enforce it on others etc
Peace
Complain about this comment
~ 95
Picky.
I think that this had something to do with the fact that the groom had already ruined the goat's reputation.
Complain about this comment
#23 jimjoy
Why does there have to be one or the other? The good thing about being progressive in a childs eye is that they see "adult"bigotry fall by the wayside,as they see tolerance. That will make them grow up to be a more accepting peaceful person. The word tradition does not have to be synonomous with church either. And if I may, this betterment of one generation to the next has got us into a real pickle. Children have become so spoiled to the extent that they're work ethic is practically nil. When I left home my parents had a dishwasher, but in my new apt I actually had to wash dishes by hand, and work for my house equipped w/ a dishwasher, so I had to work as hard as my parents, boo hoo.
You need to maybe not go to church for awhile, walk around, talk to all differnt types of people, and try to form your own opinion. And remember everyone has a place in civil society. If you find yourself back at that church great its your right, but it's nobodys right to condemn who sombody loves an chooses to enjoy thier life with.
There will be another election and the wonderful right to protest may open eyes to the facts of the matter, and bring to light the validity of the myths and phobias.
Complain about this comment
OMG - Drudge's headline now says that Bill is prepared to bare all in support of wife's nomination.
Is this the end for Hillary ?
Complain about this comment
The mouth which knows no bounds...;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#45, 48
I'm almost literally speechless with rage over your comments.
Gay people do not, in the main, make a lifestyle choice to be gay. They're just gay.
One of my friends - best man at my wedding - is 100% gay. He's never had sex with a woman for the same reason as I've never done so with a man; it just doesn't interest me.
No doubt a century ago he'd have bowed to societal pressure, got married, fathered children (he'd absolutely love children, and dotes on mine) and been resolutely miserable in his marriage; hardly fair to wither husband or wife, wouldn't you agree?
It's not possible to control who you're attracted to. My friend Mark has as much interest in "acceptable forms of social protest" as a weasel has in knitting ...... it's just that he likes men rather than women.
Not all gay people want to be married. Many gay couples, however, would like to be taken seriously by society and to demonstrate their commitment to each other. They want to be seen by society as being EXACTLY THE SAME as any other couple - no better, no worse - and reject absolutely the rather patronising idea that 'civil union' is somehow good enough for them, whereas marriage is especially reserved for straight folks.
After all, Rosa Parks was still on the same bus, going to the same place, right? And standing's not so much worse than sitting?
Complain about this comment
Nate Silver gets his comeuppance?
I think not.
Peace and civility
ed
Complain about this comment
Blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of Prop. 8 because they understand that the so-called right to marry a person of the same gender is inherently different than the rights that African Americans were denied so heinously by so many for so long--rights that all generations have recognized since civilization became "civilized." Same-sex marriage is something new; not something to turn the world upside down over in a generation. But anybody who's got a pet cause is going to jump on the civil rights bandwagon and try and link their cause to the righteous cause fought for so long against the grave injustices experienced by blacks and other other racial minorities. It just makes their cause sound better if they can bring Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks on their side.
And why is that every time a Mormon or conservative religious person of any stamp votes or participates in the political process, it's forcing their religion on somebody but when the other side would deny participation by these people in political causes, there is no sense of coercion there?
Complain about this comment
I'm LDS, and fairly liberal (I vote for Green as often as the Dems, for instance). To be honest the LDS Church did have an effect on the Prop. 8 vote- but no more so than the Catholics Church or various Evangelical groups that also backed the bill with both time and money. In America it is still acceptable to publicly disparage certain groups (though it is not okay for others). Unfortunately (and ironically) this includes both Mormons and Gays.
Frankly I'll just keep being LDS because it works for me (or, according to some people here, because I'm brainwashed - go figure) and letting others live their lives. Prop. 8 will be repealed, though not soon enough.
Complain about this comment
allmymarbles
Whether people that are gay are born that way or just prefer it that way, what does it matter?!
There are many new relationship senarios out there right now.
I am an agnostic heterosexual that has been in a monogomous relationship for ten years, and yes a lot of people find that vary strange. They say why don't you just get married? Well marriage is church oriented and I'm an agnostic like I just said. A living will might be enough for us, but thats no guarantee, so we may be forced to have a civil union in the courthouse to clear up some medical property, or child issues. Kind of sad I just can't live and it be recognized as such.
I also have a freind whose gay and catholic. He is a good man, organizes the choir and plays the piano in church every service every sunday. Seems like a huge oxymoron.
My point is, and thank you all for reading my points, is that WHO CARES!
Homosexuals have a right to want to be married , not married, have civil union or not, be catholic, mormon or whatever, but with the changing senarios, the law has to catch up with the times. When I'm watching t.v at night, am I constantly thinking what gay people are doing every moment, and how thier lives are affecting mine? No, and neither should anyone else. Live and let live, Lets just get the correct documentation, so nobody's clogging up our court system.
Complain about this comment
Where the real action is
Peace and the end of Corporate Rule
ed
Complain about this comment
Sam_Mosin,
The reason for attacking the LDS for its role is that it is an organisation - and a very rich and powerful one - not an individual. See the difference?
Complain about this comment
A perspective on the Weasel's escape
Peace with styleed
Complain about this comment
# 103
para 2: the excessive fund-raising, maybe ?
Complain about this comment
A Tale of Exotic Places and People....
Are you sitting comfortably?Peace and profiteering
ed
Complain about this comment
Mormons and Mormonism are good at projecting a good image, but the reality of the church is much murkier, and not just in a civil rights sense, for example suppressing events that are seen to be "bad" in much the same way the Catholic Church have been exposed for doing.
I know, because I was a mormon. There is a reason why lots of people hear negative things.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] for those who want to read more.
Complain about this comment
Working in the shadows to undermine the civil rights of a minority group with Proposition 8?
Screaming "civil rights" violations and blaming unfair gay tactics when boycotts are the consequence of their own actions?
Baptizing Holocaust victims which thus diminishes the victims own religious beliefs and sacrifices?
You say nice people - I say narcissists...
Complain about this comment
To expand on my earlier comment (No.86)...
The point of mentioning churches (plural) and state (singular) was that a country will have one state (the government) and multiple churches (religions). In a free democratic society there is no question that people are free to ascribe to whatever religion they want, or not to. What we don't see is people voting on propositions to ban the worship of one or another deity (despite the fact that each religion invariably claims that their god/s is/are the true 'path to salvation' and the others' are wrong), because that would be seen as discrimination and decried as deplorable. And that's the point. Proposition 8 is nothing but discrimination. Yet because each religion likes to think it has the monopoly on morality - which it often seeks to impose on others - this pertinent fact, it seems, is conveniently overlooked. Gay people are seeking the right to marry under the law, not under anyones religion.
And, of course, people from all walks of life, race, colour, sexuality, faith should partake in the political process and no one should deny them that right. However, you don't find gay people trying to veto heterosexuals right to marriage, you don't see black people trying to deny white people the vote, but you do find people bringing their religious faith to the political table and trying to influence what other people, who do not believe what they believe, can and cannot do within free society.
Morality is really very simple. It boils down to little more than this: Always be honest and decent. You do not need questionable documents from the annals of history, whose content is purported to originate from an entity whose existence cannot be proven, to tell you that. The rest is just down to consent between individuals.
Complain about this comment
ed at 84,
Nope, just being concise. All permutations and combinations inclusive.
Complain about this comment
#104 apkeely:
The funny thing about being brainwashed is you don't know you've been brainwashed until you come out of the fog. Unless you are constantly question your beliefs, it's safe to say you've been had (brainwashed). But take heart, we've all been had; therefore, you don't walk alone.
Complain about this comment
26. At 03:00am on 19 Nov 2008, regular_josephina wrote:
.
And as for ex-members trying to tell the world what our church teaches, I wouldn't recommend it as a reliable source of information. Would you ask an apostate Catholic what the Catholic church teaches?
If you think the Mormon church is hard on gays, take a look at its stance on ex members. It does not recognise a person's right to leave the cult, initially tries every form of social pressure available, and then shuns the person. Mormons are not allowed to socialise with apostates, or to discuss their faith with ex mormons.
One interesting example of lying to members is that the famous Mormon handshake is introduced as a gesture of friendship. Throughout my membership I believed this, other members joked that non Mormons, or Gentiles, thought they had a secred handshake like the Masons. Recently I learned that there is a secret handshake, taught in Mormon temples, and you need that and passwords to get into Heaven.
Goofy, yes, but oppressive goof to live with and nasty when you leave. You need to accept that all the nice people you considered with friends will have nothing to do with you.
It is interesting that Josephina chose the Catholic church as an example, the Mormon belief is that the biblical Whore of Babylon is a metaphor for the Catholic Church. Europe has a Catholic heritage, so the doctines of the Catholic church are well known. The Mormon faith consists of layers and layers of often contradictory doctrines.
Complain about this comment
# 103. freeconscience wrote:
"And why is that every time a Mormon or conservative religious person of any stamp votes or participates in the political process, it's forcing their religion on somebody but when the other side would deny participation by these people in political causes, there is no sense of coercion there?"
A false dichotomy. Who exactly is trying to 'deny participation by these people in political causes'? And how exactly would that work? Remove the vote from conservative Christians and Mormons perhaps? [I know some rightwing loopers before the election were predicting that sort of thing if Obama was elected, but really...]
People are free to campaign for or against whatever they wish, and to be influenced by their religious, philosophical or political views. So are churches. But if churches act like political organisations, they must expect to be treated like political organisations. That includes strenuous criticism, where justified.
Churches are free to try to impose their views on their members. I think what bothers non-members is when they try to impose their views on the whole of society.
Many people describe Muslims who want the world to be ruled according to [their interpretation of] Islam as 'Islamists' - to distinguish them from Muslims who just wish to be free to practise their faith. Some people - Sullivan is one - refer to the Right Wing Christians who appear to want to impose their sexual 'morality' on others as Christianists - and suggest that fundamentally [no pun intended] there's not that much difference between the two.
Complain about this comment
Raven,
Or, as wise Ben put it, Pereant, inquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt."Confound those who have said our remarks before us."
-- Aelius Donatus
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
And I have never met a gay person I didn't hugely like. Well, OK, there are a few who are a little obnoxious, but most of the homosexuals I know are compassionate, loving people.
I'm LDS (Mormon) and while my heart goes out to gay people who want to be married, I don't think they should. Do I think they are less people because of it? No. It is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of priciple. While I like the gays I know, I do not think that what they are doing is natural or right. It is not how God intended. And yes, I believe in God and Christ.
In fact, most of what you read on these comments are false, so if you really want to know what Mormons believe, go to a legitimate source - wikipedia or mormon.org.
Complain about this comment
119
It's not very Christian to insinuate that everyone who disagrees with you is a liar. You could at least be more specific. There is a lot of truth here you could admit to, that would be a start.
Complain about this comment
"119. At 7:55pm on 19 Nov 2008, angiewhit wrote:
And I have never met a gay person I didn't hugely like. Well, OK, there are a few who are a little obnoxious, but most of the homosexuals I know are compassionate, loving people.
I'm LDS (Mormon) and while my heart goes out to gay people who want to be married, I don't think they should. Do I think they are less people because of it? No. It is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of priciple.
Isn't equality an important principle?
Complain about this comment
I understand why the moderator removed my first comment, but why it reappeared and was then removed again is a mystery to me. I gave an ex mormon website which is emphatically not a hate site.
Complain about this comment
The fact that the Mormons believe that the Mormon religion should somehow take presidence over all others and the Mormon value system should override all others...makes for megalomania of the highest scale…
If you do not believe that you are religiously superior to others - would your religious zealots have the audacity to baptize holocaust victims? In doing so you diminish others religious beliefs and infer your own dogma is somehow superior. Bottom line…who gave you that right? And what will you do when you hit the pearly gates and God says…sorry, that is not what I meant …next please!
119. At 7:55pm on 19 Nov 2008, angiewhit wrote:
I'm LDS (Mormon) and while my heart goes out to gay people who want to be married, I don't think they should. Do I think they are less people because of it? No. It is not a matter of equality. It is a matter of priciple. While I like the gays I know, I do not think that what they are doing is natural or right. It is not how God intended. And yes, I believe in God and Christ.
Complain about this comment
Nick at 89:
Contemptible bigot here.
Actually, I could not care less whom or what you or anyone else boinks.
To correct you though, marriage is a legally recognized contract between two people. It is founded on the social traditions of mankind. These traditions span time, cultures, geography, and religion representing one of the few commonalities that bind us. Traditionally, the two people are of opposite sex and marry for the purpose of family.
The Mormons had to relinquish their religious belief in polygamy to gain statehood for Utah. If, instead, they practiced homosexual marriage, they would have had to relinquish that as well.
Those that advocate changing the law to redefine marriage will face the considerable headwind of centuries of tradition.
That is only natural.
Complain about this comment
The issue of Proposition 8 is understandably a heated one. However, it is appropriate for a religious organization to take a moral stance on a political issue and even financially support it. Religions exist for moral instruction. Many religious organizations supported Proposition 8, it's just that the Mormons were the biggest financial contributors to that particular advertising campaign. I think it should also be mentioned that other people and organizations were free to financially contribute to campaigns against Proposition 8. This is how the political process works in the United States. It's a good system because it allows citizens on both sides to make their views heard so that voters can make an educated personal decision. Both sides are free to express their views and this right should be cherished by all people. Arguments that the "religious right" shouldn't be allowed to take a moral stance are simply censorship. The same could be said of those who try to squelch the voices of those who opposed Proposition 8. It's not required to agree but it is required for all to be able to make their voices heard. It seems to be forgotten that it was the residents of California who voted on this issue, not the Mormon Church. I am a Mormon and not a resident of California, therefore I did not have any input on the decision that was made.
Another comment on this site suggested that the Mormon Church should donate millions to charity. I invite you to visit the church's website where you will see the extensive amounts of work that the church has done, without regard to religious affiliation or personal values, for charity. Please visit www.lds.org and look at Humanitarian Services. I assure you that though we may disagree on some political issues, most people of all faiths (including mine) are compassionate people who do care about others, even those with different viewpoints.
Complain about this comment
What I don't understand is why a homosexual couple choosing to get married should undermine the marriage of a heterosexual couple. Why should that matter?
Aren't the anti gay marriage people often those who tell the government to get off their back? Yet now they want the government to enact a law that says the relationship of a couple up the street, who have never done anything to harm them, is not the equal of their own relationship.
That's hypocrisy on at least three different levels.
Complain about this comment
Marriage as interpreted as a “civil right” in the 1967 Supreme Court decision on Loving Vs Virginia. California is adopting a balot which aims at intentionally restricting the civil rights of a minority group based upon a majority vote. This is in DIRECT violation of the 14th amendment which states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Whats next ..shall we go back to ballots that allow discrimination based upon ethnicity? Religion?
Complain about this comment
For people outside of California...
Prop 8 did not pass buy a huge margin: 47.9% against (that's a vote in favor of gay marriage) v. 52.1% for (a vote against gay marriage). The difference was about 500,000 votes. It has been suggested that some people were confused that yes on 8 meant yes on gay marriage. No way to tell; it's all anecdotal.
The last time the issue came up for a vote, the margin was much larger, though I didn't bother to look it up, sorry.
For those who didn't see the Yes on 8 tv commercials, they didn't say it was morally wrong to be gay or for gay people to marry. They said that if gays were allowed to marry, the schools were going to start teaching homosexuality to children. It was a strong fear-based appeal.
Not hard to tell how I felt about that, right?
I predict the court will strike it down, and the opponents of gay marriage will bring it back to the voters. The margin of votes against gay marriage will get smaller and smaller, until the vote fails entirely. The battles will continue in the court system until people relent and let gay marriage stand. But first there will be many more years of gay people having to fight and having to live in fear that whatever they gain will be taken away from them.
Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. It won't mean heterosexual people can't get married. It won't mean heterosexual people have to have sex with homosexual people. It won't mean that heterosexual people will have to hide their sexual orientation in order to serve in the military or hold a prominent job. It won't prohibit churches from teaching that homosexuality is a sin. It won't keep parents from teaching their own children that homosexuality is wrong, though they would hopefully stop short of teaching children to hate and hurt gay people.
Complain about this comment
Mormons are nice people?
Try telling that to a gay teenager kicked out of the family home and banned from any communication with the family.
Try telling that to gay teenager's family when they are barred from speaking to thier teenage child or risk being kicked out of the church.
Try telling that to a african american, who before 1978 was considered a less worthy person of the mormon's idea of heaven.
Before one makes assumptions about the niceness of mormons one should read passages in the Bible regarding false prophets.
Mormonism, and the ideas the church instills, is as whacky as sci-fi. New planets for those worthy, special underwear for the journey to that new planet, and cult like mentality that demands records which can only be compared to cult like control.
If mormons, and most other religions controlled by false prophets, would practice love based religion as opposed to fear based religion the world would be a much better place to live. Maybe then we can all feel loved and cherished as the creator intended.
So called religions need to stop instilling fear and hatred, the problem is not gay marriage, the problem is the sheep like mentallity that allows people to be told what to think and believe by false prophets who have infested our country.
Complain about this comment
Re #81
freeconscience,
Regarding the separation of church and state, I don't want your religion involved in my state. And you don't want my religion involved in the civil laws you have to follow. Trust me. You wouldn't like it. No, I'm not going to say what my religion is, but I really really don't think you'd like it.
So, no, I'm not advocating that you be forbidden to vote according to your religious conscience. I'm advocating an end to propositions that attempt to turn religious views of any kind into laws that everyone must follow.
Less government in the church? Less government from the church. Fair is fair.
(That said, no, I don't think it's a good idea to take out frustration on the Mormon church or the Catholic church or try to disrupt services. All that frustration should be channeled constructively.)
Complain about this comment
When does the gay community get to vote on everyone else's marriage? Wouldn't that be equal protection? If you feel this ballot is legit then "Whats good for the goose is good for the gander is it not?"
Complain about this comment
#128,
"buy a huge margin"...?
Well, that was a freudian slip, wasn't it? My psychological undergarments are showing. Apologies.
Complain about this comment
It's a common misconception to consider gay people 'different', living an 'alternative' lifestyle, and having relationships unsimilar to heteros'.
Knowing and having met many of gays, I simple don't see any difference at all.
Well, maybe 'they' have to try harder, thus being in many instances stronger personalities.
Marriage as a concept has been introduced way back to create a small, stable social unit, aka family, with adults caring for and protecting the children, and them doing the same for the parents when they become dependend.
In Western countries things are a little different these days.
Actually, I think granting the same rights to gay couples, both legally and 'romantically' - marriage - would prove to benefit society quite a bit.
For an orphan, things can be a lot worse than being adopted by a gay couple, no ?
As for Mormons, well...
Joe Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, D. Koresh, etc. - take a religious nutter who has a way with people and see what happens.
There are always those who can't cope well without having some strict code imposed on them; while a society might have use for soldiers, I really don't think it should leave the rest to cult leaders.
Complain about this comment
What amazes me is that the Mormons contend that they can spend tjeir money where they wish (desoite their tax exept status). Yet when the gay community chooses not to spend their money where THEY wish (Boycotts), The Morman Church is crying "foul"!
If you so sure of the your stance on attempting to restrict minority rights through a ballot vote, then bare the responsibility of the consequences of that decision!
Complain about this comment
Mormons have given up polygamy in practice, to comply with US law. It is still a principle of the church, in doublespeak it is referred to as plural marriage.
I was surprised to learn that Joseph Smith also demanded polyandrous marriages.
Given this background what is so shocking about gay marriage?
What is so nurturing and loving about a household which teaches a girl to neglect her education, to marry as early as possible, not to refuse a date from a 'priesthood holder' because he has revelation from God not given to women, to have as many children as possible, to emotionally manipulate her family to stay in this religion.
There is a gulf between mormon ideology and the modern world, one which many believers notice and stuggle to accommodate.
Most converts to Mormonism leave, and soon, when they find out just how strange the beliefs and practices of the church are.
Complain about this comment
"They said that if gays were allowed to marry, the schools were going to start teaching homosexuality to children. It was a strong fear-based appeal." - mdalerwill
Well more than that, it was a barefaced, brazen, outright, shameless lie. Now the Mormon liars and the Catholic liars are being called on their lies. Whenever a Mormon or a Catholic proselytises me in future, or brings their religion into any discussion of any subject with me, I'm going to remind them of these lies.
Complain about this comment
Wow what alot of responses. And it is interesting to see how many are inaccurate. I think that people tend to forget that in America the have a thing called the First ammendment and in this ammendment contains freedom of choice, freedom of religion and freedom of speech.
Joining or believing in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a CHOICE. All that I have met are wonderful people who CHOOSE not to smoke, drink alcohol, do drugs, commit crimes and do not commit adultry. In every society there are always a few bad apples but some are worse than others. I feel no need to pursecute a religion based on the fact that they do not believe in gay marriage. That is their belief and opinion and be law they can.
Complain about this comment
Some of the (hopefully) smaller Mormon sects have shown their more dangerous sides here in the states.
Any separatist group with a patriarchy in place should give us cause to wonder what's happening to the women and kids....
So if the Mormons aren't stepping forward to tidy up their own house, why do they butt into other people's business?
And for churches that do butt into political relms, well, lets discuss your tax exempt status, shall we?
Besides, with the huge percentage of divorces in heterosexual marriages and the unfortunate fact that many intact marriages are miserable travesties, I don't see why gay couples shouldn't have exactly the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
I am an active Mormon, and it pains me to see how my church is being represented on message boards all over the web. However, I understand the anger, as this is a terribly emotional issue with great importance to many people.
As Mormons, we are encouraged to participate actively in the electoral process, to study the issues, and vote our conscience. I did so, and had I been a California resident, would have voted no on Prop 8. This would not have affected my standing in the church. There are many Mormons who feel similarly.
While a little behind on gay marriage (the church supports civil unions), I believe eventually our church will take a more tolerant stance of this issue.
But please, enough generalizing and disparaging remarks about my religion and its members. All religions, including ours, believe literally in the fantastic and impossible (walking on water, angels, etc.) I hope that, despite the vastly differing opinions shared here, we can respect those things others hold sacred.
Complain about this comment
Let's not forget that gays are hardly the only group to have suffered at the hands of the religious zealots. Courtesy of their influence over GW Bush stem cell research in the US has been severely hampered, a foolish and cynical move since research continues in the UK, South korea, etc. Obviously the more scientists working in the field the better the chances for breakthroughs and it looks like this will be one idiot decision that Obama will rapidly overturn.
Complain about this comment
"All religions, including ours, believe literally in the fantastic and impossible (walking on water, angels, etc.)" - AndyPudding
Indeed - that's what makes religion so ridiculous. I respect your right to hold and promulgate these ludicrous notions, but I don't respect your idiocy in doing so, and I'm not going to pretend I do.
Complain about this comment
52, Iris.
Ridiculous supercedes everything.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps the "No on Prop 8" supporters should consider the viewpoint of Elton John who told USA Today a week ago regarding his own partnership:
"We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage.
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership... The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
If you don't believe the quote, put it through a search engine. Prop. 8 isn't about religion or just semantics. Nobody loses any "rights". Marriage is not about rights, it's about responsibilities. The intolerant No on 8 rabble seen protesting in the streets have portrayed themselves as a reckless and immature mob, incapable of respecting others and thinking only of themselves. Hardly the sort of folks who could be the core of a healthy society, or persuade the rest of us to sympathize.
Complain about this comment
53, Highly.
"What troubles me is why these people (Mormons) come over to the UK to try to push their weird ways on us Brits."
All prosyletizers including our protestant evangelists are bullies. It is their purpose in life dominate us by having us accept that they are holier and more worthy than we are. They are sanctimonious bigots. It was with great joy that I saw them defeated in the last election. Halleluiyah!
Complain about this comment
#143
"The intolerant No on 8 rabble seen protesting in the streets have portrayed themselves as a reckless and immature mob, incapable of respecting others and thinking only of themselves."
So if you were told you didn't have the same civil rights as the rest of society, you'd sit there and take it?
Very few things are accomplished without making waves and the supporters of the status quo are usually surprised and outraged that the troublesome minority isn't willing to knuckle under.
Most people in the U.S. take it for granted that blacks and whites can marry or even drink at the same water fountain. But if they and their supporters had stayed home civil rights would still be civil wrongs.
Marriage is a legal contract. Why can't all citizen's have the same right to enter such a contract? Answer without resorting to forcing others to accept your religious beliefs. If you can.
Complain about this comment
Everyone seems to forget that the majority rules. Obama won the election. Should the dissatisfied march in protest? Why should we respect one majority rule and not another?
I would like to see more referenda, particularly one on abortion. That would settle the question once and for all.
Complain about this comment
'Why should we respect one majority rule and not another?"
If the majority want to break the law, they can't allowed to get away with it. The majority in the south wanted segregated schools. They got away with it for a long time.
The Constitution is our law. If the prop 8 vote was against the law, it shouldn't be allowed to stand. We'll see.
Protests are legal and sometimes the best way to keep attention on a problem.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm, I'm afraid what you are seeing is skirmishes on the picket lines. The Mormans are the first target hoping to evoke some sympathy from Christians in their cause.
What happens if they are successful in this assault? Then move on to the Evangelicals of course! Then the Catholics, and any other "moral absolute" organization willing to take a stand!
When, (not if) homosexuality is considered a political issue (and don't forget abortion), the Left will move in for the kill! Starting with the 501C charitable organization status. Then to "Hate Crime/speech".
The next two Supreme Court nominees will certainly be telling of the this...
Beware! Not only the Taxman Cometh!
Complain about this comment
148 - Typical rightest blather. THEY are the real victims.
Complain about this comment
147, Nessie.
Great liberties are taken in interpreting the Constitution. I don't think, for instance, that those who wrote it would approve of it being cited for the wholesale availability of pornagraphy. I no longer take the Constitution seriously.
Complain about this comment
149 nessie
If you have attended a house of worship in this millenium you would notice the contrast. Disagree if you will, but "it is what it is" and that is the reality in the hinterlands of Christian Worship.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
87. At 2:35pm on 19 Nov 2008, lochraven wrote:
"May I explain it to you?
Civil unions marginalizes couples by placing them into a separate category. Separate but equal shows prejudice; therefore, not equal. It's like being labeled a second-class citizen."
That's what I was attemping to get at, poorly. I agree totally. My point is, it's just a word. Why is the religious right getting so worked up over a word? If they say that civil union would be "okay" and they would still have the same rights as married people then; let them have the word marriage! I agree with your point. It was more of a rhetorical question, posed really poorly.
Complain about this comment
#146, allmymarbles
There were three referanda on limiting abortion rights in the last election - in California, Colorado and South Dakota. All three failed to pass.
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to note that when looking at the exit polls for Prop 8, the majority of people with a college degree or post-grad education voted against Prop 8 whereas the majority of non college grads voted for it. As with many problems, education is the answer.
Complain about this comment
154, camdenmac.
Yes, I know. That was great. I would like to see referenda on abortion in every state. Then we don't need the Supreme Court. I have had Roe v. Wade up to the eyeballs.
Complain about this comment
153, lady.
"Why is the religious right getting so worked up over a word?" (gay marriage)
I am an athiest independent (not religious or right) who is against gay marriage. There are plenty like me who do not see it as a religious issue.
Complain about this comment
155, camdenmac.
I have found that, within the middle class, the more educated a person is the more politically correct he is and the more rigid and conformist within his group. Education in its own way channels and narrows (exception, the person's specialty).
I have thought about this for a very long time after observing that among the foreign wives of Iranians (of whom there were a great number), the more educated the woman was, the harder the time she had adjusting.
One would think that education would broaden ones mind. It does broaden one's interest and knowledge, but there is also a downside. In exchange for education they forfeit flexibility.
Complain about this comment
Ms Marbles (158)
An interesting (and telling) observation. It may go some way to explaining my previously noted ambivalence towards bringing "education" into the Afghani hinterlands. My objections are largely overcome by the fact that we are simply enabling their self-education.Peace and Learning
ed
Complain about this comment
# 143 donjohn3 wrote
"The intolerant No on 8 rabble seen protesting in the streets have portrayed themselves as a reckless and immature mob, incapable of respecting others and thinking only of themselves. Hardly the sort of folks who could be the core of a healthy society, or persuade the rest of us to sympathize."
Andrew Sullivan provided ample detail of peaceful and dignified protests by both gay and 'Straight' people throughout the country against Prop 8
Complain about this comment
I am yet to understand what a state legislation in the United States has to do with Mormons worldwide.
Complain about this comment
87. At 2:35pm on 19 Nov 2008, lochraven wrote:
"May I explain it to you?
Civil unions marginalizes couples by placing them into a separate category. Separate but equal shows prejudice; therefore, not equal. It's like being labeled a second-class citizen."
#153 ladycm wrote:
That's what I was attemping to get at, poorly. I agree totally. My point is, it's just a word. Why is the religious right getting so worked up over a word? If they say that civil union would be "okay" and they would still have the same rights as married people then; let them have the word marriage! I agree with your point. It was more of a rhetorical question, posed really poorly.
ladycm, It's just a word, but a word full of meanings to different people.
I think this issue is more of a sense of loss for heterosexual; something they feel is being taken away from them, and something that will change the whole meaning of marriage for them. Everybody will resist having something taken away from them, even though that loss is subjective. America went through the same thing with civil rights. A sense of loss for many, but in the end everybody gained.
Complain about this comment
What is the difference between a civil partnership and a marriage?
In the context of a gay relationship, both of these mechanisms are capable of conferring the same rights on the parties. The problem is that "marriage" carries moral connotations and that many religious people think practising homosexuality is immoral.
The state should confer the same rights on the parties to a same-sex relationship as the parties to a marriage, but it seems to me that the religious significance of such a contract is a matter for individual religions, something over which the state has no business. The constitution does after all expressly separate religion and state.
Complain about this comment
Gay marriage is the modern equivalent of the ascent of eunuchs to privileged positions in the Imperial Court. It is undoubtedly a symptom of a society in decline. Romans, Byzantines, Chinese, Ottomans, ... British?
Opposing gay marriage on religious grounds is futile - like King Knut and the tide. Denial of civil rights (e.g., pension and survivor benefits) to gays is patently unjust. This is particularly so if the people in question don't happen to share your religious beliefs, but you would impose those beliefs on them nonetheless.
Those in the gay community may not be aware that there are people who resent the push for legalization of gay marriage on non-religious grounds. You do not have to be a religious zealot to feel that your marriage has just been cheapened. Those in favour of gay marriage don't seem to appreciate that.
There is also the problem that every argument in favour of the legalization of gay marriage can also be used to support, e.g., legalization of consensual, fully informed polygamy. Many would blanche at that prospect, and don't want to see where that road leads.
At the personal level, I don't want gay marriage to be considered equivalent to traditional heterosexual marriage. It will always seem absurd. At the same time, however, at the level of public policy, tolerating substantive injustice against people in our society merely because they are gay or lesbian isn't acceptable.
Maybe, instead of engaging in hysterical crusades against symptoms, we should be addressing the underlying causes of that decline. The Dow just dropped another 500 points. Maybe we're a bit late.
Complain about this comment
"Gay marriage is the modern equivalent of the ascent of eunuchs to privileged positions in the Imperial Court. It is undoubtedly a symptom of a society in decline." - Interestedforeigner
Making such a statement without even trying to support it with any arguments is puerile.
"I don't want gay marriage to be considered equivalent to traditional heterosexual marriage. It will always seem absurd. At the same time, however, at the level of public policy, tolerating substantive injustice against people in our society merely because they are gay or lesbian isn't acceptable." - Interestedforeigner
How on Earth can anyone come out with bilge like that, without seeing that it's self-contradictory?
For the record, I'm a married heterosexual who supports equal rights for gays, including the right to marry.
Complain about this comment
Andypudding - you requested
"But please, enough generalizing and disparaging remarks about my religion and its members. All religions, including ours, believe literally in the fantastic and impossible (walking on water, angels, etc.) I hope that, despite the vastly differing opinions shared here, we can respect those things others hold sacred."
yet that would appear not to be a two way tolerance street for did not the Mormon chruch advertise in the following manner?
"that if gays were allowed to marry, the schools were going to start teaching homosexuality to children. It was a strong fear-based appeal." - mdalerwill
This is extremely direspectful to the Gay community.
Complain about this comment
"I am an athiest independent (not religious or right) who is against gay marriage."
So what's your beef? Or to be more specific - what business is it of yours? And since you've stated you have no respect for the Constitution, how do you suggest we govern? [Breaking into the chorus of "Anything Goes"....]
Braun: "If you have attended a house of worship in this millenium you would notice the contrast. Disagree if you will, but "it is what it is" and that is the reality in the hinterlands of Christian Worship."
I don't see any coherent point here.
The real point is, as soon as opposition shows up, many Christians (busily attacking others tooth and nail) start screaming something like "They hate us because we're Christians! We're being persecuted!"
Which is pretty much blaming the victim. A dishonorable tactic, but if you have nothing else....
Whe Jesus spoke of some of the religious leaders of his day as "whitewashed graves" was he guilty of prejudice or just letting us in on a universal truth?
Complain about this comment
Mormonism is not the problem, it's the Mormon Church's interest in influencing the secular political process. They, like the fundamnentalist Protestant Evangelical movement in the U.S., and a conservative wing of the Catholic Church, continue to try to insert themselves into the American political system - they require enemies to keep current congregants interested in their message, and to attract new congregants. What better enemies than gay men and women, ?, - except that they should keep their bible and Book of Mormon out of our Constitution.
It's interesting that the Bush Administration's IRS went after a Pasadena, CA Episcopal Church for preaching against the Iraq War, but the IRS doesn't seem interested in the tax-exempt status of the Mormon Church as it lobbies for changes to state constitutions. Interesting. I guess we'll see whether IRS policy is more evenly applied under Pres. Obama.
Complain about this comment
There's a worrying backlash currently against black voters, whose votes tipped the scale for Prop 8. However, this has more to do with religion; it just happens that black people in the US attend church in greater numbers. The real culprit is church-goers and religious groups in general. Preachers have thumped many a pulpit recently, urging their flocks to vote YES on 8. In my opinion, this crosses the line between church and state and should result in religious groups losing their tax-exempt status.
It's all based on excerpts from the bible; which can, and have, been massaged to justify many prejudices. The same books condemn all other religions, treat women as chattel, etc. It's nonsense. Faith means believing in stuff that isn't proven. When that belief has clear contradictions, surely you're left with believing in stuff that isn't true. That's not to say that some of the fundamental beliefs are harmful - love thy neighbour etc - but when it comes to basing one's vote on some church's interpretation of a particular obscure old testament verse, I think we have to ask ourselves why our interpretation is right and the Scientologists are the crazy ones?
But the real kicker is that politicians in the US can't turn their backs on religion. It's too large a block of voters and nobody has ever entered the White House (or many other political offices) without at least pretending to be religious.
Marriage in US law is governed by the state. It has no religious significance (hence the legality of Vegas style "chapels" sic.). All marriages are civil unions - if you want a blessing from your particular fairy-channeler, by all means ask for one; but do it independently of the legal institution. If you disagree with same-sex marriage, don't marry a gay person. Why anyone would want to single out one section of society as a sub-class with less rights is an anathema to the civil rights for which Americans have fought and sacrificed so much.
It's such an obvious irony that black votes may have caused Prop 8 to pass that I can see why so many people want to seize on it; but the real cause is religion. It's a cancer in American society - and if mine isn't, yours must be, and vice versa. These same groups would ban each other's groups from marriage if they thought a simple proposition would do the trick.
While the US continues to make religious groups somehow more equal, we will never truly have equality.
The Mormons have been singled out for several reasons: in part, because they are off the scale of religious crack-pots; but mostly because they poured so much money into an election in another state. A group from Utah changed the election in California. Just imagine if a group from California could decide to ban the teaching of myths to children in Utah.
It's has tinged even the election of Obama for so many Californians ... if only he'd addressed the issue as only he could have.
Complain about this comment
It seems that in the US, it would be thought insulting merely to create a new legal institution - such as the UK's 'civil partnership' - rather than gay marriage.
But surely, while a government has great authority to create new legal institutions, it has far more limited authority to create or modify cultural (and/or religious) institutions, such as marriage.
A government cannot rush into the role of "meaning-maker" for a society.
So, in the UK, while many who have civil partnerships refer to them as weddings and marriages, and one may say vows and exchange rings etc. on the occasion, the effective legal contract that is spoken lies elsewhere in the ceremony.
Something like this could help avoid premature polarisation in the US. And note that not every gay couple wants to inherit "marriage".
It makes little sense to argue that this or that section of the population "has a (political) right" to be accorded a certain cultural meaning (e.g. marriage): even if this were desirable, as I believe it to be (and as I hope religious groups will also come to see in time).
Yet gay couples are right to demand civil legal rights - e.g., to have their partnerships recognised in law with the same legal effects as marriage.
The official label "marriage", however, necessarily will depend upon the advent of some broader cultural consensus.
Complain about this comment
165. Dear Nick:
The imperial histories of Rome, Byzantium, the Ottomans, China, and, arguably and a bit mischievously, Great Britain all support this. There are doubtless other examples. This history is, I would have thought, notoriously public, and it appears to be one sign (among many) that a society has reached its "best before" date. This is not a moral judgement, it is an observation of the history of previous societies. If you have any contrary examples to disprove this hypothesis, then say what they are.
The point that you identify as "self-contradictory", but apparently miss, is that whatever one's personal views on the subject may be, personal views on moraility or lifestyle cannot serve as a basis for public policy that deprives one group or another in our society of substantive rights simply by membership in that group rather than on the basis of some substantive logical nexus to the right or rights in question.
For example, there is a logical nexus between prohibiting persons previously convicted of violent offences with firearms from owning firearms. There is no logical nexus between being gay or lesbian and being denied survivor benefits.
Complain about this comment
Science has demonstrated that homosexuality is genetic in origin, and has been exhibited in other species besides humans.
Science magazine's website in the last week or two published further research that showed that a portion of mice brains controlling part of the olfactory system, if impaired, caused, ahem, gender "confusion".
Sexuality and gender identity is not an either/or affair, but ranges a spectrum. Americans seem susceptible to polar thinking of this sort, and it pervades politics as well as society. While the vast majority are strongly heterosexual, the line between heterosexual and homosexual is blurred.
Can those without strong tendencies either way be pulled by environment or culture? This I think remains to be seen, but seems possible.
This is perhaps why discussions on homosexuality are so uncomfortable to many non- homosexual people; the fear of the Jungian shadow personality may lurk.
Looking at the issue in bipolar dichotomies is wrong, but failing to see the possibly deep roots of the discomfort of many non-heterosexuals won't work.
Complain about this comment
#66 DNAtheist
There was another recent study (reported on either Slate or Science magazine's website) that determined that, while homosexuality seems like an evolutionary dead end, researchers concluded that fertility rates for female immediate family members of male homosexuals was notably higher.
So, the genetic tendencies of the mother to produce more fertile daughters might, if the research is validated, have the occasional effect of also producing some homosexual sons.
Complain about this comment
Does the Mormon church's (and most other church's, for that matter) homophobia justify their classification as a hate group? I see posts here in which cult members claim not to be homophobic; rather they think gay people have made a choice to live a lifestyle which justifies their exclusion from the church, their exclusion from civil rights and their eternal damnation in hell. It certainly sounds pretty close to me. Maybe -phobia IS the wrong term; what is the correct greco-roman term for hate? Are they gay-ist? No, that sounds supportive. How's about "bigoted cult devotees"?
I wonder had Justin been gay, black and atheist; would he still have seen a pleasant, smiling, polite white guy sitting opposite? Would he even have made it through the door?
Were Mormons also racist - I mean before 1978, when God decided to put them straight? I wonder how God did that? Surly it would have been just as easy for the omnipresent big-cheese to write it across the skies for everyone to see, or even take over 30 minutes on Fox (Obama did it!) I suspect he chose to whisper it to some church leader and ask him to pass it on. That's the way these things are usually handled - it saves people missing the Simpsons. And there's plenty of proof for people with enough faith: "Yeah, the big-un told Jim and he called me ..."
Talking of choice: the whole piece about people choosing their sexuality is so far removed from reality it put me in mind of ... well, Mormonism actually. Why would anyone chose to be gay in a society that hates them? Oscar and Charlie may have revelled in turning straight men, but not because straight men can be turned gay; because so many gay men live outwardly straight lives to avoid the bigotry and hatred handed out by a largely homophobic society. They were outing gay men. Come on, anyone out there who believes they are 100% straight: do you think the not-so-subtle charms of Oscar Wilde could turn you gay?
These days, it really can be good to be gay. Thank God (well, not YOUR God - this other God who actually loves everyone). As long as you live in San Francisco or some other live-and-let-live society, it's fabulous - isn't it? Let them be. They aren't about to move to Utah en masse and start coughing up 10% of their pink dollars to fuel hate-myths. So why do you care? What is it that scares you so much about gay people having the same rights as you? Hmmm, maybe -phobia was the right extension after all.
I'd love to be in Utah when the message comes in that gay's now OK. A big beardy bloke, talking like James Mason, streaking across the sky in roller-blades and designer cloths, waving a rainbow flag.
I jest too much. Your bigotry is actually serious. But it's all I'm left with since rational discussion and mutual understanding seems contrary to your belief system. Go back to your churches, light a candle, and ask yourself if you loved your brothers and sisters today to the best of your ability. Keep asking. Change is coming - have faith.
Complain about this comment
188 - Mr -
169 - Shiney -
173 - Via -
I retire from the fray (to go to work) with the happy knowledge that the subject is in your more than capable hands. As my Aussie friends would say, Good on ya, mate(s)!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
"The imperial histories of Rome, Byzantium, the Ottomans, China, and, arguably and a bit mischievously, Great Britain all support this." - Interested foreigner
You are still making assertions completely unbacked by evidence or argument. In your original comment you were talking about eunuchs in government - what do you suppose that has to do with gay marriage? Come on, put forward one piece of actual evidence, if you can, rather than just repeating unfounded claims. You might like to recall that Alexander the Great, the founder of one of the greatest empires in history, was predominantly homosexual ("Alexander the Great" by Robin Lane Fox). His father Philip II, who laid the foundations for his empie, had numerous male lovers. Julius Caeser, founder of the Roman Empire, was bisexual ("Julius Caesar: A Life" by Antony Kamm.)
"There is no logical nexus between being gay or lesbian and being denied survivor benefits."
Quite. Nor between being gay and lesbian and not being allowed to marry the partner of your choice.
Complain about this comment
The Mormons are insignificant in terms of population. Even if their money helped to push a slight advantage in the Proposition 8 debacle, they were not the ones that did the dirty deed: voting.
The group I blame most for the result of the Proposition are African-Americans. The day they were voting to elect a black president, the most visible sign of the success of the Civil Rights movement over the past 40 years, they voted 2 to 1 to take away the civil rights of another group. Even conservative Hispanic-Americans did not have such a lopsided vote.
Congratulations are thus in order for the African-American community: for the glorious triumph of the Civil Rights movement and for the denial they gave to another group to pursue theirs.
What utter hypocrisy.
Complain about this comment
"164. At 3:39pm on 20 Nov 2008, Interestedforeigner wrote:
Gay marriage is the modern equivalent of the ascent of eunuchs to privileged positions in the Imperial Court. It is undoubtedly a symptom of a society in decline. Romans, Byzantines, Chinese, Ottomans, ... British?"
Riveting stuff.
And here were the rest of us thinking the eunuch Narses was one of Byzantium's most successful generals and lived at the time of Byzantium's apogee.
It seems all these empires had eunuchs at the time of their supreme success.
So your point is in fact totally wrong
Complain about this comment
"The group I blame most for the result of the Proposition are African-Americans." - Mark_Wilson
Can you really not see the difference between blaming a group, many of whom did not vote for Proposition 8 and which has no mechanism for making a common decision, and blaming an organisation, the LDS, which took a specific decision to pour money into a campaign of lies?
Complain about this comment
I agree that it's just a matter of words. So why not admit that some people are against Equal Marriage? I refuse to use any other term, as it's merely a denial of equality.
Complain about this comment
167, Nessie.
"So what's your beef? Or to be more specific - what business is it of yours?" (My stand against gay marriage.)
If I understand you properly, you are entitled to an opinion, but I am not. There are referenda, elections, etc., so that people can express themselves and affect the direction in which the country is moving.
Are you proposing to disenfranchise me because I don't agree with you?
Complain about this comment
181, uninstall.
Marriage, when the term is applied to the union of two persons of the same sex, is a misnomer.
Complain about this comment
to comment #180:
You wish to semantically distinguish between making a claim against a group of individuals versus an organization (i.e. African-African Americans versus the Mormon "church").
Let me compare like with like then: the Mormon "church" with the predominantly black churches that supported the proposition.
Does this make my criticism more palatable?
Complain about this comment
There'll come a time when the current attitude to same-sex marriage is seen as passe, out of date and ignorant. But it won't be seen as quaint or understandable, it will be seen as the remnants of the same religious fundamentalism that tortured Galileo and ruined Alan Turing's life.
The world is round, regardless of what the keep-em-dumb and steal-their-votes crowd tell you. There is no magic man in the sky waiting to thank you for all the Hail Marys; and if there was, I don't think he'd be very impressed that you hated people in his name. Less still that you voted for an idiot like Bush - responsible for over a million deaths - so that you could hold back medical advances, deny Africa the means to fight HIV/AIDS, stop the poor getting health care and deny minorities equal civil rights.
When you think independently, challenge the ideas that were spoon-fed to you by accident of birth, and then do something good based on love and free will, then you'll be alive and your deeds will count for something.
Complain about this comment
Simon,
Au contraire! The point is well made. Remind me. What follows the apogee?Peace and logic
ed
apogee [ap-oh-jee]
Noun
1. Astron the point in its orbit around the earth when the moon or a satellite is farthest from the earth
2. the highest point: the concept found its apogee in Renaissance Italy [Greek apogaios away from the earth]
Complain about this comment
162. At 2:29pm on 20 Nov 2008, lochraven wrote:
"It's just a word, but a word full of meanings to different people. I think this issue is more of a sense of loss for heterosexual; something they feel is being taken away from them, and something that will change the whole meaning of marriage for them. Everybody will resist having something taken away from them, even though that loss is subjective. America went through the same thing with civil rights. A sense of loss for many, but in the end everybody gained."
I think for the religious right (and some not on the right) it's all about procreation. They think the marriage is an institution for procreation, for family and that homosexuals cannot effectly raise a family. This idea is insane. I am a heterosexual who has no desire for children so can I still get married? I know homosexual couples who are raising young children and they are fantastic parents. I agree with you though. It's just amazing to me. Hopefully we will look back on this one day in America and be ashamed that this was even an argument just like interracial marriage. It's amazing that even in the late 60's that it was illegal in some states.
Complain about this comment
157. At 09:14am on 20 Nov 2008, allmymarbles wrote:
153, lady.
"Why is the religious right getting so worked up over a word?" (gay marriage)
I am an athiest independent (not religious or right) who is against gay marriage. There are plenty like me who do not see it as a religious issue.
For the most part, or from what I have heard; it is religious folks who are against it. Although, there is an exception to every rule. Just out of curiosity, if you want to share; why? While I do not agree, I respect the opinions of others...as long as they are not trying to shove their ideas down my throat.
Complain about this comment
MMM
I wonder how many Mormons are in California? Suspect its too small to influence anything (even close elections).
Despite the protests .. its pretty clear that most voters are not ready for gay marriage - hence the approval of various prop 8 type measures throughout the USA.
Complain about this comment
128 At 8:49pm on 19 Nov 2008, mdalerwill wrote:
For people outside of California...
"They said that if gays were allowed to marry, the schools were going to start teaching homosexuality to children. It was a strong fear-based appeal."
Ha! I didn't know you could teach homosexuality?!? It's amazing the crap people will believe. Here in WA state, prop 1000 caused an uproar with similar scare tactics. This was the death with dignity law. In my voters pamphlet, for the arguments against it one was "insurance companies will no longer cover you when you are sick, they will insist you end your own life" (or something of that nature). Yah right. Also, something illuding to the fact they would systematically kill metally ill people who could not protect themselves. However, we passed prop 1000. But, last I heard it may go to court.
Complain about this comment
A thought... The Right continuously decries what they see as the growing role of government in people's lives.
What If: the government got out of the marriage business entirely? Essentially what the state's role in what we call marriage is as a legitimizer, or officiant, of a legal contract. Keep this role, but call it a "civil union," and open it to same sex couples as well. The contractual arrangement is still necessary to convey the obligations and privileges of the union.
This returns the term of "marriage" back to the religious community, from whence it originated; each faith and denomination to administer, or deny, the sacrament of Marriage as they see fit, without conveying or withholding the legal benefits of the civil contract.
Simple, really; government is out of private lives, other than its acknowledged legal role, and recognizes the strong, incontrovertible evidence of science- and it stays out of church affairs.
Unless, of course, we are unwilling to recognize the scientific evidence...
Complain about this comment
191, Via-Media.
Marriage is only seen as a religious rite because it is usually performed at a religious ceremony. However marriages fall under civil law.
Marriage was not devised by religions, but was the product of social need.
Complain about this comment
ladymc, shineykev and others
Thank you for taking the time and the trouble to challenge the blog bigots, and for doing it so eloquently.
I am more than happy for others to hold whatever views they wish but, as I have stated before in these blogs, I reserve the right to refer to my Civil Partnership as a marriage, and no one should tell me that I am not allowed to do so.
To believe that 'marriage' is a word that is or even should be strictly reserved for the heterosexuals of this world is an extremely silly argument.
The cultural argument won't cut it either as it denies the possibility of evolution and growth. It's only a matter of will.
Complain about this comment
No.173:
An intriguing plausability - I shall have to do some research. Ultimately, this is probably a subject for a different thread. Still, while we're here, I added that paragraph to my main point because it seemed evident that there was an element of the discussion that was gearing towards the 'how can someone be gay' question. I'm extremely skeptical of the so-called 'gay gene', and likewise any concept of a 'straight gene'. It seems likely that genetic predisposition dictates vagaries, which are then open to the governance of nurture. A probable genetic factor could be a natural predisposition towards 'maleness' and 'femaleness' within both males and females, for example, which is then open to other genetic factors and influences of culture, nurture, etc, that ultimately come together to formulate ones sexual preferences.
Complain about this comment
No.188:
"...an atheist independent who is against gay marriage."
In reference to my comment No.66 (3rd para), would you care to explain your argument from a secular point of view? I simply can't think of an argument driven by logic/reason myself, and would be intrigued to hear what drives your opinion.
Complain about this comment
No.193:
Glad to see someone else sees the absurdity of the argument from immutability. Humanity as a whole will hold true some
basic tenets: e.g. murder and rape are wrong; food, shelter and companionship are necessities; but laws, cultures, religions, governmental systems, etc, are ultimately mutable.
As you rightly point out, the key concepts are evolution, growth and will. And of course, death. It's commonly held in the scientific community that progress is often fostered by the passing of the old guard, those who cling stubbornly to their particular view of the Universe whilst denouncing the ideas of the next generation. As their influence fades so comes the flourishing of ideas from a new generation... who are destined to become the old guard themselves... and so the cycle continues.
Complain about this comment
"I wonder how many Mormons are in California? Suspect its too small to influence anything (even close elections)." - cynic555
The LDS poured money into a grossly dishonest advertising campaign. That is where they made the difference, and that is what is being objected to. Do try to keep up.
Complain about this comment
Mark_Wiscon@184,
Yes indeed, and I do indeed condemn those churches.
Complain about this comment
I notice that the popular press almost paid no attention at all to the assault against the Mormons. Had it been the other way round, it would have been headline news on CNN, BBC, et al, for weeks if not months.
Complain about this comment
LDS seems to be at odds with anyone or group that does not live their life style and believe feverently in their version of reality. America was largely built by people who faced the perils of an ocean crossing and in some cases died to escape a county where the laws were not restrictive enough. Looks like that set of values is returning.
After losing the battles to keep the LDS lily white, polygamy and suppressing women of the faith they have found a group whose life-style is a popular target for the large numbers of self-styled christians. Americans seem to take other peoples' differences very seriously.
Other first world countries seem to take a different view. In Canada there was a move to legalize same sex marriage. It was vehemently opposed in some quarters, principally evangelical christians. The population at large talked a while about the proposed law then then decided to risk the wrath of the various flavors of god and the bill passed. All indications to date suggest that there will be no end of days arising from the legislation. Neither have any pillars of salt been sighted in any of the known gay districts. Maybe the divine ones just doesn't care anymore?
Real love is a wonderful adventure, no matter what the gender roles of the partners are!
Complain about this comment
Re #189,
cynic555,
I don't believe anyone is arguing that the Mormon vote passed Prop 8, but that it was (as already mentioned) Mormon money. Perhaps more significantly, it was money from a conservative religious group based *outside* a generally liberal state. Personally, I don't think it could have passed with the plain "gay is wrong" argument. It was a very effective (though dishonest) strategy to say "it will turn your children gay!"
Re #199,
Immaokochua,
I don't know what region you are in, but it has been all over the news where I am.
Complain about this comment
I am a member of the LDS Church - British, but living in America, studying law. We as Latter-day Saints reach out to all people in love, including homosexuals. We are hardly alone among people of faith in the belief that the PRACTICE of homosexuality is not in harmony with the teachings of God. The American judiciary is enormously powerful, and it is extremely left wing. Even so, the vote in Ca. was 4 judges to 3 in favor of gay marriage. One deciding judge had ruled that marriage should be redefined. LDS church members in the Ca. area gave money to an awareness campaign for the 'Yes' vote, joining with Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews, that encouraged the public (whose constitution it is) to disagree with those 4 judges. Ultimately, they disagreed in their millions. The people have spoken.
In response, we have been singled out. We are a convenient target (unlike Jews, or African Americans, 2/3 of whom voted 'Yes'). But it is incomprehensible that any person could condone the kind of backlash we have experienced. Our buildings have been vandalised, our Book of Mormon has been set on fire, there have been anthrax scares at our sacred temples, and we have been branded bigots. I call on the media to be less biased and recognise that there are two valid sides to this story, as the excellent Justin Webb invariably does.
I do not have any feelings of hatred towards homosexuals - quite the opposite. But I stand up without shame for my belief in traditional marriage.
Complain about this comment
"The living language is like a cowpath: it is the creation of the cows themselves, who, having created it, follow or depart from it according to their whims or their needs. From daily use the path undergoes change. A cow is under no obligation to stay."
E.B. White
Such a notion must be terrifying to the religious mind because once one accepts that language is mutable, and changed by we mortals who use it, it is but a short step to conclude that truth is likewise a product of human imagination and thought.
Marriage, to many, is a fixed concept created by God (or arising out of "nature", for some). God, or nature, have decreed for all time that it is an unbreakable union between a man and a woman for the purposes of bringing forth offspring. Or so they say.
What happens when the cows move on? Many, many people live every day in relationships far, far removed Holy Matrimony. Hetero or homo, we have taken paths that lead in every conceivable direction.
The issue with gay marriage arises because a significant number of people have taken this path, and found their attempts to socially legitimate their relationships blocked by the defenders of traditional marriage. The courts have advanced the cause of these wandering cows, but in so doing have perhaps offended a broad segment of public opinion (not just Mormons).
The result of the vote will doubtlessly be challenged in the courts. Those who support gay marriage will need to use the court battle as an opportunity to make their case in the struggle for public opinion. Scapegoating any group, Mormon or otherwise, is a bad strategy to advance the cause.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
God(s) help us!
Peace and flak jacketsed
Complain about this comment
#189. cynic555: "I wonder how many Mormons are in California? Suspect its too small to influence anything (even close elections)."
According to the LDS, 761,763, a substantial number, considering that Proposition 8 passed by only 513,453 votes (4.2%)
#202. PaoloTheFish: "the vote in Ca. was 4 judges to 3 in favor of gay marriage. One deciding judge had ruled that marriage should be redefined."
No, four of the justices made the decision! If your logic is to be followed in your legal career, heaven help your clients. Since you are British but living in the USA, I wonder whether you made any financial contribution to the attempt to amend California's Constitution? One of the greatest complaints about the funds supporting the Proposition was that they came from organisations based out-of-state. Why would you wish to influence a State when you are merely a student visitor? Surely that is unethical in itself? Intolerance has been and continues to be the hallmarks of your denomination. I suggest you return home and try to influence legislation there rather than imposing your beliefs on California.
Complain about this comment
"The American judiciary is enormously powerful, and it is extremely left wing." PaoloTheFish
You wonder how anyone quite so divorced from reality manages not to walk out of tenth-floor windows. Ah, but he is a Mormon of course, so he'll have had lots of practice in believing ludicrous nonsense.
Look Paolo, your LDS chose to fund a campaign of hatred and lies. It made itself fair game for any peaceful means of protest, ridicule and condemnation. If there has been violence or destruction of your property, that is indeed wrong; but I have yet to see a documented case of this that is clearly linked to Propostion 8.
Complain about this comment
Alright to make it simple blaming just the mormons is stupid. Many other groups opposed prop 8 including im sure plenty of atheists. Also as far as I am concerned gay marriage should not be legalized because it is not helpful to the survival by our race. To be blunt SEX IS TO MAKE BABIES. Sorry if I offend you but it is true. Therefore homosexuality is a bad idea to encourage as it does not help the sustainability of our race and goes against the Darwinist principles that most people support. Those principles are survival of the fittest.
Complain about this comment
"Scapegoating any group, Mormon or otherwise, is a bad strategy to advance the cause." - Canadian Pinko
I disagree. See my #8: the costs of anti-gay bigotry must be raised, just as those of anti-black bigotry were - and let's remember how unwilling the LDS was to abandon its bigotry in that case.
Complain about this comment
"To be blunt SEX IS TO MAKE BABIES. Sorry if I offend you but it is true. Therefore homosexuality is a bad idea to encourage as it does not help the sustainability of our race and goes against the Darwinist principles that most people support. Those principles are survival of the fittest." - i_r_smart
This is a farago of nonsense. Presumably you think women past the menopause should not have sex? Men who do not produce viable sperm? Riiiight. "Darwinist principles" don't exist. Darwin was a scientist, not a moralist (and he never used the phrase "survival of the fittest"). In many, many species, sex for other purposes than reproduction is found - including homosexual sex. Read "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice to all Creation" by Olivia Judson. And do you really think "the sustainability of our race" is in danger because too few babies are being born? Come off it. All this is just a feeble attempt at justifying your bigotry.
Complain about this comment
208 Nick-Gotts wrote:
I disagree. See my #8: the costs of anti-gay bigotry must be raised, just as those of anti-black bigotry were - and let's remember how unwilling the LDS was to abandon its bigotry in that case.
=====================
Point taken.
However, (deep breath), on the issue of SSM, I would argue that there is always going to be a difference between what churches are able to do internally, as a matter of religious doctrine, and civil authority governing the legality of SSM per se. One of the biggest bugaboos on the religious side is that the state is going to force their sect or denomination to perform same sex marriage, i.e., that the state is going to interfere in matters of religious belief.
The Constitution is clearly not going to allow for this sort of challenge. What the SSM ruling in California did was simply to legalize same sex marriages performed by institutions that chose to do them. All of which is to say that you don't have to attack people's fundamental beliefs in order to legalize SSM.
There are good tactical reasons not to push the SSM issue as a challenge to basic religious beliefs. All Mormons are not anti-gay zealots (have a listen to Radio Free Utah, for example). SSM is a "hearts and minds" question as much as it is a legal question. You will never change the minds of the hard core believers (nor do you have to!), but you can shift the attitudes of many others by presenting an empathetic, reasoned case that respects religious belief (have you seen the prop. 8 exit poll data? It provides some interesting insights into those who need convincing).
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
<RICHPOST>Two more links for Mormons with far from sterotypical attitudes to SSM <A HREF="http://mormonsformarriage.com/">here</A> and <A HREF=[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]>here</A>.<BR /><BR />Yours,<BR />Canadian Pinko </RICHPOST>
Complain about this comment
To: Nick-Gotts
Reffering to post #209:
Well making presumptions has caused the fall of many leaders and countries so I feel sorry for such a narrow minded fool as yourself. First off I never said I had a problem with those unable to reproduce to have sex I was just saying that the goal of the act is procreation (which I learned in 6th grade biology). Saying that those who experience growing old or biological deficincies should not have sex is like saying those with special needs should not be allowed to learn. So your assumption as me as a bigot (which is completely untrue) shows what a shallow and angry person you are. Also, your personal and emotional attacks show the lack of factual support behind your opinions. Therefore I would suggest that you put your efforts into being more accepting others opinions (though polite debate is encouraged) in an open forum instead of making crude and callous personal attacks like a middle school girl.
Complain about this comment
Try, try again.
Link to Mormon lawyer Morris Thurston debunking arguments in favour of de-legalising SSM here. Very well done, as it addresses all the usual canards in a thorough and lawyer-like fashion.
Happy reading,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
post no. 169 said "If you disagree with same-sex marriage, don't marry a gay person."
That's the whole problem. If the sexual preference of one group becomes a protected status like color of skin then what rights do the religious institutions have to deny same-sex marriages in their holy places? People mention the Catholic Church denying full church rites to divorced people, but being divorced isn't protected, is it? The Catholic Church had to close down it's adoption services in Mass. because they didn't allow same-sex couples to adopt from them.
I really didn't object to SSM, it didn't bother me at all and would prob. have voted against prop. 8 if I had been in Cali (and this with me being LDS and all that), but the actions after the legal constitutionally protected vote made me wish I had donated enough money to be on the prop8 hit list. I would be proud to wear a yellow 'M', with the proper state-decided measurements, on all my clothes. Fight Intimidation!
Complain about this comment
214 talisyn wrote: what rights do the religious institutions have to deny same-sex marriages in their holy places?
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees you the freedom of religion. The California court ruling simply legalized marriages performed by institutions that choose to perform them. Moreover, the Court explicitly noted that the ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages. It also stated that the ruling cannot have any federal tax consequences.
The Catholic Church had to close down it's adoption services in Mass. because they didn't allow same-sex couples to adopt from them.
Not so, one Catholic charity organisation voluntarily ceased providing adoption services because it was worried about lawsuits arising because it accepts public funding. How such a hypothetical lawsuit would have played out is a matter of conjecture.
As to the "hit list," you mention I haven't heard of that. What is it? What has happened to whom?
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
i_r_smart,
On the contrary, I took apart your facile nonsense with facts, and called you a bigot because that's what you are.
"I was just saying that the goal of the act is procreation (which I learned in 6th grade biology)"
What do you mean "the goal of the act"? Not, most of the time, the goal of those performing it, so whose goal? Your 6th grade biology teacher should have known better than to peddle such teleological rubbish.
Complain about this comment
"I would argue that there is always going to be a difference between what churches are able to do internally, as a matter of religious doctrine, and civil authority governing the legality of SSM per se. One of the biggest bugaboos on the religious side is that the state is going to force their sect or denomination to perform same sex marriage, i.e., that the state is going to interfere in matters of religious belief." - chronophobe
Come on, they don't believe that for a moment. It's just a convenient lie to justify their attempt to impose their religious beliefs on society as a whole.
Complain about this comment
Most human beings are nice individuals.
It's when they form parties, cliques, factions and groups that the mob mentality comes out.
I can not think of one supposedly pious organization that doesn't have some form of prejudice or hatred toward another group of humans. It's quite tragic really.
Complain about this comment
#202 PaoloTheFish:
What a load of victimization!
If you look at my own posts, I actually say that other groups should be held accountable for this "dictatorship-by-the-majority" vote in California. No one is just singling out Mormons.
Although I do find it ironic though that Mormonism, given its rather pariah status within the US had decided to become so vociferous about this moral issue. I find it especially ironic given most "God-fearing Christians" in this country have strong beliefs that Mormonism is more akin to Scientology than to Christianity and hence immoral (a view that I do not subscribe to by the way). Look at Romney and how he had to justify his faith to the Republican masses to continue on with the nomination process that he in part lost because of his "wacky" beliefs.
As to the complaints about vandalism of Mormon churches, that is illegal period. As to the complaints of the Mormon holy book being burned, well, I find that distasteful too. Burning books brings to my mind Nazi Germany circa 1936. However, they are a form of free expression. The Mormon "church" should have considered the repercussions of its "Free Speech" money that got sent to California. Have a spine when others use their "Free Speech" to voice their disapproval against Mormonism.
On a side note, the Mormon "church" did state that they did not support gay discrimination So some innovative Utah legislators are going to use this opportunity to enact laws against discrimination of gays in Utah. Let's see if the Mormon "church" was simply sugar-coating its bigotry or actually believes that gays ought to be protected.
Finally, as the your valiant "defense" of "traditional marriage" from the evil legions of doom from Castro Street, that is the entire debate! What "tradition" is being used to define marriage? "Tradition" also justified laws against inter-racial marriage in the US (God prohibited the mixing of races). "Tradition" also justified slavery in the US (we are doing the Lord's will by Christianizing these savages, and the Hebrews had slaves too). "Tradition" also justified apartheid in the US until the 1960s in the Jim Crow South (this is the way things have always been in our country).
I think that traditions should go the way of the dinosaurs (presuming you believe they existed until 65 million years ago). Debate should be what determines social policy, what a shocking concept! Rational discussion, now, "that's hot."
Complain about this comment
I'm a Mormon who did not support Prop. 8. Actually, LDS congregations in California (especially the more liberal costal communities) were split practically down the middle on this issue, and it lead to a lot of strife within the individual wards. It's really too bad that the Church itself took such a strong stance on the issue, because the Mormons are America's favorite whipping boy.
It's also too bad that there's been such a, frankly, hypocritical backlash against the Church. Those who preach love and equality (which should be the FOCUS of the movement to get an unconstitutional amendment overturned instead of a pointless smear campaign) should take a step back and seriously reconsider what vandalizing churches and burning sacred books does to your own image.
Complain about this comment
xeminas,
Can you give an actual example of an LDS church being vandalised, clearly linked to opposition to Proposition 8? If there are such, I condemn them, but all I've heard so far is a claim without any specifics at all.
Complain about this comment
Re: 220
It's good to hear another side of the story. I am surprised at the level of animosity expressed here against the individual beliefs of Mormons. What is important is to contest the stand of the Church (and not just the LDS) and its attempt to make religious doctrine public policy. Attacking what individuals believe is gratuitous and counter productive.
More Mormons against Prop. *here.
Complain about this comment
"Attacking what individuals believe is gratuitous and counter productive." - chronophobe
I disagree: there is a close connection between particularly ludicrous religious beliefs (not just Mormonism) and anti-gay bigotry; and indeed such beliefs, and misogyny and racism. The initial response of those hearing their ludicrous beliefs mocked may be defensive - but the still, small voice of reason will be telling a lot of them "Well, yes, it is pretty daft when you think about it.".
Complain about this comment
In response to David Cunard, at #205:
4 judges voted in favor of legalizing gay marriage; 3 against. So my point is that the decision turned on one vote, as it often does. True, that is the nature of the court. But that is precisely why the court is not the right forum for such public policy issues, or if they are, then the people should have the opportunity to override their opinions (as they have with Proposition 8). Judges are not elected. They are well known for being liberal especially in the Ca. area (even on the federal level).
I did not contribute any money to Proposition 8 - it was never once mentioned by any church leader in my congregation because I am in Washington DC. The first I heard about it was through the media. And I'm not a student visitor but a US Permanent Resident, and my wife and daughter are both American.
In response to Nick Gotts, at #206:
I doubt many would consider it a controversial statement to say that the American judiciary is enormously powerful. I refer to the concept of judicial review, whereby the courts have the final say on what constitutions and statutes mean (unlike in Britain, where parliament, the people's representatives, has the final say), an concept well entrenched in America. Consequently issues such as gay marriage and abortion are decided by supreme courts rather than legislatures, which is unfortunate, because courts are ill equipped to deal with them. That the legal profession is extremely left wing is also an uncontroversial statement. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html. (I live with this every day!)
I cannot accept that this was a campaign of hatred and lies. The LDS church has repeatedly called for civility and has never uttered words of hatred. We love all people as children of God. And where were the lies? (I do not recall seeing anything like, for example, the 'No' campaign's despicable attempt at fearmongering and prejudice by dramatizing two of our missionaries entering a lesbian home and tearing up marraige licenses. What nonsense.)
Complain about this comment
Re: 224 I cannot accept that this was a campaign of hatred and lies. The LDS church has repeatedly called for civility and has never uttered words of hatred. We love all people as children of God. And where were the lies? =================== So, let's call it a campaign of "disinformation." I'm sure you came across the "Six Consequences the Coalition has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails." A rebuttal [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
There's a Mormon conspiracy preventing me from posting this link!!! (just kidding -- I think)
Maybe this will work?
PaolotheFish, have a look.
Complain about this comment
Why dont Gays start their own religion! Dig up some "gold" plates that say jesus was in fact Gay and he only married Mary Magdelin to appease his PR people. Why stop there! how about a church for left handed red headed people ! Or better still left handed red headed Gay people !!
Complain about this comment
#227 yakaridge
Given that all churches discriminate against gay people - love the 'sinner', hate the 'sin' and all that illogical twaddle - it is unsurprising that most lesbians and gay men have walked away from religion as you seem to understand it.
We certainly won't volunteer to share our spiritual space with those who preach intolerance at best and hatred at worst, all in the name of their version of god.
Complain about this comment
My comment at 228 has been referred to the moderators. This is the first time I have experienced this, particularly as I habitually express myself in moderate terms.
It seems that to mention god is not allowed on this blog unless one is a believer. Bit of a bigot's charter really.
Perhaps its just because it's a Sunday and we should all be at church.
Complain about this comment
I'll try again
#227 yakaridge
Why would lesbians and gay men find it necessary, much less desirable, to establish a church of their own?
Most of us have learned to get along really well without the condescending ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ nonsense peddled by our so-called christian ‘sisters and brothers’ and the corresponding intolerance of other faiths.
Thanks, but no thanks!
Complain about this comment
"That the legal profession is extremely left wing is also an uncontroversial statement." - PaoloTheFish
Garbage. And your NYT link doesn't work.
The Prop 8 lies included the claim that if it were not passed "homosexuality will be taught in schools". A flat-out, bare-faced, brazen lie.
To call for "civility" while trying to deny gay people equal civil rights is disgusting hypocrisy. The LDS has chosen to involve itself in politics in the service of its bigotry; now it must live with the consequences.
Complain about this comment
I've known many mormons, and particularly the two different flavours; Utah and Texas. While I can say without a shadow of a doubt, they are kind generous and upright people, I am unable to recognise their religion as Christian. Even underpinned by traditional Christian values, their whole theology about becoming "Gods" of planets populated by their progeniture makes me feel like I've just read the most extraordinary science fiction of all time. The "Christian or Jewish Bible" has NEVER taught this. Nor the amazing golden plates Joseph Smith found, written in "Old Egyptian", which mysteriously were never authenticated, and have never been found.
As for baptisms for the dead, regularly practiced in Salt Lake City (by proxy), this involved an occult process expressly forbidden in the Bible, see 2 Samuel.
Kind beautiful people, misled and lied to by their church.
Complain about this comment
Let me be perfectly frank here. I think the Mormons should be a shamed of themselves. Do they not realize that they have no business getting involved in what is essentially a political issue. One of this countries founding principles what the fact that religion and politics do not mix. What gives them the right to dictate to the people of the State of California how they will live their lives? Who gave them that right? That's right nobody gave them that right.
AS an American, I have to admit that Europe is far ahead of the United States when it comes to the rights of Lesbians, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered people. Even in spain, which is the most Catholic of Nations, Gay marriage is Legal.
The issue of Marriage does not just affect people whose orientation is homosexual. Marriage is not something that should be simply for heterosexuals. Currently, there are many people who are Bisexual who are married. Should their option be limited simply because the government decides that marriage should be between a man and a woman? I do not believe that this should be the case.
I am writing this from someone who was raised in the Salvation Army, a demonination whose views on Homosexuality mirror those of the Mormons. I am writing this from the perspective of a man whom has two aunts who are lesbians. Growing up, the fact of that they were lesbians never entered into my mind, they were my aunts and that was all that mattered.
Complain about this comment
I try and live a tolerant life. However, I find myself having very little patience for people who try to force their own beliefs on other people. This is particularly a problem with the Christian right, which also supports a ban on gay marriage. How bad is there intolerence. Some "christian" organizations have set up clinics that try and converts bisexuals and homosexuals to heterosexuality. Do they not realize that falisay of this. People can not choose their sexuality. I can not choose to be heterosexual. I can not choose to be homosexual. I am neither. I am a bisexual and am proud of who I am.
Complain about this comment
I have a maiden aunt who retired from the Army two months before I was born, and growing up I've never seen or heard the slightest hint that she has ever had a romantic relationship with anyone, ever.
She's 75 years old now, and my wife who handles some of her personal affairs, like her will, told me that my aunt has a ring, that when she dies she wants given to a woman, that is a close freind, and that that woman has one that is identical to it. I've listen to her stories about her shildhood, her life as a WAAC and then in the regular army, but I never heard her tell me about this dear freind of hers.
Is it possible that my Aunt has been in the closet all her life?
Complain about this comment
207. At 00:30am on 22 Nov 2008, i_r_smrt wrote:
"Alright to make it simple blaming just the mormons is stupid. Many other groups opposed prop 8 including im sure plenty of atheists. Also as far as I am concerned gay marriage should not be legalized because it is not helpful to the survival by our race. To be blunt SEX IS TO MAKE BABIES. Sorry if I offend you but it is true."
I don't understand. Gay couples can still be together, regardless of whether or not they are married. This argument sets women's right back also, since not all of us want children. Marriage is about the benefits that accompany it, so your partner gay or straight can legally take care of you should something happen and have your best interest at heart. Everyone derserves that.
Complain about this comment
In regards to comment number 207.
I feel sorry for you. I really do. You do realize that with the advent of birth control methods like the pill and condoms, sex has become more about enjoyment than making babies.
As I have stated before, I grew up in a similar environment to yours raised in fundamentalist christian household, until my father became disillusioned about the Salvation Army and left the church. I spent most of my teenage years rejecting religion.
Having said that, I still bought into the myth of heterosexuality. It wasn't until my late 20's that I started questioning it, when on Vacation an out gay man bought me drinks at a bar in a Washington DC hotel. Don't get me wrong, I still was attracted to women, but this was an eye opener to me. Still I tried to deny it though and it wasn't until a close friend of mine told me that she was bisexual that I was able to come to terms with my own bisexuality.
Complain about this comment
215. At 04:59am on 22 Nov 2008, chronophobe wrote:
214 talisyn wrote: what rights do the religious institutions have to deny same-sex marriages in their holy places?
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees you the freedom of religion. The California court ruling simply legalized marriages performed by institutions that choose to perform them. Moreover, the Court explicitly noted that the ruling would not require any priest, rabbi or minister to perform gay marriages. It also stated that the ruling cannot have any federal tax consequences.
The fact that this particular court said churches can decide to not allow marriages inside their holy edifices between homosexual couples does not impress me. This same court overturned the wishes of the majority of the people of Cali once this year, and seem poised to do it again the next year. If they have the power to create new interpretations of the state constitution what's to stop them from changing what they wrote in May? The precedent has been set.
Complain about this comment
In regard to 238
When our Founding fathers wrote the United STates Constitution in 1787 they put in place a system of check and Balences. All three branches of the government have the ability to prevent the other branches of government from grabbing too much power. The President keeps congress in check by vetoing legislation. The congress keeps the President in check by not voting for his legislation. The courts keep both the Congress and the President in check by ruling on the there actions are unconstitutional. The courts are also in place to prevent the majority from becoming tyranical.
The court ruling that Churches,Synogogs and Mosques didn't have to preform marriage ceremonies to gays and lesbians but that California's ban on gay marriages was in perfect keeping with what the framers of the constitution had in mind. It is so for several reasons.
#1 It maintains the seperation of Church and State.
#2 It protect the rights of minorities from tyranny of the majority.
#3 it maintains the system of checks and balences.
#4 It is was a fair and equitable decision.
I can understand where the Christian Right is coming from when they say Homosexuality is a sin. I do not agree with it, butI respect there right to believe what they want to believe. That's what America was founded on.
However, I do not feel that it is appropriate for religious institutions to force their beliefs on the rest of the population. That is Not what America was founded on.
What should it matter if I am in love with a man or a woman? What should it matter? Shouldn't I be accorded the same rights and opertunities as other people?
Complain about this comment
177 Nick
At the risk of offending every Macedonian or Greek reader, I'm not sure that Alexander makes the cut.
I may post a longer response later.
Complain about this comment
In spite of the recent setbacks, I have to say there have been positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in the media. Whether it is Rosie O'donnel, Elen DeGeneres, Lance Bass and Neil Patrick Harris continuing to enjoy carreer success after coming out or the portrayal of openly gay characters on TV shows like Will and Grace, there has been progress in the portrayal of Lesbians and Gays in the Media. Bisexuality on the other hand is a somewhat differant story. But even there the Success of Brokeback Mountain a couple of years ago was encouraging.
Still there seems to be a double standard when it comes to bisexuality. It seems to be a a double standard. It's perfectly fine and acceptible for Madanna or Lindsey Lohan to be open about there being Bisexual, but if a male actor did the same thing they would be subjected to questions.
Ladies and Gentles, Gay, Lesbians, transexuals and bisexuals are everywhere and are included in every social class of society and in ever occupation. We're even in Politics. Barney Frank has been one of the few openly gay politicians in America and has been out for atleast 20 years.
However, what is disturbing to me are conservative politicians and religious like Senator Larry Craig or the Rev. Ted Hagard who vote against gay rights and then get caught engaging in homosexual activities. What kind of self hatred is that?
Complain about this comment
i always find it amazing that we look to these small religious groups in america for example of homophobia. I mean, we actually go looking for these people!
whilst, Islam the fastest growing religion in the World and Homosexuality is a crime and forbidden in most Islamic countries, we turn a blind-eye. Too difficult for us to handle, too many psuedo liberals to praise islam and hence we go searching for a small group to condemn (make sure they are white and christian) and we can all join in with our fashionable leftism comments!
Complain about this comment
So long as gay rights are a predominantly white cause they will lose in popular votes; the real lesson of Nivember 4 was that neither white conservatives nor white liberals are strong enough to defeat the rest of the nation.
But in a country that refuses to permit the establishment of religion there is a solution to the gay marriage question: let the law distinguish between civil unions for *everyone*, gay or straight, which is a contract between two parties creating certain rights and duties to be determined by the legislature, and marriage, which is a status recognized by each religion on its own terms. If you wish to be united in the eyes of the law, enter a civil union; if you wish to be united in the eyes of God, get married; if you want both, do both. Of course if unmarried partners in a civil union (gay or straight) wish to call it marriage, there's nothing to stop them.
Complain about this comment
In regards with 243
Sir I will let you know, Gay marriage is not a white issue, it is not a black issue and it is not a latino issue.
For the record, there are gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people who are black, white, latino, asian as well as native american. This is a Human issue.
Complain about this comment
I read this a while back and believe that this is a most fair way to solve this issue.
Civil unions should be done by the state, the county, the city, the government and that should be the legal joining for purposes of insurance, death benefits, everything legal. That would apply for any and all people.
A marriage, would be performed by a religious pastor, preacher, rabbi, bishop, or who ever represented a particular religion. The church could dictate who gets married in their faith. They only have to marry whomever they wish. Churches have the right to marry who ever they choose. A marriage certificate has no legal benefits or meaning, it is purely a religious joining in the eyes of the couples God
That way, those in a particular faith who believe that only certain types of marriages are to be performed, can control who is married in that particular faith. Those faiths that are open to all, can choose to marry whomever they chose.
No one faith, should tell someone else of another faith what they should believe nor should they control the ordinances performed in another's church.
This is true freedom of religion.
Complain about this comment
177 Nick
On Alexander the Great.
We are not looking for individual military leaders (warrior kings, in effect), but rather a substantial society that has something recognizable as a civil service and what would now be considered a chattering class. It needs scale and staying power. After meeting that threshold, the issue is then whether prevalence, or significant presence, of non-heterosexual behaviour in the chattering class (e.g., eunuchs in the imperial court) is an indicator that the society in question has jumped the shark.
I gave you four very good examples, which you denied as being examples. I have difficulty understanding what you criteria are for ignoring the Romans (a fairly substantial enterprise), the Byzantines (ditto, lasted roughly 1000 years), the Ottomans (lasted 700 years), and the Chinese Empire that ended prior to WWI (which lasted hundreds of years). You cite Alexander the Great, who lasted a decade and a half, and whos empire had withered to nothing within roughly 50 years.
Does Macedonia pass the threshold test ? At its height, Alexander's empire had scale, fair enough. It had no staying power. It dissolved into parts and was absorbed into other entities relatively quickly after his own death. (Which, I suppose, was Ed's point.)
Where is the cut off? Well, the Wittelsbachs had staying power, and a civil service, but probably not scale. Charlemagne's empire had scale and long lasting influence, but as an economic and military enterprise drifted apart relatively soon after his death. The Habsburgs and the Empire of the Tsars clearly meet the threshold requirements. Imperial Spain clearly did. The Shogunate did. Gustavus Adolphus didn't. How about Portugal, or the Netherlands, or Venice?
Alexander was the historical equivalent of a one-hit wonder, whose empire hardly outlasted his flesh. A flaming meteor, poisoned by one of his own. Possibly paranoid. Possibly a sociopath. The alpha male warlord who had the pick of wives, concubines, and amusements, male or female. That’s hardly unique in history. He barely lasted longer than Hitler. How does that make him different from other despots past and present? And, as Ed points out, it was downhill all the way from there. Great example of the benefits of alternative lifestyles, for sure. So what was your point in citing this example? If anything doesn’t it bolster the view you are trying to discredit?
In citing Alexander, you have taken the big man view of history, when the issue is one of a broader society. We are looking for a society that transcends a single individual, or a single lifetime. We aren’t looking for Mistah Kurtz, or Jim Jones, or even Tamerlane. We are looking for the shabby careless clerk and the pale plumpness of the whited sepulcher, the everymen that are symbolic of a wider societal decline.
Alexander? No, on the whole, we're still looking for a good counter-example. Keep trying though, maybe you’ll find something better.
Perhaps you will continue to dismiss, with such evident contempt, other people’s observations as “puerile” and “bilge”. For all that contempt, you still haven’t provided a credible counter example.
When you run out of breath, and indignation, and contempt, perhaps you will pause. Some years ago the Economist ran a very lengthy piece on the war against drugs. The piece pointed out that the war on drugs was a complete and utter failure, and a massive waste of resources to boot. The Economist called for legalization of most banned drugs, accompanied by a system of regulation and discouragement. It ran this piece even though it must have been an anaethma to the vast majority of its readership. It also very bravely ran an article that pointed out that abortion is, on the whole, beneficial. Surely that can not have gone down well with many readers. Sometimes we do not like the things we read or observe. Clearly you do cannot abide the idea that there may be objective reasons to doubt the wisdom of redefining the word "marriage", or anyone who would entertain any view different from yours on the topic. Well, sometimes the facts don't turn out the way we would like.
Complain about this comment
238. 24 Nov 2008, talisyn wrote:
========================
The only precedent which has been set is that the Court will act to protect fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution from powerful challenges. I see no reason to believe the California Court, or any other Court, would be any less vigilant in protecting your First Amendment rights.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re 246: Clearly you do cannot abide the idea that there may be objective reasons to doubt the wisdom of redefining the word "marriage"
=========================
Even if (and I don't say that I do) one were to accept the coincidence of "non-heterosexual behaviour" and social decline, it's a long, long way to proving anything even remotely like a causal relationship.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you're saying: do you mean to suggest that non-hetero behaviour is a sign of decline, or are you full out saying is a cause of decline?
Do you really believe empires fall based on who is sticking what in which hole? Seems completely daft to me.
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re 177 and 246
Dear sir what are you talking about. What you are saying makes utterly no sense at all. If you are saying that the Roman's, Byzantines, Ottomans and other empires declined because they had emporors who were gay, you are absolutely reaching for a conclusion that doesn't exist.
This is especially true for the Romans where, until Constantine Christianized in the 4th century, homosexuality was considered acceptable. The same held true for the Greek City States. Ditto Japan, where there was no distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and Warriors were permitted to have sex with one another.
To these societies, love was love and it didn't matter whom one was in love with. Modern Societies have had leaders who were Gay. James I is alledged to have been gay. It has been suggested that Edward II was portrayed as being gay in the movie Braveheart.
Here in the United States, it is largely accepted that atleast one president has been gay.That President, James Buchanan, was largely responsible for allowing the Civil War to happen, but it had absolutely nothing to do with his sexuality. There has even been speculation that Abraham Lincoln was gay. The Log Cabin Republican have chosen their name in honor of him.
Complain about this comment
In support of vehemence:
There is no justification for decrying someone who expresses an opinion fervently or with unconcealed anger. A good debate and a good debate subject should see temperatures running high. This is bound to be especially apparent when the subject matter involves religion and human rights.
Personally, I prefer to express myself in measured tones. Behind the scenes, however, I am spectacularly angry. Ignorance and intolerance are so anathema to my mind that I often find myself almost blinded with rage. A calm demeanour ensures that any eloquence I may possess doesn't go down the pan. But, there are people who are able to opine whilst visibly seething on the outside, and they are to be commended. Arguments presented with brutality and bluntness are no less potentially valid than those presented quietly and calmly.
A poignant fact that can often be overlooked is that hatred and anger are perfectly acceptable human emotions, and there is nothing wrong with them. Indeed, they are necessary, vital elements of expression. Where the error lies is only in their direction. Hatred does not equate to intolerance. It can be borne of intolerance, of course, but it is not limited to that narrow field.
I, for example, despise organised religion and much of what it stands for. I am not, however, intolerant of religious people nor their choice of belief. But I am staunchly against the foisting of ones' belief system on others. And, I reserve the right to mock any belief system, to denounce a series of beliefs as nonsense and to rigorously question the validity of any argument that is founded on such beliefs.
There is no escaping the fact that religion has been, and still is, used as a platform for rationalising deplorable levels of intolerance, and Proposition 8 is no exception. Now that is something I hate.
Complain about this comment
It seems the Mormon church is carrying the torch of Decency and morality that , so called, enlightened Society, led by the American Liberal Left, have tried to so hard to put out.
The Mormon church is not the organisation that would immediately spring to mind in this area but Im pleased to see them fighting against pervertions that we are told are a valid life style choice.
Good on em
Complain about this comment
It seems that enlightened society is carrying the torch of logic and reason that some so-called moral and decent churchgoers, led by the mythical guidance of an unfalsifiable hyper-being, seek so rabidly to stamp out.
Enlightened progressives do indeed immediately spring to mind and I thank the Celestial Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster that they are willing to speak out with quietude or with vitriol against the harbingers of bigotry, ignorance and perverted ethics.
Complain about this comment
RE 251
I have to disagree with you. Homosexuality, Bisexuality and Transgenderism is NOT a lifestyle choice. It's not something I can or can not choose to do. It is what I am. I was born this way. Most scientist would agree that Homosexuality is something that you are born as. It's not a lifestyle.
Complain about this comment
News posted to my local news site last night says the California Fair Political Practices Commission will be investigating the Mormon church's reporting of its Prop 8 efforts. Should be interesting to see how this turns out.
Complain about this comment
The mormons are decent people, that is why they supported proposition 8 as every decent person in CA. The people spoke loud and clear against same sex marriage. The homos or the perverts answered to democracy with violence and anarchy and intolorance. I know why they did that, because they want to impose their evil way of living and immoral one on people. They are despicable and disgusting people. They will be defeated in all the US. We will amend the US constitution to ban same sex marriage. If they do not like it, go to France, get out of here, you are just pollutants to our country.
Complain about this comment
So, for some Mormon commenters, it's the word "marriage" being used for something that's "different" than their concept of marriage. It's not the actual legal union they're against. It's merely the discomfort with the word.
If you can't get wet from the word "water" how do you get discomfort from the word "marriage"?
Why not just say what you're really against?
Complain about this comment
It is the root of this problem that needs to be discussed and I grow tired of everybody shuffling other "issues" into the forefront of American politics. It's Religion vs. Secularism. Take this issue: I don't care if gay people get married because I don't think there is a god in heaven or a satan in hell. I think it is all non-sense and the day humanity looks at religion as a necessary yet outdated institution in human history perhaps we will all be the better for it (I think we will). That said, marriage is simply an economic union between two people or two families. Of course it involves love and compassion-why else would you do it-but all you are really agreeing to is date for the rest of your life and legally tie up your finances together. Is that really that holy? Does it really matter then if dudes marry dudes and chicks marry chicks? No! It doesn't! Especially since almost every marriage I have ever seen either ends in divorce or two people totally disliking each other. I have no desire, need, or respect for this institution. It’s silly. Love doesn’t need a contract if it is really love.
Complain about this comment
Re #255,
Wow, some pretty hateful and intolerant language coming from you in this case. Evil. Immoral. Despicable. Disgusting. If a few more people like you had come out and spoken like this in public, I suspect there would have been quite a few more votes against 8.
And the 5.9 million people who voted against Prop 8 are decent people, too. And none of them are going to leave to make you happy.
There is a saying...You can catch more flies with honey...
Complain about this comment
#255
How can you be so bigoted? How can you say "all decent people" should oppose gay marriage? What do you define as being decent.?
I am sorry, I like to consider myself a decent person. Does that mean I should oppose gay marriage? No. I believe in tolerance. I believe in live an let live. If my aunt wanted to Marry another woman, I would not object. If I wished to marry a man, I would hope no one would object. But according to your position, I would only be able to marry a woman. Who gave you that right to decide whom I am going to marry?
Complain about this comment
The Kim Johnson above or Kym Johnson. I know which one I prefer.
Complain about this comment
Normally when someone tells me they're a Mormon (and I admit I don't know many) I just have to struggle to keep a straight face. I mean have you read some of their beliefs? So silly they make Cinderella sound plausible. Can rational, literate adults really believe this stuff?
As for gay marriage, I pretty much think it will come in good time. Remember when black/white inter racial unions were banned? That probably seemed OK to the majority at the time, but now it makes us flinch to think of such a denial of basic human rights. Times change.
I'm boringly hetero by the way, middle aged and married with kids, but I feel that consenting adults shoud be free to do what they like to each other if it doesn't interfere with anyone else. And, as I said to a friend who has doubts about it, gay marriage isn't compulsory. Most people will carry on having good, bad, indifferent or truly dire plain old heterosexual marriages, and the world will keep turning. But then I'm not religous - thank God!
Complain about this comment
Re: 255 KimJohnson
Gosh, thanks for sharing that. What a lovely human being you must be.
Two questions come to mind: do you actually believe that vile rubbish? (that would make you an ignorant bigot), or are you just desperate for attention and pushing the hot buttons?
In either case, you are pathetic.
Yours,
A Canadian Pinko, backing away slowly, avoiding eye contact . . .
Complain about this comment
Over 70% of black Californians voted against gay marriage in that election, a number far surpassing the number of mormons who voted against the same measure. So why are gays attacking the mormon church, and ignoring black groups? The Democratic Party (post Vietnam) is a collection of victim groups, each focusing their public hatred toward republicans, conservatives and white christians. Democratic politics have become un-democratic, intolerant and a real danger.
Complain about this comment
All this trash about heterosexual marriage being essential to maintain the species...!
There are serious predictions around that by the middle of this century there will be Nine Billion people on this small, sad planet. We hardly need to worry about the propogation of the human species. We are wildly overpopulated.
In fact, any reasonable person concerned about the future should be positively encouraging homosexuality as a means of birth control. And to keep this in proportion, I repeat, gay marriage is not compulsory. Anyone who thinks it's going to rock the foundations of their own hetero marriage must have a very very dodgy marriage.
Complain about this comment
Lets get one thing correct, right now.
I am so tired of these liberals and their ridiculous logic.
The Mormons and thier many wives IS NOT the same as 2 guys marrying each other, (or 2 women).
Mormons believe in traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
You cannot compare Polygamy to gay marriage. It is NOT the same.
Complain about this comment
re: 265
Yeah, sure pal.
If you keep talking dirty like that maybe I'll satisfy your need for attention. But I'm only gonna do it if you show me how bad you really, really want it.
So come on, sweetie, get down and beg for it. Show me what a bad, bad right wing boy you are.
Kisses,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re 265
I'll have you know that there are some mormons who still believe in polygammy. This past spring in Texas Child Services tried to remove children from a seperatist Mormon run community because not only were they practicing polygammy but girls as young as ten were being force to marry adult men. In my mind that is more offensive than gay marriage.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
A small factor you seem to forget is that in a democracy the majority rules. While I generally don't subscribe to the idea of the government setting morality, I am willing to make an exception for this one case. We won and you lost whine if you want but the will of the electorate needs to be followed. or else move to the Netherlands where every deviant behaviour is not only legal but also encouraged.
Complain about this comment
It would of been interesting to have walked through Germany when Hitler was in power, and to have looked at the papers and billboards to see what the nation and people believed. The headlines, articles, and signs would have made it clear that the nation had set its course, and that it was morally right, socially responsible, and foreward thinking.
All who disagreed would be censured, intimidated, and portrayed in the media as the enemies of progress, hatemongers, and in general ignorant and irrelevant people.
Today in the world of modern media it is a crime with a name (homophobic) to even question the sacred establishment of Gay rights. But it is open season on Christian's and their rights. It is okay to mock and insult traditional values and those who hold them dear. When you look at what is published, and more importantly, what is censured, it would appear that Gay rights are indeed winning even as stated in the article. We are in society of ever changing values with ever expanding definitions of right and wrong, where what I feel is lord of my destiny and Gay rights is just one step down that road that would eventual carry us to where no sexual appetite is taboo.
Once we start moving the fences (moral boundries ), who is going to be able to say stop. If today Gay's are given the right to marriage, then what about Bi-sexual people, what about the Mormons. Who says marriage has to be between just two people? Isn't this also some hold over from a superstitious, myth believing, bunch of hatemongers? I would be interested in where the Gay community believes the moral boundries are of right and wrong, of what should be legal and what should not. Maybe there wouldn't be so much concern if we knew where this is all going and where it will stop. The unknown is always scary.
Complain about this comment
Re: GoingRight "Today in the world of modern media it is a crime with a name (homophobic) to even question the sacred establishment of Gay rights. But it is open season on Christian's and their rights. It is okay to mock and insult traditional values and those who hold them dear."
======================
The only crime, at least in Canada, would be hate speech, that is, calling for members of a group to be physically harmed. In the US, no such laws exist. So, what's your point, really? If the fear of being mocked is restraining you from expressing contempt or hate toward gays or lesbians, so what.
If you genuinely feel you are discriminated against because of your Christian beliefs, I sympathize with you. You, like gays and lesbians, know what it is like to be held in contempt by people for something that is simply part of your identity. This is wrong.
Once we start moving the fences (moral boundries ), who is going to be able to say stop.
Those fences having been moving since they were first put up. History is all about where the fences run, and who gets to put them there. For example, the Bible is pretty clear about slavery: it's as natural as rain. Just be sure to give the poor buggers a day off. Somehow, I don't think you would be comfortable justifying slavery as God's will, just because it is promoted in the Bible, and was a divinely supported social convention for a couple of thousand years. Things change. People use their reason and imagination to question established norms. The fences move. We can move them.
So, where do they stop? Right where we decide to put them. Homosexuality is not seen by most people to be a behaviour justifying social or legal sanction. Most of us have come to believe that. Therefore, it seems a natural step to remove the remaining discriminatory sanctions under the law -- the definition of marriage being one of them. Nobody is saying you have to approve of what they are doing. Nobody is going to force your Church to provide same sex marriages. All that is being done is to remove legal discrimination against a practice most people no longer find in some way reprehensible.
Does this then mean we will be forced down a slippery moral slope, thus leading to recognition of all forms of sexual "deviance?" Theoretically, anything can happen. But I'm not hearing a loud hue and cry for the de-criminalization of pedophilia, or polygamy, or even bestiality. Just as there is no God given reason to criminalize or socially proscribe certain behaviours, so there is no objective truth that requires society to legitimize everything. It is a question of where and how we decide to put the fences.
Which brings me back to Prop. 8. The vote has shown that a majority of Californians are not in fact comfortable with the idea of legitimizing SSM. That means that its proponents will have to educate those who, though religious, are open to the logic of tolerance. To do this, they will have to be tolerant of the religious point of view. At the same time they will have to be tireless in confronting the mis-information used by religious groups to instill fear.
The unknown, as you say, is scary. I would urge you to inform yourself about the people who want SSM. They are not radicals intent on destroying your beliefs or way of life. They want only to join the community as fully recognized persons.
Respectfully Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
# 271 chronophobe
I have just returned to view this thread and wanted to say thank you for your contribution.
There is so much hate around, both your side and my side of the pond, that it is a joy to see reasoned argument holding sway however briefly.
Power to your elbow!
Complain about this comment
Through proposition 8 the gays and lesbians wanted to forced the heterosexuals to approve their lifestyles nothing more. In the State of California gays and lesbians already have civil rights, its the word marriage that they don't have. All they want is acceptance that what they do in the bedroom is not only politically correct but morally.
Complain about this comment
re: 273
Why do you feel you are being forced to do anything? Who is forcing you to approve of anyone's "lifestyle"? What the is "the gay lifestyle."
I could say that I don't approve of the "trailer trash" or "cracker" lifestyle, having in my mind some stupid stereotype of ignorant Jesus freaks living in various states of various sins. Leaving aside, for a moment, that my stereotypes are no doubt ignorant and removed from reality, would you find it offensive if I said such people, because of their "lifestyle," should be denied the right to marry? OK, so for the sake of argument I am going to say it: trailer trash, because of their immoral lifestyle, shouldn't be allowed the rights of holy matrimony. Not by your church, my church, or any church, no matter how crazy its doctrine might seem to you or I. Doesn't that sound sick? I think so.
Let' s take this to your next point: if, as you say, gays and lesbians have civil rights, why shouldn't they have the right to marry? Why should your disapproval of what you perceive to be their lifestyle preclude them from enjoying the full rights of citizenship that you, and cracker trash, and heroin junkies, convicted felons, and even smart assed liberal pinkos like me, enjoy without a second thought?
Think about this carefully: why does the gender of who someone has sex with matter more than their love for each other, their commitment to their children, their commitment to their communities, their morality inside and outside the bedroom, their income, their skin colour, their hair colour, their criminal record, their shoe size ...
All "they" want is what you and I and most everyone else have: acceptance that what we do in the bedroom should not deny the right to marry. And why should your religious or political beliefs deny it to them? What monopoly on truth are you claiming? Are you willing to extend that monopoly to religions or ideologies that contradict your own on points of belief, observance or morality?
Think about it.
Respectfully Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
Re:272 vor_tecks
Cheers, mensch!
Yours,
Der Pinko
Complain about this comment
Actually, I support gay marriage or at least refuse to stand it its way. But this 'backlash' smacks of hypocrisy on the part of the pro gay marriage crowd.
If the vote had been restricted to whites only, it probably would have passed. It was Blacks and Hispanics that voted this thing down.
The truth is, the black churches in California were as political over this issue as the Mormons were, where is the anger at the black religous community? Or the Mexicans?
No, this is just an attempt to maintain the politically correct fiction that only middle-aged white conservatives are standing in the way 'progressive' dreams. The people of California of all colors and religous affiliation just didn't want this bill passed.
If the pro-gay marriage crowd continues to ignore the reality of the situation, they will never get their agenda passed. You can't win hearts and minds by ignoring the hearts and minds.
Complain about this comment
re: 273 Through proposition 8 the gays and lesbians wanted to forced the heterosexuals to approve their lifestyles nothing more. In the State of California gays and lesbians already have civil rights, its the word marriage that they don't have. All they want is acceptance that what they do in the bedroom is not only politically correct but morally.
Why do you feel you are being forced to do anything? Who is forcing you to approve of anyone's "lifestyle"? What the is "the gay lifestyle."
I could say that I don't approve of the "trailer trash" or "cracker" lifestyle, having in my mind some stupid stereotype of ignorant Jesus freaks living in various states of various sins. Leaving aside, for a moment, that my stereotypes are no doubt ignorant and removed from reality, would you find it offensive if I said such people, because of their "lifestyle," should be denied the right to marry? OK, so for the sake of argument I am going to say it: trailer trash, because of their immoral lifestyle, shouldn't be allowed the rights of holy matrimony. Not by your church, my church, or any church, no matter how crazy its doctrine might seem to you or I. Doesn't that sound sick? I think so.
Let' s take this to your next point: if, as you say, gays and lesbians have civil rights, why shouldn't they have the right to marry? Why should your disapproval of what you perceive to be their lifestyle preclude them from enjoying the full rights of citizenship that you, and cracker trash, and heroin junkies, convicted felons, and even smarty pants liberal pinkos like me, enjoy without a second thought?
Think about this carefully: why does who someone has sex with matter more than their love for each other, their commitment to their children, their commitment to their communities, their morality inside and outside the bedroom, their income, their skin colour, their hair colour, their criminal record, their shoe size ...
All "they" want is what you and I and most everyone else have: acceptance that what we do in the bedroom should not deny the right to marry. And why should your religious or political beliefs deny it to them? What monopoly on truth are you claiming? Are you willing to extend that monopoly to religions or ideologies that contradict your own on points of belief, observance or morality?
Think about it.
Respectfully Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
276 glennb
Agreed. Good point
Yours,
Canadian Pinko
Complain about this comment
"I gave you four very good examples, which you denied as being examples. I have difficulty understanding what you criteria are for ignoring the Romans (a fairly substantial enterprise), the Byzantines (ditto, lasted roughly 1000 years), the Ottomans (lasted 700 years), and the Chinese Empire that ended prior to WWI (which lasted hundreds of years). You cite Alexander the Great, who lasted a decade and a half, and whos empire had withered to nothing within roughly 50 years." - Interestedforeigner
You have made no argument (as opposed to bald assertion) that "non-heterosexual behaviour" had anything whatever to do with the decline of Roman, Byzantine, Ottoman or Chinese empires. Alexander's empire had certainly not "withered to nothing" within 50 years: it broke up because of rivalries between his generals, but profoundly affected the subsequent history of a wide area, which remained under Greek/Macedonian rule for centuries. His homosexuality is important not in itself, but because it was not viewed at the time as in any way scandalous. Your view seems to be that if any "non-heterosexual behaviour" took place within an empire, and then at some point that empire declined, you can conclude that the behaviour caused the decline. Wrong: you have to show the causal linkages responsible.
Complain about this comment
Wow. This topic started from a stray subordinate clause in a sentence.
248 Pinko and others: I did not at any time suggested that non-heterosexual behaviour is a cause of decline in a society. There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that at all. If there is a cause and effect relationship, it is far more subtle.
Consider: one hypothesis is that the Fall of Rome correlates to the adoption of Christianity. The same theory is sometimes advanced with regard to the Vikings. Others advance the theory that the economic dominance of North-West Europe in part because it adopted Protestant Christianity. In a multi-variable system, cause and effect can be difficult to identiy, and can be subject to disagreement between reasonable men.
I actually broadly agree with Pinko's comments at 271.
My hypothesis, not contradicted by any solid example in this string is that it is, however, a symptom of a society in decline. The original point was that rather than getting all wound-up about gay marriage it would be more to the point to identify and address the causes of the decline.
This is a difficult topic because almost every noun and adjective carries pejorative baggage. There are other symptoms of societal decline. For one, societies tend to go into decline when the children of the ruling class avoid the army. The forces are filled with conscripts from the subject lands (i.e., disavantaged, low staus minorities) This proposition would not, I suspect have generated quite the same controversy. But this one sticks a pin in a sacred cow, so the postings reek of indignation.
I just love the moral certainty and contempt of some of the postings. It is at least 20 or 30 years, and probably much, much longer, before there is going to be sufficient statistical evidence to show whether granting equal legal status to homosexual marriages is (or, by then was) a good idea or not, yet these postings are so certain of themselves.
And before the religious Conservate family values brigade take too much comfort in this posting, keep in mind that it is possible that evidence may eventually show that same sex marriage actually was a good idea.
One of the indignant postings above casts the issue in terms of personal choice, and personal choice alone. Many, many evils have been justified on this basis, including the right to keep human chattels.
A society has a right to establish its own laws. They are not always based on the rights of individuals to do whatever they want, whatever may be the views of the larger community. Legalisation of soft drugs and prostitution come to mind.
An enduring basis of law, particularly criminal law, is that thou shalt not impose negative externalities on thy neighbours.
When laws remain unchanged for a long time they tend to reflect an underlying economic reality. When the underlying values of a society change, sometimes the economic underpinnings of the law also change, and the law needs to shift.
Since the very beginnings of hunter-gatherer tribes, the basic economic unit of societal organisation has been the nuclear, heterosexual family. It has been the principal institution of continuity, of welfare, of education, of wealth creation, of protection, and of justice. As a tool of wealth distribution the moral codes and obligations in a family or clan relationship often address, for example, the free-rider problem that arises when attempts to implement "from every person according to his or her ability, to everyone according to need" are tried in larger, non-family structures. (Let us not suggest, however, that family and clan relationships are universally engines of justice, for thay can be engines of tyranny. It is the overall, not the individual that is being considered.)
Same sex marriage tampers with that most basic of societal structures. It is not necessarily inconsistent with family or clan relationships, but it certainly is a significant variation on them (as, to be fair, are unwedded parenting, and the great increase in single parent households). It seems a bit foolhardy to think that we know what the outcome of this exercise in social engineering will be. Yet at even a whiff of doubt on the subject of same sex marriage some posters write with the same moral self-righteousness, certainty and closed-mindedness that is usually seen in the religious right. To some of us that alone is cause for scepticism. We've seen that film before.
As a guess, a pure, unvarnished guess, the reason that the "eunichs at the imperial palace" issue arises may be that ascendant societies tend to be focused on more basic needs.
Contemporary China is perhaps an example. The problems of managing social change in China are immense. China has about 500m people in the East China littoral who are growing rich rapidly; about 500m people living in bone crushing rural poverty in the interior; and roughly 250 - 300m internal migrants (i.e., roughly equivalent to the entire US population) who are making the transistion. It is an Herculean task, and it is proceeding at a pace seemingly unparalleled in human history. The Chinese leadership saw the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Maintaining social stability is paramount. Therefore the flame of pluralism will be stamped out by slaughtering 5,000 - 10,000 young people at Tienanmen square. Move a million people without compensatrion to make way for a dam? Genocide in Darfur? Not our problem so long as we get the oil. Unsavoury regimes in Africa? Not our business so long as we secure supplies of natural resources. Freedom for Tibet? Civil Liberties? Not on China's "To Do" list.
Interestingly, in a manner that is so Chinese, the beginnings of consumer protection and workplace helath and safety can be seen. Melamine-in-the-milk and the collapsing schools in Sechuan, high death tolls in coal mines all have a certain echo of the Triangle Shirt Waist fire. These issues are directly important to the engine that is lifting China out of poverty, so they will be addressed. People will hang.
Perhaps an oversimplification, but the leadership of that society seems completely focused on a few big priorities, and everything else be damned.
By contrast, a society that has become accustomed to power, perhaps complacent, may shift its attention from the bread and butter issues to secondary and tertiary issues. In fact, issues of primary importance may suffer from relative neglect such that the economic underpinnings of the empire are undermined. The rights of individuals become relatively more important as compared to the interests of the collective.
As a guess, a pure guess, "same sex marriage" is an example of a tertiary priority that has come to the fore as a manifestation of a society in its later stages. There are plenty of others: the resurgence of religious dogma in a society that used to value the pursuit of education and knowledge is another. To some of us, it has the narcissism and self-indulgence of the baby boomer generation written all over it. That could be entirely wrong, but that is what it smells like.
Complain about this comment
I'm not Mormon, but they are probably getting an unfair rap. I don't know of any major religion that encourages homosexuality. This probably has more to do with their support for the Republican party than their position on Gay rights. As for them encouraging oppression of Gays amongst the Catholics and Protestants, I am unaware of another Chiristain church that recognizes them as Christains let alone has communion with them like the Epicopalians, Methodists and Lutheran's do. They are I believe nice people, even if I can't believe in their beliefs. As to their beliefs on Gays they seem to be in line with the vast majority of Americans. I mean if they can't win that election in liberal Califorinia on the same ballot as Barrack Obama, what chance does it have in Alabama or Idaho? Good luck to them, but I don't see this happening real soon, so why pick on the Mormons?
Complain about this comment
If it can't win in Idaho it may be because we have so any Mormons here!
Complain about this comment
TO RENDER A HOMOSEXUAL COUPLE THE "MARRIED" EPITHET IS TO CALL UP DOWN, SOUTH NORTH, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. LEWIS CAROL COULD NOT HAVE DREAMED UP SUCH ABSURDITY AND THAT US FOLKS TO DAY WOULD EVEN GIVE THE THOUGHT THE TIME OF DAY SPEAKS VOLUMES.
AH, YES, BUT WE MUST INDEED BE SO VERY TERRIBLY WISE IN OUR OWN MODERN CONCEITS.
THIS EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES. THE PROPOSITION IS ABSURD ON THE FACE OF IT.
LET'S CONDEMN THE MORMONS 'CAUSE THEY WON'T DENY THE OBVIOUS
Complain about this comment
I'm really late to this thread ..... but anyway it seems to me that alot of the problem is in the word "marriage".
The word is interpreted differently by various groups - religious, gay, secular, whatever.
My view is that in a civilised society it is abhorent to proscribe rights to certain groups whose behaviour does not threaten or harm anyone.
Call it a marriage or a civil union or whatever you like. The bottom line is about recognition of one human being's love and commitment to another, and ascribing to that couple certain fiscal and legal conditions. Yes, it is actually about money and inheritance tax and all sorts of things as well as "recognition".
Blaming the Mormons for prop 8 is slightly unfair. There are plenty of other "Christians" displaying equally intolerant behaviour.
The Pope recently entered the fray
"Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
The Pontiff made the remarks yesterday in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God’s work". (from the Times online - 23rd Dec)
We haven't seen a mass media frenzy against the Catholic Church...... perhaps the Mormons are just easier targets.
Complain about this comment
Being that I am related to the founder of the Mormon Church (Smith) who lived in Vermont, and being that I am gay, I find it repulsive that this Church found it justified to go against the constitution. Cable T.V. in the state of Utah reported that back in 2003, Mormons subscribed to more "adult" programming than any other religion. They knew this by the areas that are mostly inhabited by Mormons. The Mormons were not the only Church to get involved though. The Catholic Church put in their two cents worth too. Amazing when they let their Priests have their way with millions of young boys for almost two thousand years. I am so glad that I am a non-believer now. I don't belong to any organization which subscribes to hypocracy. Never again! Human rights should NOT be open to referendum.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS