Originally Posted By utahjosh You all claim to know what my friends in this situation were thinking and feeling and what motivated them. That what you've been taught and what you have experienced is so much more greater than what I have. How prideful and arrogant and WRONG it would be to presume he lied to me. To presume that YOU have all the answers. I was there, you weren't.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << How prideful and arrogant and WRONG it would be to presume he lied to me. >> Interesting. Previously you refer to "friends" -- plural. Now, it's just "he" -- singular. You base all of your judgments on the world on anecdotal evidence from a single source?
Originally Posted By Mr X ***I've been around long enough to know what you and other believe on the topic. I have my beliefs based on friends I've known.*** Most of whom, if not all, who've had some sort of connection to the Mormon church. Hardly a thing to draw any conclusions from, Josh. What you're saying has been rejected, for cause, by the vast majority of the gay community itself, by a large portion of the population at large, and is embraced mostly by certain religious types who have a vested interest in "proving" that gay means sinful as well as purposeful. Just sayin.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<Your immortal soul is in peril, josh. > Who are you to judge, kiddo?*** Seems to me you do a great deal of judging yourself. Er, kiddo.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***That what you've been taught and what you have experienced is so much more greater than what I have.*** Funny. From where I'm sitting, that's exactly you YOU come off. Particularly in this thread, and in other threads addressing the whole gay spectrum of issues. I'm still chuckling over your "who are you to judge?" comment...seriously, the irony could be cut with a knife whenever you comment.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "How prideful and arrogant and WRONG it would be to presume he lied to me. To presume that YOU have all the answers. I was there, you weren't." So it WAS personal experience. I knew it. WHo was gay first, you or him? Who "switched back" first, hou or him?
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster It's a good thing you're not a spokesperson for the LDS church Josh. Stop trying to be one. Why interject your beliefs into intellectual discussions? Is it just so can tell us we are all wrong? What need does that fulfill for you? Do you get off on us bashing your beliefs? I think you do. Mormons LOVE their past when they were the victims of persecution. And they were. Absolutely. But today? Not so much. So get over it. Believe whatever fairy tale you want to believe but please stop interjecting your weird ideas into topics of intellectual discourse because, frankly, I'm embarrassed for you.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF I know this is going to be lost on you, Josh, but I'm going to post anyway, if for any other reason, it might be of benefit to any lurkers out there. I'm going to be echoing some things that Gadzuux put so wonderfully. Sexuality is NOT this black-and-white issue that can be put into a box, no matter how much your church or any other church would like it to be. It's true that men and women can be and are sexually functional with their own and opposite gender. This is so much of a given that it seems almost pointless to say that science proves it. Personally all I have to do is look at the people I've encountered in my life who were married and have kids. People *can* and *do* experiment both ways or, if they don't, aren't so very threatened by the idea. And you know what? Having a same-gender encounter doesn't necessarily mean a person is gay, and by the same token, having an opposite gender encounter doesn't mean a person is straight. What does matter is what feels right to the person. What's more fulfilling, not just physically but also emotionally? I know you'd like to think this is all about the physical, but it simply isn't. After all, you're with your wife, aren't you? And aren't you happy? And doesn't it feel like the right thing for you? And can you step outside yourself for a bit and think what life would be like if you were with a guy? And don't you think to yourself, "Ooh, no, doesn't work for me?" (Or maybe deep down, there is an appeal to it?) See, you don't get to make the choice of what's "right" for anyone but yourself. You don't get to label anyone but yourself.
Originally Posted By Mr X Well said. I can tell you this much, I feel connected to the issue as I wrote about in another thread due to the fact that my marriage is an interracial one. At a point not so long ago, it would've been against the law for my wife and I to be married. And I can't help but wonder how frustrating and galling it would be to realize that the person of my choosing (and vice-versa) was not considered "appropriate" by the standards of the day. If a law were passed tomorrow barring Josh from being married to the one HE loves, I wonder how he'd feel about it.
Originally Posted By Mr X And yet he works tirelessly towards the goal of doing the very same thing to others.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF A taste of things to come from the Prop. 8 trial where it involves the LDS cult: <a href="http://prop8trialtracker.com/2010/01/20/an-explosive-afternoon/" target="_blank">http://prop8trialtracker.com/2...ternoon/</a>
Originally Posted By Mr X Excellent link BD. The truth is, only a complete idiot or else an intentional propagandist would claim that the churches (particularly Mormon and Catholic) are acting as political action committees on this one as much as they possibly can within the law. OR, I should say, within the grey areas that allow them to maintain their vaunted tax exemptions (who said money was the root of all evil? I know Jesus had some choice words for those who worshipped the almighty dollar). ***With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.*** Duh. ***Get that? The LDS Church intentionally worked to hide behind the scenes to disguise their involvement in the public realm.*** Double duh. ***The LDS Church is well aware that the general public does not have the most favorable opinion of them. Attention on their involvement could have hurt their cause, namely passing Prop 8.*** I disagree with the conclusion here though. It's not only the Mormons, other churches behave in the same furtive manner. It's all to do with keeping their tax status unchanged. In other words, protect their assets. This guy really thinks it's because they're worried that their "reputation" might affect the outcome? I sincerely doubt it. If they could go out and attack with both barrels, they surely would do so and totally SINK Prop 8 in the process (you don't think the Catholic church could come out with BILLIONS in direct contributions without so much as breaking a sweat?), BUT that might put them in jeopardy of losing money by having to pay their taxes, and THAT is an unacceptable trade-off for them. So much for the morality of the issue. Money is more important than morality, or else they'd actually get involved directly and damn the consequences (if God truly does disapprove of the sin of homosexuality, he would certainly approve of that sort of commitment, wouldn't he?). But no, they prefer to act as rats in the background, scurrying around and raising support wherever they can through back room deals and by using their congregations as political pawns in order to garner support from all corners and keep the cash flow going at the same time in all the directions they want it to... WWJT?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <With respect to Prop. 8 campaign, key talking points will come from campaign, but cautious, strategic, not to take the lead so as to provide plausible deniability or respectable distance so as not to show that church is directly involved.> Wow. Excuse me, Salt Lake? Your slip is showing. And your gun is smoking. So the church itself admits (in this memo) that it WAS directly involved, but needs to hide it and maintain "plausible deniability." This was pretty obvious at the time, but remember how some here denied it and said the church was merely advising its members on how they could be involved? It was hogwash of course (though I don't doubt some sincerely believed it, since that's what they were told), but it's been completely blown out of the water now.
Originally Posted By mele Just shows the church leadership are liars...not that we didn't know that already. I'm sure the church's followers will just ignore the information and forget about it. They seem to be able to do that with a LOT of issues.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Perhaps you'd like to contradict the church leaders THEMSELVES who admitted in this memo they were directly involved (their words)?
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy ^^ To be fair, Dabob, the church leaders admitted that they would do everything possible to create an environment where plausible deniability existed for their involvement. So, utahjosh is just following the church leadership to their word.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Plausible deniability. Every time I hear that phrase I think of Richard Nixon.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To be fair, Dabob, the church leaders admitted that they would do everything possible to create an environment where plausible deniability existed for their involvement. So, utahjosh is just following the church leadership to their word.> Except that their denials are no longer plausible (in either case).
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Sexuality is NOT this black-and-white issue that can be put into a box, no matter how much your church or any other church would like it to be.<< Very well said, and that's only the half of it. Every single thing we know should point rational people towards supporting gay rights. There's the complex human emotions and psychological aspect to which BD alluded. Then there's the historical. We constantly hear from opponents of gay marriage that marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of society. A mom and a dad (meaning male and female, of course) is best for children. Josh and his church repeat this ad nauseam. The only problem? It's completely false. And it's not a matter of opinion; it's based on historical FACT. This image of "traditional" family comes straight out of the Victorian era. It has no basis in what we know about human cultures or societies. The most common form of marriage in the history of the world was one man and many women (so...many...Mormon...jokes. Must...resist!) Marriage was about property. It was about family ties. It was never about love and it was never about "oh won't someone please think of the children!" beyond having children to continue a lineage to continue passing down property. And in monogamous cultures, it was common, even accepted and encouraged, for men to have mistresses. The idea was that marriage was for property and social propriety, and love and sex were for, well, lovers. Yet ignorant people like the leaders of the Mormon church just make authoritative statements about "traditional" marriage. They have absolutely no clue what they're talking about. And if they were getting their talking points from a higher power, wouldn't god at least know something about human history?
