Originally Posted By X-san No, it's set in stone. I swear, some of these people are so entrenched in their intolerance that Jesus himself could come back to Earth and proclaim that they were wrong, and didn't they notice that he never even brought it up?, and all that would do would be to cause a great many of them to reject Jesus in favor of something else.
Originally Posted By dshyates Utahjosh, its your right to believe anyway you want. this is America. And I even support your right to lobby against me. But I would like for you to admit that it is bigotted and discriminatory and you are OK with discriminating against a group of people because of your personal faith. So many say things like, "I'm not discriminating against anyone. Its just my belief that we shouldn't give the rights that I enjoy to those people because it will "distroy marriage" and be the downfall of civilized society. So just say "I'm a bigot, and I'm OK......" Sounds like a Monty Python song.
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster Policies of discrimination always end up failing and the institutions that sanctioned discriminatory practices always end up struggling to explain their former positions. Can't we just stop hurting each other today and be ok with it?
Originally Posted By ecdc On this Independence Day, as Americans celebrate their freedoms, comes word of the LDS Church's intensifying efforts to deny others from participating in the same freedoms they enjoy. This is a letter from LDS Church Public Affairs to local California Mormon public affairs and leaders. >>To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel Cc: Other Interested Persons By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and Clayton with CA Stake Presidents. We have been asked to study out the above issue – starting with the First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the Proclamation on the Family. You should all have copies of these items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial. Meanwhile we are asked to use “our best efforts†and to do “all we can†to support this initiative with both our “means and time.†To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have gathered on this issue, for your summer reading. 1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any classification based on sexual orientation is a “suspect classification†that requires “strict scrutiny†under the “equal protection†clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA Constitution has granted a “fundamental right to marry.†In 1948, that enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were passed as Proposition 22 in 2000. The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for “FAQS†and some good talking points under “Why it is needed.†3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on “Same-Gender Attraction.†It is at: <a href="http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction" target="_blank">http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnew...traction</a> 4. Meridian Magazine. “What difference will same-gender marriage make to you?†See this link: <a href="http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080627marriage.html" target="_blank">http://www.ldsmag.com/familyle...age.html</a> Also see <a href="http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080619ignore.html" target="_blank">http://www.ldsmag.com/familyle...ore.html</a> These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision. 5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ in Salt Lake City. 6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of families raised within male-female marriages HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above. HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above. As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood channels. You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President. Most sincerely, Joseph I. Bentley, Director Orange County Public Affairs<<
Originally Posted By X-san ***If a society where purposely trying to destroy itself, it could nothing more grievous than subvert its basic foundation.*** Yes, Mormon leaders. It's gay marriage that will be the death of us all. ***Consider this: If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, an entirely new social norm is created.*** Yes. ***Children will learn in school that sex between members of the same sex or between members of opposite sexes is an equal choice, and those with fragile identities may experiment.*** Because nobody experiments now, right? ***We will not even have a word for the union of a man and a woman — for the term marriage will have been co-opted to merely mean the union of any two people.*** Is it particularly difficult to say "heterosexual marriage"? How will this "destroy society as we know it"? ***And if two people, why not three or more?*** I thought this was a good thing according to Mormons of the past? Amazing that part of their "argument" is the horrible danger of polygamy coming next. Hypocrites of the highest order, these guys are!
Originally Posted By u k fan Words fail me. They really do. I can't believe this is what God wants, and if I can't believe that than what else can't I believe? Does God really want any of his children to be discriminated against? Really???
Originally Posted By ecdc And again, it's done in the context of deafening silence on other "moral" issues. By Mormon logic, what's wrong with the world is that there's too much love in it; we don't want these people falling in love. But violence in Iraq and Zimbabwe, torture, that's all ok. We're not going to speak out against that. We're not going to organize and get our members out to support political candidates most likely to fight poverty, to end torture, or to press for peace. Of course, Mormons are notoriously hypersensitive about the media. Violence and sex in media is bad; but apparently violence in real life is a-ok. I haven't gone to church in years and I'm not even a believer, but I find this all to be quite painful. It's a bit like finding out an old friend is really nothing what you thought they were. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by these actions, but I am. I hoped for better.
Originally Posted By X-san Great point EC, and again we find a deafening silence meeting your comment as well.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<If that was directed at me, Inspector, that isn't at all what I said in the "Religion is Delusional" thread. Please read what I wrote again, because nowhere did I ever say a church was above criticism, especially when it starts getting entangled in politics. In fact, I went to great effort to say the opposite.>> K2M, after I wrote my response, I decided that it best belonged in the "delusional" thread. So it's here: <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-97516-P-12.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...P-12.asp</a> (And, BTW, what is it with your recent rants that airplanes are going to be overtaken by crustaceans?!)
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf <<***And if two people, why not three or more?*** I thought this was a good thing according to Mormons of the past? Amazing that part of their "argument" is the horrible danger of polygamy coming next.>> As I have stated before, I think is the motivation behind what they are doing. Mormons are quick to defend their past but are secretly ecstatic that polygamy was outlawed. It helped them to move away from their cultish roots. I think if polygamy is eventually legalized the Mormons would have a big problem. Either they will have to allow it for desirous members (which would be incredibly divisive) or they would have to conjur up a new revelation that polygamy is NOT an eternal principle after all (which would mean Joseph Smith was mistaken). It's no wonder they are fighting so hard for this. But it really is sad to see how low they have sunk.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I disagree of Eighth's reasoning in post 130.<< Oh, I think eighth is on to something. First and foremost, I think Mormons are turned off by the "ick factor" they feel to homosexuality and are driven by their belief that it genuinely is a sin. But I have no doubt that a reversal of Reynolds (named for George Reynolds, the Mormon test case for polygamy; they lost) is on the minds of Mormon leadership. Every single time a news story about Mormon fundamentalists like Warren Jeffs appears, LDS public relations releases a statement insisting Jeff's isn't really a Mormon and making sure everyone knows he isn't a mainstream Latter-day Saint. Of course, if you think it's not a part of their reasoning, Josh, you may want to read this: >>"There is an irony inherent in the Church's taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages," ... The leading United States Supreme Court authority for the proposition that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of the anti-polygamy laws, the Court defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court's stress in that case was on one. The modern relevance of the Reynolds opinion is in its reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. The irony would arise if the Church used as an argument for the illegality of homosexual marriages the precedent formerly used against the Church to establish the illegality of polygamous marriages" (Dallin H. Oaks, "Principles to Govern Possible Public Statement on Legislation Affecting Rights of Homosexuals," 7 August 1984).<<
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf "I disagree of Eighth's reasoning in post 130." I would expect you to. But can you provide some rationale as to why this would not be problematic for the church?
Originally Posted By X-san ***I disagree of Eighth's reasoning in post 130.*** I don't understand posts like this (Douglas does this so often, and it's very frustrating). If you're not going to bother to explain WHY you disagree, then why post? This is just meaningless to me. Is it just some sort of announcement or something. "I formally disagree with Eighth!"??
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster I wonder what Joseph Smith or Brigham Young would say to modern-day Mormons who are fighting to keep polygamy illegal? A church that believes its roots are fundamental to its salvation (the Restoration through Joseph Smith) ought to be careful what it's fighting to tear down. It might just lead to self-destruction.
Originally Posted By jdub An article in the Contra Costa Times/Bay Area News Group Monday about the "Mormon challenge to gay marriage ban": <a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/search/ci_9802816?IADID=Search-www.insidebayarea.com-www.insidebayarea.com" target="_blank">http://www.insidebayarea.com/s...area.com</a> Lots of interesting bits, here are just a sampling: <"In the eight years since the state proposition we have all become more educated," said Walnut Creek Mormon author and playwright Carol Lynn Pearson. "Most people have realized they have a gay family member or a gay friend or people they work with who are gay. Most people are less quick to judge," she said.> <A former Brigham Young University professor — Mormon, married and heterosexual — is circulating a letter of his own. In it, he says he does not believe people choose their sexual orientation and that denying them equal opportunities "is grossly unfair." "You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders' encroachment into political matters," Jeffrey Nielsen wrote.> <Even in Utah, some question the mandate. An article on the church's position in The Salt Lake Tribune drew several indignant responses. Some online posters said they resented being asked to contribute money for a political proposition on top of their required tithe. "If the LDS church could give me one valid reason of how gay marriage is going to damage my marriage, I would probably jump on the bandwagon and start handing out pamphlets, but they simply cannot," wrote one.>
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Wow, that's encouraging but it's going to make the church leaders mad. However, I'm guessing these folks are just a very small minority as the church generally doesn't tolerate the questioning of its leadership.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I'm guessing these folks are just a very small minority as the church generally doesn't tolerate the questioning of its leadership.*** What exactly do you mean by "doesn't tolerate" in this case? What kind of consequences would an LDS member potentially face for being so bold as to question the leadership? ***Wow, that's encouraging but it's going to make the church leaders mad.*** Any dissenting opinion always makes all church leaders mad (or at least, it frequently/almost always does...) Just look at how pissed off the Vatican is in my most recent thread...and THAT wasn't even something inside their own group! (they are so angry they are tacitly threatening to cut off relations with that other church over the OUTRAGE they feel towards that other group actually daring to acknowledge a long history of sexism, and even MORE daringly attempting a plan to fix it...how DARE they!!??).
