Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,179 Excellent

About Daniel2

  • Rank
    Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad
  • Birthday 01/01/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,023 profile views
  1. Sorry—I edited the post to make it more clear. Aspects of both your posts.
  2. I tried to quote both Smac's and BlueDream's responses here, but only one saved... my following comments are for portions of both BlueDream’s post and also meant for Smac’s 'review' (and dismissive approach): I think if I understand part of what you're both saying is that the article's author loses credibility because a) Latter-day Saints would consider her descriptions of the doctrines of the LDS church to be inaccurate and b) she fails to use terminology the Church and it's membership prefer and connect with. Because members of the LDS church don't see her words as an accurate or honest portrayal of their lives, beliefs, values, and experiences, she's easy to dismiss and disregard as an unreliable source, at least so far as her criticisms are concerned. I wonder if others can see how that works in reverse just as much, if not more so, when applying that same standard in reverse: Consider how gay and lesbian couples regard the level of credibility (or lack thereof) that the LDS Church and it's leadership have, with regards to understanding and accurately portraying OUR lives and experiences. Given that how the Church has historically described--actually, misrepresented, demeaned, devalued, and condemned the LGBT experience, including our families, relationships, and fought against equal rights for those of us that have embraced a 'pro-LGBT' experience, and given how the LDS Church and it's leadership declined to use terminology that was either preferred or even reflective of us, our families, marriages, and our life experiences: a) how concerned do you think that author feels about making a few minor mistakes in how she describes church doctrines? b) how much do you think many must regard the credibility of the LDS church to speak authoritatively or even accurately about anything related to the pro-LGBT experience? Not saying one is right and one is wrong... but it's telling how Mormons dismiss this author for misrepresenting Mormonism, but don't see any issues at all with how LDS leaders distort and misrepresent LGBT relationships and lives. D
  3. Good grief, Smac. I haven't dodged your questions, and it's disappointing to see you trying to spin the circumstances as if I am. You may not recall (selective amnesia, perhaps?) that I've responded to them, but I have. On MANY occasions. But since you've accused me of not responding, I'll recap my views in response to your assertions above, as previously repeatedly expressed in past discussions, once again: There is a difference between inherently expressive speech vs. artistically-creative yet not-inherently expressive speech. The law has made this distinction on several occasions, and since those baking cakes and creating floral arrangements seem to feel they should be exempt from public accommodation laws, the courts will apparently continue to have to split the hair even further. To be clear: I don't believe anyone should have to write words or symbols which the law states are or defines as "inherently expressive." I also agree that certain images that are considered to be obscene or offensive may fall into that category. That's why I agree with and support the ruling which found that the t-shirt manufacturer did not have to print gay pride messages on it's t-shirts. Additionally, I don't believe any business can or should be forced to 'order in' a product that it doesn't already carry in inventory and already sell to the general public. Therefore, a baker who doesn't carry same-sex couple wedding toppers can't and shouldn't be forced to start carrying them or selling them. Finally, I believe that any artistic cake/artistic creation/floral arrangement which is offered to members of the general public cannot be refused to anyone on the basis of their religion, race, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, etc. In case my comments above aren't clear to you and you continue to presume I'm dodging anything: No, I don't believe cake makers of any stripe should be forced to create cakes that say "All fags go to Hell," that have a swastika, or that have violent imagery (i.e. the headless groom cake) on them. Just as I don't believe t-shirt manufacturers should be forced to print gay pride t-shirts, or printers should be forced to write same-sex invitations (not that any gay couples have asked anyone to, that I'm aware of, despite Brush & Nib's pre-emptive strike). Mr. Phillips didn't win his case because of the nature of the product he was creating; he won based on SCOTUS' finding that the Commission treated his religion with contempt. The court declined to rule on whether his cake was expression. I would presume you know this, but leave it unsaid in your comments, hoping it isn't noticed. The other bakers that the Colorado Commission found in favor of was because the messages those other bakers were asked to put on the cake fall into the same category of speech that is "inherently expressive," as I explained above. Ironically, though you wrongly classify them as "gay bakers," I know at least one was a straight Christian baker who refused to write anti-gay messages on their cakes. In sum, I believe we all should live by the same rules. I claim no special privileges for gays over straights; I claim no special privileges for my religious views (or lack thereof) over the religious views of others (or lack thereof); I am not inconsistent with how I want the law to apply to others vs. how I want the law applied to me. If anyone can show how I'm being inconsistent, I invite you to do so.
  4. I haven't read through this entire thread yet, so I apologize if this has already been shared, but this article is a good representation of how Nelson's devotional is being reported in LGBT circles (this particular article is written by a former member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints):
  5. LOLOL.... Nehor, this was THE best response I’ve EVER read here... I bow down to your superior intellect-and sense of humor!
  6. Ahhhh..... you’ve kept that ‘drive-by cut-and-paste’ post on speed dial for those new to these discussions. For those of us who’ve been around awhile, that very same post, pics and all, has been addressed and answered in multiple threads, ad nauseum. But you already know that. Thankfully, the court will decide to take up the case (or consolidate several similar ones) that will eventually provide the legally definitive final answer to the issue. But as you of all people also know, the courts often intentionally glacial pace is intended to move with caution and care as the entire court system continues to build a preponderance of precedent upon which to make the final ruling. In the meantime, I expect you’ll continue to get a lot of mileage here with that cut-and-paste post.
  7. White Christian business owners seeking to deny services to blacks or interracial couples sympathized and supported very similar (and in some cases, virtually identical) arguments you’re peddling in their efforts to defend denial of services to blacks and interracial couples. As we look back on those white, Christian business owners’ attempts for self-justification, history certainly doesn’t support your similar characterization of them as “the victims.” And rightfully so, IMO.
  8. Ed Smart says he hasn’t been sexually unfaithful to his wife. The point that as far as we know, sex isn’t a factor in the Smart’s divorce has been repeatedly emphasized by numerous participants here. You’re always welcome to advocate for your beliefs about sex addiction, but they certainly seem off topic in this thread. New readers unfamiliar with our past conversations may not realize based on your comments above that we have discussed this topic numerous times before, and I am not ignorant of both your views and the alleged research and experiences you mention. I have studied much of the type of information you’ve proffered as evidence of your position and believe that the relief you and others have experienced has been correlated with some of the actions taken to relieve shame, but is still misdiagnosed as the a treatment for so-called “sex addiction.” That’s similar to how David Matheson, former “reparative therapist,” has since denounced the change aspects of that brand of therapy but still acknowledges that aspects of it were beneficial in that some of the processes helped men struggling against their homosexual attractions to decrease shame and self-loathing, this setting them up to paths of true healing. It’s always worth remembering that correlation is not the same thing as causation. All of this said, we are straying off topic, so this will be my last post on the matter in this thread. And again, your post doesn’t seem to be relevant in the Smart’s case.
  9. Can you even conceive that either party could be choosing to divorce for reasons that don’t include sex...?
  10. Something tells me you wouldn’t be as fiercely critical of a “covenant-breaking” woman who previously married her girlfriend, chose to adopt and raise babies together, yet ultimately divorced her wife after converting to Christianity.... Similarly, I imagine you wouldn’t be as critical of converts to the LDS Faith who break the covenants they made as members of their former religious Faiths to join Mormonism. If so, why do you think that is...? Perhaps I’m wrong, and you actually suggest gay couples who dissolve their martial vows and members of other Faith who break their sacred commitments are immoral covenant-breakers who lack integrity, as well.
  11. Since Mrs. Smart filed for the divorce, your words seem to imply she’s being irresponsible. What evidence is there that either Mr. or Mrs. Smart are being irresponsible in their actions?
  12. Part of wisdom and growth is recognizing when one has made irrational, unsustainable, and unhealthy covenants and promises that lead to self-destructive thoughts and behaviors and destabilize mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health. Part of adulthood is putting away such childish things and making restitution as best as one is able for previous mistakes and unkept-yet-unrealistic promises. Part of compassion is learning to avoid judgment and condemnation, and instead learn to forgive others and one’s self when all of the above happen. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. One of my favorite songs, courtesy of John Denver: It’s in every one of us to be wise. Find your heart Open up both your eyes, We can all know everything without ever knowing why. It’s in every one of us By and by. It’s in every one of us I just remembered It’s like I been sleeping for years, I’m not awake as I can be, but my seeing’s better, I can see through the tears, I’ve been realizing that, I bought this ticket and watching only half of the show, There is scenery and lights man’s a cast of thousands, who all know what I know and it’s good that it’s so. It’s in every one of us to be wise. Find your heart Open up both your eyes, We can all know everything without ever knowing why. It’s in every one of us By and by.
  13. This is beautifully said, Calm. Thank you so much for sharing your insight.
  14. One of the most gentle, compassionate, and insightful perspectives of divorce that I have seen is from Helen M. Luke. It certainly seems to mirror at least some of the sentiments of Ed Smart’s letter to his family:
  • Create New...