"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[Damien the Leper]

Sky,

I applaud you for your integrity in choosing what is right over what is easy (always a courageous choice), and will keep you in my prayers in that regard.

Mere opinion. But I understand what you mean.

As a warning though, you will find others here- predators- who will attempt to undermine your resolve and make you question what you know to be right (mostly to justify their own choices in the matter). The danger you clearly foresee in the film also lurks here on these boards.

Ad hom. Nice try...please try again.

As to the OP, the movie is an anti-Mormon hit-piece, a bit of propagandistic foolscap designed to inflame prejudice and to distract from a fundamental truth- namely that the people of California clearly and deliberately rejected both judicial overreach and the rationales and excuse-making of the radical homosexual movement.

I agree, the movie is an attack and has an agenda. However, most films that try to sway opinion are propagandistic. The same could be said for some pro-LDS videos.

The people of California clearly and deliberately deprived a radical political movement of a victory to which they believed they were entitled.

I agree.

It was a clear slap in the face to the radical movement- a clear and unequivocal rejection of their ideology (and theology) and a shocking blow to their smug complacency.

A little harsh, but I can agree.

Rather than engage in the sort of healthy soul-searching demanded by such an loss, the leaders of the movement decided they needed a scapegoat- someone at whom to point the finger of blame.

Their native cunning caused them to pick the Mormons. Because we are a (comparatively) isolated minority with "strange" beliefs, we are both the quintessential "outsiders" and (as generally conservative Christians) a politically correct target.

Victimization claims.

It's far easier to accuse the Mormons of depriving them of their "rights" through nefarious means than to examine the real reasons for their failure.

More victimization claims.

It's far easier to make us the devil in the matter than to face the fact that the people of California rejected their agenda through considered thought and honest reason.

Agreed. Pointing fingers doesn't show integrity.

This, of course, was (and is) the standard practice among radical movements and failed (disfunctional) political regimes (such as the fascist/Marxist/Communist regimes of last century's eastern Europe).

Ah...here we go. Boyd Packer makes the audacious claim that homosexuals are one of the 3 greatest threats to the church. Many LDS leaders believe that homosexuals are a threat to America and the 'sanctity' of marriage. RADICAL opinion begets RADICAL opinion. As emotion and tension elevate both sides become more progressively radical. Neither is right nor wrong. A good friend of mine has a shirt that says "Ban Homosexualphobic Marriage". Is this radical idea any better than the conservative slippery slope arguments? No. With both sides there is a lack of integrity. Compassion and charity are now the black Americans forced to sit at the back of the bus while segregation was still an American disease and pandemic. Just as racism and misogyny are pandemics hell bent on unstoppable destruction so is homophobia.

It's always easier to accuse others of villainy than to honestly admit thier failure to win the hearts and minds of the people at large.

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

The LDS Church has agreed to pay a fine to California for failing to report, on time, contributions the Utah-based faith made in fall 2008 to help overturn gay marriage in the Golden State.

In this instance, and with this crowd, it's far easier to create a hit-piece blaming "those evil, bigoted, nefarious Mormons" for their defeat- and the facts be damned- than to admit they lost because thinking, rational, non-bigoted Californians simply didn't like what they were selling.

As I said before the finger pointing does little good.

It's easier to blame the Mormons for corrupting the process through money (despite the facts that: 1) the Mormon financial contributions were comparatively minor and 2) that the anti-8 crowd outspent the pro-8 crowd by a large margin).

Dishonesty in action forgoes building integrity.

As stated above- people will attempt to tear down what they know (in their hearts) to be right in order to justify their own foibles and weaknesses (just as Cain did when he slew Able) and will seek to demonize and destroy others rather than accept that rationale, fair-minded people might not agree with their agenda.

What they know is right? Or what you think they know is right? Come on!

You are quite opinionated. Thankfully, what you say is more opinion than any fact worth consideration.

it is very difficult to take someone serious who labels a group of people who engage in a particular behavior the scum of the earth so to speak, but then says , oh wait but even though my son does everything the scum does my son is not the scum of the earth. eagle forum is a perfect of why idle hands are bad.

Agreed. Very well said.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't fully agree with what "Betty Bowers" says in her report but I thought this was comical nonetheless.

[Damien the Leper]

A video for consideration:

[selek]

Ad hom. Nice try...please try again.

I wasn't naming names or pointing fingers, Val- but if I struck a tender spot, I apologize.

I agree, the movie is an attack and has an agenda. However, most films that try to sway opinion are propagandistic. The same could be said for some pro-LDS videos.

True. The primary difference, however, lies in the methods to which one resorts to create that shift in opinion.

The notorious "Mormon Missionaries" add remains a classic example of the worst of the genre.

Victimization claims.

Ad hom. Nice try...please try again.

Despite the dapple of oil with which you tried to poison the well, the fact that these claims are of "victimization" does not mean the claims are invalid.

Ah...here we go. Boyd Packer makes the audacious claim that homosexuals are one of the 3 greatest threats to the church.

CFR- I don't believe I've ever seen this particular claim from President Packer (and don't agree with it in any event). I smell a situation in which a quote or talk has been ripped from context and then heavily distorted to support a polemical agenda.

Can you please provide both citation and context for your charge above?

Many LDS leaders believe that homosexuals are a threat to America and the 'sanctity' of marriage.

Call For References. I've never heard a single Mormon in any position of authority claim that homosexuals are a threat to America- and I'm pretty sure you haven't either.

Please substantiate your claim above.

RADICAL opinion begets RADICAL opinion. As emotion and tension elevate both sides become more progressively radical.

I find the moral relativism of this particular claim to be both amusing and of dubious accuracy. The Mormons were not- and ARE not- the aggressors here.

It is not the Mormons or the pro-* forces who are attempting to impose radical and unprecedented changes upon society as a whole. It is not we who are attempting to upset the apple cart or remake it in our image.

Neither is right nor wrong.

More moral relatavism- and more irrelevancy.

But thank you for your opinion.

A good friend of mine has a shirt that says "Ban Homosexualphobic Marriage". Is this radical idea any better than the conservative slippery slope arguments? No.

What were you saying earlier about opinion, emoting (or at least, ratcheting up the emotional tensions) and sophistry?

Again- it is not the Mormons or the forces of traditional marriage who are the aggressors. It is not the forces of conservatism who are seeking to stir up dissension and contention or foment radical social change.

It is not the Mormosn or the forces of traditional marriage and law who are trying to change the rules of the game.

With both sides there is a lack of integrity.

Call For References. The worst legitimate charge against the LDS Church has been that they missed a footnote to a law requiring daily- rather than weekly- reporting.

That was a "gotcha" charge- a bit of minutia used to punish the Church for it's opposition to the agenda. More importantly, there is considerable legal dissent on whether or not that particular provision of law is Constitutional- it very well might present an unreasonable restriction and undue burden on participation in the political process.

If my sources are correct, that particular provision might very well be struck or overturned in the near future.

The Church did, in fact, offer full and complete discolsure of its activities. There was never any intent to deceive or defraud, and there's not a single shred of evidence of malfeasance on the Church's part- or that the Church's failure to disclose its activity on a daily basis affected the outcome in any way.

Making a mistake- such as missing an obscure provision requiring daily (rather than the more weekly) reporting- hardly demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Until you can demonstrate an intent to deceive or to evade the law, you have not demonstrated a lack of integrity on the part of the Church.

And- moral relatavism aside- the idea that both sides of this argument are equally corrupt and morally decayed is laughable at best.

Where are the wide-spread organized attempts at voter intimidation from the Pro-8 side?

Where are the terroristic letters (fake-anthrax) mailed to gay churches and pro-gay businesses?

Where were little old gay ladies assaulted outside their Churches for the sin of attending Mass?

Where were the Pro-8 lawsuits attempting to deprive people of their rights to vote, to peaceable assembly, and to security in their homes and businesses?

Where were the organized drives to call and harass and intimidate pro-gay voters, donors, and businesses?

No- shallow and dubious claims of moral equivalency aside, there is little or no similarity in methods, in tactics, or in intent between the Pro-8 and Anti-8 forces, or between the Church and those who wish to demonize the Mormons for a particularly bitter (but eminently deserved) political defeat.

Compassion and charity are now the black Americans forced to sit at the back of the bus while segregation was still an American disease and pandemic. Just as racism and misogyny are pandemics hell bent on unstoppable destruction so is homophobia.

What was it you were saying about over-the-top rhetoric?

Being opposed to the redefinition of the fundamental unit of American law and society is NOT homophobia- and endorsing and subsidizing disfunctional and unhealthy behaviors is NOT compassion or charity.

And all the name-calling, holding-your-breath-and-stomping-your-feet-until-you-get-your-way won't change that.

You are employing the very same hyper-emotional name-calling, alarmism, and demagoguery as the anti-8 forces did in California.

By labelling anyone who disagrees with you as "homophobic", you are trying to delegitimize dissent from your agenda by classifying it as an irrational fear.

Prop 8 passed because the radical movement tried to bully and terrorize rather than persuade.

Prop 8 passed because the radical movement engaged in emotionalism rather than reason, and rhetoric rather than discussion.

You are doing the same things here.

By labelling any dissent as "homophobia", you are trying to bully people into submission to your agenda- just like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton calling anyone who disagrees with them "racist".

It didn't work in California-

- and it won't work here.

[selek]

A video for consideration:

About two and a half minutes of digging reveals a number of interesting facts about this peice and its producers.

American News Project is heavily associated with both the Huffington Post and a number of pro-gay organizations.

They are not- not even remotely- an unbiased or objective source of information on the issue.

This is yellow journalism at its worst.

This piece- like the movie referenced in the OP- was produced and bankrolled by forces hostile to the Mormon Church and heavily invested in the anti-8 agenda.

It too, is a bit of propagandistic foolscap designed to mislead and inflame anti-Mormon prejudices.

There is no attempt at balance, nor to get "the other side" of the story- this piece is merely an attempt to delegitimize opposition to a particular agenda through ad hominem and disinformation.

It's ironic that the piece talks about investigations by various California State agencies as though the Church were guilty of wide-spread conspiracy and voter intimidation-

- but the only charges that these investigations turned up was the one already discussed- the failure to report expenditures on a daily- rather than (the more regular) weekly- basis.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) suggesting an intent to defraud or deceive.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) that the Church acted immorally or deceitfully.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) that the Church somehow tricked California voters into rejecting something- that the Church led innocent Californians down the primrose path.

Just as with 8: The Mormon Proposition, there's no introspection, no self-examination, no attempt to reconstruct WHY Californians soundly rejected their agenda.

Just an attempt to blame the Mormons for all their ills.

This piece- like 8: The Mormon Proposition- has far more in common with the anti-Semetic rags of pre-Revolutionary Russia than with resposible journalism.

Around the turn of the last century, it was "the Jews" and their cabals who were responsible for all the ills of Tsarist Russia.

Now, it's the Mormons and thier cabals who are the bane of progressive California.

In order to avoid having this thread degenerate any further, perhaps we should limit ourselves to facts and to reason- rather than relying upon propaganda pieces to make our arguments for us.

[Damien the Leper]

I wasn't naming names or pointing fingers, Val- but if I struck a tender spot, I apologize.

True. The primary difference, however, lies in the methods to which one resorts to create that shift in opinion.

The notorious "Mormon Missionaries" add remains a classic example of the worst of the genre.

Ad hom. Nice try...please try again.

Despite the dapple of oil with which you tried to poison the well, the fact that these claims are of "victimization" does not mean the claims are invalid.

CFR- I don't believe I've ever seen this particular claim from President Packer (and don't agree with it in any event). I smell a situation in which a quote or talk has been ripped from context and then heavily distorted to support a polemical agenda.

Can you please provide both citation and context for your charge above?

Call For References. I've never heard a single Mormon in any position of authority claim that homosexuals are a threat to America- and I'm pretty sure you haven't either.

Please substantiate your claim above.

I find the moral relativism of this particular claim to be both amusing and of dubious accuracy. The Mormons were not- and ARE not- the aggressors here.

It is not the Mormons or the pro-* forces who are attempting to impose radical and unprecedented changes upon society as a whole. It is not we who are attempting to upset the apple cart or remake it in our image.

More moral relatavism- and more irrelevancy.

But thank you for your opinion.

What were you saying earlier about opinion, emoting (or at least, ratcheting up the emotional tensions) and sophistry?

Again- it is not the Mormons or the forces of traditional marriage who are the aggressors. It is not the forces of conservatism who are seeking to stir up dissension and contention or foment radical social change.

It is not the Mormosn or the forces of traditional marriage and law who are trying to change the rules of the game.

Call For References. The worst legitimate charge against the LDS Church has been that they missed a footnote to a law requiring daily- rather than weekly- reporting.

That was a "gotcha" charge- a bit of minutia used to punish the Church for it's opposition to the agenda. More importantly, there is considerable legal dissent on whether or not that particular provision of law is Constitutional- it very well might present an unreasonable restriction and undue burden on participation in the political process.

If my sources are correct, that particular provision might very well be struck or overturned in the near future.

The Church did, in fact, offer full and complete discolsure of its activities. There was never any intent to deceive or defraud, and there's not a single shred of evidence of malfeasance on the Church's part- or that the Church's failure to disclose its activity on a daily basis affected the outcome in any way.

Making a mistake- such as missing an obscure provision requiring daily (rather than the more weekly) reporting- hardly demonstrates a lack of integrity.

Until you can demonstrate an intent to deceive or to evade the law, you have not demonstrated a lack of integrity on the part of the Church.

And- moral relatavism aside- the idea that both sides of this argument are equally corrupt and morally decayed is laughable at best.

Where are the wide-spread organized attempts at voter intimidation from the Pro-8 side?

Where are the terroristic letters (fake-anthrax) mailed to gay churches and pro-gay businesses?

Where were little old gay ladies assaulted outside their Churches for the sin of attending Mass?

Where were the Pro-8 lawsuits attempting to deprive people of their rights to vote, to peaceable assembly, and to security in their homes and businesses?

Where were the organized drives to call and harass and intimidate pro-gay voters, donors, and businesses?

No- shallow and dubious claims of moral equivalency aside, there is little or no similarity in methods, in tactics, or in intent between the Pro-8 and Anti-8 forces, or between the Church and those who wish to demonize the Mormons for a particularly bitter (but eminently deserved) political defeat.

What was it you were saying about over-the-top rhetoric?

Being opposed to the redefinition of the fundamental unit of American law and society is NOT homophobia- and endorsing and subsidizing disfunctional and unhealthy behaviors is NOT compassion or charity.

And all the name-calling, holding-your-breath-and-stomping-your-feet-until-you-get-your-way won't change that.

You are employing the very same hyper-emotional name-calling, alarmism, and demagoguery as the anti-8 forces did in California.

By labelling anyone who disagrees with you as "homophobic", you are trying to delegitimize dissent from your agenda by classifying it as an irrational fear.

Prop 8 passed because the radical movement tried to bully and terrorize rather than persuade.

Prop 8 passed because the radical movement engaged in emotionalism rather than reason, and rhetoric rather than discussion.

You are doing the same things here.

By labelling any dissent as "homophobia", you are trying to bully people into submission to your agenda- just like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton calling anyone who disagrees with them "racist".

It didn't work in California-

- and it won't work here.

Propaganda starts with the appeal to emotion. It is by far the greatest way to sell a product whether that product is actually good for you is for you and only you to determine. This is why some people regret the way they vote on different issues.

I will take responsibility for the false statement about LDS leaders naming homosexuals as threats. However, I will not take back my claim as to what Packer said. Read his talk to the all-church coordinating council of 18 May 1993. What he says could hardly be taken out of context because of the blatant nature of what he said.

Your inability to accept relativism is irrelevent and laughable at best. From Paul Toscano, why impose a burden one would not bear oneself onto another or claim a blessing for oneself and disallow for another.

Please provide documentation that shows that the LDS church was reconciled with California in which a meeting took place and fines returned and reputation restored.

The church was wrong about its involvement during the times of the ERA and suffers from its mistakes still today. I'm curious as to when the vicious cycle of repetative mistakes will end and people start to learn.

I apologize that my response isn't as extensive as I would like it to be. I have to go to work.

[Damien the Leper]

About two and a half minutes of digging reveals a number of interesting facts about this peice and its producers.

American News Project is heavily associated with both the Huffington Post and a number of pro-gay organizations.

They are not- not even remotely- an unbiased or objective source of information on the issue.

This is yellow journalism at its worst.

This piece- like the movie referenced in the OP- was produced and bankrolled by forces hostile to the Mormon Church and heavily invested in the anti-8 agenda.

It too, is a bit of propagandistic foolscap designed to mislead and inflame anti-Mormon prejudices.

There is no attempt at balance, nor to get "the other side" of the story- this piece is merely an attempt to delegitimize opposition to a particular agenda through ad hominem and disinformation.

It's ironic that the piece talks about investigations by various California State agencies as though the Church were guilty of wide-spread conspiracy and voter intimidation-

- but the only charges that these investigations turned up was the one already discussed- the failure to report expenditures on a daily- rather than (the more regular) weekly- basis.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) suggesting an intent to defraud or deceive.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) that the Church acted immorally or deceitfully.

There is no evidence (but a lot of innuendo) that the Church somehow tricked California voters into rejecting something- that the Church led innocent Californians down the primrose path.

Just as with 8: The Mormon Proposition, there's no introspection, no self-examination, no attempt to reconstruct WHY Californians soundly rejected their agenda.

Just an attempt to blame the Mormons for all their ills.

This piece- like 8: The Mormon Proposition- has far more in common with the anti-Semetic rags of pre-Revolutionary Russia than with resposible journalism.

Around the turn of the last century, it was "the Jews" and their cabals who were responsible for all the ills of Tsarist Russia.

Now, it's the Mormons and thier cabals who are the bane of progressive California.

In order to avoid having this thread degenerate any further, perhaps we should limit ourselves to facts and to reason- rather than relying upon propaganda pieces to make our arguments for us.

I'm not claiming this for my argument. I'm saying that there are two sides to the story and I'm waiting for the other side to defend itself extensively with fully supportive documentation.

[Storm Rider]

I'm not claiming this for my argument. I'm saying that there are two sides to the story and I'm waiting for the other side to defend itself extensively with fully supportive documentation.

One does not respond this this type of yellow journalism. It is best ignored. I only looked at the previews to get a gist of the "documentary", but it is just so obviously propaganda that it is not worth the time. The closing seen two young males looking doe-eyed at one another and then back to the camera, "It is about love" made me laugh out loud. There should at least be one violin playing in the background.

[selek]

Propaganda starts with the appeal to emotion. It is by far the greatest way to sell a product whether that product is actually good for you is for you and only you to determine. This is why some people regret the way they vote on different issues.

Agreed. Our last Presidential election was swayed by emotionalism, a cult of personality, and a desire to be in on "an historic moment"- and a LOT of people now regret that lapse in reason.

I will take responsibility for the false statement about LDS leaders naming homosexuals as threats. However, I will not take back my claim as to what Packer said.

And they're different, how precisely?

Read his talk to the all-church coordinating council of 18 May 1993. What he says could hardly be taken out of context because of the blatant nature of what he said.

When you provide the link and statement in context, we'll be able to judge for ourselves, won't we?

Your inability to accept relativism is irrelevent and laughable at best.

Where true (or even near) equivalency exists, I have no problem accepting relativism. Where that "relativism" is a rhetorical trick or demagogic sleight of hand, however....

Please provide documentation that shows that the LDS church was reconciled with California in which a meeting took place and fines returned and reputation restored.

Done and done. (Although the cutesy bit about "reputation restored" was a dandy rhetorical flourish. No loaded language or intent there. Nope- none at all.)

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/06/mormon_church_pays_fine_in_prop_8_case.html

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/background-information-on-the-fppc-s-enforcement-process

From the article:

The Church

[Sky]

Ah...here we go. Boyd Packer makes the audacious claim that homosexuals are one of the 3 greatest threats to the church. Many LDS leaders believe that homosexuals are a threat to America and the 'sanctity' of marriage. RADICAL opinion begets RADICAL opinion. As emotion and tension elevate both sides become more progressively radical. Neither is right nor wrong. A good friend of mine has a shirt that says "Ban Homosexualphobic Marriage". Is this radical idea any better than the conservative slippery slope arguments? No. With both sides there is a lack of integrity. Compassion and charity are now the black Americans forced to sit at the back of the bus while segregation was still an American disease and pandemic. Just as racism and misogyny are pandemics hell bent on unstoppable destruction so is homophobia.

I don

[Sky]

Sky,

I applaud you for your integrity in choosing what is right over what is easy (always a courageous choice), and will keep you in my prayers in that regard.

As a warning though, you will find others here- predators- who will attempt to undermine your resolve and make you question what you know to be right (mostly to justify their own choices in the matter). The danger you clearly foresee in the film also lurks here on these boards.

Thank you, Selek, for keeping me in your prayers. That means more to me than you know. And thanks for the warning!

[frankenstein]

sky would you mind sharing a bit more? particular when you came to realize your attraction to members of the same sex? two people I know, claimed they experienced it very early in life, but did not dated the opposite sex exclusively until their early 20's.

[the narrator]

I applaud you for your integrity in choosing what is right over what is easy (always a courageous choice), and will keep you in my prayers in that regard.

Going to church each Sunday in California while opposing Prop 8 was one of the most challenging experiences of my life. The easy thing to do would have been to give up my agency, go against what the Spirit was constantly telling me, and join with the many many many other Mormons who were unquestionigly supporting a movement to strip homosexuals of their rights.

In other news, i know the co-director of the film a little, but have not been able to see it yet. Based on the trailer and his frequently facebook posts on the film, I have the feeling that I will be disappointed with it. His other movie, This Divided State, however, is a fabulous piece of work.

[selek]

The easy thing to do would have been to give up my agency, go against what the Spirit was constantly telling me, and join with the many many many other Mormons who were unquestionigly supporting a movement to strip homosexuals of their rights.

"Give up my agency", "unquestioningly supporting".

The hit parade of blame and derision continues.

The gist of Narrator's rant is, of course, that no thinking person could support Prop 8, and that those who supported the Church's position did so reflexively.

His naked contempt for the brothers and sisters he claims to love and the Church he claims to sustain never ceases to amaze.

That notwithstanding, his antics are more of the same- no reasoned, rational analysis of why the voters supported Prop 8, just the same tired bile and dismissal.

Nothing new here at all.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

there is an very interesting and absurd thing about the laws in the united states....sometime they make no sense at all, and sometimes the basis for the law is less than a sandy foundation.

for instance a 18yr old and a person who is 17 yrs 11months 31 days 11:30hrs old - so 30 minutes from turning 18- both separately plan and carry out the murder of an entire family. The 17yr old is still 17 by the time he has finished his murders. Both the 18yr old and 17yr old are arrested, the prosecution can only seek the death penalty on the 18yr old, the 17yr old can not receive the death penalty because as a minor she did not now what she was doing to the degree that an "adult" (18 yr old would).

so goes with marriage - utah allows close family members to marry so long as one is incapable of having children. there is just a lot of seeming nonesense with laws and well that is just the way it is and will be.

Yet first cousins can get married in another state and move back to Utah and the state has to recognize the marriage. Also, I am unaware of any rule that first cousins cannot get sealed in the temple. Maybe this is why the Church has made a big deal out of the Prop.8 thing -- if a state as large as California allows same sex marriage then it is only a matter of time before the government (legislative or, more likely, judicial) will mandate that all states have to recognize marriages in other states that are same sex.

Another thing, why couldn't two first cousins who wanted to marry in Utah be able to undergo genetic screening first to see if there are any problems with them having offspring? We allow people with bad genes to marry each other nowadays (the US used to have laws against that) so why not cousins who have good genes?

[frankenstein]

Yet first cousins can get married in another state and move back to Utah and the state has to recognize the marriage. Also, I am unaware of any rule that first cousins cannot get sealed in the temple. Maybe this is why the Church has made a big deal out of the Prop.8 thing -- if a state as large as California allows same sex marriage then it is only a matter of time before the government (legislative or, more likely, judicial) will mandate that all states have to recognize marriages in other states that are same sex.

Another thing, why couldn't two first cousins who wanted to marry in Utah be able to undergo genetic screening first to see if there are any problems with them having offspring? We allow people with bad genes to marry each other nowadays (the US used to have laws against that) so why not cousins who have good genes?

i only offered the first counsin thing to show that laws are sometimes laws absurd and that laws stand on less than a sandy foundation.

I believe DOMA took care of "marriages in other states" or at least a Bishop once told my ward the contract clause did not apply to same sex marriage - he is very astute attorney so i believe him.

[the narrator]

"Give up my agency", "unquestioningly supporting".

The hit parade of blame and derision continues.

The gist of Narrator's rant is, of course, that no thinking person could support Prop 8, and that those who supported the Church's position did so reflexively.

You're reading way too much into things. I had a few Mormon friends who thought a lot about Prop. 8, stressed over it, and chose to support it. They were, however, a minority compared to the vast number of members here who supported it without questioning or thinking about it one bit.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that "no thinking person could support Prop. 8." I am merely stating that the vast majority of Mormons in California who supported Prop 8, did little thinking, research, etc concerning whether or not they should support it. Instead they simply did so because they were told to. They just accepted Elder Bednar's fallacious claims about us no longer being able to teach our doctrine, without taking a few seconds to realize how untrue his claim was.

His naked contempt for the brothers and sisters he claims to love and the Church he claims to sustain never ceases to amaze.

While my opinion of many of my fellow Mormons who unquestioningly and forcefully pushed for Prop 8 (while referring to me as a 'tare,' and 'apostate,' and telling me that I hated families, was on Satan's side, etc) did lower a bit through the whole process, for you to call it contempt is just silliness and the ranting of a self-righteous pharisee.

That notwithstanding, his antics are more of the same- no reasoned, rational analysis of why the voters supported Prop 8, just the same tired bile and dismissal.

Nothing new here at all.

I spent way too much time discussion it elsewhere. I was merely responding to your one hollow cliche about those opposing Prop 8 as merely taking the easy path.

And thanks for backing up my claim Selek, because of Mormons like you, those months preceding the elections were absolute hell for me.

It was no easy path.

I've said all I want to say. Don't expect me to respond to your hate-filled replies.

[Calm]

They were, however, a minority compared to the vast number of members here who supported it without questioning or thinking about it one bit.

And you not only talked to all these vast number of members who supported it, but read their minds while doing so in order to determine whether or not they questioned or thought about it "one bit"?

[empbac]

Jumping in at the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been brought up: for the religious seeking a good movie about homosexuality in Christianity, try "For The Bible Tells Me So": There's no reason anyone should feel uncomfortable watching it, and it gives a good overview of how gay Christians are currently perceived by non-gay Christians, and the social dynamics that are evolving Christian theology.

http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexc.htm

The world is changing again. Give it some time and the LDS church will do with gays what it did with blacks. Many denominations are beginning to take this approach already. You're talking about genetic and otherwise biologically-derived sexual orientation. That's not something that can be changed by an act of will. If you look into these 'clinics' that supposedly make gay Christians straight, you will find that they do not succeed. The statistics just don't favor the idea. There isn't even a small margin of success, there is NO margin of success. You're born how you're born, and trying to change that is psychological self-abuse. This is a time when people need to be themselves and not try to conform to traditional, Bronze Age morals. This is just another social revolution. Since you have an inclination to homosexuality, I would encourage you to lead from the front instead of following sheepishly behind.

I have not seen the movie mentioned, but if I have time I might take a look.

I disagree with the church's position in three ways:

1) The church should not have tax-exempt status if it's taking official political stances, which it does now and has done before, and I'm sure, will do again. This also violates the 12th AoF. In order for a religion to not pay taxes, it must meet a very simple requirement, and that is in not using its money to promote political agendas. It should have its tax-exempt religious status pulled now (if not years ago) for taking official stances in politics of ANY kind. I grew up in the Church from about 1990-2005, and in that time I always assumed that the Church did not take positions like this or encourage people to vote a certain way. I had always been told it did not do such things. I guess that wasn't true. The church will involve itself with any issue it deems worthy of attention. Period.

2) Sexual orientation is biological. Any other opinion is simply based on ignorance of the science, as far as I have seen.

3) The secular arguments used to promote the position that gays should not be allowed to marry all come down to logical fallacies. There isn't one sound non-sectarian reason that gays should not marry.

Personally, I think marriage is a secularly meaningless institution and that the government should get out of the business altogether. If you want to start a religion in order to declare that certain couples are married before God, fine. Just don't expect any special treatment from the State. You could even marry one man to many women and I would be fine with that, granted the arrangement be consensual. You could also marry many men to one woman, or a group of homosexuals. Such freedom would allow a given religion or individual to deem "marriage" to be whatever it wants, on the fly. No one should have a monopoly on a word. This particular provision offered by the State is pointless.

I don't think the above will fly, since it's too great of a change to convince anyone to make, at least at present. The more reasonable road, assuming equal rights are a desirable thing, is to simply let gays marry, and call it marriage.

OP: You said you couldn't take the stress of watching it. I understand that it might be stressful, but what if it's right? What if Mormonism isn't true after all and gays deserve just as much respect as anyone else? Let's apply a little fallacious Pascal's Wager. Christians are often willing to jump on the idea: you have nothing to lose and so much to potentially gain, why not just do it? If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Hence, I'm not unwilling to expose myself to contrary ideas and new information. Anything that causes you to shun such things out of fear or discomfort cannot be a pathway to truth and light, IMO. Truth doesn't fear that which is false.

[Glenn101]

------------------------------

I disagree with the church's position in three ways:

--------------------------

2) Sexual orientation is biological. Any other opinion is simply based on ignorance of the science, as far as I have seen.

-------------------------

I am afraid that you are in left field on this one. Any biological link to SSA has been shown to be insignificant if existing at all. Check out the latest studies, especially as relating to identical twins.

Glenn

[empbac]

I am afraid that you are in left field on this one. Any biological link to SSA has been shown to be insignificant if existing at all. Check out the latest studies, especially as relating to identical twins.

Glenn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Note that I said nothing about genes. I said biology. While environment can't be ruled out, the cause of homosexuality appears to be mostly biological. Again, studies done on Christian clinics that purported to make gay people straight failed entirely. If all it takes is some time with a therapist, where are the statistics? Show me a study, don't just give a me a vague reference to something you read about before.

There's a scientific consensus that sexual orientation, once established, cannot be changed. I'm not the one in left field.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

http://en.wikipedia....on#Twin_studies

Note that I said nothing about genes. I said biology. While environment can't be ruled out, the cause of homosexuality appears to be mostly biological. Again, studies done on Christian clinics that purported to make gay people straight failed entirely. If all it takes is some time with a therapist, where are the statistics? Show me a study, don't just give a me a vague reference to something you read about before.

There's a scientific consensus that sexual orientation, once established, cannot be changed. I'm not the one in left field.

Come on now, everything is biological isn't it? Let's say I believe drinking alcohol is wrong...and I never touch the stuff. Every time I walk by a bar at a social event I get absolutely no temptation to drink -- it has no appeal to me. Yet one day I decide to take a drink, let's say i am having a difficult time emotionally and a friend offers me some wine to "soothe the nerves." I drink it and like the effect. Later I find myself craving it -- to the point that now I schedule it into my daily routine. Has there been a change in my biology? Most certainly. Is there now a complex feedback loop tht involves psychology and biology? Again, absolutely. There are probably even changes in my brain structure as well as various endocrinological changes.

Now who knows how much of my desire to drink is based on factors like seratonin and other "feel good" hormones. And there may also be differences in how my body reacts and how the bodies of others I know react. And yes, it might be difficult for me to get the thought of drinking alcohol out of my mind no matter how many lectures about teh health effects, effects on family and discussions of the WofW take place. So is it now a part of "who I am" both psychologically and physically? Yes. Is drinking, even to excess, wrong? I guess it depends on who you talk to. The thing is, had I never partaken of the alcohol, in fact, if I lived in a country where alcohol was illegal, nothing would ever have happened in regards to my relationship to alcohol. I believe this is applicable to the whole same sex and biology debate since the supporters of normalization of homosexuality try to make it sound as if homosexuality is natural (actually I would say it is -- sex is natural and so if there were no limits on human expression of sexuality all people would be in some way bisexual) then we should all say "Fine, let us make homosexuality equal to heterosexuality in all areas of life, including religion. Well, no, if we believe in the foundations of the Abrahamic religions we have to stand firm tht homosexuality is not compatable with the teachings of any of the prophets.

[USU78]

You're reading way too much into things. I had a few Mormon friends who thought a lot about Prop. 8, stressed over it, and chose to support it. They were, however, a minority compared to the vast number of members here who supported it without questioning or thinking about it one bit.

Or perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about and are fooling yourself into believing you're the one and only TRUE BELIEVER, while the rest of the stupid, programmed, undeserving alleged-coreligionists . . . ain't.

How happy it must make the annointed, wise and holy to realize how very superior they are to the idiotic, unwashed, and, especially, deservedly marginalized majority of philistines that make up CA congregations.

Annointed, sublimely wise and clairvoyant.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that "no thinking person could support Prop. 8." I am merely stating that the vast majority of Mormons in California who supported Prop 8, did little thinking, research, etc concerning whether or not they should support it. Instead they simply did so because they were told to. They just accepted Elder Bednar's fallacious claims about us no longer being able to teach our doctrine, without taking a few seconds to realize how untrue his claim was.

As between an anonymous poster and Elder Bednar, I'll take the latter's judgment and clarity of thought.

While my opinion of many of my fellow Mormons who unquestioningly and forcefully pushed for Prop 8 (while referring to me as a 'tare,' and 'apostate,' and telling me that I hated families, was on Satan's side, etc) did lower a bit through the whole process, for you to call it contempt is just silliness and the ranting of a self-righteous pharisee.

There's that clairvoyance again!

I spent way too much time discussion it elsewhere. I was merely responding to your one hollow cliche about those opposing Prop 8 as merely taking the easy path.

As opposed to knee-jerk liberalism, say?

And thanks for backing up my claim Selek, because of Mormons like you, those months preceding the elections were absolute hell for me.

It was no easy path.

Horse feathers. It's the easiest thing in the world to join the mockers in the Great and Spacious and Oh-So-Politically-Correct Broadcast Central.

I've said all I want to say. Don't expect me to respond to your hate-filled replies.

Hate begets hate. Disdain your fellow religionists and don't be surprised should some choose to disdain you right back.

[the narrator]

Or perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about and are fooling yourself into believing you're the one and only TRUE BELIEVER, while the rest of the stupid, programmed, undeserving alleged-coreligionists . . . ain't.

How happy it must make the annointed, wise and holy to realize how very superior they are to the idiotic, unwashed, and, especially, deservedly marginalized majority of philistines that make up CA congregations.

Annointed, sublimely wise and clairvoyant.

As between an anonymous poster and Elder Bednar, I'll take the latter's judgment and clarity of thought.

There's that clairvoyance again!

As opposed to knee-jerk liberalism, say?

Horse feathers. It's the easiest thing in the world to join the mockers in the Great and Spacious and Oh-So-Politically-Correct Broadcast Central.

Hate begets hate. Disdain your fellow religionists and don't be surprised should some choose to disdain you right back.

Why so filled with hatred USU? I simply pointed out that most Mormons in California unquestioningly supported Prop 8. I said nothing to ridicule others. I did not disparage anyone.

[Storm Rider]

Jumping in at the end of the thread, so forgive me if this has been brought up: for the religious seeking a good movie about homosexuality in Christianity, try "For The Bible Tells Me So": There's no reason anyone should feel uncomfortable watching it, and it gives a good overview of how gay Christians are currently perceived by non-gay Christians, and the social dynamics that are evolving Christian theology.

http://www.forthebib....org/indexc.htm

The world is changing again. Give it some time and the LDS church will do with gays what it did with blacks. Many denominations are beginning to take this approach already. You're talking about genetic and otherwise biologically-derived sexual orientation. That's not something that can be changed by an act of will. If you look into these 'clinics' that supposedly make gay Christians straight, you will find that they do not succeed. The statistics just don't favor the idea. There isn't even a small margin of success, there is NO margin of success. You're born how you're born, and trying to change that is psychological self-abuse. This is a time when people need to be themselves and not try to conform to traditional, Bronze Age morals. This is just another social revolution. Since you have an inclination to homosexuality, I would encourage you to lead from the front instead of following sheepishly behind.

I have not seen the movie mentioned, but if I have time I might take a look.

I disagree with the church's position in three ways:

1) The church should not have tax-exempt status if it's taking official political stances, which it does now and has done before, and I'm sure, will do again. This also violates the 12th AoF. In order for a religion to not pay taxes, it must meet a very simple requirement, and that is in not using its money to promote political agendas. It should have its tax-exempt religious status pulled now (if not years ago) for taking official stances in politics of ANY kind. I grew up in the Church from about 1990-2005, and in that time I always assumed that the Church did not take positions like this or encourage people to vote a certain way. I had always been told it did not do such things. I guess that wasn't true. The church will involve itself with any issue it deems worthy of attention. Period.

2) Sexual orientation is biological. Any other opinion is simply based on ignorance of the science, as far as I have seen.

3) The secular arguments used to promote the position that gays should not be allowed to marry all come down to logical fallacies. There isn't one sound non-sectarian reason that gays should not marry.

Personally, I think marriage is a secularly meaningless institution and that the government should get out of the business altogether. If you want to start a religion in order to declare that certain couples are married before God, fine. Just don't expect any special treatment from the State. You could even marry one man to many women and I would be fine with that, granted the arrangement be consensual. You could also marry many men to one woman, or a group of homosexuals. Such freedom would allow a given religion or individual to deem "marriage" to be whatever it wants, on the fly. No one should have a monopoly on a word. This particular provision offered by the State is pointless.

I don't think the above will fly, since it's too great of a change to convince anyone to make, at least at present. The more reasonable road, assuming equal rights are a desirable thing, is to simply let gays marry, and call it marriage.

OP: You said you couldn't take the stress of watching it. I understand that it might be stressful, but what if it's right? What if Mormonism isn't true after all and gays deserve just as much respect as anyone else? Let's apply a little fallacious Pascal's Wager. Christians are often willing to jump on the idea: you have nothing to lose and so much to potentially gain, why not just do it? If I'm wrong, I would like to know. Hence, I'm not unwilling to expose myself to contrary ideas and new information. Anything that causes you to shun such things out of fear or discomfort cannot be a pathway to truth and light, IMO. Truth doesn't fear that which is false.

I am sorry, but did you say that, "Sexual orientation is biological"? Do you have a reference for that? I have heard of no gay gene being discovered. Quite the contrary, science currently states they don't know, but there are discussions about it being nature, nurture, and choice. I may have missed it, so please enlighten us. However, should you actual do the research and find nothing to support your claim, please come back and let us know the results. When making such definitive, declaritive statements, please get your facts straight.

The LDS Church is hardly the only one that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. In fact, the vast majority of Christianity takes this position. There is a minority of Christian churchese that appear to support it, but they are a small minority.