"8: The Mormon Proposition"

[USU78]

Quinn stated this: "I vowed I would never again participate in a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."

He never attended his disciplinary council.

Then Quinn's public statement doesn't mean much, does it?

His open, notorious and unrepentent practice of homosexuality since his excommunication certainly speaks more loudly and with more clarity than his claim of "censorship."

[wenglund]

In the words of Wanda Sykes, "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."

This is as overly simplistic and confuses the real issue and makes as little sense as were someone to say: "If you don't like the laws prohibity gay marriage, then don't live where such laws exist."

Again, for the umpteenth time, the issue with prop 8 and other such political and judicial endevours, is gay activists and sympathizers attempting to overturn a longstanding societal precidence, and to get the states to sanction SSM--legally endorsing a perverse and demonstrably dysfunctional lifestyle, and this under the false guise of being denied rights they have never had nor were ever intended to have, and in the hopes of circumventing legislative justification and at the expense of state interest.

All that the gay activists have going for them is dis-information, appeal to popular emotion, and prejudice against their opponents. And, that is why I have a disinterest in viewing the propaganda piece that is the topic of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frankenstein]

never mind...

[Jason]

Comparing alcoholism to homosexuality? Really? You're using a weak analogy.

I find alcoholism to be an excellent analogy for homosexual behavior, except of course that alcoholism can be indulged in alone.

Alcohol dependence takes a long time to develop, not a one-time sip, as you hint.

CFR that alcoholism always takes a long time to develop.

It ultimately doesn't matter what your opinion of alcohol is -- there is no sound justification for you to deny it to others, because that's not your responsibility.

So I take it you actively advocate removing the drunk driving laws? Removing the restriction from not selling alcohol to minors? Removing laws that partially excuse actions taken while under the influence of alcohol?

When you infringe on another's rights, you're making a value statement about those rights: you don't respect them.

Or you are protecting yourself.

But you can't have it one way only. If you want others to obey your rules but not the other way around, you're a hypocrite.

With Prop. 8 in place everyone does have to obey the same rules. I can't marry a man either.

You said: "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)...

If it's all natural, why stop at bisexuality? Why not bestiality, pederasty, necrophilia, incest, sado-masichism? Why not polygamy? Rape? Co-dependency? Is all human sexuality really natural and good?

You made up your mind. Homosexuality is wrong because all the prophets have thought so up to now, and the analogy you presented is just a post hoc rationalization.

Or the prophets know what they were talking about and the rationalization is real and valid.

[Jason]

My facts? Try Wikipedia.

"Well there's your problem."

The Mormon church used its power to pass a law. That means it should no longer have tax-exempt status. Am I wrong?

In every way that is important, yes.

Don't try to hide the church behind other churches. Explain why it wasn't wrong for doing what it did.

The Church was not wrong because it is not wrong for a Church to take a position on a moral issue. Churches do it all the time.

[frankenstein]

oh good grief jason exercise some blasted common sense. did any one suggest alcoholism is "always" a certain way, or was someone just challenging you suggestion that alcoholism always a certain way. Or are both of you correct partial, alcoholim can be sas each of describe

but while we are at it.

CFR this "prophets know what they were talking" prove that Prophets talk to God, which means you must first prove there is a God.

[Jason]

oh good grief jason

CFR this "prophets know what they were talking" prove that Prophets talk to God, which means you must first prove there is a God.

You left out the "Or". I'm not sure I'm really making a claim when I say "or...", more like I'm outlining an alternate possibility.

And what's the name of this board we're posting on again? Why do you think every debate here doesn't just end with a CFR that God exists?

[frankenstein]

You left out the "Or". I'm not sure I'm really making a claim when I say "or...", more like I'm outlining an alternate possibility.

And what's the name of this board we're posting on again? Why do you think every debate here doesn't just end with a CFR that God exists?

please see my edited post

[Jason]

oh good grief jason exercise some blasted common sense. did any one suggest alcoholism is "always" a certain way, or was someone just challenging you suggestion that alcoholism always a certain way. Or are both of you correct partial, alcoholim can be sas each of describe

I beleive he was in fact claiming that alcoholism always takes time to develop, presumably in contrast to how he feels same sex attraction is hard-wired and instantly occurs. My CFR is effectively in preperation of challenging that idea.

[frankenstein]

I beleive he was in fact claiming that alcoholism always takes time to develop, presumably in contrast to how he feels same sex attraction is hard-wired and instantly occurs. My CFR is effectively in preperation of challenging that idea.

your challenge lacks common sense. you made an assertion it was challenged, failure on the part of the challenger to CFR your assertion, but nonetheless. you put words in peoples mouth then toss about with CFR for those things that are you words and not the other person.

A more senisible approach would have asked for clarification but rather you toss about CFR so you can claim victory for something that one has not stated in first place.

[Jason]

your challenge lacks common sense. you made an assertion it was challenged, failure on the part of the challenger to CFR your assertion, but nonetheless. you put words in peoples mouth then toss about with CFR for those things that are you words and not the other person.

A more senisible approach would have asked for clarification but rather you toss about CFR so you can claim victory for something that one has not stated in first place.

I don't use CFRs to "win". I use them to challenge ideas that I find suspicious. When I see a suspicious idea in a person's post, whether they are conscious of it or not, I think it does a service to point it out.

[Ivan the Magnificent!]

If it's all natural, why stop at bisexuality? Why not bestiality, pederasty, necrophilia, incest, sado-masichism? Why not polygamy? Rape? Co-dependency? Is all human sexuality really natural and good?

My point was that if you could raise children in an environment where there were no taboos against homosexuality and, in fact, they were exposed to as much same-sex behavior on, let's say, TV as heterosexual then you would see a large part of the population engaging in same-sex activities. However, my view is that the instinct to reproduce, and the advantages to male-female pairings (i.e. if a woman married to a man has two kids it is a small family but if two women had two kids each they would be a larger family) most people would at least pair off in heterosexual arrangements at least during their reproductive years. So yes, bisexuality is natural, but only desirable in a society that has no religious prohibitions against it and where economic structures existed that made it easy to maintain a birth rate necessary to maintain teh population. No such "Utopia" exists. Anatomy is ultimately destiny then.

By teh way, it is not a good idea to lump bestiality and polygamy together. The former was a death penalty offense in the Old Testament and the latter was recognized of God.

[Jason]

My point was that if you could raise children in an environment where there were no taboos against homosexuality and, in fact, they were exposed to as much same-sex behavior on, let's say, TV as heterosexual then you would see a large part of the population engaging in same-sex activities. However, my view is that the instinct to reproduce, and the advantages to male-female pairings (i.e. if a woman married to a man has two kids it is a small family but if two women had two kids each they would be a larger family) most people would at least pair off in heterosexual arrangements at least during their reproductive years. So yes, bisexuality is natural, but only desirable in a society that has no religious prohibitions against it and where economic structures existed that made it easy to maintain a birth rate necessary to maintain teh population.

I'm not sure how you got from an obviously artificial soceity (since, as you say, no such society has ever "naturally" developed) with no taboos against same-sex behavior to declaring that "bisexuality is natural".

By teh way, it is not a good idea to lump bestiality and polygamy together. The former was a death penalty offense in the Old Testament and the latter was recognized of God.

I know. Perhaps I was making a subtle point in mentioning both together.

[Calm]

Shane LeGrande Whelan for the continued publishing of his book "More Than One: Plural Marriage, A Sacred Heritage, A Promise For Tomorrow".

More than likely he was excommunicated for promoting plural marriage in the here and now, not only in his book but in public venues AND IIRC---it was a number of years ago--- his wife divorced him due in part to attempts to practice it.

Janice Allred for works on God the Mother and Mormon Feminism.

Have you read her God the Mother? It was much more than just teaching of past doctrines and ideas, it was teaching false doctrine.

[Calm]

I can't marry a man either.

Only in a legal sense, of course. They can marry in a religious sense, they just don't get subsidized by the government as official heterosexual marriages will, making their homosexual union closer to a "common law marriage" (depending on where someone lives as some states give some rights to that relationship).

[Calm]

if there were no limits on human expression of sexuality all people would be in some way bisexual

So you are saying here there is no such thing as a real homosexual?

[selek]

I don't believe I ever said that something was directed individually but collectively.

Your original quote (which admittedly, you later retracted) is as follows:

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

Your implication, and the tenor of the conversation which followed made it clear that you believed he was addressing individual homosexuals, rather than the collective political movement, as the threat.

That assumption and interpretation has been demonstrated to be false.

Maybe we are talking in circles. Let me clarify. I don't merely see them as political movements I see them as people who are also part of religious movements.

Agreed- but the context demonstrates that it was the movement- not the individuals- to whom Packer was referring.

To disengage political from the religious creates, IMO, a blind eye.

Just as does removing his comments from the context in which they were spoken.

Historically and even in the modern world politics plagues religion just as religion plagues politics.

I'm not sure I'd agree with "plagues", though I would certainly agree that they influence one another.

Admittedly, the separation of church and state was not to make them mutually exclusive but to counter balance bureaucracy. The religous state should not dictate the federal state and vice versa.

I agree- to a point. I believe it was Washington (or perhaps Franklin) who said that the Constitution was meant to govern a moral people and was insufficient to govern any other.

While it is certainly true that no religion should be in a position to dictate terms to the government, it is equally true that the government itself should reflect the morals, and will of the people themselves. Anything less is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

In the words of Wanda Sykes, "If you're against gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex."

While cloyingly trite, this statement is no more reasoned that my five-year-old's "You're not the boss of me."

Traditional marriage (and the nuclear family) receive government sanction and endorsement because the people (and history) have decided and demonstrated that it is in society's best interest to do so. Traditional marriage (and the nuclear family) are the most likely to produce a stable, responsible citizenry.

Normal heterosexual marriages are endorsed and subsidized because there is a societal benefit to those relationships.

Homosexual activists have tried repeatedly to claim that extending that same endorsement to their relationships (and redefining marriage to incorporate their preferences) will likewise stabilize their relationships and provide a net societal benefit.

Unfortunately, they've not made their case- and real-world data from places where this redefinition has taken place trend in the opposite direction.

Homosexual activists claim that remaking marriage in their image will provide a net benefit to marriages as a whole- yet the overall marriage rate (in places where this has been tried) are declining more rapidly than anywhere else on the globe.

It has been demonstrated empirically that marriage as a whole suffers when it is redefined to fit the prevailing political zeitgeist.

Homosexual activists have further tried to claim that remaking marriage in their image will improve their own lives- promoting stability and familial relationships.

Yet the data demonstrates that this is NOT the case. Incidents of domestic violence, spousal abuse, spousal abandonment, emotional problems, incidents of suicide, and marital infidelity are all radically higher among homosexuals populations- even in places where homosexual behavior has been endorsed as "normal".

Activists claim that government endorsement and sanction will lead to a reduction in these problems- but the best available evidence contradicts these claims.

So the question is: why should we (as a society) endorse (let alone subsidize)behavior which will have a demonstrable negative effect on marriage overall, is of dubious (at best) societal benefit, and which the vast majority of society finds morally repugnant?

That is the case the anti-Prop Eighters needed to make to win the hearts and minds of California voters- and that's the case they failed to make.

Indeed, they've failed to make it in every state of the Union. In every instance where "homosexual marriage" has been implemented, it has been done so by minority rule- either Court fiat or passing by bare majorities in the legislatures- and without the consent of the people.

That's how they won the "right" in California- by convincing five judges, who implemented the new standard by decree.

They failed to convince the people of California, who acted rightly and reclaimed their government- ensuring (for a time, anyway) that the government of California reflected the views and will of the governed.

This is an opinion that could be construed as loaded with emotion as well.

I withdraw the blanket charge that all of the September Six are "arrogant". That having been said, what writings I've read and interveiws I've seen support the charge of "arrogant" against Quinn, the Toscano's and Whitesides and Hanks.

I looked at the website. I am impressed. However, I would like to see them not walk on eggshells when divulging in controversial historical matters.

Please demonstrate this alleged walking on eggshells. Quite frankly, that's neither the purpose of the website or of their testimonies.

A former professor (Religion in America) of mine once stated that "with each religion formed you must take the good with the bad and maintain objectivity as opposed to subjectivity".

I happen to agree. However, in more than twenty years of membership, I've never seen an instance where sincere questioning was punished.

I've seen grand-standing punished.

I've seen people who presume to dictate their interpretation to the Chuch as a whole disciplined. But I've never seen anyone who approached troubling issues in humility and with a desire to learn shut out or disciplined in anyway. It has invariably (in my experience) those who've closed their minds and determined to preach their new-found truths who are eventually shut out.

A good friend of mine was excommunicated from the Catholic church. He openly questioned the claims to authority and the inaccuracies of historical account and the white-washing of history. The charge that the Archdiocese accused was that of apostasy. He was told that to question the authorities of the Catholic church, papal infallability, etc. was to question God. Such arrogance!

I cannot speak to the Catholic Church or its disciplinary process- but if your friend was determined to preach his new found truths to the Church, they were justified in ending their association with him.

No church is innocent nor is it excused from its controversial history (i.e., MMM, polygamy, Danites from Mormonism). To attempt to silence those who openly explore and question aspects to theology and history is not a crime.

I agree- open exploration is not a crime- but when someone crosses the line from exploring into proselyting to his new-found views, he is no longer an innocent questioner, but an acolyte and (perhaps) a false prophet.

[selek]

My friend told me that "no Pope, or church leader for that matter, is excused from criticism and question".

I quite agree with your friend- so long as the criticism and questioning is done with an eye towards learning and understanding, as opposed to advancing an agenda.

Let's look at the September Six:

D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated for his works "Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power" and works documenting the continuation of plural marriages (performing weddings/sealings) after the 1890 Manifesto.

Nonsense. This statement was cooked up by Quinn and his publicists to promote his appeal as a "whistleblower". Salacious details and "insider exposes" always sell copy. The ongoing sealings and the necessity for the "Second Manifesto" have been discussed both here and elsewhere without a rash of excommunications or visits by Danites. It was Quinn's agenda and his attitude of "speaking truth to power" that got his head on the block as much as his later personal behavior.

Paul Toscano was excommunicated for being critical of church leadership and for a speech he gave at Sunstone "All is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church".

Toscano was excommunicated for publically attacking the Church and for promoting his (rather jaundiced) opinions as authoritative. He was publically and stubbornly hostile to the teachings of the Church, and refused to discuss or dialogue. It was his way or the highway- and the Church was well within its rights to end their association with him.

Lynn Kanavel Whitesides was disfellowshipped for advocating Mormon Feminism.

Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for advocating Mormon Feminism.

Again- a case of very public attacks and hostility toward the Church and an arrogant refusal to consider any point of view which did not advance their agendas. They were excommunicated not for "exploring theology" or "asking questions" but for demanding the Church take up and endorse their agenda.

Lavina Anderson was excommunicated for documenting changes to official church history and documenting cases of spiritual and ecclesiastical abuse found in the Mormon Alliance Case Reports.

Another publicist's statement that leaves out all the facts.

Avraham Gileadi...not exactly sure why he was excommunicated. I don't think that he is appropriately bunched in with the other five.

Further excommunications:

Janice Allred for works on God the Mother and Mormon Feminism.

Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for the same reasons as her sister Janice.

David Wright for asserting that the Book of Mormon was a 19th Century document.

Michael Barrett was excommunicated for disobedience do to correcting news stories about Mormonism.

Brent Metcalfe for questioning the genealogical link between American Indians and Israelites.

Shane LeGrande Whelan for the continued publishing of his book "More Than One: Plural Marriage, A Sacred Heritage, A Promise For Tomorrow".

Grant Palmer for his book "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins".

Again, each of these statements is eminently misleading. These people were not excommunicated for asking questions- they were excommunicated for preaching their own particular brand of "truth".

They were not inquiring, they were proselyting.

They were not asking questions- they were attempting to teach their own personal truths.

They were no longer faithful, loyal Latter-day Saints, but evangelicals of their own personal, private Gospels.

And as such, the Church was well within its rights to end their associations.

That is subject to individual opinion.

It is indeed. So, in your opinion, is endorsing (let alone subsidizing)behavior which will have a demonstrable negative effect on marriage overall, is of dubious (at best) societal benefit, and which the vast majority of society finds morally repugnant to be considered progress?

Is creating a society that does not reflect the will and beliefs of the vast majority of that society considered "progress"?

Is the imposition of a moral travesty and legal falsehood by a black-robed minority progress?

But that's the thing, Selek. No matter what I say or documentation I give...I'm not going to change your mind.

Really. You either underestimate yourself or insult me. There really isn't a third choice in this one.....

I think that many Mormons take far too literally D&C 1:38.

Which is just a fancy way of alleging the old trope that Mormons obey blindly. I don't think you understand the Latter-day Saints as well as you might pretend to, as my experience has been just the opposite of your own.

It reminds me of what my friend said concerning the Catholic church. I strongly agree with him in the sense that we must separate the institution from God since the institution is imperfect and subjected to human flaw.

And yet you've not demonstrated where the Church is wrong to any significant degree.

I understand what you mean but please show worthwhile logic employed by these women that just doesn't only stem from what church leaders have said concerning the subject.

Nope. Sorry- you made the charge, you need to back it up. It is not for me to prove that these women were right- it is up to you to prove that they are ignorant or that they surrendered what they beleived to be right for what was expedient(which is, at it's root, what "copping out" alleges).

As with homosexual "marriage", the ERA was a radical political movement which would have profound and in many instances, unforeseen impacts on every facet of society. It was an attempt to impose a radical feminist and anti-family agenda on the Constitution itself, and llike homosexual "marriage" it's proponents failed to persuade a majority of voters that the changes were in the interest of society (or of the people themselves).

When you claim that these Mormon women were ignorant or copped out on the ERA, you are implying that they were too stupid or too cowardly to accept and endorse a change that would have benefitted them.

It's your opinion that the ERA was beneficial. The women in question disagreed. To accuse them of "copping out" or of being "ignorant" is to attack them instead of addressing the failure of those trying to persuade them.

That's precisely the behavior the radical anti-8 movement is engaging in now.

I will do the same.

I'm not going to say that a good case has been made of the argument against what you and others share. I admit that the fallacy of the anti-8 argument is that it is too emotionally charged and not based in substantive logic.

I will agree that the over-emotional nature and lack of substantive logic is a failure- but it's not the only one.

[Damien the Leper]

This is as overly simplistic and confuses the real issue and makes as little sense as were someone to say: "If you don't like the laws prohibity gay marriage, then don't live where such laws exist."

Again, for the umpteenth time, the issue with prop 8 and other such political and judicial endevours, is gay activists and sympathizers attempting to overturn a longstanding societal precidence, and to get the states to sanction SSM--legally endorsing a perverse and demonstrably dysfunctional lifestyle, and this under the false guise of being denied rights they have never had nor were ever intended to have, and in the hopes of circumventing legislative justification and at the expense of state interest.

All that the gay activists have going for them is dis-information, appeal to popular emotion, and prejudice against their opponents. And, that is why I have a disinterest in viewing the propaganda piece that is the topic of this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sorry, Wade. It was actually an attempt to lighten the discussion.

With what you said above, I am reminded of the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks said at their concert in England back in 2003: "We are ashamed the President is from Texas".

Do you remember the backlash they received? They were thrown into the pariah pool for voicing an opinion. Radio stations set up trash cans so that listeners could throw away their music. I am unaffected by the timing of their statement because it was an opinion. Apparently, at that time it was inconceivable to have an un-patriotic and non-nationalist opinion or rhetoric. Looking back at the bad press they received...it reminds me of how ignorant people can be.

To address your post further:

In bold above: who are you speaking for? Yourself? Are you repeating the General Authorities? It seems as though it is a narrow minded repitition of Kimball's Miracle of Forgiveness and Packer's To the One. Those are far from credible witnesses as to the lifestyle(s) of homosexuals. GRANTED, gays and lesbians haven't done the best job of trying to change opinion.

In italics above: Says who? The nation's founding fathers? Billy Graham? Pat Robertson? GW Bush? LDS church authorities? You? Not a single one holds a valid voice of reason concerning the subject because they haven't provided a logical reason as to why those rights should not be granted. Not one of them has spoken for God on the matter. However, we may disagree moreso on the LDS authorities but that represents a lobbying bias.

[selek]

With what you said above, I am reminded of the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks said at their concert in England back in 2003: "We are ashamed the President is from Texas".

Yes- as I recall, the venue in which they offered that statement had nothing to do with their uneducated opinon. The lead singer threw out her opinion- forced it down the throats of an audience who couldn't careless about her political stance.

The audience was there to hear music, not to be preached to or to hear politically correct mantras.

Do you remember the backlash they received? They were thrown into the pariah pool for voicing an opinion. Radio stations set up trash cans so that listeners could throw away their music.

And from whom did they receive this "backlash"? Their employers- the voting Public.

Are you suggesting that the public have no right to voice thier (understandable) disagreement? Are you suggesting that popular entertainers should be protected from the (understandable) consequences of their actions?

Apparently, at that time it was inconceivable to have an un-patriotic and non-nationalist opinion or rhetoric.

Oh, bull. That was the same year Hillary was out claiming that "dissent was patriotic" and they were trying to rehabiliate Kerry from an unprincipled opportunist and glory-seeker into something resembling a patriotic American.

Her mistake wasn't holding "an un-patriotic and non-nationalist opinion"- it was assuming that her audience (and most Americans) shared her (unqualified) disdain and contempt.

Looking back at the bad press they received...it reminds me of how ignorant people can be.

There you go again.....calling people who disagree with you "ignorant".

This is something of a habit for you, isn't it?

[Argos]

This thread is going down hill fast. Keep personal politics and personal jabs out of it. Three mods are currently looking at it - heck, it could be closed as I'm posting this!

[Damien the Leper]

Your original quote (which admittedly, you later retracted) is as follows:

Your implication, and the tenor of the conversation which followed made it clear that you believed he was addressing individual homosexuals, rather than the collective political movement, as the threat.

That assumption and interpretation has been demonstrated to be false.

More clarity needed I suppose. I'm speaking directly of the homosexuals within the church as well as the feminists and the scholars. This is an internal exploration that I'm engaging.

Agreed- but the context demonstrates that it was the movement- not the individuals- to whom Packer was referring.

Just as does removing his comments from the context in which they were spoken.

But do you even know the context of what Packer was saying? We are on opposite sides of the fence and we both have our biased (mis)interpretations of what he said. Because we do not actually know, we can neither be right nor wrong.

I agree- to a point. I believe it was Washington (or perhaps Franklin) who said that the Constitution was meant to govern a moral people and was insufficient to govern any other.

I'm curious as to the context in which the statement was made. When speaking of morality, we need to understand that the context should not be automatically concluded from a religiously biased standpoint. IOW, Washington may not have even been saying what he said as a Christian. We weren't there and cannot know his mind. We can assume all we want.

While it is certainly true that no religion should be in a position to dictate terms to the government, it is equally true that the government itself should reflect the morals, and will of the people themselves. Anything less is NOT government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Does this mean that we promulgate the degenerate government "of some people, by some people, and for some people"? This is lobbying. This is beaurocracy.

While cloyingly trite, this statement is no more reasoned that my five-year-old's "You're not the boss of me."

It was an attempt to be light-hearted.

Traditional marriage (and the nuclear family) receive government sanction and endorsement because the people (and history) have decided and demonstrated that it is in society's best interest to do so. Traditional marriage (and the nuclear family) are the most likely to produce a stable, responsible citizenry.

Arguments against marriage:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

2. Marriage is for procreation.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage.

5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.

10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

11. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will.

12. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.

13. Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization.

14. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.

Real reasons people oppose gay marriage:

1. Just not comfortable with the idea.

2. It offends everything religion stands for.

3. Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity.

4. Gay sex is unnatural.

5. A man making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.

6. The thought of gay sex is repulsive.

7. They might recruit.

8. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws.

9. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality.

So the question is: why should we (as a society) endorse (let alone subsidize)behavior which will have a demonstrable negative effect on marriage overall, is of dubious (at best) societal benefit, and which the vast majority of society finds morally repugnant?

Prove to me how it will have excessive consequences that are any greater than what heterosexuals have already done. What is the divorce rate in America? Who do we have to thank for this?

Please demonstrate this alleged walking on eggshells. Quite frankly, that's neither the purpose of the website or of their testimonies.

I'm not concerned with the purpose of the website. I would like to see scholarly exploration take place with real analysis and criticism without thought to consequence for said exploration. Avoid passive voice and raise the voice. If there is sincerely something worth questioning, don't question it as an ignorant child but as an adult looking for true reason and logic.

I've seen people who presume to dictate their interpretation to the Chuch as a whole disciplined. But I've never seen anyone who approached troubling issues in humility and with a desire to learn shut out or disciplined in anyway. It has invariably (in my experience) those who've closed their minds and determined to preach their new-found truths who are eventually shut out.

I cannot speak to the Catholic Church or its disciplinary process- but if your friend was determined to preach his new found truths to the Church, they were justified in ending their association with him.

His exploration consisted of works done by Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer, Raymond Brown, and Bruce Metzger. He explored criticisms concerning false documentation on the behalf of Eusebius (Church Historian), writings on the line of authority coming (supposedly) from St. Peter as opposed to possibly Paul or even Mary Magdelene. He was never in open contempt, he started asking why there are so many possibilities and chose not to merely accept one biased avenue.

I agree- open exploration is not a crime- but when someone crosses the line from exploring into proselyting to his new-found views, he is no longer an innocent questioner, but an acolyte and (perhaps) a false prophet.

This is often the characteristics of a cultist. You have an inquiring mind who sees problems with what is considered to be orthodox and also sees how it is problematic with society and chooses to use a 'revelatory' experience to convince others of current standing fallacies. Jesus did this. Joseph Smith did this. I suppose this is why some religious professors consider Christianity to be the oldest known cult.

[Damien the Leper]

I quite agree with your friend- so long as the criticism and questioning is done with an eye towards learning and understanding, as opposed to advancing an agenda.

Nonsense. This statement was cooked up by Quinn and his publicists to promote his appeal as a "whistleblower". Salacious details and "insider exposes" always sell copy. The ongoing sealings and the necessity for the "Second Manifesto" have been discussed both here and elsewhere without a rash of excommunications or visits by Danites. It was Quinn's agenda and his attitude of "speaking truth to power" that got his head on the block as much as his later personal behavior.

CFR. Is what is stated above your opinion or can it be substantiated by documentation and fact?

Toscano was excommunicated for publically attacking the Church and for promoting his (rather jaundiced) opinions as authoritative. He was publically and stubbornly hostile to the teachings of the Church, and refused to discuss or dialogue. It was his way or the highway- and the Church was well within its rights to end their association with him.

This I will agree with you on.

Again- a case of very public attacks and hostility toward the Church and an arrogant refusal to consider any point of view which did not advance their agendas. They were excommunicated not for "exploring theology" or "asking questions" but for demanding the Church take up and endorse their agenda.

Refusal to consider any other point of view demonstrates ignorance and the promotion of an agenda.

Again, each of these statements is eminently misleading. These people were not excommunicated for asking questions- they were excommunicated for preaching their own particular brand of "truth".

Does that mean that any exploration into a given subject matter automatically receives the banner of proselytizing? Did any single person listed state: "This is Church doctrine and truth!" or did they say: "This is what took place historically." There is a huge margin of difference.

And as such, the Church was well within its rights to end their associations.

Agreed. If the faith-promoting agenda is not promulgated by its supposed adherers then discipline should be mandatory.

It is indeed. So, in your opinion, is endorsing (let alone subsidizing)behavior which will have a demonstrable negative effect on marriage overall, is of dubious (at best) societal benefit, and which the vast majority of society finds morally repugnant to be considered progress?

Is creating a society that does not reflect the will and beliefs of the vast majority of that society considered "progress"?

It could be used to teach a lesson. As Theo (CARMite) once said...there's no such thing as Christian tolerance. Norm and status quo hold very little meaning to me. To attempt use those to promote an argument shows that the discussion is diminishing and losing value.

Really. You either underestimate yourself or insult me. There really isn't a third choice in this one.....

I will underestimate myself. I'm not capable of performing such an act.

Which is just a fancy way of alleging the old trope that Mormons obey blindly. I don't think you understand the Latter-day Saints as well as you might pretend to, as my experience has been just the opposite of your own.

Maybe not. But show me otherwise. Perhaps there seems to be a frontal stereotype that should be eliminated. Perhaps at the next GC in October, President Monson should stand up and say: "Be critical and mindful of every word spoken in Conference by the church leaders". For me, that would be a step in a good direction.

And yet you've not demonstrated where the Church is wrong to any significant degree.

It's my opinion that the church is wrong. It is yours that it is not. It is cyclical. We are going to show sides of our arguments that the other is going to consider erroneous and irrelevant.

Nope. Sorry- you made the charge, you need to back it up. It is not for me to prove that these women were right- it is up to you to prove that they are ignorant or that they surrendered what they beleived to be right for what was expedient(which is, at it's root, what "copping out" alleges).

As with homosexual "marriage", the ERA was a radical political movement which would have profound and in many instances, unforeseen impacts on every facet of society. It was an attempt to impose a radical feminist and anti-family agenda on the Constitution itself, and llike homosexual "marriage" it's proponents failed to persuade a majority of voters that the changes were in the interest of society (or of the people themselves).

When you claim that these Mormon women were ignorant or copped out on the ERA, you are implying that they were too stupid or too cowardly to accept and endorse a change that would have benefitted them.

It's your opinion that the ERA was beneficial. The women in question disagreed. To accuse them of "copping out" or of being "ignorant" is to attack them instead of addressing the failure of those trying to persuade them.

That's precisely the behavior the radical anti-8 movement is engaging in now.

Perhaps we need another radical movement. ERA wasn

[Damien the Leper]

Yes- as I recall, the venue in which they offered that statement had nothing to do with their uneducated opinon. The lead singer threw out her opinion- forced it down the throats of an audience who couldn't careless about her political stance.

The audience was there to hear music, not to be preached to or to hear politically correct mantras.

And do you remember the reaction of the crowd? I suppose that since they were there to see them perform that the type of reaction was actually irrelevent.

And from whom did they receive this "backlash"? Their employers- the voting Public.

Radio stations started to boycott their music. John McCain, whom I'm not a big fan of, called out the corporations who refused to play the music and told them they were in violation of contract and acting out of bias. The video feed of McCain's statements can be viewed in the movie "Shut Up and Sing".

Are you suggesting that the public have no right to voice thier (understandable) disagreement? Are you suggesting that popular entertainers should be protected from the (understandable) consequences of their actions?

I'm saying that the public should not get so bent out of shape. It was an opinion...who cares! There was no need to stomp feet and scream. It was unnecessary for redneck morons to threaten Natalie Maines life.

Her mistake wasn't holding "an un-patriotic and non-nationalist opinion"- it was assuming that her audience (and most Americans) shared her (unqualified) disdain and contempt.

Who says that was her assumption? CFR. I would like to know where Natalie makes this claim.

There you go again.....calling people who disagree with you "ignorant".

Not because they disagree. The ignorance I'm speaking of is the lack of objectivity.

This is something of a habit for you, isn't it?

Probably. It could be one of my greatest flaws. Any helpful suggestions?

[selek]

More clarity needed I suppose. I'm speaking directly of the homosexuals within the church as well as the feminists and the scholars.

Which are not- demonstrably- the people or organizations to whom Packer was referring.

But do you even know the context of what Packer was saying?

We do. We have his remarks in full.

We are on opposite sides of the fence and we both have our biased (mis)interpretations of what he said. Because we do not actually know, we can neither be right nor wrong.

I don't agree that we do not or cannot know.

I'm curious as to the context in which the statement was made. When speaking of morality, we need to understand that the context should not be automatically concluded from a religiously biased standpoint. IOW, Washington may not have even been saying what he said as a Christian. We weren't there and cannot know his mind. We can assume all we want.

If you say so. Others disagree.

Does this mean that we promulgate the degenerate government "of some people, by some people, and for some people"? This is lobbying. This is beaurocracy.

I'm sorry, but this is a false dichotomy.

It was an attempt to be light-hearted.

Well, my friend...it failed . Though I DO appreciate the effort.

Arguments against marriage:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.

2. Marriage is for procreation.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children.

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage.

5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species.

6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.

7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.

8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.

10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.

11. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will.

12. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.

13. Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization.

14. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.

Real reasons people oppose gay marriage:

The dichotomy you just promulgated implies that the first list is false, an assertion NOT in evidence. By implying that Prop 8 supporters (and others opposed to homosexual marriage are hiding thier true agenda (and substituting the "false one" above) you are engaging in the same scare mongering and deceit which you decry in 8: The Mormon Proposition.

Let's look at those reasons for just a moment, though, shall we:

1. Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman. Definitionally and demonstraby true.

2. Marriage is for procreation.True- but no one has argued that marriage is exlusively for procreation.

3. Same-sex couples aren't the optimum environment in which to raise children. I've never seen this one argued as such. I have seen it argued that a child raised in a nuclear home by his father and mother is (generally speaking) the most preferable choice. Almost by definition, anything else would be "less" preferable.

4. Gay relationships are immoral and violate the sacred institution of marriage. By definition, any sexual relationship short of marriage is fornication- and by definition, immoral. Since marriage as conveyed by God (and as recognized by every civilization of record) has expressly excluded homosexual relations from the definition of marriage, incorporating same-sex relationships would inescapably change the fundamental nature of that institution. By definition, this would violate the nature of that institution, from both a secular and sacred standpoint. From an exclusively religious view, homosexual relations are forbidden by God. Changing the definition of marriage (given by God) to incorporate something forbidden by God, would alter the sacred nature of marriage.

5. Marriages are for ensuring the continuation of the species. No. Procreation is for ensuring the continuation of the species. Marriage is for ensuring the continuation of society.

6. Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.Demontrably True- as reported earlier.

7. Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.Demonstrably True- there is no record of a legitimate marriage outside of heterosexuals until the end of teh 20th century. There is no historical precedent for such things up until the 1990's.

8. Same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.False- but where it HAS been tried, it has had a net negative effect, not only resulting in no appreciable decrease in divorce rates, but it also correlates to a sharp decrease in marriage rates and a sharp increase in illegitimacy.

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a "slippery slope" towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences.Not demonstrably True- but it is up to those proposing the change to demonstrate that the risk is minimal.

10. Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.Demonstrably True- can you think of any other non-marital relationship which is priveleged in this fashion? Redefining marriage to accomodate militant homosexuality would be absolutely without precedent in human history. That, by definition, makes it a special right.

11. Churches would be forced to marry gay people against their will. Churches have already been sued overseas for not recognizing such marriages, and ministers have been punished in Canada (and threatened here)for speaking out against homosexual marriages and behavior. Private business owners have been driven into bankruptcy or had thier licenses revoked for refusing to cater to homosexual couples (even though it violated the owner's religious beliefs). The courts have demonstrated a decided hostility towards religious objections in the past. This fear is NOT without precedence. Even so, it is up to those proposing the change to demonstrate that the risk is minimal.

12. If gay marriage is legalized, homosexuality would be promoted in the public schools.Not Demonstrably True- homosexual liasons are already being promoted to impressionable young children in California, Massachusetts and elsewhere over the express objections of their parents.

13. Gay marriage and its associated promotion of homosexuality would undermine western civilization.Demonstrably True- since the nuclear family is the fundamental (and default) unit of western civilization.

14. If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex.Demonstrably True, as teh traditional, accepted, legal, and religious definitions of marriage all normally exclude homosexual unions. Further that definition has been upheld by the voice of the people in every instance where the question has been put to them.

Now, let's look at your so-called "real" reasons:

1. Just not comfortable with the idea.Never seen this one advanced. I have seen it argued that homosexual relationships do not provide the same benefit to society are therefore are not entitled to the same endorsement

2. It offends everything religion stands for.It demonstrably violates express commandments from God. Those who dismiss this very salient fact are usually the ones who dismiss ANY commandment from God.

3. Marriage is a sacred institution and gay marriage violates that sanctity.Demonstrably True- as noted above.

4. Gay sex is unnatural.Not demonstrably True- homosexual sex is demonstrably riskier than heterosexual sex, and is known to correlate to other emotional and psychological problems. Homosexual sex is demonstrably linked to higher incidents of physical and emotional abuse, sharply increased incidents of domestic violence, and suicide- even where it has been accepted as "normal". .

5. A man making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. This reminds me of an old joke: What is the difference between "a fag" and "a homosexual"? A homosexual is the one you call "Sir". Personally, I find the argument itself to be specious.

6. The thought of gay sex is repulsive.To a great many people it is. I dont consider that to be a sound reason upon which to base public policy. I oppose homosexual "marriage" for other reasons.

7. They might recruit.Demonstrably True- radical homosexual movements base their efforts heavily upon recruitment and have a specific vocabulary referring to both the efforts and the targets of such conquest.

8. Gay marriage would undermine sodomy laws.Demonstrably True- just as acceptance of rampant adultery undermined fornication laws.

9. Gay marriage would legitimize homosexuality.Demonstrably False- a pig in lipstick is still a pig. It would, however, go a long-way towards promoting acceptance of the sin.

Prove to me how it will have excessive consequences that are any greater than what heterosexuals have already done. What is the divorce rate in America? Who do we have to thank for this?

It's not simply the divorce rate- marriage rates OVERALL are plummeting in countries that have legitimized homosexual relationships.

I'm not concerned with the purpose of the website.

This argument makes no more sense than whinging that McDonald's doesn't carry etouffe. If you want scholarly exploration of history, then you need to go to a history site.

I would like to see scholarly exploration take place with real analysis and criticism without thought to consequence for said exploration.

Call For References, Val. Please demonstrate that this research is not ALREADY taking place.

If there is sincerely something worth questioning, don't question it as an ignorant child but as an adult looking for true reason and logic.

I agree- but do so as someone willing to learn and to be taught, as opposed to a pedant demanding that his square peg be made to fit into the round hole.

His exploration consisted of works done by Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Marvin Meyer, Raymond Brown, and Bruce Metzger. He explored criticisms concerning false documentation on the behalf of Eusebius (Church Historian), writings on the line of authority coming (supposedly) from St. Peter as opposed to possibly Paul or even Mary Magdelene. He was never in open contempt, he started asking why there are so many possibilities and chose not to merely accept one biased avenue.

As I said, I cannot speak to the Catholic Church or its practices, but only to my own and those of my Church.

This is often the characteristics of a cultist. You have an inquiring mind who sees problems with what is considered to be orthodox and also sees how it is problematic with society and chooses to use a 'revelatory' experience to convince others of current standing fallacies. Jesus did this. Joseph Smith did this. I suppose this is why some religious professors consider Christianity to be the oldest known cult.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here, Valentinus. Could you explain this one to me again?