Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[frankenstein]

If any random relationship can be a marriage then traditional marriages become neither special nor desirable.

a silly and baseless statement.

Are you married jason? if you are married, then you must think less of your marriage (be sure and tell you wife that next time you see her), because there are 18k legal marriages in california, not to mention the states and countries where ssm is legal. Have marriage decreased world wide with the DIRECT causation of ssm being reason for the decrease? have marriages decreased in california or another state where ssm is legal, the decrease being direct caused by the legalization or allowance of ssm.

If you are not married did/do you have a desire to be married? Based on your statement marriage must be less desirable to you, because ssm is legal or allowed in several places in the United States.

Lets take california where Domestic Partnership are equal to marriage but for the use of the term. Have marriages in california decreased, the decrease being the directly caused by Domesitic Partnerships and Marriage being equal?

when people get married they either want:

guiltless sex, or

tax benefits, or

a hopeful eternal commitment or till death commitment, or

a combination of all the above.

But I dare say no one gets married for the sole community ownership of the 8 letter word marriage.

[Jason]

a silly and baseless statement.

Except that where marriage has been more broadly defined and given less preferential treatment it has in fact become less common. I'm thinking primarily of Europe here.

Are you married jason?

I am, yes.

if you are married, then you must think less of your marriage (be sure and tell you wife that next time you see her), because there are 18k legal marriages in california, not to mention the states and countries where ssm is legal.

The special legal status of my marriage is in fact weakened by these legal fictions.

Have marriage decreased world wide with the DIRECT causation of ssm being reason for the decrease?

Perhaps. It is difficult (and in some places too early) to tell.

But I dare say no one gets married for the sole community ownership of the 8 letter word marriage.

No, but some people are apparently willing to fight long and hard over whether they get to use the word to legally describe their relationship or not.

[Jaybear]

Why would that be? Are you saying that people over 50 don't get out as much?

Or are you saying there are more gay people than there used to be? Wouldn't that be an indication that if society begins to accept behavior there will be more of it, a point I argued earlier (perhaps on another thread - I forget)?

If you read my statement again, paying attention to the fact that I said "openly" gay, I think you that will answer your questions.

Because it undermines a fundamental instution of society. If any random relationship can be a marriage then traditional marriages become neither special nor desirable.

To be married, you don't have to have a high school education, you don't have to be in love, you don't have to be a virgin, you could be an atheists, you don't have to be fertile, you don't have to want to raise children, you don't have to have a job, you could be a prisoner. You could have met your spouse an hour before the wedding. You could be in an arranged marriage. You could be 40 years older than your spouse.

All that is fine, but if a lesbian couple is allowed to marry, marriage will no longer be special.

Do you really believe that? Frankly, that sounds rather bigoted.

[Jason]

If you read my statement again, paying attention to the fact that I said "openly" gay, I think you that will answer your questions.

So you believe that there really always have been as many people who would call themselves gay as there are now, as a percentage of the population - it's just that they are bolder now? You don't think there's even a remote possibility that general acceptance of the "gay" lifestyle has resulted in more people deciding they are gay than would have previously?

To be married, you don't have to have a high school education, you don't have to be in love, you don't have to be a virgin, you could be an atheists, you don't have to be fertile, you don't have to want to raise children, you don't have to have a job, you could be a prisoner. You could have met your spouse an hour before the wedding. You could be in an arranged marriage. You could be 40 years older than your spouse.

All that is fine, but if a lesbian couple is allowed to marry, marriage will no longer be special.

Do you really believe that? Frankly, that sounds rather bigoted.

Of course you think it sounds bigoted. That's pretty much what your whole position stands on - that those who don't share your opinion must be bigots. Surely it's not possible that their opinions might have any degree of merit!

No, you don't have to have any of those attributes, but you do need to be a man and a woman. The relationship between a man and a woman joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between two women and two men can't be, even if they aren't educated, aren't in love, aren't virgins, aren't religious, aren't fertile, don't want to raise children, don't have a job, are incarcerated, met an hour before, were arranged to marry, or are 40 years apart in age. There is something unique about the interaction of the two genders when they commit to honor and cherish each other and build a life together - even if indivdiual parings fail to do just that.

[Daniel2]

I know the following questions weren't directed at me, but I wanted to answer:

So you believe that there really always have been as many people who would call themselves gay as there are now, as a percentage of the population - it's just that they are bolder now?

I would answer this question: yes, that's what I believe.

You don't think there's even a remote possibility that general acceptance of the "gay" lifestyle has resulted in more people deciding they are gay than would have previously?

Nope. I don't think "people deciding" has anything to do with anyone's sexual orientation, which isn't something that alters based on personal "choice." Self-definition/description is distinct and separate from sexual orientation, and may or may not be reflective of any given individuals' actual sexual/romantic attractions.

No, you don't have to have any of those attributes, but you do need to be a man and a woman.

It obviously won't do much to change your view on the matter, but it's worth pointing out that your view that a couple "needs to be being a man and a woman" is no longer a necessary requirement for couples entering into civil marriage in a growing number of states and countries.

The relationship between a man and a woman joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between two women and two men can't be, even if they aren't educated, aren't in love, aren't virgins, aren't religious, aren't fertile, don't want to raise children, don't have a job, are incarcerated, met an hour before, were arranged to marry, or are 40 years apart in age. There is something unique about the interaction of the two genders when they commit to honor and cherish each other and build a life together - even if indivdiual parings fail to do just that.

Here, finally, we have something we can agree on: a relationship between a man and a woman joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between two women and two men can't be, regardless of other factors--just as a relationship between two men joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between a man and a woman or two women can't be, regardless of other factors; and just as a relationship between two women joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between a man and a woman or two men can't be, regardless of other factors. None of their own, unique "specialness" rob any of the special uniqueness of any of the rest--just like any given couple's specialness takes away from any other couples' specialness.

Darin

[Jason]

I would answer this question: yes, that's what I believe.

Can you think of any way of proving such a belief?

It obviously won't do much to change your view on the matter, but it's worth pointing out that your view that a couple "needs to be being a man and a woman" is no longer a necessary requirement for couples entering into civil marriage in a growing number of states and countries.

No, that doesn't do anything to change my views. How many people believe something has generally very little affect on whether I believe it.

None of their own, unique "specialness" rob any of the special uniqueness of any of the rest--just like any given couple's specialness takes away from any other couples' specialness.

Yet some people keep insisting that they are all completely equivelent. Doesn't such insistence, if it comes to be the general belief, become a problem?

[Pahoran]

If you can not respond on point to either "legislation" or "educating" please do not respond.

I do not advocate the revocation of the LDS Church tax exemption.

If you can not engage in dialogue or discussion please do not respond.

If you feel the need to claim I have an agenda, please keep reading to the sentence below, I have made my agenda clear.

Agenda: To have dialogue and discussion as to whether the Church advocated for the adoption of legislation or was the Church only providing educational information

Purpose: To help LDS members in particular, and the general public, understand the involvement of the LDS Church with the passage of Prop 8.

So nice of you to be up-front about these things. It makes for so much more of an honest, open discussion when you put your own cards on the table from the outset.

Obviously the Church was engaged in both educating the public, and advocating for legislative action.

That being settled, can we let this rest now?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

So you believe that there really always have been as many people who would call themselves gay as there are now, as a percentage of the population - it's just that they are bolder now? You don't think there's even a remote possibility that general acceptance of the "gay" lifestyle has resulted in more people deciding they are gay than would have previously?

I believe greater tolerance for homosexuality, has led to more people who "accept" (not decide) they are gay. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.

Of course you think it sounds bigoted. That's pretty much what your whole position stands on - that those who don't share your opinion must be bigots. Surely it's not possible that their opinions might have any degree of merit!

No, it sounds bigoted, because its sounds bigoted. You are saying that if gays marry, marriage loses its special value. That an incredibly offensive statement. Is that any different than the rational used to exclude blacks from restaurant and hotels?

No, you don't have to have any of those attributes, but you do need to be a man and a woman. The relationship between a man and a woman joined in marriage is special in a way that a relationship between two women and two men can't be, even if they aren't educated, aren't in love, aren't virgins, aren't religious, aren't fertile, don't want to raise children, don't have a job, are incarcerated, met an hour before, were arranged to marry, or are 40 years apart in age.

The couple needs to be a man and woman, because ..... you say so? ... the bible say so?

There is something unique about the interaction of the two genders when they commit to honor and cherish each other and build a life together - even if individual parings fail to do just that.

So what is that "something"? Can you be specific. I hate to tell you, but you are not making a coherent argument.

[Jason]

I believe greater tolerance for homosexuality, has led to more people who "accept" (not decide) they are gay. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.

There we disagree. I believe how we act is our choice, not our genes.

No, it sounds bigoted, because its sounds bigoted.

In your opinion.

You are saying that if gays marry, marriage loses its special value. That an incredibly offensive statement. Is that any different than the rational used to exclude blacks from restaurant and hotels?

Yes. Because whereas blacks can physically eat at restaurants and hotels just like anyone else gays can't in fact marry. They simply don't bring the necessary differences to the relationship.

The couple needs to be a man and woman, because ..... you say so? ... the bible say so?

Because that's what a marriage is. If you don't have a man and a woman you don't have a marriage - you have something else instead. It's not just what I say, or what the Bible says, it's what God said, and it's what human civilization has said throughout history. This new fad of pretending something else fits the definition is just that - a baseless fad.

So what is that "something"? Can you be specific.

I'll try. They bring the dynamics of the give and take between the two genders. They bring the possibility of sexual union. They bring the possibility of procreation. They bring male and female, yin and yang. No other relationship has it.

[Pahoran]

I believe greater tolerance for homosexuality, has led to more people who "accept" (not decide) they are gay. I don't believe homosexuality is a choice.

So you "gay" advocates keep saying; but you are, even as you say that, in favour of people "exploring" their "sexuality." To what end?

No, it sounds bigoted, because its sounds bigoted. You are saying that if gays marry, marriage loses its special value. That an incredibly offensive statement. Is that any different than the rational used to exclude blacks from restaurant and hotels?

Why yes; it is.

And you know it.

A black person sitting down and eating in a restaurant is dining, just exactly like a white person, or an asian person, or anyone else.

You understand this perfectly well.

A person having a fling -- or setting up house -- with another person of the same sex is not living in a married state.

The couple needs to be a man and woman, because ..... you say so? ... the bible say so?

Because that's what marriage is and always has been.

And this is not, as you would undoubtedly wish to pretend, an artifact of "discrimination" against "gays." Homosexuals have, since time immemorial, gloried in the casual promiscuity of their relationships. After millennia of exclusively heterosexual marriage (a redundancy, of course) suddenly some of them want to have the wedding cake too.

Something that your fellow "gay" advocates assured us would never happen, back in the heady days of "gay liberation."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The couple needs to be a man and woman, because ..... you say so? ... the bible say so?

You have this backwards Jaybear, you and all the gay marriage advocates.

You see, marriage has always been defined as between 2 members of the opposite sex. A marriage was never defined as between 2 people. So a marriage is between 2 people regardless of sex because you say so? Because your gay friends says so?

Color me unconvinced.

BTW, your definition of bigotry must be differnt from my definition of bigotry.

Because stating that marriage can only be between a man and a women and not between members of the same sex is not bigotry no matter how hard you try.

[Jaybear]

So you "gay" advocates keep saying; but you are, even as you say that, in favour of people "exploring" their "sexuality." To what end?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Some people like to golf, some people like to explore their sexuality.

I don't care much for golf, or intimacy with men, but hey its not my life. If I don't have to participate or watch it on TV, who I am to complain.

Why yes; it is.

And you know it.

A black person sitting down and eating in a restaurant is dining, just exactly like a white person, or an asian person, or anyone else.

You understand this perfectly well.

If its so obvious, why did the LDS Church restrict blacks from dining and staying at the Hotel Utah for all those years? I doubt that at the time, the brethren and its apologists saw anything wrong with such overt discrimination, just like you don't see anything wrong with denying gays access to marriage.

Homosexuals have, since time immemorial, gloried in the casual promiscuity of their relationships. After millennia of exclusively heterosexual marriage (a redundancy, of course) suddenly some of them want to have the wedding cake too.

I would think that those who cherish the institution of marriage would be pleased that its now held in such high regard.

[Daniel2]

Can you think of any way of proving such a belief?

I'm not sure how current science can historically "prove" it. Reviewing what scientific data says about the percentage of the population, and then trying to extrapolate from there, seems to be the best way we have at present to attempt to answer it.

Eventually, as the biological manifestations of sexual orientation are better understood, I suppose it might someday be possible to scientifically identify quantifiable differences in sexual orientation, and "measure" the remains of living individuals or individuals in previous (now deceased) populations. I would assume that could be something like how genetics helps us discount a common lineage in today's population that would previously have been inconceivable to more medically and scientifically primative generations. But that's simply conjecture, at present.

No, that doesn't do anything to change my views. How many people believe something has generally very little affect on whether I believe it.

It appears I didn't explain myself clearly. I wasn't appealing to any sense that "if the majority believes it, it must be true." Rather, logistically-speaking, I was attempting to say that any actual, concrete requirement (or "need") for dual genders for civil (at least) marriage is no longer the reality in several locations. Specifically, you said:

No, you don't have to have any of those attributes, but

you do need to be a man and a woman

.

I responded by saying:

It obviously won't do much to change your view on the matter, but it's worth pointing out that your view that a couple "needs to be being a man and a woman" is no longer a necessary requirement for couples entering into civil marriage in a growing number of states and countries.

To be more specific to what I meant, I should have phrased it, "It obviously won't do much to change your view of what marriage means to you, personally or religiously, but it's worth pointing out that, speaking from a strictly-logistical standpoint, "being a man and a woman" is no longer a necessary legal requirement for couples entering into civil marriage, in a growing number of states and countries.

Yet some people keep insisting that they are all completely equivelent. Doesn't such insistence, if it comes to be the general belief, become a problem?

I don't know anyone who "keeping insisting that [married same-sex couples and married dual-gender couples] are completely equivalent." Can you point to some examples where that is the case?

On the other hand, I have seen many of us saying that married same-sex couples and married dual-gender couples are legally indistinguishable. I haven't yet heard how a married straight couple is legally-distinguishable from a married same-sex couple. That is, if the names and genders were removed from any and all legal documents of thousands of couples, how would the goverment be able to legally perceive which couples are straight, vs. which ones are gay? What are the legal-differences of "being a man and a woman" vs. being "two men" or "two women"?

Darin

[Daniel2]

There we disagree. I believe how we act is our choice, not our genes.

I haven't seen anyone suggesting that homosexual acts are not choices.

Sexual actions are not always indicative of inner sexual attractions. Any given man's sexual orientation may cause him to be "attracted" to multiple women that he walks by every day. His sexual orientation, however, does not mean he has "no choice" to do anything other than to sexually force himself to copulate with every given woman he's attracted to. The same is true of gay men and women.

Of course, one's marital situation (and even physical marital relations) are not always indicative of one's inner sexual attractions, as well.

The fact that marital relations may or may not be reflective of anyone's sexual attractions and/or behaviors is another reason why it's puzzling that some people keep bringing up sexual behaviors and or attractions as a justification for prohibting or endorsing civil marriage.

Civil marriage isn't about endorsing any given sexual relationship (given that many, many--if not most!--sexual relationships exist without a civil marriage; and many, many civil marriages exist without any sexual relations between spouses).

They simply don't bring the necessary differences to the relationship.

What, specifically, is necessary that all dual-gendered spouses have, that no same-sex couples have...?

Because that's what a marriage is. If you don't have a man and a woman you don't have a marriage - you have something else instead.

That's a circular, non-sensical argument. Marriage requires a man and a woman because a woman and a man are required for it to 'be' marriage. It's fine that you believe that---but that won't hold up in civil law.

It's not just what I say, or what the Bible says, it's what God said, and it's what human civilization has said throughout history. This new fad of pretending something else fits the definition is just that - a baseless fad.

An appeal to tradition is insufficient to continue discriminating against LGBT couples. The same arguement didn't hold up for preventing women, black, or Protestants from voting, being considered euqal citizens, being considered more than 3/5 of a person or unable to be viewed as property, having an equal claim to religious freedom, etc.

I'll try. They bring the dynamics of the give and take between the two genders. They bring the possibility of sexual union. They bring the possibility of procreation. They bring male and female, yin and yang. No other relationship has it.

What you are seeking to suggest is that, in the name of an alleged (and, I'd submit, entirely baseless) concept of some universal diversity and complimentariness between every married man and every married woman, you want to squelch the diversity and possible complimentariness between any married same-sex couple.

It should stand to reason that some male/female couples compliment each other because of their differences of their separate genders; some male/female couples compliment each other inspite of the differences of their separate genders; some same-sex couples compliment each other because of their differences of their separate genders; some same-sex couples compliment each other inspite of the differences of their separate genders. There is no single, all-encompassing, always-true "universal Truth" when it comes to "the complimentariness" of any specific, given couple.

Jason,

I respect your own and others' choices to live your life as you see fit, and marry the woman (or man) of your choice. I also respect your own choice to self-identify according to whatever sexual orientation you want (regardless of whether I agree that your self-identity is accurate, or not). In American society, I would hope that citizens can learn to allow other citizens the priviledge of worshipping "how, where, and what they may"--regardless of whether or not that reflects our own personal religious or non-religious views. I also happen to think that sums up the spirit of respecting others by doing to others as we would have them do unto ourselves. I think that's sound morality for advocating public policy in a Constitutional Republic.

Darin

[Pahoran]

If its so obvious, why did the LDS Church restrict blacks from dining and staying at the Hotel Utah for all those years? I doubt that at the time, the brethren and its apologists saw anything wrong with such overt discrimination, just like you don't see anything wrong with denying gays access to marriage.

This argument is dishonest at every level and you know it. Indeed, I am convinced that you prefer it that way.

The Hotel Utah discriminated for no other reason than that almost all posh hotels discriminated at that time. It had nothing whatever to do with "the brethren and its apologists." You threw that in there entirely because you love malicious accusations.

And the fact remains that a customer eating a dinner is a customer eating a dinner, regardless of the colour of the customer, or indeed of the food. Furthermore, a black man married to a white woman is an actual marriage and always was; your attempt to draw an equivalence here is obviously bogus, and again you obviously prefer it that way. The various anti-miscegenation statutes that applied in a minority of jurisdictions all rested upon the presumed definition of marriage as between a man and a woman; the famous decision in Loving v. Virginia likewise relied upon the presumed definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

And two guys are not a man and a woman, and therefore they cannot form a valid marriage.

And -- in clear distinction to all real civil rights cases, such as Loving -- if two "gay" guys go through an elaborate sham wedding and then flamboyantly set up house together, there is not the slightest possibility of their being arrested or imprisoned for their immoral actions.

I would think that those who cherish the institution of marriage would be pleased that its now held in such high regard.

Chronically immoral people would show that they genuinely hold the institution of marriage in high regard if they kept their deviant lifestyles away from it. The fact that they think it is so degraded that it is low enough for them to jump aboard indicates that they have no respect for it at all.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

This argument is dishonest at every level and you know it. Indeed, I am convinced that you prefer it that way.

I have never presented a dishonest argument. I leave that to those who begin with a preexisting assumption, ie God hates gays, then look for facts to rationalize that belief.

The Hotel Utah discriminated for no other reason than that almost all posh hotels discriminated at that time. It had nothing whatever to do with "the brethren and its apologists."

The reason you purport to offer "all posh hotels descriminated" is analogous to very same argument that I find offensive here...Marriage is a special institution and will no longer be special if gays are allowed to participate.

The Bretheren, per your explanation believed that allowing blacks to dine and stay at the hotel was incompatible with its desire to own and operate a posh hotel. Allow black to eat and stay at the Hotel Utah, would make the hotel less special.

But guess what. The Brethren were wrong. It turns out a Hotel can still be special (Posh) and allow blacks to dine and stay.

You threw that in there entirely because you love malicious accusations.

What malicious allegation? The LDS Church owned Hotel Utah. Blacks were not allowed to stay or dine there. Bretheren controlled Hotel Utah and set the policy. They were not compelled by law to discriminate against black customers. They chose to do that on their own.

You accused me of being intellectually dishonest. You have accused me of malice. Both allegations are wholly unfounded.

It is your assertion that the Brethren had nothing to do with discrimination by Hotel Utah that is an apologetic sham.

Chronically immoral people would show that they genuinely hold the institution of marriage in high regard if they kept their deviant lifestyles away from it. The fact that they think it is so degraded that it is low enough for them to jump aboard indicates that they have no respect for it at all.

Congratulations, this was the same lame self righteous argument that was leveled against the Mormons in the 1800s.

[Jason]

Civil marriage isn't about endorsing any given sexual relationship (given that many, many--if not most!--sexual relationships exist without a civil marriage; and many, many civil marriages exist without any sexual relations between spouses).

Granted. It is about endorsing a specific type of sexual relationship which also involves commitment between two members of opposite genders to form a family, with the implied intent of procreation. No other sexual relationship should be called a marriage.

What, specifically, is necessary that all dual-gendered spouses have, that no same-sex couples have...?

In short, they bring members of both genders.

That's a circular, non-sensical argument. Marriage requires a man and a woman because a woman and a man are required for it to 'be' marriage.

And being a bachelor requires that you are unmarried and male. It might be circular if you call it an argument, but it's really a definition - that's what a bachelor is.

An appeal to tradition is insufficient to continue discriminating against LGBT couples. The same arguement didn't hold up for preventing women, black, or Protestants from voting...

That would not be the same argument. The reasons for preventing women, blacks, or Protestants from voting are quite different than my reasons for wanting to protect marriage.

What you are seeking to suggest is that, in the name of an alleged (and, I'd submit, entirely baseless) concept of some universal diversity and complimentariness between every married man and every married woman, you want to squelch the diversity and possible complimentariness between any married same-sex couple.

No, I want the present legal recognition of marriage as a special and fundamental insitution of our society to remain in place and not further diluted, as it has been by the easing of divorce law.

[Jaybear]

Granted. It is about endorsing a specific type of sexual relationship which also involves commitment between two members of opposite genders to form a family, with the implied intent of procreation.

There is no intent of procreation implied with a civil marriage. The decision to procreate is a private matter between couples, and is a decision that does not require license from the state.

No other sexual relationship should be called a marriage.

Sorry, you are too late.

Btw, the definition of marriage has already been changed ...

Mariam Webster: Marriage (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

... and the world did not come to an end.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I voted

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

I voted that they encouraged members to do what was needed. Which is what the did and are now doing in other places.

And should the issue ever come to Georgia...I won't need to be encouraged.

[Jason]

There is no intent of procreation implied with a civil marriage. The decision to procreate is a private matter between couples, and is a decision that does not require license from the state.

That would be why there is no inheritence law connected with the state of marriage, or law dealing with the legal guardianship of children, or law dealing with custody of children - oh wait, there is! Maybe there is in fact an implied purpose to marriage that the law recognizes.

Btw, the definition of marriage has already been changed ...

... and the world did not come to an end.

Dictionaries do not change what things are - they merely report common usage.

"It's in the dictionary, so you have to accept it now!" is an extremely silly argument.

[Jaybear]

That would be why there is no inheritence law connected with the state of marriage, or law dealing with the legal guardianship of children, or law dealing with custody of children - oh wait, there is! Maybe there is in fact an implied purpose to marriage that the law recognizes.

Huh? What laws are you talking about?

A ******* child has the same inheritance rights as a child born of a lawful marriage.

Please specify which specific legal obligations parents have to their children that do not exist if they chose not to marry.

Dictionaries do not change what things are - they merely report common usage.

"It's in the dictionary, so you have to accept it now!" is an extremely silly argument.

If dictionaries are irrelevant, why do guys always bring the "definition" of marriage into the discussion to support your case?

[Jason]

Huh? What laws are you talking about?

A ******* child has the same inheritance rights as a child born of a lawful marriage.

Please specify which specific legal obligations parents have to their children that do not exist if they chose not to marry.

The issue was that you said there is no implied reproductive purpose in a marriage. In fact there is quite a bit of law written to facilitate inheritance rights, guardianship, etc. that relies on marriages producing children.

If dictionaries are irrelevant, why do guys always bring the "definition" of marriage into the discussion to support your case?

Are definitions only found in dictionaries?

[Pahoran]

I have never presented a dishonest argument.

You have never presented any other kind.

The reason you purport to offer "all posh hotels descriminated" is analogous to very same argument that I find offensive here...Marriage is a special institution and will no longer be special if gays are allowed to participate.

The Bretheren, per your explanation believed that allowing blacks to dine and stay at the hotel was incompatible with its desire to own and operate a posh hotel. Allow black to eat and stay at the Hotel Utah, would make the hotel less special.

But guess what. The Brethren were wrong. It turns out a Hotel can still be special (Posh) and allow blacks to dine and stay.

Yes it can -- now. At that time, however, posh hotels usually discriminated against Blacks, Jews or both. Well-heeled whites would simply refuse to stay in hotels that did not discriminate.

And you keep maliciously referring to "the Brethren," slyly trying to imply that the decision represented some kind of religiously-driven policy; and all the while you know that that is not the case. As you perfectly well know -- but would rather gnaw your own arm off than admit -- the Hotel Utah was run entirely on a business footing. That's why it served drinks -- not because drinking in hotels is a religious policy, but because posh hotels always served drinks to their guests.

What malicious allegation?

The sly insinuation that the Hotel Utah discriminated as an expression of Church policy.

Oh, I know you didn't come out and say that; that would require you to have enough integrity to take responsibility for the false impressions you try to create. In fact, I won't be surprised if you now try to weasel out of it. The only thing that would surprise me would be for you to honestly admit that the Hotel Utah was run as a business, and followed the same business practices as other posh hotels of the time.

The LDS Church owned Hotel Utah. Blacks were not allowed to stay or dine there.

Just like other Posh hotels.

Bretheren controlled Hotel Utah and set the policy.

Which was to operate on the same business footing as other posh hotels.

They were not compelled by law to discriminate against black customers.

Which has nothing to do with my argument; is it automatic with you to misrepresent your opponents' positions?

They chose to do that on their own.

They chose to run a posh hotel, with all the baggage that came with that.

You accused me of being intellectually dishonest. You have accused me of malice. Both allegations are wholly unfounded.

Both are entirely justified every single time you post.

It is your assertion that the Brethren had nothing to do with discrimination by Hotel Utah that is an apologetic sham.

What assertion? You can't even try to honestly engage my position, can you?

Congratulations, this was the same lame self righteous argument that was leveled against the Mormons in the 1800s.

Call for references, please; by whom was this argument made, and in what medium?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

You have never presented any other kind.

Has anyone ever told you that you have a obsessive need to resort to personal insults when logic and reason fails you. You should work on that.

Yes it can -- now. At that time, however, posh hotels usually discriminated against Blacks, Jews or both. Well-heeled whites would simply refuse to stay in hotels that did not discriminate.

CFR. For example, please show me where black/jewish customers were prohibited from dining and staying at posh New York or LA hotels during the 40s and 50s. What about Denver, Seattle, Portland?

And you keep maliciously referring to "the Brethren," slyly trying to imply that the decision represented some kind of religiously-driven policy; and all the while you know that that is not the case.

I never implied the decision was driven by religion. I implied the decision was driven by catering to the bigotry of the Hotel's prospective clientele. Specifically the notion that if blacks are allowed to dine and stay the Hotel will no lose its luster as a special place. Note the parallel ... if gays marry, marriage loses its special meaning.

If you are going to resort to scurrilous personal attacks, you really should pay closer attention to what I actually write, and less to what you think I am insinuating.

As you perfectly well know -- but would rather gnaw your own arm off than admit -- the Hotel Utah was run entirely on a business footing. That's why it served drinks -- not because drinking in hotels is a religious policy, but because posh hotels always served drinks to their guests.The sly insinuation that the Hotel Utah discriminated as an expression of Church policy.

Again, I have no problem admitting that the Hotel Utah was run by the Brethren as a business, not a church.

Oh, I know you didn't come out and say that; that would require you to have enough integrity to take responsibility for the false impressions you try to create. In fact, I won't be surprised if you now try to weasel out of it. The only thing that would surprise me would be for you to honestly admit that the Hotel Utah was run as a business, and followed the same business practices as other posh hotels of the time.

I will say it again. The Hotel Utah was run as a business, and followed the same business practices as other posh hotels that operated in the deep south. You will have to respond to my CFR before I concede that all posh hotels were segregated. I would like to think there were many hotel owners in the 40s and 50s that understood that racial segregation was ugly and wrong. Just as there are many churches now that support marriage equality.

Call for references, please; by whom was this argument made, and in what medium?

The Feds passed a law banning polygamy. Did you not know that at that time people considered polygamy to be barbaric and immoral?

[Pahoran]

Has anyone ever told you that you have a obsessive need to resort to personal insults when logic and reason fails you. You should work on that.

Work on what? The fact that certain people might resent it when I confront them about their misbehaviours?

CFR. For example, please show me where black/jewish customers were prohibited from dining and staying at posh New York or LA hotels during the 40s and 50s. What about Denver, Seattle, Portland?

For a start, why don't you try here. Please note the following:

The Rens barnstormed throughout the United States, mostly in the Midwest, and played any team that would schedule them, black or white. Traveling as far as 200 miles for a game, they often slept on the bus and ate cold meals; they were barred from many hotels and restaurants by Jim Crow laws and norms of racial discrimination which prevailed in the northern United States at the time.

Note that little word "Northern?" It will become relevant again in a moment.

And this:

The hotel made the June 20, 1955, cover of Life magazine, with a photo of two showgirls. A veritable "A" list of performers regularly showed to party until dawn. Great black singers and musicians such as Sammy Davis Jr., Nat King Cole, Pearl Bailey, and Louis Armstrong would perform often. These artists were banned from gambling or staying at the hotels on the Strip. In addition, white performers, including George Burns, Jack Benny, and Frank Sinatra, would drop in after their shows to gamble and perform. Eventually management added a 2:30am "Third Show" to accommodate the crowds.

(See also Gentleman's Agreement, Gregory Peck, 1947.)

I never implied the decision was driven by religion. I implied the decision was driven by catering to the bigotry of the Hotel's prospective clientele.

Did you? Oddly enough, this is the first time you've mentioned the prospective (alcohol-drinking) clientele. Up to now, you have contented yourself with snide back-handers against "the Brethren."

Specifically the notion that if blacks are allowed to dine and stay the Hotel will no lose its luster as a special place. Note the parallel ... if gays marry, marriage loses its special meaning.

A bogus parallel; but a nice try, if rather predictable.

If you are going to resort to scurrilous personal attacks,

Not at all; I leave those to you.

Again, I have no problem admitting that the Hotel Utah was run by the Brethren as a business, not a church.

But you just had to get in another little mention of "the Brethren," didn't you? You just couldn't help yourself...

I will say it again. The Hotel Utah was run as a business, and followed the same business practices as other posh hotels that operated in the deep south.

And yet another instinctive attempt at damnation by association. In fact posh hotels pursued similar business practices in many other parts of the country; see above.

You will have to respond to my CFR before I concede that all posh hotels were segregated.

You are yet again going after a straw man. I did not say "all;" I said "usually." This is consistent with all my reading on the subject. I don't have any figures, but I expect you'd be hard pressed to find very many posh hotels from this period that did not discriminate. Can you?

I would like to think there were many hotel owners in the 40s and 50s that understood that racial segregation was ugly and wrong.

Can you find any?

Just as there are many churches now that support marriage equality have no moral standards.

There; fixed it for you.

The Feds passed a law banning polygamy. Did you not know that at that time people considered polygamy to be barbaric and immoral?

But that's not quite what you asserted, is it?

I take it then that you cannot support your claim.

Well, that's hardly surprising.

Regards,

Pahoran