Did the LDS Church advocate for adoption of legislation

[Jaybear]

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

Right, like how you have repeatedly accused me of selling porn on the internet. How thoughtful of you.

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

What I note is that "many" is less than "most", and far less than all.

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."

What is wrong with term "brethren?" I was not aware it had pejorative connotation. BTW, I referred to those in a "leadership position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," because they are the ones that set the discriminatory policy. You want give them the benefit of the doubt and assume its purely a business decision. I am not so sure, but that is besides the point.

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

How so? You just explained your belief that to preserve its value Hotel Utah exclude blacks, presumably out of concern that patrons would stay and dine elsewhere. This is the same baseless fear that you and Jason expressed would happen if gays are allowed to marry.

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

You have to explain the trouble you have with the word "Bretheren."

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.

Yes, you are correct apparently, manyof them did. That appears to be an embarrassing historical truth. As a country, we have much to be ashamed of. Kudos to those hotels that did not.

There; fixed it for you.

I see that you are not much of a fan of your 11th Article of Faith. Mocking the notion that some churches don't share your opinion on homosexuality.

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.

My claim is that people in the 1800s consider those who practiced polygamy to be deviant and immoral, just as today you consider gays to be deviant and immoral. DO you actually dispute that claim? If so, I would be glad to educate you about your church's past history.

[Scott Gordon]

I know I'm late into this discussion, but I thought I might add something. Because of my job, I had to attend a training for lobbying rules for non-profits. The training was put on by an office with the State of California. This was not a fly-by-night group, and they were not Mormon. I doubt there were even any other Mormons in the room except for me. The information given to us was:

1) No 501 ©3 non-profit in California can legally advocate for a candidate.

2) All non-profits can lobby for any laws, propositions, proposals, or positions that are on the ballot, about to be put on the ballot, or just being considered by the legislature.

Several questions were asked about entities, including religious organizations, being involved with promoting or advocating propositions. We were told that so long as no candidate was endorsed, it was legal.

Groups in California are always lobbying for laws. This is not an isolated incident without legal precedent. It is something that goes on every day and has been tested.

All efforts to search through the laws to show that the LDS Church was somehow breaking the law would be wishful thinking. You would be charging colleges, universities, Unions, churches, gay rights organizations, the Sierra Club, several consumer groups, the Taxpayer association, and the AARP with breaking the same law.

If there is no candidate--it is legal.

[Pahoran]

Right, like how you have repeatedly accused me of selling porn on the internet. How thoughtful of you.

Still on about that, are you? It's not my fault that "Jaybear's Videos" was the first thing that Google turned up when I did a search for "jaybear." Or that the proprietor and you shared a considerable level of interest in the same topic, as well as a screen name.

But if it makes you feel better: I apologise for drawing the rather obvious conclusion.

What I note is that "many" is less than "most", and far less than all.

And I did not say "all." You made that up, as is your wont. In fact, I said "usually," which is also less than "all."

However, "many" is not necessarily less than "most," and in fact if something is a "norm" then it probably represents what "most" are doing, wouldn't you say?

I direct your attention to the passage again:

The Rens barnstormed throughout the United States, mostly in the Midwest, [note: the Midwest is not the deep South] 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.

What does "norm" mean to you, Jaybear?

So if you think there was a significant group of upscale hotels in the US at this period that did not conform to that norm, I suggest that it is now your turn to give some reason for me to consider that view as being relevant to this discussion. That's right, JB: this is a CFR.

What is wrong with term "brethren?" I was not aware it had pejorative connotation. BTW, I referred to those in a "leadership position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," because they are the ones that set the discriminatory policy. You want give them the benefit of the doubt and assume its purely a business decision. I am not so sure, but that is besides the point.

No, it's beside the point; the point being that while it is common practice for Latter-day Saints to refer to the Priesthood leaders (at any level) as "brethren," an internet anti-Mormon who despises the Church of Jesus Christ, and puts the boot into it at every opportunity, is unlikely to think of our brethren in genuinely fraternal terms. As such, your use of the term is sarcastic at best, and smarmily insincere at worst.

And since discrimination was pretty much SBP for upscale hotels at that period, there doesn't seem to be any real need to go looking for other explanations, does there?

Such speculation may serve an emotional need among the terminally hostile, but it can't possibly benefit anyone else.

How so? You just explained your belief that to preserve its value Hotel Utah exclude blacks, presumably out of concern that patrons would stay and dine elsewhere. This is the same baseless fear that you and Jason expressed would happen if gays are allowed to marry.

No. It is not. And point of order: as you and I both know, "gays" are already "allowed to marry." Everywhere, and any time they want to and can find a person of the opposite sex who will have them. What we object to is them demanding that their non-marital, same-sex pairings be called "marriages" when they are no such thing.

You have to explain the trouble you have with the word "Bretheren."

See above.

Yes, you are correct apparently, manyof them did.

So many, in fact, that it was the "norm."

That appears to be an embarrassing historical truth. As a country, we have much to be ashamed of. Kudos to those hotels that did not.

Yawn.

I see that you are not much of a fan of your 11th Article of Faith. Mocking the notion that some churches don't share your opinion on homosexuality.

Wow. Falsifying your opponent's position is absolutely instinctive with you, isn't it? I bet you can even do it in your sleep.

You are jaybearing the forum when you falsely claim that I am "not much of a fan of [the] 11th Article of Faith." I am, as of course you are quite intelligent enough to grasp, entirely happy with the 11th Article of Faith. I also understand, as apparently you do not, that allowing others to have their own views does not imply or require that all opinions are equal, or equally moral.

My claim is that people in the 1800s consider those who practiced polygamy to be deviant and immoral, just as today you consider gays to be deviant and immoral. DO you actually dispute that claim? If so, I would be glad to educate you about your church's past history.

Not only are you misrepresenting my position with monotonous regularity, you are now misrepresenting your own. I don't dispute that 19th century zealots thought that our teachings about marriage were immoral; 21st century zealots, like you, think the same; only the rationalisation for that opinion is different. I asked you to support your claim that my argument about "gay marriage" was "the same lame self righteous argument that was leveled against the Mormons in the 1800s."

Did you get that, Jaybear?

The argument.

And in a performance that would make an eel look unslippery, you tried to shift the discussion from their argument to their predatory legislation.

I've really got to hand it to you, Jaybear; your skill at these kinds of dodges is really second to none.

But since I see you're not going to answer my CFR, I take that as an admission that you can't.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jason]

What is wrong with term "brethren?" I was not aware it had pejorative connotation. BTW, I referred to those in a "leadership position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints," because they are the ones that set the discriminatory policy.

I would like to see some evdience of that. A letter from the First Presidency to the Hotel Utah stating "colored people will not be allowed to stay at the hotel" would be ideal, but let's see what you can come up with.

How so? You just explained your belief that to preserve its value Hotel Utah exclude blacks, presumably out of concern that patrons would stay and dine elsewhere. This is the same baseless fear that you and Jason expressed would happen if gays are allowed to marry.

Was it a baseless fear that allowing blacks to stay at your hotel might drive away other customers in the early 20th century?

[Hestia]

My claim is that people in the 1800s consider those who practiced polygamy to be deviant and immoral, just as today you consider gays to be deviant and immoral. DO you actually dispute that claim? If so, I would be glad to educate you about your church's past history.

Your remarks are becoming offensive; you need to watch your rhetoric.

[rodheadlee]

Yawn. Nobody in the Church ever spoke to me one whit about my choice of voting on prop 8. I don't appreciate any attempt to subvert my choice to vote how I please by threatening the tax exempt status of my choice of church.

[frankenstein]

as I understand it the LDS Church spoke against the Equal Rights Amendment, and family tells me the Church ask persons in California to campaign and door-to-door against a measure involving marijuana. (then there is the rumor about prohibition and the Prophet telling members how to vote) Another family member told me that a few years ago, a Indian tribe in Georgia was involved in a law suit about that tribes use of a "drug" during religious ceremonies; the Church is said to have issued a statement about separation of Church and State, which in essence supported the freedom of religion but the statement did not comment on the drug use.

it would seem very difficult for a large world wide funded church to loose tax exemption, but what is "substantial" when billions of dollars are available. Also, it would seem the Church would reach some kind of settlement in order to "keep the books" closed (thought it would seem the IRS would have a good idea of what the Church funds are.)

[rodheadlee]

as I understand it the LDS Church spoke against the Equal Rights Amendment, and family tells me the Church ask persons in California to campaign and door-to-door against a measure involving marijuana. (then there is the rumor about prohibition and the Prophet telling members how to vote) Another family member told me that a few years ago, a Indian tribe in Georgia was involved in a law suit about that tribes use of a "drug" during religious ceremonies; the Church is said to have issued a statement about separation of Church and State, which in essence supported the freedom of religion but the statement did not comment on the drug use.

it would seem very difficult for a large world wide funded church to loose tax exemption, but what is "substantial" when billions of dollars are available. Also, it would seem the Church would reach some kind of settlement in order to "keep the books" closed (thought it would seem the IRS would have a good idea of what the Church funds are.)

The thing you don't get Frank, is I was a Mormon before I was aware of the Church, as were most converts. In other words I would have voted for prop 8 regardless of what church I belonged to at the time. In fact, my whole family voted for prop 8 and none are members. I don't have any children so that would be all my brothers, sisters, and parents.

Sparation of Church and State to me means the State keeps their nose out of my church. I pay enough taxes, I paid taxes on that money before I donated it to my Church. I don't get to claim it on my deductions because I don't have enough other deductions to file long form. So now you want to penalize me for not having a mortgage or a bunch of kids and arranging my life around tax deductions by taxing my money again because the Church now has some of it? to control how I vote?

[Zeta-Flux]

it would seem very difficult for a large world wide funded church to loose tax exemption, but what is "substantial" when billions of dollars are available.

Substantial is "much more than a few plane trips, and encouraging members to be active", which fortunately is how it should be.

[frankenstein]

Substantial is "much more than a few plane trips, and encouraging members to be active", which fortunately is how it should be.

when billions are available, yes, you are correct, but when billions are not available substantial becomes a different amount and lower amount and the same number of plane trips could be substantial, and the church involvement is more than encouragement to be active.

[Zeta-Flux]

when billions are available, yes, you are correct, but when billions are not available substantial becomes a different amount and lower amount and the same number of plane trips could be substantial, and the church involvement is more than encouragement to be active.

Yup. And?

We aren't talking about a small single congregation church who uses all of their funds to try and be political activists. We are talking about a worldwide church who encouraged its members to be active on this issue, but itself (as a corporation) donated very little money to the cause.

And ditto to what rodheadlee said.

[Daniel2]

Neither the LDS Church or any other church should loose it's tax exempt status for their stance and political activity regarding Prop 8.

The freedom of speech gives anyone the right to state their opinion that such a change in tax exempt status should or shouldn't occur--but free speech doesn't negate the right of churches or church members to engage in the political process.

Darin

[frankenstein]

Neither the LDS Church or any other church should loose it's tax exempt status for their stance and political activity regarding Prop 8.es

The freedom of speech gives anyone the right to state their opinion that such a change in tax exempt status should or shouldn't occur--but free speech doesn't negate the right of churches or church members to engage in the political process.

Darin

you are much nicer than me.

I would that no religion could participate in politics. A religion could encourage its people to particpate in politics, but a religion officially or unofficial via any of its leaders could not take sides in the political arena.

[Daniel2]

Jason,

I'm interested in your reaction to the rest of what I said, specifically:

What, specifically [edited to add: "aside from different biological gender"] is necessary that all dual-gendered spouses have, that no same-sex couples have...?

In addition, I made a mistake in my previous post that needs corrected (but for some reason, I can't edit it). I'm reposting my own comment here with the corrections in bold:

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

shared

gender; some same-sex couples compliment each other

inspite

of the differences of their

shared

gender. There is no single, all-encompassing, always-true "universal Truth" when it comes to "the complimentariness" of any specific, given couple.

I'd be intersted to hear you elaborate on what exactly is this "complimentariness" between the two genders that is universally true of every "man-woman" partnership, that isn't/doesn't/can't exist within any "man-man" relationship or any "woman-woman" relationship.

Darin

[Daniel2]

you are much nicer than me.

I would that no religion could participate in politics. A religion could encourage its people to particpate in politics, but a religion officially or unofficial via any of its leaders could not take sides in the political arena.

Religion has brought about significant and important changes to the political process. Many churches were involved in the sufferage and civil rights movements, for example. In my view, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a powerful religious example of a religious man exerting admirable, ernest effort in the political realm.

My own (liberal) Unitarian Universalist Faith energetically participates in the political process.

I emphatically disagree with Mormonism's stance on civil rights for LGBT citizens and couples, and the morality of their involvemnt supporting Prop 8. But my disgreement with the very effective campaign they ran (and my recognition of both their ernestness, hard work, and effectiveness) and the subsequent passage of Prop 8 does not mean I must call for them to be punished or silenced. Retribution over sour grapes is never an effective means of winning the hearts and minds of one's opponents, or the undecided.

And so, despite my emphatic disagreement with the LDS church's stance, I just as emphatically defend Mormon leaders' and members' right to say them and engage in the political process, just as I defend all other Faiths' right to do the same.

Mormons and the anti-gay marriage crowd have won many of the small battles in the last several years, but they will not win the war over equal civil marriage rights for same-sex couples, which (I believe) will be federally-mandated in all 50 states within the next ten years or so.

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

attributed to Voltaire

[Jason]

Jason,

I'm interested in your reaction to the rest of what I said, specifically:

Apparently you missed my post #67:

[Daniel2]

Apparently you missed my post #67:

Actually, I didn't miss that post. I noted that that response didn't address "the rest of what I said," which is why I re-quoted the parts of my post I was hoping to get your reaction to in my previous post, specifically:

What, specifically [aside from different biological genders] is necessary that all dual-gendered spouses have, that no same-sex couples have...?

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 shared gender; some same-sex couples compliment each other inspite of the differences of their shared gender. There is no single, all-encompassing, always-true "universal Truth" when it comes to "the complimentariness" of any specific, given couple.

I'd be intersted to hear you elaborate on what exactly is this "complimentariness" between the two genders that is universally true of every "man-woman" partnership, that isn't/doesn't/can't exist within any "man-man" relationship or any "woman-woman" relationship.

Darin

[Daniel2]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

attributed to Voltaire

Yep.

[Jason]

Actually, I didn't miss that post. I noted that that response didn't address "the rest of what I said," which is why I re-quoted the parts of my post I was hoping to get your reaction to in my previous post, specifically:

What, specifically [aside from different biological genders] is necessary that all dual-gendered spouses have, that no same-sex couples have...?

And my answer was "both genders". It's pretty obvious, really.

[Daniel2]

And my answer was "both genders". It's pretty obvious, really.

You seem to be missing my point, which is "what, specifically, is the significance or meaning that is inherently provided to every dual-gender marriage by 'both genders' that is/cannot be provided by any couple comprised of the same gender"?

It seems to me that you're merely begging the question.

Darin

[thesometimesaint]

Darin:

Without a third party. A SS couple can not have children.

[Jason]

Darin:

Without a third party. A SS couple can not have children.

That is important, but even an infertile couple still brings both genders to the marriage.

[frankenstein]

Darin:

Without a third party. A SS couple can not have children.

I think Darin is asking, other than gender, what is unique about the collective of man/woman relationships. not all man/woman couples legally married or not are able to have children without a 3rd party; so procreation isn't unique to the collective of man/woman couples legally married or not.

[Jason]

I think Darin is asking, other than gender, what is unique about the collective of man/woman relationships. not all man/woman couples legally married or not are able to have children without a 3rd party; so procreation isn't unique to the collective of man/woman couples legally married or not.

And my answer is basically "gender, even aside from procreation, is much more important to relationships than you seem to think it is."

Saying "other than gender..." with regards to marriage is like saying "other than the number of sides, what's the difference between a square and a triangle?"