Interesting Article (At Least I Found It Interesting)

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 June 2011 - 08:12 AM, said:

Please, let me know which Mormons drove men out of their jobs because a person voted against Prop 8. I would love to see someone step up and let us know. Otherwise it appears to me that you are on the wrong side of that variable.

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. You have it wrong once again.

What happens in the voting booth is private. No one lost their job for how they voted.

The question is whether those who openly and publicly advocate for a policy position that is contrary to the interest of their employer should be secure in their position.

No Jaybear, your situational ethics present the classic justification and obfuscation for any nefarious and even obscene actions. In one country a few years ago, if you were a Jew it was contrary to the best interest of your employer to secure your position. Your words, not mine.

Will it be, if you belong to the republican party, it is contrary to the best interest of your employer to secure your position? If you are a Latter-day Saint it is in the best interest of your employer not to secure your position? Tell us Jaybear, where will you stop? Or will you? It is chilling to see someone so easily slip into a mindset that has caused so much damage in the past.

Quote

"There is room in the [LDS] Church for honest disagreement regarding church positions," LDS Spokesman Scott Trotter said. "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."

This is why Jeffrey Nielson lost his job at BYU, when spoke out in favor of gay rights.

This is why Peter Danzig was suspended from the LDS Orchestra when he spoke out in support of Jeffrey Nielson.

Frankly my understanding is that Nielson was let go because he states the LDS church was immoral. Usually if you teach at a church institution and claim that church is immoral in its acts, that is terms for dismissal. It wasn't his support but his statement the First Presidency was immoral. But then the church doesn't comment upon why peole are dismissed, so we have mostly a one sided conversation. It wasn't about his support but his undermining of the church as a divine institution of God.

Now what is an religious institution supposed to do when an individual claims that institution does not adhere to its religion?

Quote

JEFF: Silence is endorsement. The gay community does not condemn the acts of the those few. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. If you don't condemn it, you, by your silence enforse it. No, there weren't many, there were few who condemned the attacks, in fact the one or two were drowned out by people who thought it was justified given the circumstance. The general theme was "The Mormons deserved it". Kind of like Missouri in an earlier time.

Your allegation of graffiti on LDS temples turns out to be one incident of graffiti sprayed on the gates of one LDS Temple.

How many would satisfy you? Lets turn the tables, how many Matthew Shepards before you feel a general condemnation should be issued?

Yes we should all speak out. If that is the extend of the vandalism of LDS property by gay rights activists, they should be loudly publicly applauded for the exemplary restraint they have displayed in response to the Church's relentless attack on gay rights.

I can tell you, being on the other end, the LDS were restrained, the gay groups were not. Spitting, yelling expletives, saying all kinds of horrible things, and then of course the people whose jobs were in peril because they believed the ideal wrong. You can keep trying to justify such actions, but frankly I don't see how you could stomach to do so if you believed there is an ethical and peaceful way. Otherwise it is simply more thuggery with the quiest acquiesence of the majority of the gay community because frankly "Mormons deserve it", just as other minorities "desrved it".

Gay right advocates and their supporters know that vandalism and violence is not the answer. As you seem to agree, you should give them credit for walking the walk.

Except of course, when they can get away with it, or when someone else does it and they say nothing.

[Jaybear]

No Jaybear, your situational ethics present the classic justification and obfuscation for any nefarious and even obscene actions. In one country a few years ago, if you were a Jew it was contrary to the best interest of your employer to secure your position. Your words, not mine.

Another nazi reference. You really need to let that analogy go.

Frankly my understanding is that Nielson was let go because he states the LDS church was immoral. Usually if you teach at a church institution and claim that church is immoral in its acts, that is terms for dismissal.

Not quite what he said. But the point is one should not bite the hand that feeds you.

Now what is an religious institution supposed to do when an individual claims that institution does not adhere to its religion?

Fire him. That will send a clear message to any other employees/members who share his point of view. Speak out, and they will be out the door as well.

How many would satisfy you? Lets turn the tables, how many Matthew Shepards before you feel a general condemnation should be issued?

You have lost all sense of perspective.

I can tell you, being on the other end, the LDS were restrained, the gay groups were not.

I suppose that depends on what you consider important.

What is more important to you Jeff, (a) your right to marry the one person you love; or (b)not having to repaint your gate?

You can keep trying to justify such actions, but frankly I don't see how you could stomach to do so if you believed there is an ethical and peaceful way.

Pay attention, Jeff. No one has tried to justify vandalism or violence.

BTW, would an ethical and peaceful way include mocking LDS beliefs in a Broadway play. You seem to take offense with that tactic as well.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 June 2011 - 10:32 AM, said:

No Jaybear, your situational ethics present the classic justification and obfuscation for any nefarious and even obscene actions. In one country a few years ago, if you were a Jew it was contrary to the best interest of your employer to secure your position. Your words, not mine.

Another nazi reference. You really need to let that analogy go.

Your lack of a counter argument reflects its accuracy. How is the analogy wrong? How is the idea of denying someone the right to work based on their religious belief, or their poltical belief somehow acceptable to you. If we turned it around and said those who support gay rights suddenly were forced from their businesses, I dare say your hypocrisy would be manifest by how loudly you shout it out.

Quote

Frankly my understanding is that Nielson was let go because he states the LDS church was immoral. Usually if you teach at a church institution and claim that church is immoral in its acts, that is terms for dismissal.

Not quite what he said. But the point is one should not bite the hand that feeds you.

That is EXACTLY what he said as well as implied. I suggest you read the opinion yourself.

SLT

Quote

Now what is an religious institution supposed to do when an individual claims that institution does not adhere to its religion?

Fire him. That will send a clear message to any other employees/members who share his point of view. Speak out, and they will be out the door as well.

In other words, if someone claims the First Presidency is committing immoral acts, should they then be replaced as members within that institution? Versus simply supporting another cause?

There are many people at BYU and in Utah that did not support the church in its efforts but did not lose either job or position. The difference being they did not call the church immoral. Think about it.

Quote

How many would satisfy you? Lets turn the tables, how many Matthew Shepards before you feel a general condemnation should be issued?

You have lost all sense of perspective.

Another obfuscation. You have no counter argument so you are left to empty rhetoric. Seems you have no sense of perspective.

Quote

I can tell you, being on the other end, the LDS were restrained, the gay groups were not.

I suppose that depends on what you consider important.

What is more important to you Jeff, (a) your right to marry the one person you love; or (b)not having to repaint your gate?

What makes you think marriage is not important to the saints? Why risk the persecution from people like you if it wasn't important? What is important is not attacking other people, not threatening them with their jobs, not yelling at them and in some cases laying hands upon them beause they have disagreed civilly. It seems you have no perspective on the situation and continue to justify such actions.

Quote

You can keep trying to justify such actions, but frankly I don't see how you could stomach to do so if you believed there is an ethical and peaceful way.

Pay attention, Jeff. No one has tried to justify vandalism or violence.

BTW, would an ethical and peaceful way include mocking LDS beliefs in a Broadway play. You seem to take offense with that tactic as well.

Ah, pay attention, you have sought to justify it, your entire post is merely a set of excuses as to why such actions are liable. Perhaps you are completely unaware of what you write and what it implies. But it certainly puts you in the corner of the mob willing to do harm to anyone that disagrees with you civilly. More is the pity because people like you ensure that civility will be nothing more than empty words.

[Jeff K.]

BTW, would an ethical and peaceful way include mocking LDS beliefs in a Broadway play. You seem to take offense with that tactic as well.

No more than making fun of gay men and women dying of AIDS is funny to others. Perhaps you think that is equally funny?

[Jaybear]

Your lack of a counter argument reflects its accuracy. How is the analogy wrong? How is the idea of denying someone the right to work based on their religious belief, or their poltical belief somehow acceptable to you.

All right.

Lets start with the facts.

Point one: You have no evidence that anyone was fired for their religious belief. A few, perhaps three people, resigned when it became evident that their financial contributions to Prop 8 interfered with their ability to do their jobs.

It was not their beliefs that put their jobs at risk. These people would have been forced out even if they were atheists.

Point two: Unlike nazi germany, we have laws that protect people from being fired for their religious beliefs.

Point three: Those who exerted the pressure that lead to their resignation, were exercising their first amendment rights.

If we turned it around and said those who support gay rights suddenly were forced from their businesses, I dare say your hypocrisy would be manifest by how loudly you shout it out.

If I worked for an owner who hated gays, and she found out I contributed funds to opposed prop 8, my job would be at risk. That is what happens when you work for someone else. The lesson is, don't bite the hand that feed you.

If the editor of the D News, publicly expressed opposition to LDS Church's relentless attacks on gay rights, his job would be at stake.

That is EXACTLY what he said as well as implied. I suggest you read the opinion yourself.

If it was EXACTLY what he said, you would have provided a quote. As for what he implied, unless your talents include mind reading, that is not your place to say.

In other words, if someone claims the First Presidency is committing immoral acts, should they then be replaced as members within that institution? Versus simply supporting another cause?

There are many people at BYU and in Utah that did not support the church in its efforts but did not lose either job or position. The difference being they did not call the church immoral. Think about it.

I don't need to think about it. The LDS Church made it clear what it will and will not tolerate: "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."

What makes you think marriage is not important to the saints?

You didn't answer the question. How about this one: What is more important to you (a) your marriage; or (b) your job.

To me it easy. Its marriage. That is why I have no sympathy to those people who lost their job because they funded legislation which took away from others the right to marry the person they loved.

So Jeff, why are you so outraged that three prop 8 supporters, who happen to be mormon, lost their job, when tens of thousands of people lost the right to marry the person they love?

Where is your sense of perspective?

Ah, pay attention, you have sought to justify it, your entire post is merely a set of excuses as to why such actions are liable.

Let me guess, you are using you mind reading powers to discern that "implied" that vandalism and violence are acceptable means of political discourse.

Considering that I expressly said ... "Gay right advocates and their supporters know that vandalism and violence is not the answer" ... you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you can read minds.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 June 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

Your lack of a counter argument reflects its accuracy. How is the analogy wrong? How is the idea of denying someone the right to work based on their religious belief, or their poltical belief somehow acceptable to you.

All right.

Lets start with the facts.

Point one: You have no evidence that anyone was fired for their religious belief. A few, perhaps three people, resigned when it became evident that their financial contributions to Prop 8 interfered with their ability to do their jobs.

It was not their beliefs that put their jobs at risk. These people would have been forced out even if they were atheists.

Point two: Unlike nazi germany, we have laws that protect people from being fired for their religious beliefs.

Point three: Those who exerted the pressure that lead to their resignation, were exercising their first amendment rights.

Jaybear I have to laugh at your obfuscation. You would justify any, absolutely any means of destroying someone's life if they disagreed with your agenda. And you would call it fair and justify it in some way.

Where were the protest marches upon the Muslim mosques? And the AME church? How many African Americans lost their jobs because they supported Prop 8.

How many Mormons were forced from their jobs?

PJI, a non-profit legal defense organization specializing in religious freedom, claims to be representing a San Francisco woman who was fired for voting for Proposition 8, but whose name remains confidential to protect her privacy and legal case.

"Californians have been shocked by the aggressiveness of radical homosexual activists who have ousted several individuals from their jobs and livelihoods based solely on their support for traditional marriage," states Brad Dacus, president of PJI, on the group's website. "These tactics of fear and intimidation in retaliation for supporting a lawful ballot measure are completely unacceptable."

PJI also claims to be advising several others seeking settlements after they too were fired for supporting Proposition 8.

Read more: Voted for Prop 8? You're fired http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=84812#ixzz1PHrB0m3E

Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice, working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife's purse and then the man's wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter's piggy bank and pinch every penny. "We need it for the Wall Street bailout!" they exclaim.

No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?

No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. "Hi, we're from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" says the blond one with a toothy smile. "We're here to take away your rights." The Mormon zealots yank the couple's wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.

As the thugs leave, one says to the other, "That was too easy." His smirking comrade replies, "Yeah, what should we ban next?" The voice-over implores viewers: "Say no to a church taking over your government."

Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.

The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on election day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.

What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?

Nope.

This newspaper, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial saying that the "hard-hitting ad" was too little, too late.

The upshot seemed to be that if the pro-gay-marriage forces had just flooded the airwaves with more religious slander, things would have turned out better.

At a pro-gay-marriage rally in Los Angeles after the vote, chants of "Mormon scum!" were reported. Envelopes containing white powder have been sent to Mormon temples in California and Utah; vandals hit other temples. Lists of businesses to boycott -- essentially Mormon blacklists -- have sprung up on the Internet. The artistic director of the California Musical Theatre resigned because of pressure after it was revealed he gave $1,000 to a pro-Proposition 8 group.

It's amazing. Hollywood liberals, who shout "McCarthyism!" as a first resort, see nothing wrong with this. If Jews were attacked in this way for giving too much money to a political cause, Barbra Streisand would already have a French passport.

Never mind that Proposition 8 carried nearly every demographic slice of voters. Put aside the fact that the Catholic Church and scores of other Christian churches supported it too. Discount the inconvenient truth that bans on gay marriage have now passed in 30 states. It's all the Mormons' fault.

The argument is that Mormons used illegitimate power, in this case money, beyond their numerical standing in the population to secure victory for the measure. Golly, wealthy gay liberals would never do anything like that! I bet they're not giving a dime to the legal effort to overturn Proposition 8.

No, it's just that Mormons are the most vulnerable of the culturally conservative religious denominations and therefore the easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.

Traditional religion is the enemy anywhere it runs afoul of complete social acceptance of homosexuality. In New Mexico, a wedding photographer was fined nearly $7,000 for refusing to shoot a gay commitment ceremony. The dating site eHarmony, run by evangelicals, was just bullied by gay activists via the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights into starting up a site for gays. The first 10,000 registrants must get six months free.

It's often lost on gay-rights groups that they and their allies are the aggressors in the culture war. Indeed, they admit to being the "forces of change" and the "agents of progress." They proudly want to rewrite tradition and overturn laws. But whenever they're challenged democratically and peaceably, they instantly complain of being victims of entrenched bigots, even as they adopt the very tactics they abhor.

My own view is that gay marriage is likely inevitable, and won't be nearly the disaster many of my fellow conservatives fear it will be. But the scorched-earth campaign to victory pushed by gay-marriage advocates may well be disastrous, and "liberals" should be ashamed for countenancing it

LA Times

Point two: Unlike nazi germany, we have laws that protect people from being fired for their religious beliefs.

As you have shown, there are ways around such laws. But then Nazi Germany also had the same laws regarding religious protection. So much for trying to make a difference between the acts.

[Jeff K.]

Point three: Those who exerted the pressure that lead to their resignation, were exercising their first amendment rights.

No, no more than demanding someone be fired because of their race is exercising first amendment rights. You should study the first amendment sometime.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

That is EXACTLY what he said as well as implied. I suggest you read the opinion yourself.

If it was EXACTLY what he said, you would have provided a quote. As for what he implied, unless your talents include mind reading, that is not your place to say.

I provided the link, don't tell me you couldn't see him stating the church was acting immorally, please be more honest in your posts.

Quote

In other words, if someone claims the First Presidency is committing immoral acts, should they then be replaced as members within that institution? Versus simply supporting another cause?

There are many people at BYU and in Utah that did not support the church in its efforts but did not lose either job or position. The difference being they did not call the church immoral. Think about it.

I don't need to think about it. The LDS Church made it clear what it will and will not tolerate: "Disagreement on doctrine only becomes an issue when a church member acts in open opposition to the church or its leaders."

Apparently you don't think much at all.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

What makes you think marriage is not important to the saints?

You didn't answer the question. How about this one: What is more important to you (a) your marriage; or (b) your job.

To me it easy. Its marriage. That is why I have no sympathy to those people who lost their job because they funded legislation which took away from others the right to marry the person they loved.

So Jeff, why are you so outraged that three prop 8 supporters, who happen to be mormon, lost their job, when tens of thousands of people lost the right to marry the person they love?

Where is your sense of perspective?

I did answer the question, and quite clearly. You just don't like the answer. The fact is Latter-day Saints do indeed hold marriage to be very very important. More important than even the gay community does. Those of us who know and follow the doctrine of the church hold it in great esteem and importance. And yet we act civilly.

To you it is easy, your situational ethics allows you to toss out truth, or civility whenever you want. You see you aren't governed by a moral code to not attack. But of course you expect everyone else to follow the same.

As a point I am justified to hear that you finally agree Mormons have lost their jobes because of people like you. Especially when you falsely claim the gay men and women lost a right that was never theirs. I realize that is your drum and fife and you will as earlier propagandists say "continue telling a lie until it is viewed as the truth", but it just doesn't work here. Everyone knows better, even you.

[Jaybear]

As a point I am justified to hear that you finally agree Mormons have lost their jobes because of people like you.

Please stick to the facts. I am aware of three people who lost their job, because they lent financial support to the passage of Prop 8. They were also Mormon, but that is not germane. The would not have excaped intense criticism if they were catholic or baptist or methodist.

I have no sympathy for them. They bit the hand that fed them.

And yet we act civilly.

No one tried to take away your right to marry.

Especially when you falsely claim the gay men and women lost a right that was never theirs.

Its impossible to have a rational discussion with you, if you are going to deny reality. There are thousands of couples that were allowed to marry because of this right you deny ever existed.

[Daniel Peterson]

I have no sympathy for them. They bit the hand that fed them.

You may well feel that way, but I'm a bit surprised that you've publicly admitted such a shameful thing.

No one tried to take away your right to marry.

Rather a classic illustration of the fallacy of begging the question.

Whether there is or is not a right to same-sex marriage is precisely the disputed issue. Historically, traditionally, there has not been. Anywhere, really.

That there was a brief interval during which such marriages were performed does not create or constitute an established right, any more than the relatively brief practice of plural marriage by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has established a generally-recognized precedent in the American legal tradition for a right to marry more than one woman simultaneously.

[bluebell]

You may well feel that way, but I'm a bit surprised that you've publicly admitted such a shameful thing.

You gotta love those tolerant people who declare "if you don't agree with my beliefs, i will happily destroy your livelyhood".

[Daniel2]

Whether there is or is not a right to same-sex marriage is precisely the disputed issue. Historically, traditionally, there has not been. Anywhere, really.

That there was a brief interval during which such marriages were performed does not create or constitute an established right, any more than the relatively brief practice of plural marriage by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has established a generally-recognized precedent in the American legal tradition for a right to marry more than one woman simultaneously.

I'm surprised that you, Daniel, would actually go "on record" as bluntly saying something as obviously, patently false as to suggest that there isn't "any more" legally-constituted precedent for same-sex marriage than there is polygamous marriage, given that that is so demonstrablly false. There are currently five states that recognize civil same-sex marriage--and obviously one high-profile state Supreme Court ruling and Federal Judge ruling identifying the right to same-sex marriage--but literally NO state or federal ruling that's (as yet) recognized ANY right to a polygamous marriage, nor Supreme Court rulings identifying any such right. Even if you disagree with the precident, I find it supremely strange that you can't see/recongize/admit to the obvious difference between the growing and clear legal precident for one over the other.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

You gotta love those tolerant people who declare "if you don't agree with my beliefs, i will happily destroy your livelyhood".

The irony in all of this, of course, is that in many states it remains perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay (including Utah, where it's happened far more times than the three individuals who resigned from their own positions in California over their support of Prop 8 ), but not for being Mormon (or any other religious affiliation).

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Despite Jeff's unwillingness to recognize them, many members of the LGBT community have condemned the vandalism in the wake of the Prop 8 protests, as I've posted several times before. A simple search on Google demonstrates as much. For example:

The Utah Pride Center, a gay rights group, put out its own statement calling the powder hoaxes and acts of vandalism "deplorable."

And:

The coalition that ran the campaign to defeat Proposition 8 also issued a condemnation Friday.

"The NO on 8 campaign was about civil rights and seeking equality for all Californians. We have said time and again that the Mormon church deserves the same respect as any other religion," said Ali Bay, a spokeswoman for Equality California, the state's largest gay rights group.

"The LGBT community" is not a hive-minded collective, nor do we share a common leader who speaks for all of us, nor is there a single source that is a spokesperson for those of us who are supportive of civil marriage equality (whether gay or straight).

As a gay man who's publically and loudly condemned ANY act of violence or vandalism, I find it frustrating that in his crusade to retain his status as a victim, Jeff sets up an impossible and unclear expectation demanding some sort of generalized apology/condemnation, while simultaneously refusing to recognize or admit that many members of "the LGBT community" have already done so. It's completely unclear to me just WHO Jeff is waiting on this condemnation for, beyond those of us who have already offered our condemnation and call for civility.

I do not believe I have ever shown Latter-day Saints any malice or anger for their views, and have gone on record openly defending Mormons' right to express and condemn same-sex relationships. In fact, although I'm an atheist, today, I remain just as proud of my Mormon heritage as I do of my ability to love someone of the same gender. And yet, from a reading of this thread, a casual reader would think that calls for civility or condemnations of vandalism have never occurred by myself or any gay person.

As I've said before, Jeff, I'm sorry for the treatment you've endured by a few gays, lesbians, and/or their supporters. There's no excuse for spitting on anyone--ever. There's no excuse for vandalism of property--ever. When you're willing to sit at the table and "break bread," I'll be here, and welcome that dialogue and discussion. Until you're willing to start forgiving someone like me for the sins of individuals who I do not know, have never met, and are completely unrelated to me (who spit upon you and treated you so poorly), I--and perhaps, even your Savior--cannot help you. Holding grudges and bitterness ultimately harms one's self more than it does anyone else. Not only will I or anyone else be unable to help you, Jeff, but until you forgive the reprehensible acts of those who've trespassed against you, I understand your Faith also teaches that the greater sin will be upon your head.

I'm reminded of a quote I first heard at church, along the lines of: "Refusing to forgive someone is like drinking poison and then expecting the other person to die."

Daniel2

[TAO]

I am not willing to lump everyone against gay marriage in the same pot and is all I am asking is that Jeff quit lumping everyone in the gay community in the same pot. I certainly have never done anything to despair the church. I don't even disagree with the churches position on how they feel about gay marriage. They have a right to believe anything that they want. And they have a right to teach their members to believe that it is wrong. I have even said countless times on this board that they have a right to get involved in politics on any issue they wish. It doesn't mean that I am going to not express my views on this subject. And it doesn't mean that I am going to let inflammatory statements to go on without commenting on them.

Yes, but then why bring the church into it? Why are you trying to fight fire with fire?

I have learned long ago that JeffK is willing to paint a broad brush to condemn the gay community. I have also learned long ago that he is willing to ignore other's comments that he disagrees with in order to maintain his position. There is no dialogue here. Most of the time I read his rants and move on. When he makes a valid point, I consider it. This rant is a common one he makes. i have ignored it most of the time when he has expressed his views.

Then you should continue ignoring it and being the better person.

I spent a while on Shade's board, and one thing I had to learn there was to have 'thick skin'. I had to be able to tolerate insults, drastic exaggerations, and mocking. You can't survive if you don't. You can't fight back by insults - that just degnerates things. The only thing you can do, is hold your calm, cool, collected, mild, 'icy' attitude, and respond with seriousness. You ignore the insults, you don't insult them back.

The church does not want to be lumped together with all of the other people who commit violence against the gay community because they are not a part of that violence. If JeffK would just say there are SOME in the gay community are willing to resort to violence. or ONE person spray painted the church temple fence, then I would have no issue with what he states. But that is NOT what his posts claim.

Well then ignore him, or point him out on it in a calm, respectful way. You aren't going to look good if you rant about it, instead, take a deep breath, and say 'Jeff, this is a mischaracterization because of X, Y, and Z.' You don't need to go any further than that. People will see that he ignores it if he ignores it. But you can't lose your cool - you can't risk it at all.

I am just saying, probably on deaf ears, that those in the gay community don't like being lumped together either. Is that so unfair?

It doesn't fall on deaf ears, I've heard that for a while. It's one reason I rather hate politics - it has no respect, and lumps everything together, creating false reasons and justifications for doing things.

I remember a discussion (though I can't find it), perhaps on this forum, about a young Mormon, who stood up in the middle of a gay community meeting, and asked something along the lines of 'why are you targeting my church alone?'. There were two leaders of the meeting, and they responded differently. The one was stunned, and apologized for what their community had done. However, the other said something along the lines of 'Yes, we did that and we will continue to do that until you guys never question us again.' (I believe it was a bit more intense than that). Long story short - the gay community is just as divided as the Christian community is - some people use respect - others do not.

The thing is, it is important to make sure that we are being the respectful ones. That is what matters =).

Hope this doesn't offend =P.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[bluebell]

The irony in all of this, of course, is that in many states it remains perfectly legal to fire someone for being gay (including Utah, where it's happened far more times than the three individuals who resigned from their own positions in California over their support of Prop 8 ), but not for being Mormon (or any other religious affiliation).

Daniel2

For me, there is no irony in it, as i would consider such people to be as much bullies as the people who fired mormons who supported prop. 8. I can't think of any other way to describe people who proclaim that they will hold you hostage financially until you do what they say, regardless of how they feel about SSM.

And i am happy that the LDS does not condone such practices and has fought against them-

"That statement, released prior to California's Proposition 8 vote last year on a constitutional amendment defining marriage, says the LDS Church "does not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference."

[bluebell]

I'm surprised that you, Daniel, would actually go "on record" as bluntly saying something as obviously, patently false as to suggest that there isn't "any more" legally-constituted precedent for same-sex marriage than there is polygamous marriage, given that that is so demonstrablly false. There are currently five states that recognize civil same-sex marriage--and obviously one high-profile state Supreme Court ruling and Federal Judge ruling identifying the right to same-sex marriage--but literally NO state or federal ruling that's (as yet) recognized ANY right to a polygamous marriage, nor Supreme Court rulings identifying any such right. Even if you disagree with the precident, I find it supremely strange that you can't see/recongize/admit to the obvious difference between the growing and clear legal precident for one over the other.

Daniel2

I think, through his use of the terms 'historically' and 'traditionally', that he was exempting any changes to the law which have happen recently.

That seems like a logical and fair interpretation of his words to me anyway.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm surprised that you, Daniel, would actually go "on record" as bluntly saying something as obviously, patently false as to suggest that there isn't "any more" legally-constituted precedent for same-sex marriage than there is polygamous marriage, given that that is so demonstrablly false. There are currently five states that recognize civil same-sex marriage--and obviously one high-profile state Supreme Court ruling and Federal Judge ruling identifying the right to same-sex marriage--but literally NO state or federal ruling that's (as yet) recognized ANY right to a polygamous marriage, nor Supreme Court rulings identifying any such right. Even if you disagree with the precident, I find it supremely strange that you can't see/recongize/admit to the obvious difference between the growing and clear legal precident for one over the other.

I don't see this or that court ruling as establishing a genuine new "right" in the face of strong public resistance any more than I'm persuaded that Roe v. Wade has established abortion as forever a good thing beyond the reach of a free citizenry to contradict, or that Dred Scott v. Sandford established once and for all that slaves and the descendants of slaves are not protected by the Constitution and can never be citizens. Same-sex marriage and abortion are matters of continuing argument and dispute in a free republic; slavery and the Dred Scott decision, happily, are long behind us, in large part because of a public consensus that did not consider itself bound by a seven-to-two decision of the Supreme Court (which has, incidentally, never actually been overturned).

While there is a broad and indeed virtually unchallenged consensus on such rights as religious liberty and free expression, there is no consensus at the moment as to the right of same-sex couples to marry, and I don't recognize the competence of the courts to establish such a right by fiat and to put it beyond dispute by the people from whom the authority of the courts derives.

[Daniel2]

I don't see this or that court ruling as establishing a genuine new "right" in the face of strong public resistance any more than I'm persuaded that Roe v. Wade has established abortion as forever a good thing beyond the reach of a free citizenry to contradict, or that Dred Scott v. Sandford established once and for all that slaves and the descendants of slaves are not protected by the Constitution and can never be citizens. Same-sex marriage and abortion are matters of continuing argument and dispute in a free republic; slavery and the Dred Scott decision, happily, are long behind us, in large part because of a public consensus that did not consider itself bound by a seven-to-two decision of the Supreme Court (which has, incidentally, never actually been overturned).

While there is a broad and indeed virtually unchallenged consensus on such rights as religious liberty and free expression, there is no consensus at the moment as to the right of same-sex couples to marry, and I don't recognize the competence of the courts to establish such a right by fiat and to put it beyond dispute by the people from whom the authority of the courts derives.

You're moving the goal posts, Dan.

Regardless of my view on the matter, my response to your previous post didn't suggest that there definitively IS "a right to same-sex marriage," or even that you were wrong to fail to recognize such a right (obviously, the conservative LDS viewpoint--which I would definitely presume you'd espouse--is to refuse to recognize any such right).

My point was (and is) that, despite your statement otherwise, there's currently a lot more obvious legal precedent for a civil right to same-sex marriage than there is for a civil right to polygamous marriage.

Daniel2

[bluebell]

You're moving the goal posts, Dan.

Regardless of my view on the matter, my response to your previous post didn't suggest that there definitively IS "a right to same-sex marriage," or even that you were wrong to fail to recognize such a right (obviously, the conservative LDS viewpoint--which I would definitely presume you'd espouse--is to refuse to recognize any such right).

My point was (and is) that, despite your statement otherwise, there's currently a lot more obvious legal precedent for a civil right to same-sex marriage than there is for polygamous marriage.

Daniel2

Daniel2, are you Darin? I'm just asking because you bold the name of the poster you are addressing, just as Darin does, and i've never seen any other poster do that before (but maybe it's common on other forums, i have no idea).

[Daniel2]

Daniel2, are you Darin? I'm just asking because you bold the name of the poster you are addressing, just as Darin does, and i've never seen any other poster do that before (but maybe it's common on other forums, i have no idea).

I am, and I don't mind others who have known me on the boards recognizing that fact, or admitting to it. However, though I left most of my profile intact so that that would be obvious to those who've known me for a long time, after the fiasco with SeattleGhostWriter, as well as some of the posts about the dangers of using one's own real name online, I decided to remove photos and my real name and photos from all of the internet boards that I post on and resume the unliateral use of my previous (though slightly altered, since the original had been taken) pseudonym.

Daniel2

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 14 June 2011 - 03:26 PM, said:

As a point I am justified to hear that you finally agree Mormons have lost their jobes because of people like you.

Please stick to the facts. I am aware of three people who lost their job, because they lent financial support to the passage of Prop 8. They were also Mormon, but that is not germane. The would not have excaped intense criticism if they were catholic or baptist or methodist.

I have no sympathy for them. They bit the hand that fed them.

I was sticking to the facts, as you laid them out. Which were in agreement with mine. Whether you have sympathy or not (and no one here thought you had any sympathy for anyone but yourself and your cause) is irrelevant. And the fact they were Mormon is indeed germane since it undermines your position. I have yet to see Muslims or other groups face the same criticism. Like packs of dogs, that type always goes after the group they think weakest. Such is their ethical stand.

Quote

And yet we act civilly.

No one tried to take away your right to marry.

Gay men and women never had the right to marry. It was made up and corrected. There you go with that intellectually dishonesty again. Will we never learn not to trust your twist of the truth or a phrase.

Quote

Especially when you falsely claim the gay men and women lost a right that was never theirs.

Its impossible to have a rational discussion with you, if you are going to deny reality. There are thousands of couples that were allowed to marry because of this right you deny ever existed.

A made up right is not a right. A correction to interpretation to stop certain judges from making up rights is not taking away what is made up. What point aren't you getting?

[Jeff K.]

I'm surprised that you, Daniel, would actually go "on record" as bluntly saying something as obviously, patently false as to suggest that there isn't "any more" legally-constituted precedent for same-sex marriage than there is polygamous marriage, given that that is so demonstrablly false. There are currently five states that recognize civil same-sex marriage--and obviously one high-profile state Supreme Court ruling and Federal Judge ruling identifying the right to same-sex marriage--but literally NO state or federal ruling that's (as yet) recognized ANY right to a polygamous marriage, nor Supreme Court rulings identifying any such right. Even if you disagree with the precident, I find it supremely strange that you can't see/recongize/admit to the obvious difference between the growing and clear legal precident for one over the other.

Daniel2

In the vast majority of states it is illegal and only in a few states was it imposed by limited groups and NOT put to a vote through normal means of making new law. It speaks volumes that the gay community for all of its gay pride parades (which they claim is OK but must be heavily censored and children pulled from the streets in order to have them) and white parties (celebrating the "free love" of multiple partners and sex without responsibility in various states) want what apparently they are unwilling to show they can live by. But then I think you always want what you simply cannot have. Which is real marriage. In CA civil union with all the rights wasn't good enough. All the accomodations were made, and yet, not good enough. They want to change the definition, they want to change what marriage is. And when they have their festive orgies, they will celebrate the victory of giving themselves the term marriage. The irony fills me with sorrow.

You won't see Mormons doing what the gay community did to those they deemed weak enough to attack. Nor will you ever see a Mormon seeking to justify a physical attack on gay men and women, their property, or their jobs. We know doing so is wrong. Too bad the gay community is not made of the same moral fiber. Such is required when you understand family, and think of those things outside yourself. In this instance here in California, the gay community only thinks of itself, what it can take from others.

[blackstrap]

There are no "rights",unless backed up by some powerful entity.When you step off a cliff,do you have the right to not fall? When you refuse to pay taxes,do you have the right to not be harrassed by the IRS? When you die do you have the right to decide what will happen to your body? When a right is "given" or "established" by some powerful entity like nature or God it is rarely countermanded.When it is provided by law or government edict it is often adjusted or tuned or suspended at the whim of those in charge.

Be wary of any "right" established by the people,for," they know not what they do"