Interesting Article (At Least I Found It Interesting)

[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.

"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

[Jeff K.]

The treatment those around me recieved has been justified by the likes of Jaybear and for everyone like you that may condemn loudly, it is drowned out by the tens and hundreds like Jaybear who look on in silence and acquiesence and often with a self congratulatory smirk. Germans were not a mindhive either, neither are the Tutsi, or the Serbs. It does not speak, however to the silence projected out when one group within strikes in a wrong manner.

I will not state that you have acted poorly or uncivily, but we can look at Jaybear and see how he obfuscates rather than confront the issue, dismissing any and all uncivil actions. Especially for those who have lost their jobs, at least those reported to have lost their jobs, how many have never reported the wrong done to them? Just as my wife had to deal with those who "looked up her name" and basically was told she ws found on the "enemies list" which was the name given to those whose name was found on the website of contributors. Chilling isn't it?

Always ready to forgive, but when people don't repent, you have to remember that their actions are still considered an option for them and they will not change. The group you work with hasn't seen fit to remind the many voices that some things are not acceptable.

[Jeff K.]

You know, if the leaders, and there are leaders, in the gay community would come together and apologize for the actions of many in the gay community and publically stated that forcing people to leave their jobs based on a difference of opinion was not acceptable. That would show a certain maturity and desire for civil dialogue, who knows what might happen then. But I see the many leaders as being like Jaybear, avoid responsibility and attack. So I won't be holding my breath.

I would expect the same if many LDS rose up and did the same regarding support for the gay community. The church in a heartbeat would come out and state clearly what is wrong and what should not be done by the many voices in their community.

[Daniel Peterson]

You're moving the goal posts, Dan.

That would be a pretty effective strategy if I could get away with it, don't you think?

But, actually, I'm not.

I simply don't believe that a new right has yet managed to be created by a scattered few court decisions, any more than I believe that the decades of Mormon plural marriage prior to the Supreme Court's declaration that it was unconstitutional created an unchallengeable right to polygamy.

That was disputed, and this is disputed. A court decision here or there (sometimes by a one-vote margin in very disputed cases) doesn't create a new right ex nihilo. The consensus will of the people can create utterly new rights, I suppose. But the courts, in my view, cannot.

We may, in a sense, be talking past one another.

[california boy]

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

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.

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.

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

Thank you sincerely for your comments. I certainly did not mean my comments to come across as shrill. If they did, I apologize.

[california boy]

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.

I don't think that those supporting gay marriage are trying to create a "new right". The legal basis for gay marrriage is equal protection clause that already exists in the constitution. It is why prop 8 is being challenged in the courts. The question put before the court is simply: Is every American citizen allowed to marry the person they love. It is a pretty simple statement.

The legal case against prop 8 seems to be pretty strong. The case for prop 8 seems to be mostly religious based which as you know doesn't really apply in the court room in this country.

In the end, this will probably go before the Supreme Court of the United States. There it will be decided. Your opinion or my opinion on whether this is a new right or an existing right already in the constitution will not matter. It is how our system of government works. I am willing to put my faith in that system. I believe that eventually equality for all Americans will happen.

You may have read yesterday that the effort to dismiss Judge Walkers decision based on him being gay was denied by a conservative George W. Bush judge. And so the case moves forward. Public opinion moves forward as well with the majority of Americans now believing that equality for all applies to gay marriage as well.

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't think that those supporting gay marriage are trying to create a "new right".

Not as they see it, no. They're simply trying to show that the right to same-sex marriage has already been there for an indefinite but very lengthy period of time, having simply gone unrecognized by previous generations and societies. Rather the way an essentially unlimited right to abortions had always existed, according to Justice Blackmun, in a "right to privacy" that he discovered in the "penumbra" of the "due process" clause of the Constitution.

For those who don't agree, however, it's a new right that was wholly invisible to the Framers and to previous generations because it didn't exist.

That's the crux of the dispute.

The legal case against prop 8 seems to be pretty strong.

Those who find it strong will believe that it is strong. Those who don't, won't.

In the end, this will probably go before the Supreme Court of the United States. There it will be decided. Your opinion or my opinion on whether this is a new right or an existing right already in the constitution will not matter. It is how our system of government works. I am willing to put my faith in that system.

So am I. But my opinion will still be my opinion, whatever the court decides. Just as it would have been in the Dred Scott case.

I believe that eventually equality for all Americans will happen.

I do not believe that necrophiliacs and pederasts will ever have "the right to marry the person they love."

I certainly hope not.

You may have read yesterday that the effort to dismiss Judge Walkers decision based on him being gay was denied by a conservative George W. Bush judge. And so the case moves forward. Public opinion moves forward as well with the majority of Americans now believing that equality for all applies to gay marriage as well.

I have never believed that vox populi equals vox dei, but I know of no earthly system of government preferable to a democratic republic, so we shall see.

[california boy]

Not as they see it, no. They're simply trying to show that the right to same-sex marriage has already been there for an indefinite but very lengthy period of time, having simply gone unrecognized by previous generations and societies. Rather the way an essentially unlimited right to abortions had always existed, according to Justice Blackmun, in a "right to privacy" that he discovered in the "penumbra" of the "due process" clause of the Constitution.

That's the crux of the dispute.

Those who find it strong will believe that it is strong. Those who don't, won't.

For those who don't agree, however, it's a new right that was wholly invisible to the Framers and to previous generations because it didn't exist.

I see your point. I guess there are those who think women's right to vote is a frabricated right as well.

So am I. But my opinion will still be my opinion, whatever the court decides. Just as it would have been in the Dred Scott case.

I do not believe that necrophiliacs and pederasts will ever have "the right to marry the person they love."

I certainly hope not.

Well fortunately in this country marriage has to be between two consenting adults. I always find this kind of slurs as being insulting to most peoples intelligence. I am kind of surprised you are mentioning this kind of argument. I have come to expect this kind of response from other members of this board. I didn't think you were that kind of guy. humm.

[USU78]

I see your point. I guess there are those who think women's right to vote is a frabricated right as well.

Bingo!

There never had been, historically, a right of women to vote in the Anglo-Saxon legal system. It was wholly fabricated in the minds of the suffragettes, but sold to the public such that, both in Britain and here, the electorate adopted the measures extending the franchise to women.

And it's nothing to be ashamed of.

[Jeff K.]

What is amazing is the fact that unlike the fabrication of the gay right to redefine marriage, the sufferage movement convinced the people to accept it. It wasn't court cases, it wasn't the decision by a few elite that made the voting a "right". It wasn't intimidation of those with a different opinion.

It was the ability of the people, the majority to be convinced that yes, this is a right.

The differences are stark, because almost nowhere have the people been convinced that this fabricated right should exist.

[Jaybear]

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

Shameful? Were are talking three or four jobs here Dan.

I have a higher regard for the right to marriage, than the right to a job.

So, placed in proper perspective, no I really have no sympathy for these people, after taking into account the lack of sympathy these people displayed when they funded Prop 8 which took away the right of thousands to marry, a fundamental freedom that many seem to take for granted.

But I tell you what. If you come out and publicly support gay marriage, which would of course lead you to lose your job at BYU, I will be the first to express my sympathies.

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.

You and I have different understanding of the word "precisely."

Here is the facts Dan:

In California, the CA Supreme court had already ruled that under the CA constitution, denying gays the right to marry violated their rights of equal protection and due process.

The issue facing California voters, was not whether gays had such a right. They did. That had been decided, and some 15,000 couples were married. The PRECISE issue was whether voters should amend the constitution to take that right away.

As I told Jeff, its impossible to have a reasoned discussion with someone who needs to and is willing to alter reality in order to defend their beliefs. I am a bit surprised that you also feel the need to "spin" reality.

Seriously, if you can't acknowledge the obvious and indisputable fact that in California gays had secured the legal right to marry prior to the passage of Prop, do you really think you have a compelling argument?

[Jaybear]

What is amazing is the fact that unlike the fabrication of the gay right to redefine marriage, the sufferage movement convinced the people to accept it. It wasn't court cases, it wasn't the decision by a few elite that made the voting a "right". It wasn't intimidation of those with a different opinion.

It was the ability of the people, the majority to be convinced that yes, this is a right.

The differences are stark, because almost nowhere have the people been convinced that this fabricated right should exist.

What's even more amazing is that you think that women should not have had the right to vote in this country, unless and until the men agree to give them that right.

[Jaybear]

I do not believe that necrophiliacs and pederasts will ever have "the right to marry the person they love."

I certainly hope not.

Remarkable that you are capable of discerning material difference that exists between heterosexual marriages and gay marriage justifying one and not the other, but when it comes to noting material differences between a gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a dead body, you draw a blank.

Homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia ... all peas in the same pod.

[Mordecai]

I have a higher regard for the right to [have the gov't pretend that a gay union is something that it is not], than the right to a job.

I fixed it for you.

In California, the CA Supreme court had already ruled that under the CA constitution, denying gays the right to marry violated their rights of equal protection and due process.

Because the legislature, in response to the people passing prop. 22, wrote into the CA Constitution that homosexuals are a protected class. That's the only reason. Considering the gerrymandering that occurs in California, our legislature isn't really legitimate anyway, so pretty much every far left dogma that add and take away from the laws of California is garbage, in my mind. We might also consider the extortion practices of the unions and their use of that money to prop up far left Democrats politically. California's system is nearly completely devoid of real Democracy.

Of course, as Ken Starr argued, domestic partnerships provide every relevant state right to homosexuals anyway, so they were not being treated unequally by the state in any way. The California Constitution was amended by the people, when we passed prop. 8, and the people's authority is, Constitutionally and morally speaking, higher than a handful of judges or our corrupt and illegitimate legislature.

[Mordecai]

The legal basis for gay marrriage is equal protection clause that already exists in the constitution.

Equal protection isn't about treating different behavior as if its the same. That represents an inequality under the law, like giving the son of the chief of police the same penalty for a worse crime.

Is every American citizen allowed to marry the person they love...

You can't legislate based on an emotion. Maybe we'll pass a law that specially recognizes sympathy or pride, too.

The case for prop 8 seems to be mostly religious based which as you know doesn't really apply in the court room in this country.

The belief that a gay union is different from a marriage is self-evident, while the claim that they are the same is the dogma. This is a truism for thinking people.

I believe that eventually equality for all Americans will happen.

So everyone will be of equal intelligence, looks, social and economic status? That's great! I can't wait to look like Brad Pitt and have Stephen Hawking's intelligence!

[Kenngo1969]

I see your point. I guess there are those who think women's right to vote is a frabricated [sic] right as well. ...

I dunno who's a-frabricatin' all of these rights willy-nilly, but I's tellin' you, they better knock it off right now!!!

[Kenngo1969]

Of course, as Ken Starr argued ...

What does he know? He had the temerity ... the utter gall ... to keep insisting that the Bill Clinton Affair was about something more than sex! Silly Ken Starr!

P.S.: Is the independent counsel statute still on the books, or did it expire?

[Kenngo1969]

... Homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia ... all peas in the same pod.

Dan isn't the one arguing that everyone should have the right to "marry the one they love" ... Just sayin'!

[Jaybear]

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

That is not really what happened.

What they said was that we are not going to engage in business with a company which is owned/managed by someone who has contributed to a political campaign intended to deprive us of our right to marry, and we encourage others not to as well.

You seem like a tolerant person. Would you continue to shop at your butcher, if you knew he contributed financially to a campaign to take away an important right or yours?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 June 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

What is amazing is the fact that unlike the fabrication of the gay right to redefine marriage, the sufferage movement convinced the people to accept it. It wasn't court cases, it wasn't the decision by a few elite that made the voting a "right". It wasn't intimidation of those with a different opinion.

It was the ability of the people, the majority to be convinced that yes, this is a right.

The differences are stark, because almost nowhere have the people been convinced that this fabricated right should exist.

What's even more amazing is that you think that women should not have had the right to vote in this country, unless and until the men agree to give them that right.

As long your narrow group retains power and decides for the majority. Such tyranny eventually finds its way to the chopping block of history. And your morality and ethics reflects how utterly empty your advacacy is. Those who believe as you do differ little from those who would attack Matthew Shepard, both use power for their own ends and justify it through some warped system of value which puts the ends above the means. You cannot convince the people, so trick or enslave them is so much easier. Sigh, I have studied this from century to century. You follow a remarkably unimaginative pattern.

[TAO]

That is not really what happened.

What they said was that we are not going to engage in business with a company which is owned/managed by someone who has contributed to a political campaign intended to deprive us of our right to marry, and we encourage others not to as well.

You seem like a tolerant person. Would you continue to shop at your butcher, if you knew he contributed financially to a campaign to take away an important right or yours?

My friend, some of them yes, but others no. As said by california boy, it was a mixed reaction. Some didn't do the above. Some did. And then some did worse.

Do not make it sound as if they 'only' did this, because some didn't do this at all, and some did more than this.

Also, Moredecai has pointed out that those who consider themselves homosexual have already been granted all the rights of a mairrage through a civil union. So the only right being taken away is the ability to call your relationship a 'mairrage' over a 'civil union'. Which isn't much to be care about tbh... if you know what I mean =P.

I am thinking also, for those who do not wish to be around people who live a homosexual relatinoship, their right to not 'be around' those who promote that lifestyle may be stronger right than your right to call your relationship a 'mairrage'. Just sayin'. It isn't really as clear as you try to make it... it's much more complex than that. =/.

I wouldn't do such of course... but there might be others who try =0.

[Jaybear]

Such tyranny eventually finds its way to the chopping block of history. And your morality and ethics reflects how utterly empty your advacacy is. Those who believe as you do differ little from those who would attack Matthew Shepard, both use power for their own ends and justify it through some warped system of value which puts the ends above the means. You cannot convince the people, so trick or enslave them is so much easier. Sigh, I have studied this from century to century. You follow a remarkably unimaginative pattern.

Right. Because I have a more expansive understanding of the 14th amendment than you, I am tyrant, who would enslave people, and am no better than the people who attacked and killed Matthew Sheppard.

Did you catch that Professor Peterson? This is what happens when enter Jeff's reality.

[bluebell]

You seem like a tolerant person. Would you continue to shop at your butcher, if you knew he contributed financially to a campaign to take away an important right or yours?

If they were providing a good service to me, then yes, i probably would. I sincerely have no respect for people who boycott based on beliefs, regardless of their cause. I'm not saying that as a dig against you and your feelings about them, i'm just being honest. They make my skin crawl-i destest bullies, no matter their age or affiliation. I know that other people disagree and this is just my opinion, but i do feel very strongly about it.

I'm thorougly against boycotting a business just because the owner is following their conscience to support a cause i don't agree with. I won't attempt to blackmail people into doing what i want them to do.

It does no good anyway, in my opinion. Sure, i might be able to bully someone into agreeing with me because they are afraid of me, but i've only made them dislike me and my cause even more than before. What i might have been able to win over with reason, compassion, or any number of attributes, i would instead manage to alienate and create bitterness and enmity, which will be used against me and my cause at the first chance. Not my idea of coming out ahead.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 15 June 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

Such tyranny eventually finds its way to the chopping block of history. And your morality and ethics reflects how utterly empty your advacacy is. Those who believe as you do differ little from those who would attack Matthew Shepard, both use power for their own ends and justify it through some warped system of value which puts the ends above the means. You cannot convince the people, so trick or enslave them is so much easier. Sigh, I have studied this from century to century. You follow a remarkably unimaginative pattern.

Right. Because I have a more expansive understanding of the 14th amendment than you, I am tyrant, who would enslave people, and am no better than the people who attacked and killed Matthew Sheppard.

Did you catch that Professor Peterson? This is what happens when enter Jeff's reality.

Actually you don't understand the 14th Amendment, because to you the amendmenst only apply to what you believe in, not necessarily protecting the rights of others. Of course what is free association to someone who endorses attacking people who don't think like you do.

You see, you would strip everyone else but your specific group of the rights and protections. Which makes you a hypocrite, and disengenuous whenever you bring up any amendment or right. It is unfortunate that the gay community tolerates your kind, but hey, they need storm troopers and you apparently fit their bill.

[Daniel Peterson]

Remarkable that you are capable of discerning material difference that exists between heterosexual marriages and gay marriage justifying one and not the other, but when it comes to noting material differences between a gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a dead body, you draw a blank.

Homosexuality, necrophilia, pedophilia ... all peas in the same pod.

If the day ever arrives that I come to hold and to announce such a stupid claim, you will have proved yourself prescient with a preemptive strike. Won't that be cool, if it should happen?

Shameful? Were are talking three or four jobs here Dan. . . . I really have no sympathy for these people

The shamefulness of your sentiment has exactly nothing to do with the number of people toward whom your attitude is shameful.

the right of thousands to marry, a fundamental freedom that many seem to take for granted.

marriage to a person of ones own choosing is a fundemental right. there is no special recognition.

The right to marry anybody one chooses has never been unregulated or without limits. There are, for example, limits on the age of consent, limits (as many here on this board may know) to the number of people who may be included within a given marriage, and forbidden degrees of relationship. Frankie may want to marry her brother Johnny, but the law says she can't. For several thousand years, Bob's desire to marry Jim has been further beyond the pale and more absolute than the desire of two cousins to wed, or even (think Ptolemaic Egypt and certain other places) the dynastic marriage of brother and sister.

We can debate whether this is wrong or right, and will probably not agree. But it seems fatuous to me to claim that a judge here or there can by fiat overturn thousands of years of pretty universal human tradition, declare a new right, and then expect people to simply bow the knee and submit. Marriage preexists the state. It certainly preexists the current American regime, and I do not grant such power to judges.

Well fortunately in this country marriage has to be between two consenting adults.

But, even there, certain marriages are forbidden and, in fact, punishable.

I always find this kind of slurs as being insulting to most peoples intelligence. I am kind of surprised you are mentioning this kind of argument. I have come to expect this kind of response from other members of this board. I didn't think you were that kind of guy. humm.

Spare me the misplaced outrage and indignation and try to pay attention to the actual point. I made no slur.