The State Vs. Religious Freedom.

[frankenstein]

The swine for whom you are an apologist hounded Latter-day Saints out of their livelihoods in retaliation for their daring to exercise their political freedoms. That is a fact not disputed by any honest person.

So let me get this correct. You and Scott Eckern are holding to the iron rod walking down the path. You both hear jears and laughter from a great and spacious building, Eckern gets embarrassed and makes the personal individual choice not to endure to the end, but rather let go of the iron rod and support a position that is in direct oppistion to the Church, and somehow, Eckern is not responsible for his choice to let go of the iron rod?

As for peter vidmar, he too made the choice to give up something. Until you can prove either was told "resign in diginity or be fired" then the only provable posistion is that both in being of sound body and mind willing gave up their positions.

So do you have any solid cases where mromons lost jobs? Deduction says you do not and that no one else does, otherwise, you would and others would not be dishonest (evasion is dishonesty according to someone who has made the same claim as you are now) and present those solid cases.

The guy who resigned after his theatre was threatened by scum in the entertainment industry. That is entirely irrelevant to your cavil. The fact is that he was another Mormon who was hounded out of his job because of his support for Prop 8, contrary to your stubborn denials.

so it is irrelevant that Scott Eckern recanted his support for prop 8, and you want to use Scott Eckern as a martyr for the cause. What do you really support, by supporting Scott Eckern you are supporting ssm, because ssm is what Scott Eckern supports. tell us what martyr status do you give to Judas Iscariot? Surely he can not be held to blame for the pressure he would have mostly endured. Nor can any other apostate by your standards, all are victims that bare no responsibility for their choices.

And may I point out that you, of ALL people, are the VERY LAST person qualified to criticise anyone else for caving under pressure from immoralists.

CFR. In what respect have I caved? When have I recanted a position, as Scott Eckern has, and supported what I once fought against? Why is asking fellow LDS to be honest, to not use deception or mischaracterizations "caving"? Once again why is the truth so offensive to you?

IOW, when you demanded "proof" of a plural number of Latter-day Saints having lost their jobs because of their Prop 8 support, you already knew of two, but you preferred to act as if you did not. I'll keep that in mind next time you demand "proof" for something.

scott eckern, voluntarily resigned. Peter Vidmar voluntarily resigned you can not loose what you willing given up.

Then might I suggest that you tell people where your real loyalties lie? You could say something like, "Well I'm a Mormon of sorts, but I really support SSM more than the Church. And my fellow SSM advocates aren't exactly squeaky clean when it comes to the facts, either."

CFR, that I support ssm. Or that I have expressed my support in favor of ssm.

Others have made the same accusation and failed to support their claim. Mordecia made the same claim a few weeks ago. you are welcome to read the "Breaking News" thread and see my response. On this very board I have stated my position explicitly - you are welcome to searched the board and find it, I believe I gave an explicit answer to USU78 as he asked my position. the problem you have is that you can not accept that a fellow LDS will not let deception and misleading statements in favor of the position of the LDS Church go unchallenged. You disparage me for provided the full context of situations. You disparage me for provided the truth about a given situation, once again, why are you so opposed to the truth being known?

And the United Methodists never ceased to provide "public accommodation," according to the information found in your partisan advocacy source.

I am not positive how long "sexual orientation' or "civil union status" has been part of NJ public accommodations law, but I am sure it was on the books long enough for Ocean Grove to realize that public accommodation included "sexual orientation" or "civil union status". you are welcome to look into the legislative history of the law and prove me wrong.

As folded, spindled and mutilated through your partisan spin machine.

please explain your position. How is stating that Ocean Grove Church was sued and its tax exempt status on a piece of property was revoked because it did not provide public accommodation to a ss couple, a mutilated spin? Those are the facts.

As all genuine Latter-day Saints readily affirm,

Do all "genuine" latterday saints readily affirm mischaracterzation and deception? Because such is what happens when Ocean Grove is brought up on this board. If truth can stand on its own, then no real Latter-day Saint need use deception, mischaracterization, hyperbole, etc. A real Latter-Day Saint only needs the truth uncorrupted by agenda driven spin.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Minos
Frankenstein has left the building

[Jeff K.]

As for peter vidmar, he too made the choice to give up something. Until you can prove either was told "resign in diginity or be fired" then the only provable posistion is that both in being of sound body and mind willing gave up their positions.

Amazing. And those brownshirts in the front of the store, the Jews were not fired, they "chose" to quit. Yeah, we understand exactly where you are coming from. In case you didn't know, its not a good place.

[Pahoran]

So let me get this correct.

Good thing you didn't offer to get it "straight."

You and Scott Eckern are holding to the iron rod walking down the path. You both hear jears and laughter from a great and spacious building, Eckern gets embarrassed and makes the personal individual choice not to endure to the end, but rather let go of the iron rod and support a position that is in direct oppistion to the Church, and somehow, Eckern is not responsible for his choice to let go of the iron rod?

Whether or not he remained true to his principles is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. You are running a deliberate red herring here. The indisputable fact is that he was forced out of his job by the "gay" hate squads, who in your eyes can do no wrong. Whether he flip-flopped afterwards has nothing to do with that fact. If anything, it lends credence to the claim that he was put under severe pressure; having lost his livelihood and still having bills to pay, he is trying to curry favour with those who seem to have become gatekeepers to his career prospects. Your slimy attempt to create discord among brethren by painting him a coward therefor is a deliberate obfuscation tactic.

As for peter vidmar, he too made the choice to give up something. Until you can prove either was told "resign in diginity or be fired" then the only provable posistion is that both in being of sound body and mind willing gave up their positions.

I have never before seen such a blatant display of pharisaical hair-splitting on the part of a self-styled Latter-day Saint. They supported Prop 8. The handbag-flailers to whom you toady came shrieking after them. They resigned under obvious pressure. If you have actual facts to the contrary -- you who are so quick to demand "proof" for everything -- then produce them. Otherwise, the prima facie case persists, despite your stubbornly partisan refusal to admit it.

Once again why is the truth so offensive to you?

For someone who so sanctimoniously preaches honesty to others, you really ought to rely less heavily upon disingenuously loaded questions.

The truth is not offensive to me, and I find myself at a loss to discover how you could claim a good faith basis to believe what you assert. I formally request that you refrain from these kinds of tactics, beloved though they are by those with whom your loyalties lie.

scott eckern, voluntarily resigned. Peter Vidmar voluntarily resigned you can not loose what you willing given up.

That's pure organic fertiliser. They were forced out of their jobs and you know it. Unless and until you can be honest enough to admit this fact, there is no point us continuing to discuss that point.

CFR, that I support ssm. Or that I have expressed my support in favor of ssm.

Others have made the same accusation and failed to support their claim. Mordecia made the same claim a few weeks ago. you are welcome to read the "Breaking News" thread and see my response. On this very board I have stated my position explicitly - you are welcome to searched the board and find it, I believe I gave an explicit answer to USU78 as he asked my position.

No, once again I am not going to go searching for stuff that you refuse to provide. Every single time I have seen you comment upon this issue it has been to side with the reprobates. Every single time I have seen the Church's involvement come up, you have opposed the Church's actions. In this very thread, you described the United Methodists as "christians" -- lower case, with scare quotes -- for the crime of trying to remain true to their moral standards. You did that not once but several times, as you cheered with the queers at the prospect of the UM's being "held accountable" for the awful presumption of daring to have actual religious principles.

Something it appears you cannot even begin to understand.

the problem you have is that you can not accept that a fellow LDS will not let deception and misleading statements in favor of the position of the LDS Church go unchallenged. You disparage me for provided the full context of situations. You disparage me for provided the truth about a given situation, once again, why are you so opposed to the truth being known?

No person who claims to value the truth can legitimately conclude that I am "opposed to the truth being known." You are to stop making these false accusations. This is not a request.

please explain your position. How is stating that Ocean Grove Church was sued and its tax exempt status on a piece of property was revoked because it did not provide public accommodation to a ss couple, a mutilated spin? Those are the facts.

But that is not all you said about it, is it?

The really significant fact you keep trying to obfuscate is that a religious institution was sued and financially punished for wanting the use of its property to be governed by its religious principles. Indeed, you've already said you understand that, and that you think it is a good thing.

And then, knowing how important precedent is in American jurisprudence, you expect us to believe that you have any loyalty at all towards the Church of Jesus Christ?

You see, I happen to think that if the Church was subjected to legal sanctions for remaining true to its religious and moral principles on this question, you would still cheer with the queers. Nothing you have ever said gives me any reason to believe otherwise.

Do all "genuine" latterday saints readily affirm mischaracterzation and deception? Because such is what happens when Ocean Grove is brought up on this board. If truth can stand on its own, then no real Latter-day Saint need use deception, mischaracterization, hyperbole, etc. A real Latter-Day Saint only needs the truth uncorrupted by agenda driven spin.

So when are you going to stop yours?

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

Whether or not he remained true to his principles is entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. You are running a deliberate red herring here. The indisputable fact is that he was forced out of his job by the "gay" hate squads, who in your eyes can do no wrong. Whether he flip-flopped afterwards has nothing to do with that fact. If anything, it lends credence to the claim that he was put under severe pressure; having lost his livelihood and still having bills to pay, he is trying to curry favour with those who seem to have become gatekeepers to his career prospects. Your slimy attempt to create discord among brethren by painting him a coward therefor is a deliberate obfuscation tactic.

is he a coward for flipping on the issue? tell me what honor this person should be given. but once, again, he voluntarily relinquished his position, rather than support for the standards he claimed.

I have never before seen such a blatant display of pharisaical hair-splitting on the part of a self-styled Latter-day Saint. They supported Prop 8. They resigned under obvious pressure. If you have actual facts to the contrary -- you who are so quick to demand "proof" for everything -- then produce them.

where have I denied that they resigned? In fact, if you read the your comments you would realize that I do not disagree with you on this. I called Eckern a coward and a Judas, it should be clear that I admit they caved to pressure. Eckern being the worst, one has to wonder how firm was his support, did he vote a certain because it was the "cool LDS kids" were doing it too. The facts are these, you have no proof they would be fired. All the evidence and personal admissions are that they voluntarily resigned.

For someone who so sanctimoniously preaches honesty to others, you really ought to rely less heavily upon disingenuously loaded questions.

The truth is not offensive to me, and I find myself at a loss to discover how you could claim a good faith basis to believe what you assert. I formally request that you refrain from these kinds of tactics, beloved though they are by those with whom your loyalties lie.

i formally request that you refrain from your false accusations that you are unwilling to support with evidence. And just read your intial response in this thread, you spin the facts so that the christian look like victims of the state rather than a group that willing accepted an obligation and when the piper came calling they refused to honor that obligation.

They were forced out of their jobs and you know it.

read their own statements they choose to resign. thats the facts and you know it.

No, once again I am not going to go searching for stuff that you refuse to provide. Every single time I have seen you comment upon this issue it has been to side with the reprobates. Every single time I have seen the Church's involvement come up, you have opposed the Church's actions. In this very thread, you described the United Methodists as "christians" -- lower case, with scare quotes -- for the crime of trying to remain true to their moral standards. You did that not once but several times, as you cheered with the queers at the prospect of the UM's being "held accountable" for the awful presumption of daring to have actual religious principles.

refusing to honor a CFR...how quaint, you aren't the first to refuse to honor a CFR. And as i have made abundantly clear, I have only challenged claims or I have provided the full facts to allow someone to form an informed decision. yes, the unfortunate position provided the full facts puts me in, is a position that has me challenging other LDS, It is not my fault those people choose to present half truths, or use evasion - both tactics considered dishonesty by Jeff K. And as I made clear above I am mostly unconcerned with the conduct of others, as Jesus said "clean the vessel within". I will speak out against any and all LDS who use deception, mischaracterization, smoke and mirrors, halftruth or evasion...why does asking that the truth be known make me cohort or a confederate to the group against whom the deception or mischaracterization is being used, shouldn't I stand for truth, shouldn't I want the uninformed to have all the facts? Wouldn't informed decision lead to better understanding and dialogue?

and yes, I deliberate use christian, I use lower case for several reasons, I almost always use lower case christian any time I am using the term. As I recall my own participation, I rarely use upper case for the term christian. And yes, Ocean Grove was held accountable for the what the State of New Jersey deemed a violation of the law, is that truth of what happened or not?

You are to stop making these false accusations. This is not a request.

Yes, you Pahoran are to stop making false accusations. I have stated my position on ssm sometime ago, as I stated I stated my position after USU78 or possibly Mola Rom asked for my position. You are to stop falsely accusing me. You are especially to stop accusing me of things you are unwilling to prove.

The really significant fact you keep trying to obfuscate is that a religious institution was sued and financially punished for wanting the use of its property to be governed by its religious principles. Indeed, you've already said you understand that, and that you think it is a good thing.

here is what I think, I think someone who enters into an agreement, and then refuses to honor that agreement, is subject to the damages of a breach of that agreement.

And then, knowing how important precedent is in American jurisprudence, you expect us to believe that you have any loyalty at all towards the Church of Jesus Christ?

for clarification sake, it seems you suggesting that the LDS Church should be exempt from the law? Is that what you are suggesting. IF and I intend a very big IF, what you seem to promote is in direct contradiction to the white horse prophecy, you seeming would have the elders of the Church tear the US Constitution to shreds via not applying applicable law to the LDS Church.

Or you are saying that the 12th Article Faith is a hollow statement of the Chruch as an entity has no obligation to follow. You are more than welcome to expound and clarify your statement.

You see, I happen to think that if the Church was subjected to legal sanctions for remaining true to its religious and moral principles on this question, you would still cheer with the queers. Nothing you have ever said gives me any reason to believe otherwise.

you see, I happen to think, that when the truth of a particular situation is presented and that truth is inconvenient to your agenda, you will use some form of manipulation to facts to make the case for your agenda. Nothing you have ever said gives me any reason to believe otherwise. for reference see your post #70 and #73.

I'll stop accusing you, if you stop accusing me. Its only "Christian" of you to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Can you follow that principle?

[Pahoran]

is he a coward for flipping on the issue? tell me what honor this person should be given.

You keep running this irrelevant red herring. I did not mention his case to give him "honor." I mentioned it because he lost his job as a consequence of his support for Prop 8.

but once, again, he voluntarily relinquished his position, rather than support for the standards he claimed.

You mean he jumped rather than waiting to be pushed. There are many ways of pressuring or embarrassing someone into resigning. Smugly turning around and saying that they "left voluntarily" denies the reality of what happened.

where have I denied that they resigned? In fact, if you read the your comments you would realize that I do not disagree with you on this. I called Eckern a coward and a Judas,

Because those kinds of filthy smear tactics appeal to you.

You have tried to pretend that their resignations were voluntary, and that the pressure their employers received as a result of their Prop 8 support had nothing to do with their loss of employment. Are you now, at last, going to recognise the truth of the matter?

i formally request that you refrain from your false accusations that you are unwilling to support with evidence.

I have made no false accusations.

And just read your intial response in this thread, you spin the facts so that the christian look like victims of the state rather than a group that willing accepted an obligation and when the piper came calling they refused to honor that obligation.

As you perfectly well know, I did not "spin the facts" at all. I reject your contention that the UM's willingly accepted any obligation to make their property available for the celebration of gross immorality. In support of this, I point to the fact (as reported in your partisan source) that as soon as they became aware that such an expectation existed, they ceased to make it available, not only for sham weddings, but for real weddings as well, so that the expectation would no longer exist.

read their own statements they choose to resign. thats the facts and you know it.

Because your "gay" heroes made their positions untenable. And I have no reason to suppose that you even begin to disapprove of that.

refusing to honor a CFR...how quaint, you aren't the first to refuse to honor a CFR.

What CFR have I failed to honour? There have been innumerable threads on this topic. Every single time I have seen Frankenstein's name on any of these threads it has been over a post that opposed the Church's position. And your triumphant jeering at the expense of the UM's made it abundantly clear where your real sympathies lie.

For instance, when you said:

The Ocean Grove Church dishonored its agreement with the State and the People, the Church got what it deserved for not keeping its end of the bargain.

There's not the slightest element of "oh dear, this is an unfortunate turn of events and churches need to be careful how they interpret the law," it was "Ha ha, they got what they deserved."

What more abundant documentation of your true sympathies should there be? You jeer with the queers. That ceased to surprise me a very long time ago.

And as i have made abundantly clear, I have only challenged claims or I have provided the full facts to allow someone to form an informed decision.

Yes, that is how you try to dress up your disloyalty. Frankly Frankie, I don't believe you.

End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Post part 2.

yes, the unfortunate position provided the full facts puts me in, is a position that has me challenging other LDS, It is not my fault those people choose to present half truths, or use evasion - both tactics considered dishonesty by Jeff K. And as I made clear above I am mostly unconcerned with the conduct of others, as Jesus said "clean the vessel within". I will speak out against any and all LDS who use deception, mischaracterization, smoke and mirrors, halftruth or evasion...

But you use those tactics yourself, as this thread furnishes abundant examples, and you keep utterly silent when your team -- the "gay" advocates -- use them.

why does asking that the truth be known make me cohort or a confederate to the group against whom the deception or mischaracterization is being used, shouldn't I stand for truth, shouldn't I want the uninformed to have all the facts? Wouldn't informed decision lead to better understanding and dialogue?

Because I have never seen you "asking that the truth be known" when the truth is not favourable to your side of the argument. You use that excuse as a cover for completely partisan advocacy.

Invariably. And always.

and yes, I deliberate use christian, I use lower case for several reasons, I almost always use lower case christian any time I am using the term. As I recall my own participation, I rarely use upper case for the term christian. And yes, Ocean Grove was held accountable for the what the State of New Jersey deemed a violation of the law, is that truth of what happened or not?

That is one way to express what happened. By a strange coincidence, it also happens to be the way to describe it that is most useful to your pro-"gay" agenda.

Another, equally truthful, way to describe it is that a religious institution was penalised for trying to remain true to its religious principles; and that despite the fact that it at all times continued to make its property available to the public, according to the partisan source YOU provided.

Yes, you Pahoran are to stop making false accusations. I have stated my position on ssm sometime ago, as I stated I stated my position after USU78 or possibly Mola Rom asked for my position. You are to stop falsely accusing me. You are especially to stop accusing me of things you are unwilling to prove.

I have not seen you state your position, and you have not seen fit to either reiterate it or provide a link thereto. What I have seen is a consistent pattern in these threads: you always oppose the Church's actions. You never support it. You accuse LDS prop 8 supporters of dishonesty on the flimsiest pretexts, but you demand no support for the most ridiculous accusations against the Church, such as that it pressured its members to support Prop 8 by threatening their standing in the Church.

here is what I think, I think someone who enters into an agreement, and then refuses to honor that agreement, is subject to the damages of a breach of that agreement.

And here's what I think: I think that someone who enters into an agreement, and finds that an unexpected consequence of that agreement is that they are expected to sell their firstborn for medical experiments, has every right to regard that as not what they bargained for at the outset.

I further think that a religious institution which, under the heading of "public access," allows people to hire their property for weddings, can reasonably be allowed to not anticipate that it would be expected to provide it for sham weddings; and that, when such an expectation is brought to their notice, by withdrawing the property in question from availability for hiring for weddings, real or otherwise, while still allowing public access during the times that it would have otherwise been hired out, has certainly honoured the "public access" part of their agreement.

Litmus test time, Frankenstein: do you accept that churches have a right to maintain their religious mission and religious principles without government regulation? Yes or no?

for clarification sake, it seems you suggesting that the LDS Church should be exempt from the law? Is that what you are suggesting. IF and I intend a very big IF, what you seem to promote is in direct contradiction to the white horse prophecy, you seeming would have the elders of the Church tear the US Constitution to shreds via not applying applicable law to the LDS Church.

Or you are saying that the 12th Article Faith is a hollow statement of the Chruch as an entity has no obligation to follow. You are more than welcome to expound and clarify your statement.

While the condescending tone of your gracious permission is noted, it is a significant improvement over your usual demand of "why do you want X" when you have no reason to suppose I want it at all.

My position is that I favour the separation of Church and State in its original intent. Under that model, churches are not subject to state regulation, and states are not subject to religious oversight. Each is independent of the other. States don't tax churches because they approve of their doctrines, or because their actions pass some kind of political correctness test, but because they are churches and therefore not subject to the state.

you see, I happen to think, that when the truth of a particular situation is presented and that truth is inconvenient to your agenda, you will use some form of manipulation to facts to make the case for your agenda. Nothing you have ever said gives me any reason to believe otherwise. for reference see your post #70 and #73.

Thank you for drawing attention to my post 73, the arguments of which you have failed entirely to address. Indeed, the more I look at it, the better I like it.

I'll stop accusing you, if you stop accusing me. Its only "Christian" of you to do unto others as you would have done unto you. Can you follow that principle?

I cannot stop doing something I've never started, but I'll agree not to start accusing you.

Will that do?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Loran Blood]

The word "deny" is hyperbole. There is no scenario by which gay rights activists could "deny" mormons the right to participate in the political process. If society comes to accept that opposition to gay rights is odious bigotry, Mormons still have every the right to participate.

Then let me clarify. If targeting church members and the church itself for public pariah status, stigmatization, boycotts, vandalism of church buildings, and cries of "bigot" and "hate" directed against people with principled disagreements relative to homosexual behavior creates the effect of withdrawal from the public square on an issue, that speech and those opinions have effectively been "denied" in the sense that the tactics were effective. That those who become fearful of and/or exhausted by the viciousness of such a campaign choose to withdraw from the public arena does not change the fact that the purpose of such tactics is to marginalize and try to silence alternate views by creating conditions in which opponents in political battles choose to quit due to the pressures imposed.

"Win by default?" More hyperbole.

Its nothing of the kind. Its a simple observation that when one side chooses to remove its voice from the arena of ideas, the other side wins such a political conflict "by default," or, in other words, they win because no substantive alternate views are being expressed in an assertive manner, and effective organized political opposition is absent.

My, my you are dramatic. Blowing up a printing press is silencing an opponent. Using protests, boycotts, marches, giving speeches, writing articles, to define the debate, and frame the issues is hardly silencing your opponent speech.

Silencing a political opponent need be nothing more then encouraging him to leave the arena of ideas rather than risk the organized intimidation, public defamation and character assassination, and potential legal persecution (not to mention potential violence. The SEIU was quite active during the last election, just as church buildings were vandalized and defaced during the Prop 8 unpleasantness).

This pity party your are throwing is rather pathetic.

Jaybear, for Heaven's sake, the adversary culture is running the planet. There's no pity about it. We're losing! All I'm trying to do is "fight the good fight" until the Second Coming clears the chessboard. There's no question in my mind that, without that eschatonic moment rumbling down the tracks in the distance toward an ultimate date with moral, cultural, and spiritual destiny, the world would plow ahead into a new dark age who's end would be difficult to fathom and fearful to contemplate.

Keep your chin up. Your side is going from strength to strength across a plethora of issues. In the end, your side will be on the "terrible" side of the "great and terrible day of the Lord," but, until then, point and mock with the rest of the residents of the Great and Spacious Building until midnight comes.

Or Gay history month.

Edited July 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[LeSellers]

the christian look like victims of the state rather than a group that willing accepted an obligation and when the piper came calling they refused to honor that obligation.

Their position was that the obligation you assume was one thing, and the state presumed it to be another. Then, lo! and behold! the state decides it is right and the Christians (no scare quotes, and properly capitalized) were wrong. There was no unbiased judge between their positions, it was one side's opinion that upheld its own. (Oh, and it was the side with the most guns, the best guns, and the biggest guns, too.) Wow! How odd!

If I run a tire store and a gas station next door to each other, and I offer to fill any tank that comes to the latter, but hold the first open solely to people who own Fords, does my gas station's's open-door policy compel me to have the same policy in the tire store?

Leave the idiotic and anti-freedom law out of it. This is a moral question, not a legal one.

Lehi

Edited July 29, 2011 by LeSellers

[subgenius]

....

Jaybear, for Heaven's sake, the adversary culture is running the planet. There's no pity about it. We're losing! All I'm trying to do is "fight the good fight" until the Second Coming clears the chessboard. There's no question in my mind that, without that eschatonic moment rumbling down the tracks in the distance toward an ultimate date with moral, cultural, and spiritual destiny, the world would plow ahead into a new dark age who's end would be difficult to fathom and fearful to contemplate.

Keep your chin up. Your side is going from strength to strength across a plethora of issues. In the end, your side will be on the "terrible" side of the "great and terrible day of the Lord," but, until then, point and mock with the rest of the residents of the Great and Spacious Building until midnight comes.

Or Gay history month.

Well said !

[Vance]

With another victory under their belt, more of the real plan is being reveal.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_gray_ladys_sexual_agenda_revealed.html

Gay marriage supporters called liberationists "hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether,"

[Loran Blood]

With another victory under their belt, more of the real plan is being reveal.

http://www.americant...a_revealed.html

Reminds me of Gloria Steinem's early quip regarding the purpose of the feminist movement, which was that "We don't just want to destroy capitalism, we want to tear down the whole (bleep!) patriarchy.

First they came for the Jews...

Edited July 30, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

The apparent hope is that legalized gay marriages will be more openly sexually promiscuous than straight marriage, providing an example that would then influence heterosexual couples to adopt the same open-marriage lifestyle.

In a June article called "Married, With Infidelities," the Times used gay activist and columnist Dan Savage's open marriage as the new model for straight marriages that should take root culturally from the legalization of gay marriage.

In the article the Times praised Savage for arguing against the American obsession with strict fidelity. "In its place he proposes a sensibility that we might call American Gay Male, after that community's tolerance for pornography, fetishes and a variety of partnered arrangements, from strict monogamy to wide openness," the Times article reads.

"A more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs," the article continues. "Treating monogamy, rather than honesty or joy or humor, as the main indicator of a successful marriage gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners."

While straight marriage has its share of infidelity, studies show that gay male marriages are often very different from traditional straight marriages. Gay partnerships are far more culturally accepting of infidelity before the fact, and in many it is even expected. According to the book Sex in America: A Definitive Survey, 100 percent of male gay couples in the study experienced infidelity in their relationships in the first five years and those who stayed together past the 10-year mark did so only by accepting the painful reality of infidelity in their relationships. Some 85 percent of the couples reported that their greatest relationship problems centered on issues related to outside relationships.

That's the cultural side of the left's new battle to take down marriage. In court, the new, post-gay marriage goal of the left will apparently be to attempt to remove marriage, and any special legal significance that comes with it, from the public square in much the same way they've sought to strip out God.

Before the new gay marriage law even hit the books in New York, Columbia University Law Professor Katherine M. Franke, a gay marriage supporter, was championing the next step.

"While many in our community have worked hard to secure the right of same-sex couples to marry, others of us have been working equally hard to develop alternatives to marriage," Franke explained in the Times:

Winning the right to marry is one thing; being forced to marry is quite another. How's that? If the rollout of marriage equality in other states, like Massachusetts, is any guide, lesbian and gay people who have obtained health and other benefits for their domestic partners will be required by both public and private employers to marry their partners in order to keep those rights. In other words, "winning" the right to marry may mean "losing" the rights we have now as domestic partners, as we'll be folded into the all-or-nothing world of marriage ... This moment provides an opportunity to reconsider whether we ought to force people to marry -- whether they be gay or straight -- to have their committed relationships recognized and valued.

In several discussions here I have raised those points, and people have said I was wrong, that "its not really like that". This shows how disengenuous those arguments are....

They will call the article "normal".

[Loran Blood]

In several discussions here I have raised those points, and people have said I was wrong, that "its not really like that". This shows how disengenuous those arguments are....

They will call the article "normal".

As someone who lived through the late sixties and early seventies era, I can testify to the reality of this kind of argument having been pervasive and, indeed, at saturation levels within the pop culture of that era at various points. This is all very old news but, as many of the last couple of generations have thoroughly lost interest in anything smelling of "history," these historical phenomena must be restated, reanalyzed, and the counter-arguments made again, and again, and again.

Nena and George O' Neil's book Open Marriage (subtitled, presaging Mr. Savage, "A New Lifestyle for Couples) was one of the earliest (thought not the earliest) manifestation of the adversary culture's Kulturkampf against marriage, the family, and gospel oriented sexual norms. Many have forgotten that, during the seventies, before the AIDS epidemic hit the homosexual subculture, "gay liberation" meant, for much of that subculture, not just liberation from discrimination and intolerance, but from the inhibiting, restricting bondage of Judeo-Christian, middle class sexual norms as a body of regulatory and prescriptive boundaries for human sexual conduct. It was "liberation" from both all sexual restraint as well as from all the traditional implications of sexual activity, including marriage, family, and children.

Interestingly, both feminism and the more generalized "sexual revolution" were on parallel paths regarding this idea of "liberation."

Homosexual marriage is a late development, and has very, very little to do with most or even a marginal subset of the homosexual (and particularly the male homosexual) population wanting anything in particular to do with marriage as traditionally understood, and a great deal to do with the "queering" of society; which, as has been pointed out, involves, among other things (in the academic ideology of this name) making society as a whole much more like and amenable to values and norms within the traditional Gay subculture. It has to do, in other words, with the total cultural domestication of homosexuality

Nice post.

Edited July 30, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Not a happy thread

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff