Archbishop Abused For His Stand On Marriage

[Pahoran]

The Anglican Archbishop of York has received abusive letters and emails after taking a principled stand on marriage integrity, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Evidently those who think "gay marriage" is a "right" don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Daniel2]

The Anglican Archbishop of York has received abusive letters and emails after taking a principled stand on marriage integrity, according to The Daily Telegraph.

Evidently those who think "gay marriage" is a "right" don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

Regards,

Pahoran

Hateful, bigoted threats are never appropriate, whether based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Similarly, it's inappropriate to imply that all, or even a majority, of those of us who support marriage equality for LGBT couples would condone such behaviors, or that we "don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with [us]."

I note with interest your coinage of what is, to me, the new term of "marriage integrity."

Daniel2

[Pahoran]

Hateful, bigoted threats are never appropriate, whether based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Similarly, it's inappropriate to imply that all, or even a majority, of those of us who support marriage equality for LGBT couples would condone such behaviors, or that we "don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with [us]."

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

I note with interest your coinage of what is, to me, the new term of "marriage integrity."

Daniel2

I'm glad you like it. I thought we needed something to counterbalance "marriage equality," since pointing out the question-begging nature of that phrase hasn't slowed anyone down.

Regards,

Pahoran

[The Nehor]

Evidently those who think "gay marriage" is a "right" don't think much of the real rights of anyone who disagrees with them.

When did not getting angry mail become a right?

[thesometimesaint]

Free unsolicited advice is worth just that much.

[frankenstein]

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

I am trying to figure out why you posted this article. In lands where the peoples alligiance is to a mortal crown, a good portion of what occurs on this board would be hate speech and religion is not a defense to hate speech.

I agree with the LDS Church on the manner of dialogue on issues like ssm sex marriage, and the LDS Church official position is respect and dignity from both sides. And with that we can rightly add Christs admonition of Do unto others as you would done unto you.

There is much irony, though, in this article be presented on this board.

[Daniel2]

Perhaps that doesn't apply to all of you, or even a majority of you. But it is true of enough of you to cause a near-riot at the gates of the Los Angeles Temple, among other attempts to punish us for disagreeing with you.

What you characterize as a "near riot" in this case, I would call an exercise by thousands of their "right to peaceably assemble."

I'm glad you like it. I thought we needed something to counterbalance "marriage equality," since pointing out the question-begging nature of that phrase hasn't slowed anyone down.

I be clear: I think it's obvious why you choose to use the term "marriage integrity" to characterize your side of the debate, just as I imagine it's clear to you why I use the term "marriage equality" to characterize my side of the debate. Though I definitely support your ability to use the term "marriage integrity", please don't misunderstand my noting it's use, and my equal support of your free speech, as an expression of "liking" your term--that'd be going beyond the mark. I may disagree or not like what you say, but I'll certainly defend your right to say it.

Daniel2

[LeSellers]

What you characterize as a "near riot" in this case, I would call an exercise by thousands of their "right to peaceably assemble

What, exactly, was "peaceable" about it?

Lehi

[Daniel2]

What, exactly, was "peaceable" about it?

In the sense that the protest wasn't violent.

Daniel2

[LeSellers]

In the sense that the protest wasn't violent.

The trespass onto and destruction of private (sacred to us) property is not "peaceable". It's a crime and it's violence.

Brief violence erupted when marchers surrounded the pickup bearing a pro-Proposition 8 sign. Protesters ripped the sign, and an occupant of the vehicle got out and knocked down a protester. A demonstrator, Maurice Carriere, 27, of Studio City, ended up with a bloody nose in the fracas. He told police he didn't see the punch coming. Officers arrested two people and put them in a patrol car.

I'm sure we'd all agree that this is the face of love and peace:

Lehi

[Zeta-Flux]

Deleted

[frankenstein]

Lehi,

did you see that a pro prop 8 person committed a criminal act of battery.

"The reason for that citation was not the sucker punch, but the fact that violent homosexual mobs destroyed private property (the sign), and threatened the driver of the truck. The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi"

CFR that the occupant of the truck was threatened by the crowd.

CFR what the citation was issued for.

[LeSellers]

While I agree with you that vandalizing property is illegal and violent, citing violence from those *not* demonstrating (per your quote from NBC) is bad form.

The reason for that citation was not the sucker punch, but the fact that violent homosexual mobs destroyed private property (the sign), and threatened the driver of the truck. The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi

[Jaybear]

The trespass onto and destruction of private (sacred to us) property is not "peaceable". It's a crime and it's violence.

I'm sure we'd all agree that this is the face of love and peace:

Lehi

Of course its not the face of love and peace. Its the face of anger and hatred.

Did you actually expect to be greeted with roses? In case you didn't realize it, your church and its members offended a lot of people.

But if you think this is egregious conduct, you really need to brush up on your political history.

You are fortunate that your church told you to pick a fight with the gays, and not the teamsters.

The fact that someone in that truck got out and struck one of the protesters underscores the point that he was in fear of violence.

Lehi

While that is a possibility, its most certainly not a self evident fact.

[LeSellers]

What sign? And who (for or against prop , ripped a sign?

There was only one sign mentioned in the article: the pro-prop 8 sign on the pick up truck. Ergo, the anti-prop 8 protesters ripped the privately owned pro prop 8 sign off the pick up truck

this would seem to indicate someone in support of prop 8 committed assault against a anti-prop 8 person

Now the article is using different pronouns, who is a protestor and who is a demonstrator?

That's a bit hard to determine, as you note. However, in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that both are the same—i.e., the homosexual mob were both protesters and demonstrators.

arrest is a very fluid term, if a reasonable person does not believe they are free to leave, then that person can consider them self under arrest. Also, where the people arrested for or against?

This seems to be more formal: the cops not only detained two people (presumably the man from the truck was one of them, but who the other was, we are not told), but put them in a patrol car. Since the other person in the truck is never shown to have left it, it is reasonable to assume that the second arrestee was one of the protesters who joined the fight. But, from this account, we cannot tell. As you noted, it was written by a biased view, one in support of the homosexual crowd.

The point is, the protests around the Temple in Los Angeles was not peaceable. It was violent and destructive.

We don't even need to recount how many LDS chapels were vandalized and otherwise attacked in the aftermath of the voice of the people proclaiming that marriage is a legal relationship between a man and a woman.

Interestingly, no Catholic churches were vandalized like this, nor were any black churches, as I recall. And, if there were, it was not to the extent that we Saints faced.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Jearbear:

We all have the right to peacably assemble as per the US Constitution. Anything not peacable is riot and should be treated as such.

BTW. Did you ever wonder why the Anti-8 rioters didn't riot in front of South Central black churches.

[Daniel2]

LeSellers,

Thousands and thousands of people assembled in vastly peacable protests throughout both the state of California, as well as around the country. Anger and frustration were expressed towards the LDS Faith for it's attack on the LGBT civil right of marriage.

There are marked differences between "anger" and "violence."

I have heard both sides claim isolated incidents of aggression/tension leading up to, and in the wake of, Prop 8's passage.

IMO, the fact that "brief violence" may have errupted between a handful of protestors and demonstrators (which doesn't seem surprising, given the sheer volume of people on both sides out on the streets that day) does not warrent mischaracterizing the vast majority of protests and protestors (angry/upset/frustrated as many of us may have been) as "violent" or in the realm of "riots."

I note your charge of "tresspassing" and "destruction of property." The photos you post appear to show chalk messages written on the gates outside the temple. Though I certainly condemn defacing the church's property with chalk, I wouldn't classify that as "tresspass" or "destruction of property" (permandent forms of defacing property certainly would be--and I'd be just as quick to condemn them). Do you base your claims of "tresspassing" and "destruction" on something more than the photos you've posted in this thread?

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Jearbear:

We all have the right to peacably assemble as per the US Constitution. Anything not peacable is riot and should be treated as such.

BTW. Did you ever wonder why the Anti-8 rioters didn't riot in front of South Central black churches.

I've always thought the reason Anti-8 Protestors didn't demonstrate in front of South Central black churches is because South Central black churches didn't organize, donate, set up satalite broadcasts and websites, etc. to the degree that the LDS population and churches did.

I'm surprised to see you, SS, characterize the protests and protestors as "riots" and "rioters." I don't believe I've ever heard or read any inpartial news source characterize them in those terms.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

LeSellers,

I'm not sure where you got the article you posted from, as you unfortunately didn't include a link. After Googling the verbiage you quote, however, I came across the following link from "wdailypress": http://www.vvdailypr...ngeles-ban.html It appears, from the subsequent links, that various sites reported various versions of the article it appears you quoted from, though I didn't readily see an NBC news source's version. Could you share that link?

The article certainly isn't clear about which sides were the aggressors in the isolated incidents of violence you raise.

Interestingly, you ommitted the portion of the article that says "one person threw eggs at the [anti-Prop 8] marchers." I'd presume you'd agree, however, that the "egg-thrower" doesn't represent the majority of people who supported Prop 8's passage, or would suggest that "Prop 8 Supporters" are "violent" or "rioters."

Some people will behave inappropriately on both sides of most (I'd wager) issues. Personally, while I believe it's definitely appropriate to give attention and enforce accountability for the inappropriate actions of specific individuals, I believe it's wise to avoid generalizations based on extremely isolated incidents.

Daniel2

[Jaybear]

Jearbear:

BTW. Did you ever wonder why the Anti-8 rioters didn't riot in front of South Central black churches.

I don't know that anti-6 protestors did not protest in front of South Central churches.

But I would not have expected them to do so, as those churches and its members did not take such an active role in passing Prop 8.

This has been explained many many times. Why do you and others here keep bringing up the black churches? Do you believe that gay were anti-mormons who were just looking for excuse to protest the LDS Church?

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

The black churches were heavily backing pro-8 over the pulpit. Structurally they are different than us. They are each an individual church making its own rules and beliefs while we have many church buildings under the authority of one church. Thus we can pool our resources where they can not. The Church itself gave no money to the campaign, bt did encourage its members to be involved in the democractic process. That makes us an easier target. Plus we have a long history of not fighting back. The bros in the hood. Not so much.

[thesometimesaint]

Daniel2:

What would you call a violent demonstration?

[Pahoran]

I am trying to figure out why you posted this article. In lands where the peoples alligiance is to a mortal crown, a good portion of what occurs on this board would be hate speech and religion is not a defense to hate speech.

Once again, Frankie, I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to say.

Are you saying that the archbishop's principled view, that marriage is between a man and a woman, is "hate speech?"

If so, how?

If not, then what on earth are you blathering about?

I agree with the LDS Church on the manner of dialogue on issues like ssm sex marriage, and the LDS Church official position is respect and dignity from both sides. And with that we can rightly add Christs admonition of Do unto others as you would done unto you.

There is much irony, though, in this article be presented on this board.

What irony? Sorry, but I don't see it.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jeff K.]

Daniel2:

What would you call a violent demonstration?

There would have to be a death, and then it would be minimized as a "tragic accident" in which everyone will feel sad. But of course the crowd did no wrong. Lynching after all are merely an exercise in local democracy, from the standpoint of those who only care about the "cause". All other things are subordinate to "the cause". People aren't fired, they are "let go", or "resign". Tearing a cross off an elderly woman is merely helping her disrobe... the euphemisms will of course fly freely because some will justify any heinous act of intimidation.

It is reflective of the morality of those who support the position. Even if someone dies, an excuse will be given, rather blaming the perpetrators. Since the perpetrators will be called victims.

[Daniel2]

Daniel2:

What would you call a violent demonstration?

I'd characterize a demonstration as "violent' if it results in violence by at least a sizeable number of those involved (as opposed to the demonstrations being discussed here, where reported violence is apparently less than .01% of the protestors); where the participant's illegal actions of vandalism or destruction results in the need for police to use forceable means to subdue/apprehend the violent actions of those involved. The Rodney King Riots of 1992 come to mind... or many riots that occur overseas resulting in looting/fire/physical beatings.

Daniel2