Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[teddyaware]

I was just thinking while reading this, I can't recall a single instance in the scriptures where the Lord chastised one of His servants for being too bold in preaching repentance.

 

They are under strict charge to impart only the portion of His word he authorizes them to, but that has to do with revealing the mysteries of the kingdom, not reticence in calling people to repentance.

 

I can't think of a single example either!

[Stone holm]

I can't think of a single example either!

 

The examples which come to mind are not quite on point -- Jonah gets reprimanded for wanting Nineveh to burn after it repented, and Christ refused to stone the adultress -- these are not quite on point.  I can think of a situation where a Prophet was chastised for improperly refusing to modify a requirement, namely Peter when he was sent the vision regarding the Mosaic law referencing what was or was not kosher -- but that is not on point either.  Although, one should understand that during the great majority of the time dealt within in the scriptures except for the those of the latter-days, we are talking about life in a theocracy or quasi-theocracy -- so you would not find a parallel here discussing what Oaks was discussing.

[teddyaware]

The examples which come to mind are not quite on point -- Jonah gets reprimanded for wanting Nineveh to burn after it repented, and Christ refused to stone the adultress -- these are not quite on point.  I can think of a situation where a Prophet was chastised for improperly refusing to modify a requirement, namely Peter when he was sent the vision regarding the Mosaic law referencing what was or was not kosher -- but that is not on point either.  Although, one should understand that during the great majority of the time dealt within in the scriptures except for the those of the latter-days, we are talking about life in a theocracy or quasi-theocracy -- so you would not find a parallel here discussing what Oaks was discussing.

 

So then, some research into the statements of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young when addressing the enemies of the Church and the purveyors of latter-day wickedness might be in order to give us a clue as to what's over the line of propriety and what's not over that line when it comes to pot stirring language. Here's an example of what would seem to be acceptable from the first section of the Doctrine and Covenants: 

 

11 Wherefore the voice of the Lord is unto the ends of the earth, that all that will hear may hear:

12 Prepare ye, prepare ye for that which is to come, for the Lord is nigh;

13 And the anger of the Lord is kindled, and his sword is bathed in heaven, and it shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth.

14 And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people; 

15 For they have strayed from mine ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;

16 They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall. (D&C 1)

 

On a personal note, at all costs I eschew confrontational language and tactics whenever I discuss the gospel and the Church with non-members; I try very hard to be a peacemaker and a conciliator. That being said, in light of this subject, I find it very interesting to see how often extremely blunt, pot stirring language has been use by the Lord's servants when dealing with the wicked and the ungodly. In fact, even the members of the Church are warned God will not always deal with them in sweet language and expressions of tenderest affection. Paul put it this way:

 

5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons... (Hebrews 12)

 

And perhaps the following verse holds the key to understanding why strong language is often necessary when applying the gospel:

 

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. (Hebrews 12)

Edited November 5, 2013 by teddyaware

[Lightbearer]

Anti-Mormon comments had increasingly dropped off with the apparent descalization of political activism under Pres. Monson and the reining in of rhetoric , however, after Conference there was a spike in accusations of hate speech. Elder Oaks in particular is singled out, but old talks of Elder Packer are resurfacing as well. What is the appropriate response to these which tend to classify Mormons as a milder and more civil version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Do we ignore them, deny the characterization, try to explain that they were not intended that way, or try to distinguish these as simply opinions?

First I do not respond to Anti-Mormons, it is a waste of time, our enemies do not want to find peace or to agree with us. They are like the Pharasees and Chief Priests that tried to destroy the Lord during His mortal ministry. Looking for a reason to be offended at the words of the Lord. So be it. The Lord will fight our battles and the wicked will eventually be destroyed if it so be by fire. I do not care if the "world" thinks we are using "hate speech" that is the way the wicked always tries to muzzle the righteous. But as for the things the Lord "hates" I submit the following:

"These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren." (Old Testament | Proverbs 6:16-19)

Except for shedding innocent blood all of these could describe Anti-Mormons and some of our critics pretty well... and of course I have even heard some Anti-Mormons who approved of the killing of Joseph and Hyrum, or at least tried to give an excuse for the murderers actions.

[Stone holm]

First I do not respond to Anti-Mormons, it is a waste of time, our enemies do not want to find peace or to agree with us. They are like the Pharasees and Chief Priests that tried to destroy the Lord during His mortal ministry. Looking for a reason to be offended at the words of the Lord. So be it. The Lord will fight our battles and the wicked will eventually be destroyed if it so be by fire. I do not care if the "world" thinks we are using "hate speech" that is the way the wicked always tries to muzzle the righteous. But as for the things the Lord "hates" I submit the following:

Except for shedding innocent blood all of these could describe Anti-Mormons and some of our critics pretty well... and of course I have even heard some Anti-Mormons who approved of the killing of Joseph and Hyrum, or at least tried to give an excuse for the murderers actions.

That last quote was interesting

[Mystery Meat]

This morning I decided to read Elder Oaks' talk as I had only heard it once over a month ago. I am not going to get into the details here, but I have not felt the spirit for a long time. But I felt it this morning. It was strong and powerful. It brought me closer to the Savior and testified to me of his love and the inspired truth of Elder Oaks' message. It was as welcome as it was unanticipated (I say unanticipated for a lot of reasons which don't need to be discussed here).

 

So to answer the original question, I suppose that after the experience I had this morning I would testify of truth and convey my heartfelt love.

 

By the way if you want to read about pot stirring read about Lehi in the first few chapters of the BOM. People wanted to kill him for calling them sinners and following God's commands. Prophets stir the pot. Its part of the job description. We can either be Laman and Lemuels, or Nephi, Jacob, Sams and Zorams. The choice is 100% ours and it is a choice.

[thesometimesaint]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like and very much appreciate your excellent response. But I'd like to ask you a question and do so with pure intent, simply wondering what you might say in response: Read the following passages from Samuel the Lamanite's prophecy against the Nephites and let me know if you think it would have been better, wiser, and ultimately more effective for him to have used less inflamitory language than the language he chose to use?

 

25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out.

26 Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.

27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

28 Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him. 

29 O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

 

 

 

 

I'm not talking about flattering words, it is entirely possible to get our point across and still use kind word. The definition of a diplomat is someone with the ability to tell another to go to Hell, and have them wanting to pack their bags.

 

In the long run that method wasn't very successful. The Nephites were all wiped out. I don't know, we'll probably never know, if using kinder words would have been more effective.

[Stone holm]

I'm not talking about flattering words, it is entirely possible to get our point across and still use kind word. The definition of a diplomat is someone with the ability to tell another to go to Hell, and have them wanting to pack their bags.

 

In the long run that method wasn't very successful. The Nephites were all wiped out. I don't know, we'll probably never know, if using kinder words would have been more effective.

I thought the definition of diplomacy was saying nice doggie while searching for a rock, and here I have confused all these years.

[teddyaware]

I'm not talking about flattering words, it is entirely possible to get our point across and still use kind word. The definition of a diplomat is someone with the ability to tell another to go to Hell, and have them wanting to pack their bags.

 

In the long run that method wasn't very successful. The Nephites were all wiped out. I don't know, we'll probably never know, if using kinder words would have been more effective.

 

Enjoyed your response!

 

If I were compelled to hazard a guess, I'd say it's simply true that there are times when a prophet must speak out harshly against sinners and sin. In other words, there are moments in time when God wants His servants to "let 'em have it." This thinking follows in accord with Doctrine and Covenants 121, which speaks of "reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost," Of course, D & C 121 goes on to say that sometime after the sharp reproof there must be a genuine demonstration of brotherly love, lest the "rebukee' esteem the Lord's admonishing servant to be his enemy. Most interestingly, toward the end of Samuel the Lamanites prophecy, and right in the midst of his most dire imprecations against the backsliding, wicked Nephite's, Samuel says the  following:

 

"1 And now, my beloved brethren, behold, I declare unto you that except ye shall repent your houses shall be left unto you desolate."

 

So even though courageous Samuel was "lettin' 'em have it." he still let these apostates know they were still his "beloved brethren."

 

Finally, even though Samuel pulled out all the stops when he blasted the Nephites with the word of God's warning, nevertheless many of the folks gathered at the walls of the city came around to believe him, even though he was stirring the pot and using words of most extreme harshness.

 

You said: "we'll probably never know, if using kinder words would have been more effective." Well, at least in this instance we do know what Samuel's harsh words of sharpness produced -- MANY REPENTED! And so we read:

 

1 And now, it came to pass that there were many who heard the words of Samuel, the Lamanite, which he spake upon the walls of the city. And as many as believed on his word went forth and sought for Nephi; and when they had come forth and found him they confessed unto him their sins and denied not, desiring that they might be baptized unto the Lord. (Heleman 16)

 

Whaddaya thing of that! Stirring the pot and using harsh words caused many to repent! Perhaps it's time for some of you to go back to the drawing board and do some rethinking.

Edited November 7, 2013 by teddyaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'd say it's simply true that there are times when a prophet must speak out harshly against sinners and sin. In other words, there are moments in time when God wants His servants to "let 'em have it."

 

You and others are right when you point out that on occasions prophets 'must speak out harshly'. The irony is that this in no way describes Elder Oaks's calm, measured words:

 

The importance we attach to the law of chastity explains our commitment to the pattern of marriage that originated with Adam and Eve and has continued through the ages as God’s pattern for the procreative relationship between His sons and daughters and for the nurturing of His children. Fortunately, many persons affiliated with other denominations or organizations agree with us on the nature and importance of marriage, some on the basis of religious doctrine and others on the basis of what they deem best for society.

 

...

 

There are many political and social pressures for legal and policy changes to establish behaviors contrary to God’s decrees about sexual morality and contrary to the eternal nature and purposes of marriage and childbearing. These pressures have already authorized same-gender marriages in various states and nations. Other pressures would confuse gender or homogenize those differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.

 

Our understanding of God’s plan and His doctrine gives us an eternal perspective that does not allow us to condone such behaviors or to find justification in the laws that permit them.

 

No harshness. No hatred. No 'letting them have it'.

 

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Progressive Posse that Stoneholm seems so worried about are upset not because of the way Elder Oaks spoke but because he had the temerity to speak at all.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[teddyaware]

You and others are right when you point out that on occasions prophets 'must speak out harshly'. The irony is that this in no way describes Elder Oaks's calm, measured words at all:

 

 

No harshness. No hatred. No 'letting them have it'.

 

The only conclusion I can reach is that the Progressive Posse Stoneholm seems so worried about are upset not because of the way Elder Oaks spoke but because he had the temerity to speak at all.

 If Elder Oak's address constitutes "hate speech," how might one describe Samuel's address on the wall? Really, really, really bad hate speech?

Edited November 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Hamba Tuhan]

 If Elder Oak's address constitutes "hate speech," how might one describe Samuel's address on the wall? Really, really, really bad hate speech?

 

It would seem that in Vermont, once the 'progressives' speak, the thinking has been done. To maintain the right to speak thereafter = 'hate speech'.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Daniel2]

Maybe so, Wade,

However the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly has a short article suggesting that we should learn to love hate speech, that it can be a good thing!!

 

See Jonathan Rauch, "The Case for Hate Speech: How Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and Orson Scott Card have advanced the cause of gay rights," Atlantic, 312/4 (Nov 2013):17-18, online at http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/11/the-case-for-hate-speech/309524/ .

Wow.... Thank you for that link. Exceptional read. Rauch is spot on.

[teddyaware]

It would seem that in Vermont, once the 'progressives' speak, the thinking has been done. To maintain the right to speak thereafter = 'hate speech'.

 

Is it odd or inappropriate that I laughed out loud when I read the above? Sometimes things that aren't intended to be funny really tickle my funny bone! 

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is it odd or inappropriate that I laughed out loud when I read the above? Sometimes things that aren't intended to be funny really tickle my funny bone! 

 

When confronted by madness parading as sophistication, often laughing out loud is the best recourse.

[teddyaware]

When confronted by madness parading as sophistication, often laughing out loud is the best recourse.

 

Lol!

[Stone holm]

Wow.... Thank you for that link. Exceptional read. Rauch is spot on.

It is kind of amazing to me how quickly this cultural battle was lost. It's almost incredible. I have tried to get my head around how it is that a community which was based on primarily upon sexual practices that most of society found repulsive could have gained so many political victories so quickly is simply beyond belief. Given that, I am afraid there is only one explanation and that is that the oppositional leadership behaved so badly that it actually helped this community. I have heard it said that nothing aided the gay cause more than Prop 8. I fear there is some truth to that.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I have tried to get my head around how it is that a community which was based on primarily upon sexual practices that most of society found repulsive could have gained so many political victories so quickly is simply beyond belief.

 

I find it considerably less surprising being familiar with the game plan that the community has been implementing with unity and precision for the past 26 years. This initial manifesto was then expanded into a book, an excellent summary of which can be found here. A few interesting quotes:

 

The fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people taking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way … Talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

 

To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labelled ‘moral choice’ and ‘sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with.

 

Gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves instead as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly nonconformist lifestyle, they are most likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression.

 

In the early stages of the campaign, the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex per se should be downplayed, and the issue of gay rights reduced, as far as possible, to an abstract social question.

 

What I never saw coming was that the chosen 'abstract social question' to which we would be reduced would be 'marriage'. Truly fascinating.

 

First you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, ‘Allow the camel’s nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow.’

 

And we're in for one very interesting ride, it would seem.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[teddyaware]

It is kind of amazing to me how quickly this cultural battle was lost. It's almost incredible. I have tried to get my head around how it is that a community which was based on primarily upon sexual practices that most of society found repulsive could have gained so many political victories so quickly is simply beyond belief. Given that, I am afraid there is only one explanation and that is that the oppositional leadership behaved so badly that it actually helped this community. I have heard it said that nothing aided the gay cause more than Prop 8. I fear there is some truth to that.

 

There should be no surprise at all. The people who are winning this particular cultural battle are nothing if not extremely determined, single minded, and armed with a full bore, take-no-prisoners attitude that will settle for nothing less than total victory. With the main stream media, Hollywood, academia, wholesale popular rejection of traditional moral values and an army of progressive operatives on many fronts to ennoble 'the cause' in the eyes of the world and utterly demonize any opposition, their ultimate success was always a fait accompli.

 

I believe those who blame supposedly ill-advised oppositional efforts for the victories of those who want to redefine the family are only fooling themselves. Our modern world had already traveled far down the road of rejection of God's laws long before the battle to redefine the family garnered much attention. As prophesied in scripture, the end of that road will be a world fully ripened in iniquity and hardened in total rebellion against God. Then it will finally get to the point where a live and let live attitude will be rejected in favor of a strategy of trying to force those who resist the tide to change, whether they like it or not. 

 

"13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God."  (1Nephi 14)

Edited November 8, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

There should be no surprise at all. The people who are winning this particular cultural battle are nothing if not extremely determined, single minded, and armed with a full bore, take-no-prisoners attitude that will settle for nothing less than total victory. With the main stream media, Hollywood, academia, wholesale popular rejection of traditional moral values and an army of progressive operatives on many fronts to ennoble 'the cause' in the eyes of the world and utterly demonize any opposition, their ultimate success was always a fait accompli.

 

I believe those who blame supposedly ill-advised oppositional efforts for the victories of those who want to redefine the family are only fooling themselves. Our modern world had already traveled far down the road of rejection of God's laws long before the battle to redefine the family garnered much attention. As prophesied in scripture, the end of that road will be a world fully ripened in iniquity and hardened in total rebellion against God. Then it will finally get to the point where a live and let live attitude will be rejected in favor of a strategy of trying to force those who resist the tide to change, whether they like it or not. 

 

"13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God."  (1Nephi 14)

Possibly. But there were a lot of people who , like myself, opposed gay rights, or were indifferent to them who later became mildly supportive after witnessing the battles. That was true for a lot of Vermonters. When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the States then existing approach to marriage violated the Common Benefits clause in the State's Constitution it delayed a final ruling to allow the legislature to decide whether to go with Civil Unions or SSM. Then Governor Dean indicated he was staying out of the fight but indicated he would prefer to be presented with a Civil Unions bill to sign than a SSM bill. After a huge debate before the legislature led predominantly by spokespersons for our Church and the Roman Catholic Church against either civil unions or SSM, a Civil Unions bill was passed and adopted. The gays who had brought the litigation pronounced themselves satisfied and dropped their case. However so much damage had been done by the religious groups going political on the issue, that progressives in the State who for the most part had agreed with the moderate views of Gov. Dean, later supported without much fanfare SSM. It was , in part, a strong distaste for the commingling of religion and politics that was involved and a sense that despite claims to the contrary religious groups were in fact trying to bully a minority in the legislature. If there was a gay agenda at play, it was clearly not as evident and overt as the religious agenda of its opponents.

[california boy]

There should be no surprise at all. The people who are winning this particular cultural battle are nothing if not extremely determined, single minded, and armed with a full bore, take-no-prisoners attitude that will settle for nothing less than total victory. With the main stream media, Hollywood, academia, wholesale popular rejection of traditional moral values and an army of progressive operatives on many fronts to ennoble 'the cause' in the eyes of the world and utterly demonize any opposition, their ultimate success was always a fait accompli.

 

I believe those who blame supposedly ill-advised oppositional efforts for the victories of those who want to redefine the family are only fooling themselves. Our modern world had already traveled far down the road of rejection of God's laws long before the battle to redefine the family garnered much attention. As prophesied in scripture, the end of that road will be a world fully ripened in iniquity and hardened in total rebellion against God. Then it will finally get to the point where a live and let live attitude will be rejected in favor of a strategy of trying to force those who resist the tide to change, whether they like it or not. 

 

"13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God."  (1Nephi 14)

I personally think your statements is a principle reason why the civil rights of gays have come so far so quickly.  So many like you want to point to "the gays" as the ones redefining the family.  In fact, if you mean "the family" as a father, mother and children, that definition has been redefined largely by the straight community.  According to the censes, only about 25% of the population live in that kind of family.  So what about the rest of the population?  Are their relationships not families?  Is a single mom with a child not a family?  Are a couple without children not a family?  Are two grandparents no longer a family?  There are indeed, may kinds of relationships that make up a family.

 

So many want to point to gay marriage as redefining the family.  The truth is, gays only account for about 5% of the population.  Those that are married are even a smaller percentage, maybe only .5% of the population.  Yet so many like you want to focus your laser beam on the gays as the convenient scape goat for this shift in the definition of a family. Can yo honestly state that .5% of the population has redefined the family when 74.5% of the population which is largely straight has also redefined what a family is.

 

There are many reasons why the family as you want to define it has shifted so much.  Probably the major shift is when society moved from living on a farm where children were an integral part of the success of that farm to a more urban life.  Grandparents and stray single aunts and uncles lived with them.  That used to be how the majority of America lived.  Sorry but gays had nothing to do with that changing.  Your statement that "the gays" did not and have not redefined the family is completely wrong. 

 

The other half of the answer Stone brings up concerning the speed in which this country has decided to stand behind gay marriage is because it is the right thing to do.  Either we believe in equality in America or we do not.  Either this is a secular government or it is not.  Most people believe that America stands for equality and is secular.  There has been no rational reason put forth to the public as a reason why just because a person is gay he shouldn't have the legal right to marry.  When you have no argument against that idea, things will change quickly.  The media, Hollywood, and all the other players you want to blame for this shift are just stating the obvious.  America believes in equality.  Churches can believe what they want within their own congregations, but they don't determine  peoples civil rights in America.

 

The one personal question I would like to ask you and others that assert this notion is, Why do you feel the need to blame "the gays" for redefining the family?  What is it about gay Americans that you feel the need to use them as your own personal scape goat?  Are they just an easy target because they are not so much like you as the other 74.5% of the population?  

[california boy]

Possibly. But there were a lot of people who , like myself, opposed gay rights, or were indifferent to them who later became mildly supportive after witnessing the battles. That was true for a lot of Vermonters. When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the States then existing approach to marriage violated the Common Benefits clause in the State's Constitution it delayed a final ruling to allow the legislature to decide whether to go with Civil Unions or SSM. Then Governor Dean indicated he was staying out of the fight but indicated he would prefer to be presented with a Civil Unions bill to sign than a SSM bill. After a huge debate before the legislature led predominantly by spokespersons for our Church and the Roman Catholic Church against either civil unions or SSM, a Civil Unions bill was passed and adopted. The gays who had brought the litigation pronounced themselves satisfied and dropped their case. However so much damage had been done by the religious groups going political on the issue, that progressives in the State who for the most part had agreed with the moderate views of Gov. Dean, later supported without much fanfare SSM. It was , in part, a strong distaste for the commingling of religion and politics that was involved and a sense that despite claims to the contrary religious groups were in fact trying to bully a minority in the legislature. If there was a gay agenda at play, it was clearly not as evident and overt as the religious agenda of its opponents.

You have hit the nail on the head.  People find religious bullying more distasteful than granting gays equal rights.  Even people with religious beliefs like you  and many others find religious bullying to be against the very basic principles of this country.  

[wenglund]

Possibly. But there were a lot of people who , like myself, opposed gay rights, or were indifferent to them who later became mildly supportive after witnessing the battles. That was true for a lot of Vermonters. When the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the States then existing approach to marriage violated the Common Benefits clause in the State's Constitution it delayed a final ruling to allow the legislature to decide whether to go with Civil Unions or SSM. Then Governor Dean indicated he was staying out of the fight but indicated he would prefer to be presented with a Civil Unions bill to sign than a SSM bill. After a huge debate before the legislature led predominantly by spokespersons for our Church and the Roman Catholic Church against either civil unions or SSM, a Civil Unions bill was passed and adopted. The gays who had brought the litigation pronounced themselves satisfied and dropped their case. However so much damage had been done by the religious groups going political on the issue, that progressives in the State who for the most part had agreed with the moderate views of Gov. Dean, later supported without much fanfare SSM. It was , in part, a strong distaste for the commingling of religion and politics that was involved and a sense that despite claims to the contrary religious groups were in fact trying to bully a minority in the legislature. If there was a gay agenda at play, it was clearly not as evident and overt as the religious agenda of its opponents.

 

You inadvertently touched on the real reason that things have slipped so quickly down the morality slope. As you somewhat describe, the avalanche was because people were reacting one-sided (following passage of Prop 8, bullying by gay advocates put any religious bullying in Vermont to shame) on manipulated emotions rather than being driven by sound and proven principles. I couldn't agree more.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2013 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

You inadvertently touched on the real reason that things have slipped so quickly down the morality slope. As you somewhat describe, the avalanche was because people were reacting one-sided (following passage of Prop 8, bullying by gay advocates put any religious bullying in Vermont to shame) on manipulated emotions rather than being driven by sound and proven principles. I couldn't agree more.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I don't approve of bullying anyone for any reason. 6000 years of murder of homosexuals for being homosexuals really doesn't compare to opposing Prop 8.

 

YIKES http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ys0Alx2x0Q

Edited November 8, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

You inadvertently touched on the real reason that things have slipped so quickly down the morality slope. As you somewhat describe, the avalanche was because people were reacting one-sided (following passage of Prop 8, bullying by gay advocates put any religious bullying in Vermont to shame) on manipulated emotions rather than being driven by sound and proven principles. I couldn't agree more.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah,I didn't find the idea that the proponents of Prop 8 were somehow victims of gay bullying very convincing, and I just suspect that a lot of Americans didn't either.