Gay Radicals Disrupt/Protest Worship Services

[Autodidact]

Meanwhile, on election night, a Staten Island teenager (African-American) was attacked and beaten by four white men yelling, "Obama." Now that's violence. And zippy-I assume that you and all right minded McCain supporters have already condemned this action?

 

[Apex]

Don't all the Mormons tithe to the LDS Chruch? So it's their money that was spent?

Guilty by association?

 

[Autodidact]

Guilty by association?

No, guilty by donation. If they don't like what their church is doing, they can stop paying them to do it.

 

[Watchmen]

The tithe did not go towards the Prop 8 campaign.

 

[Apex]

No, guilty by donation. If they don't like what their church is doing, they can stop paying them to do it.

Can you even show the money used was tithing funds and not funds taken from one of the many other revenues the Church has?
And since when should we stop supporting our Church simply because we disagree on a political issue? One, might I add, that the Church specifically stated that members could morally stand on either side of the issue with out fear of repercussion? It seems silly to say religious members are universally guilty for supporting an issue their religious institution backed by completley legal means through the democratic process.

The leadership in the Church stated they were going to back Prop 8. But, at the same time, said members could take either side on Prop 8.
Some of us took the leadership's advice and took the opposite stance on Prop 8.
Where is the problem? Simply because we disagreed does not mean we should stop paying tithing. Inferring we supported Prop 8 simply because we pay tithing is a low attempt to try and justify the placing of blame in the wrong places.

 

[lilithu]

Yes, and if the Iraqis want to blame "The Americans" for invading their country, I would accept that association.

Easy to say when the Iraqis are somewhere else.

Fine, we're ALL guilty then. What's your point?

 

[Autodidact]

The tithe did not go towards the Prop 8 campaign.

Can you expound?

 

[Autodidact]

Can you even show the money used was tithing funds and not funds taken from one of the many other revenues the Church has?

I don't know, that's why I asked.

And since when should we stop supporting our Church simply because we disagree on a political issue?

I suppose that depends on whether you want to be included in the group that funded support of Prop 8 or not.

One, might I add, that the Church specifically stated that members could morally stand on either side of the issue with out fear of repercussion? It seems silly to say religious members are universally guilty for supporting an issue their religious institution backed by completley legal means through the democratic process.

Well, they're certainly guilty of supporting it, that's clear.

The leadership in the Church stated they were going to back Prop 8. But, at the same time, said members could take either side on Prop 8.
Some of us took the leadership's advice and took the opposite stance on Prop 8.
Where is the problem? Simply because we disagreed does not mean we should stop paying tithing. Inferring we supported Prop 8 simply because we pay tithing is a low attempt to try and justify the placing of blame in the wrong places.

Well, somehow I think that if 90% of the LDS members rose up in opposition, their leaders would stop pulling this stuff, don't you?

 

[Autodidact]

Easy to say when the Iraqis are somewhere else.

Fine, we're ALL guilty then. What's your point?

That there's nothing unreasonable about asserting that "The Mormons" funded support of Prop 8. They did.

 

[lilithu]

That there's nothing unreasonable about asserting that "The Mormons" funded support of Prop 8. They did.

Whatever justifies your hatred.

I know that *I* and my friends did NOT support the war, even if our tax dollars went towards it. Similarly, I know that many Mormons did NOT support prop 8. To say that they could have stopped tithing shows a complete lack of respect for what it means to be a member of a people, whether a nation or a religion.

 

[Apex]

I don't know, that's why I asked. I suppose that depends on whether you want to be included in the group that funded support of Prop 8 or not. Well, they're certainly guilty of supporting it, that's clear.



Well, somehow I think that if 90% of the LDS members rose up in opposition, their leaders would stop pulling this stuff, don't you?

Hatred against only those Mormons who supported Prop 8 is not good enough for. You want to justify hatred against all Mormons, regardless of their stance on Prop 8.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And since when should we stop supporting our Church simply because we disagree on a political issue?

I do not see it as mere disagreement on a political issue, like some tax policy, but a fundamental violation of civil rights, like segregation.

 

[Autodidact]

Who's talking about hatred, for heaven's sakes? All that I'm saying is that it is not inaccurate for a political ad to describe "Mormons" as having heavily donated to the Yes on 8 campaign. That's just factual.

Hey, I'm not spending my money trying to take away the Mormon's rights, am I?

 

[Watchmen]

Can you expound?

This is my understanding. If I am wrong it is my own fault and I encourage those who know more than me to make corrections.



The money the LDS Church donated to the YES on Prop 8 campaign came from the individual contributions of members. These members gave their money to the church and designated it as YES on Prop 8 money. This money was above and beyond the normal 10% tithe some LDS pay. In other words, the YES on Prop 8 money was it's own budget line - the LDS Church was acting as the middle-man between the members and Protect Marriage. In short, it was these donations the Church contributed. It did not contribute money from tithes or other sources of revenue.

 

[zippythepinhead]

I agree that vandalism is wrong. But it's terribly insulting to compare this to the KKK. The KKK is not an organization fighting for their civil rights. They are an organization that has a history of performing hate crimes against African Americans.

I merely am illustrating a point. That is all

 

[Sunstone]

I do not see it as mere disagreement on a political issue, like some tax policy, but a fundamental violation of civil rights, like segregation.

I suspect the proponents of Proposition 8 misunderstood in some manner how gay marriage is viewed by its supporters. This isn't a business as usual issue to many of us. It's a fundamental human right that has been denied.

 

[Heneni]

If having a roof over your head is a fundamental right as well, does that mean the gardener should move into my house? How about we build him his own? Just like the gay people who have been previously disadvantaged and have not been able to marry...should we give them the heterosexaul marriage institution, or give them their own institution? Why are gay people not happy with civil unions? Rather fight that to make it what they want it to be, dont take what belongs to another.

I

Heneni

 

[LuisDantas]

If having a roof over your head is a fundamental right as well, does that mean the gardener should move into my house?

That's not a very good comparison, I fear. Heterosexuals are free to marry in the same way that homosexuals want to, but that way still involves finding a willing and available partner.

How about we build him his own?

That's the idea. Or, rather, they should be allowed to build their own and to have them officially recognized, just like as anyone else's, for practical purposes such as applying for job interviews, obtaining documents and the like.

Just like the gay people who have been previously disadvantaged and have not been able to marry...should we give them the heterosexaul marriage institution,

They are allowed to marry heterosexually, but that is not what they want or need.

or give them their own institution?

This is not just about semantics. Many civil rights are in some way or another derivated from official recognition of marriages, leading to an avoidable and unfair overburden to same sex couples who can't legally marry. Perhaps even more important are the social stigmas attached.

Why are gay people not happy with civil unions? Rather fight that to make it what they want it to be, dont take what belongs to another.

It just so happens that demanding recognition of same sex marriage is pretty much the only way of making it (their unions) what they want them to be, due to many rules of various degrees of legal weight.

As for taking what belongs to another... how does that apply? Same sex marriages don't really "take away" anyone from other married couples, do they?

 

[Heneni]

Hi Luisdantas

If i were gay, i would feel like i wanted my own type of marriage that is not the same as heterosexual marriages.

I would want to have my own identity and to celebrate that unique identity i would want my own type of 'marriage'.

I find it odd that the gay community isnt working harder to have civil unions changed in a way that they would approve of. Rather they are trying to take on the old traditional heterosexual marriage, and make that their own.

Its contradicting. While gay people advocate that their equal and yet unique in their sexual preferences, they are not trying hard enough to get their own unique marriage, but rather wants to take on the heterosexual marriage which in effect is NOT what they are.

So...whats up? The gay people are not hetereosexual, yet they want what has been identified with heterosexual union for eons.

Is this just about 'getting what we want' and if we dont 'heterosexual people are evil and discriminating'?

 

[Sunstone]

dont take what belongs to another. Heneni

Since you believe gay marriage takes from others, and since gay marriage actually takes less -- much less -- from others than simply living does, do you see the fact gays are alive and taking resources from others to sustain their lives as a source of alarm to you?