That's tough to imagine, even for me. For the most part, the LDS aren't the marching on the streets with signs kind of people.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Riots in LA and Temple Square over Prop 8
- Thread starter madhatter85
- Start date
That's tough to imagine, even for me. For the most part, the LDS aren't the marching on the streets with signs kind of people.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
Homosexuals are not the type of people to protest either, but when their rights, which are upheld for everyone else in society, are denied, they find it necessary to do so. Can we blame them? If you were married, or planning on being married, and that right was stripped from you, wouldn't you be just a little bit upset? And wouldn't you direct that anger at the organization which pumped millions of dollars into taking those rights away?
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Alizée;1327463 said:
Nope, i have better things to do with my time than pass out fliers and posts signs in my non-existent yard, nor do i put things on my car.
And no, i never really pushed the issue anywhere, i merely discussed it, the only place i harped on the members of the church for not following prophetic council is in this forum. every other member of the church i know of votes yes on prop 8.
Matches your image quite nicely.
please, expound, so you think i am being flattered away to hell for following the council of God's prophets?
Don't be so sure of that.
You know people will say anything to make other people shut up.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Alizée;1327633 said:Don't be so sure of that.
You know people will say anything to make other people shut up.
and you think you know? is that why members of the church raised 20 million dollars in support? because they wanted to vote no?
seriously. think.
Small percentage of the members actually donated. You do realize that if everyone agreed with it and donated it would probably be in the billions?
So yes, many members voted no and support the "no" group.
madhatter85
Transhumanist
Temple Recoomend Question #7:Alizée;1327664 said:
Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
Salt Lake Tribune
"Without facing any sanction"
I'll take Elder Clayton's words over yours any day. :yes: Besides, he's the one with the authority, you aren't.
Maybe things are different in SW Mich, but out West, homosexuals have been protesting and marching for years and years.
UnityNow101
Well-Known Member
They have seen their rights being suppressed by the majority for years and years. You can only put up with being a second-class citizen for so long before you end up marching and making your voice heard. Remember that the minority has never been able to secure their rights without standing up to the majority...
I know.") I'm just saying they have a history of marching where the LDS do not. Thus, it's much less expected that LDS would have marched should Prop 8 had failed.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Ok, this argument is a lot more complex than "animals exhibit homosexual behavior". Animals do not, to my knowledge, exhibit homosexual behavior in the same sense as homosexual humans. Animals display bisexual behavior. I have yet to hear of animals who enter into stricly homosexual relationships. Such a behavior would be a sure sign of imminent extinction.
Not at all. That would perhaps be the case if it happened to a very large percentage of the fertile population, but otherwise it is simply not relevant.
More accurately, it could well prove to be an evolutional advantage to have a large percentage of male homosexual relationships. They would be part of the community and likely to protect it, without ever being involved in conflicts over mating with the females. Of course, if females were often strictly homosexual, that could well prove to be dangerous to the continued existence of a species.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
This could be true, but does it happen? Again, I have seen many examples of bisexual behavior in the animal kingdom but I have yet to see an example of strictly homosexual behavior.
Animals sometimes exibit suicidal behavior, as well. But only in some very specific circunstances. I don't know that we humans would spontaneously fall into a pattern of females massively refusing to bear children either, although it is certainly dangerous to carry the parallels with animals that far; they simply don't have the same sort of society that we do.
Apex
Somewhere Around Nothing
Hence the problem with people tying to insinuate that the animal kingdom has homosexual behavior therefore it must be natural for humans as well.
There is something to it, however. We as humans may have ways of overcoming many of our animal urges, but nearly all of them do exist all the same.
Alizée;1327369 said:That's right.
So were the women's right's movements and the civil rights movements of the 60's.
Just plain stupid.
These people have every right to protest.:yes:
You can't compare the women's rights and civil rights movement to gay rights. Being a women or black isn't a choice. Living a gay lifestyle is.
Worshipper
Active Member
You're actually getting a little mixed up with the comparison here.
It's true that one doesn't choose to be a woman or to be black. By the same token, one doesn't choose to be gay. As Elder Oaks put it, "Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of 'nature and nurture.' All of us have some feelings we did not choose" (Ensign, Oct. 1995, "Same-Gender Attraction").
The stance of the Church is that homosexual attraction is not a choice. Homosexual behavior is, but homosexuality itself (like heterosexuality) is not.
Now, you're right that living a gay lifestyle is a choice. Homosexual behavior is chosen. And you're right that Prop 8 was about homosexual behavior rather than homosexual attraction.
But laws on blacks' rights and women's rights weren't about being black or being a woman. There has never been a law in America against being black or female. The laws have been against certain behaviors among blacks and females. You don't choose to be black, but you do choose to vote, or to use a certain drinking fountain, or to ride in a certain train car, or to attend a certain school. You don't choose to be a woman, but you do choose to vote, or to attempt to acquire property, or to enter a certain profession, or to get a divorce.
Movements for racial and sexual equality have never been about how the law views the issues that aren't a matter of choice. They've focussed on the issues that are a matter of choice. The question has always been this: should people in one unchosen category be free to choose behaviors that we allow of people in a corresponding unchosen category?
Since we know from our Church leaders that homosexuality is an unchosen category, it's perfectly legitimate to compare issues like Prop 8 to movements for racial or sexual equality.
Of course we can. Homosexuality is not much of a choice. Hiding it may perhaps be, but we shouldn't demand it from our brothers and sisters.
Besides, even if homosexuality were 100% voluntary, it is still not harming anyone.