Storm over the Mormons - for Non-Mormons

[Green Gaia]

I disagree with madhatter and I already told him in the other thread that he didn't answer FH's question, but...from his POV, the gay-rights movement is attempting to force acceptance on a community that has rejected gay marriage (i.e. the gay rights movement is trying to force California to accept gay marriage after it has already rejected it twice).

So, you're right: nobody's trying to make madhatter marry another man, or ban straight marriage, or force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. But, madhatter's right too: the gay activisits are trying to force gay marriage on communities who have rejected gay marriage.

We are a part of those communities, too. We should be treated equally and fairly by the government of those communities. That's all. Why should religious activists get away with infringing upon our lives and civil rights?

 

[Storm]

I disagree with madhatter and I already told him in the other thread that he didn't answer FH's question, but...from his POV, the gay-rights movement is attempting to force acceptance on a community that has rejected gay marriage (i.e. the gay rights movement is trying to force California to accept gay marriage after it has already rejected it twice).

So, you're right: nobody's trying to make madhatter marry another man, or ban straight marriage, or force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. But, madhatter's right too: the gay activisits are trying to force gay marriage on communities who have rejected gay marriage.

Yes, we are trying to force equality. That's not the same thing as acceptance. By this reasoning, the Civil Rights and women's lib movements were hypocritical as well.

 

[Storm]

We are a part of those communities, too. We should be treated equally and fairly by the government of those communities. That's all. Why should religious activists get away with infringing upon our lives and civil rights?

QFT. Down with the tyranny of the majority!

 

[Green Gaia]

QFT. Down with the tyranny of the majority!

I thought that's why we were organized as a democratic republic, to keep the tyranny of the majority from oppressing and infringing upon the rights of a minority, but instead we're letting religious organizations determine civil laws that discriminate against a particular group of people their religion doesn't like? I don't get it.

 

[Watchmen]

You're not letting religious organizations determine anything. You're just running ****-poor campaigns.

 

[Green Gaia]

You're not letting religious organizations determine anything. You're just running ****-poor campaigns.

Maybe so. The fact still remains we shouldn't have to "campaign" for equal rights at all and wouldn't if everyone believed in freedom and equality. Our civil liberties and rights should not be voted on by the general public!

 

[Smoke]

It's a tougher argument for me to make, but black men not being eligible for the Priesthood was never doctrine. It was a practice - one not supported by the canon. In fact, black men did hold the priesthood in Joseph Smith's time. That ended with Brigham Young, unfortunately. The practice Young implemented continued for many years until the Church received revelation that the practice should be abololished. I know many of you will criticize my distinction between a practice and doctrine, but I believe it's there.

Of course it is. But while the ban was in effect, there were many Mormons -- including general authorities -- who held it to be a matter of doctrine.

 

[Storm]

You're not letting religious organizations determine anything.

Why should religious organizations be allowed to determine secular law?

You're just running ****-poor campaigns.

Well, that was constructive.

 

[Watchmen]

Maybe so. The fact still remains we shouldn't have to "campaign" for equal rights at all and wouldn't if everyone believed in freedom and equality. Our civil liberties and rights should not be voted on by the general public!

I don't disagree. California's voter initiative system is stupid.

 

[Watchmen]

Of course it is. But while the ban was in effect, there were many Mormons -- including general authorities -- who held it to be a matter of doctrine.

Apparently, you're an expert.

 

[Watchmen]

Why should religious organizations be allowed to determine secular law?

They don't.

Well, that was constructive.

It was constructive if you're willing to understand the point of the statement.

 

[Smoke]

Apparently, you're an expert.

Apparently, you find sneering a handy response when you have nothing intelligent or constructive to say.

 

[Storm]

They don't.

Precisely. So what was the point of your comment?

It was constructive if you're willing to understand the point of the statement.

No, it really wasn't. Constructive criticism would be suggesting improvements, or at least pointing out specific flaws, and explaining why they're flaws. 'You're doing a ****-poor job' is just bashing.

 

[Watchmen]

Apparently, you find sneering a handy response when you have nothing intelligent or constructive to say.

That's not true. I find sneering a handy respones when I don't want to waste my time with something intelligent or constructive to say. It's not that I don't have those things to say - it's just that I don't want to waste them on someone who isn't listening anyway.

 

[Watchmen]

Precisely. So what was the point of your comment?


No, it really wasn't. Constructive criticism would be suggesting improvements, or at least pointing out specific flaws, and explaining why they're flaws. 'You're doing a ****-poor job' is just bashing.

It's common knowledge the anti-prop 8 campaign was run ****-poorly. I shouldn't have to explain the statement.

 

[Storm]

It's common knowledge the anti-prop 8 campaign was run ****-poorly. I shouldn't have to explain the statement.

Fine. Just don't pretend you're being constructive, either.

 

[Smoke]

That's not true. I find sneering a handy respones when I don't want to waste my time with something intelligent or constructive to say. It's not that I don't have those things to say - it's just that I don't want to waste them on someone who isn't listening anyway.

I am listening. But you are again substituting insult for any response to what I said, so I can't say I'm impressed with what I'm hearing.

 

[Father Heathen]

I disagree with madhatter and I already told him in the other thread that he didn't answer FH's question, but...from his POV, the gay-rights movement is attempting to force acceptance on a community that has rejected gay marriage (i.e. the gay rights movement is trying to force California to accept gay marriage after it has already rejected it twice).

So, you're right: nobody's trying to make madhatter marry another man, or ban straight marriage, or force churches to perform same sex ceremonies. But, madhatter's right too: the gay activisits are trying to force gay marriage on communities who have rejected gay marriage.

A "communities rejection" means nothing when it comes to the private, personal matters and the rights and liberty of other citizens. What if a "community rejects" the practice of mormonism? Would you mind wrecking balls bringing down the your local temple just because your neighbors were evangelists who thought your beliefs were a blasphemous heresy?
I mean really, "the community" isn't being forced to marry someone of the same sex, so why or how is it their concern? If anything, it's the fundamentalists who are forcing their religion upon the community.

 

[Watchmen]

A "communities rejection" means nothing when it comes to the private, personal matters and the rights and liberty of other citizens. What if a "community rejects" the practice of mormonism? Would you mind wrecking balls bringing down the your local temple just because your neighbors were evangelists who thought your beliefs were a blasphemous heresy?
I mean really, "the community" isn't being forced to marry someone of the same sex, so why or how is it their concern? If anything, it's the fundamentalists who are forcing their religion upon the community.

Religion is protected by the United States Constitution.

Marriage is a state issue.

What's being forced is acceptance.

 

[Panda]

Religion is protected by the United States Constitution.

Marriage is a state issue.

What's being forced is acceptance.

Wow, just wow.