Church officials are "disturbed" that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was "singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election," said LDS spokesman Scott Trotter earlier Friday....Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate. What a terrible idea!
Attacking a religious organization rarely works, said Joe Mathews, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a political think tank in southern California....
"Mormons are unpopular and the church went a long way in diving into this issue," he said. "But it doesn't make long-term strategic sense. You are appealing to religious bigotry and I don't think that's a good idea. You need to convince people of faith that they're not under attack."
UPDATE: CBN reports:
Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported....
Monday in Utah, home to the Mormon church, the windows of five Latter-day Saints wardhouses were shot out with a BB gun. Police, however, did not openly link the damages to Prop 8 supporters.
"A lot of opinion has generated that this is in connection with Prop 8," Layton Utah Police Lt. Quinn Moyes said. "We aren't making that connection yet."
पोस्ट्स
२३८ टिप्पण्या:
238 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»There's a Utah brand?
"What a terrible idea!"
It really is. Sigh.
Seems the Gay State has its share of haters too.
What is Utah famous for?
I suppose they could go after Sundance, but that's a pretty gay-friendly venue. Ditto the ski industry. Cutting your nose off to spite your face springs to mind.
I think energy and money could be better spent putting an initiative on the next ballot and buying a big ol' muzzle for Gavin N.
Utah brand?? Perhaps..
"Wives- you can't live with one, so try more than one."
Rally those sports writers to vote down Utah in the AP polls! Next it's on the Boise State, and YEARGHH!
U S C!
U S C!
U S C!
There's a Utah brand?
That was my reaction, too. The last I heard, Utah's reputation was that it was (a) boring and (b) rock-solid Republican. How do you destroy that brand? Tell people the state is an exciting place to visit? :)
Utah!
Home of Robert Redford!
Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate. What a terrible idea!
Good one, Ann! You are 100% right.
Every effort like this will keep gay marriage out of California for 2 more years. Imagine the ads now:
What's so "reasonable about gay marriage? Look what these people did when they didn't get their way last time (video of out of control angry protesters).
If you look up "nutroots" in the dictionary, it has Avarosis's picture next to the definition, right?
Is he permanently angry even after the Obama's victory?
Last night on another thread, Palladian declared that he hates Frederic Remington.
I say we round us up a posse, hunt the varmint down, and hang Palladian from the nearest tree. Who is with me?
There is an unreliable statistic suggesting 77 percent of the Yes on 8 came from Mormons. Of course, you don't have to list your religion when you make a campaign contribution -- and the abuse of this data for purposes of harassment will probably result in less transparency for political donations -- so it's a guess.
But the protesters are acting as if that iffy number means 77 percent of Mormons, worldwide, are anti-gay.
I think I've been pro-gay marriage for 15 years. I believe in marriage, and so I believe it should be available to any two people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment. The change of opinion on that issue has been rapid. But I don't think it's right to call opposition to gay marriage "hate." Certainly, there is hate within the anti-gay-marriage movement, but opposition to gay marriage has more to do with sticking to a traditional definition of marriage that for understandable reasons, many don't want to let go of. I'd agree that's condoning discrimination as a collateral matter, but I don't think it's hate.
This is a time for more moderated protests designed to persuade, not stigmatize. The votes are getting closer. White Californians favored gay marriage. That's something to build on, not tear down.
Further, focusing on the right wing side of the fence overlooks the substantial number of liberal politicians who also oppose gay marriage. Yes, many of them also opposed Prop 8, but that's just evidence of hypocrisy and incoherence, and I don't think it helped the campaign at all. Obama should come out FOR gay marriage, not just anti-anti-gay marriage. That would make a much bigger difference than trying to make Utah a pariah state.
I believe in marriage, and so I believe it should be available to any two people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment.
Why limit it to two? Open up your definition a bit more and you might actually get the Mormons on your side!
I think it's time to kick some gay ass.
Or would that only make them happier?
There's an unreliable witness who heard Palladian say that my grandpappy's knock-off casting of "Broncho Buster" isn't worth "a plugged nickel!" Come on, boys, are you gonna saddle up or are you all yella?
We’re going to destroy the Utah brand.
That’s commendably ambitious but impossible, I’m afraid.
It’s a well-proven scientific fact that everyone kind of likes the smell of their own brand.
Anyway, I know I do.
Wasn't there a similar percentage of black voters also suported the ban?
I'll hold my breath for the gay protest march in South Central LA.
Obama is against gay marriage because he's a Christian and therefore has no choice.
On the other hand, Obama would never presume to have an opinion on abortion since abortion is "above his pay grade."
"Let's characterize more things as hate and then fight hate with hate"
Wow Ann, so it's "hate" now to oppose a political act?
One of the problems with our political discourse is that many
ascribe the worst motives to those they disagree with. They are haters, they are bigots, they don't care about the poor etc etc. How about if we stick to what we know which is that many people ( more than half of the voters obviously) oppose the measure for a plethora of reasons, some unknown to us.
I do not believe the Mormons who voted against this did so out of hate and I PREFER to assume so.
California votes against gay marriage, so supporters of gay marriage naturally take it out on Utah. Why are they letting themselves get distracted from California by getting bogged down in Utah?
Boycott David Archuleta!
No blood for salty water!!!
Will this mean shorter ski lines?
If so, keep up the Hate Gays.
Wow Ann, so it's "hate" now to oppose a political act?
If that opposition involves "destroying the Utah brand" and labeling it as a "hate state", yes.
"above his pay grade."
Ha. My dyslexia kicked in and I first read that as "above his gay parade."
I love how acceptable it is to catagorize Mormans as freaks, but anyone who doesnt like SSM is a "hater".
Sully is triangulating on the Mormons. He practiced his lethal prose when he was "asking serious questions" about Romney's underwear.
The LBGT community needs a whipping boy (outside of the rec room), and that's going to be the Mormons. I mean really, calling blacks n****** is such bad press...
South Central LA, Watts....he didn't Althouse visit the Watts Towers ????
Only 20 minutes away from West Hollywood.
Utah is a 3-hour plane ride.
Christopher seemed to love his visit to the Watts Towers with Mom.
Why not go back there to protest ?
Ann Althouse said...
Please don't talk to Maxine. She's a troll, and I delete all her posts. Don't talk to her sock puppets either. Just ignore her.
How are the Gays punishing California?
(They're the ones who voted.)
But I don't think it's right to call opposition to gay marriage "hate."
Obviously there are people who oppose government recognition of gay marriage even though they don't see anything wrong with homosexuality itself. But that group of people is a distinct minority of the general population. If they were the only ones voting "Yes on 8", it would have gone down in flames and gay marriage would be the law of the land.
Consider, for example, that somewhere between thirty and forty percent of Americans still think consensual homosexual sexual activity should be illegal. If we assume that this group of people is almost entirely opposed to legal recognition of gay marriages (which seems intuitively obvious), that means that somewhere between half and three-quarters of the anti-gay-marriage crowd wants homosexual conduct banned entirely. Now, it could be sheer coincidence that between two and three out of every four opponents of gay marriage just happens to be a homophobic asshole shit-for-brains, and that those same assholes have legitimate reasons for opposing gay marriage that *aren't* based on their personal bigotries -- but color me skeptical. It seems pretty damned clear that the non-homophobic opposition to gay marriage is a minority position, and a weak one at that, which is why people who don't think homosexuality is immoral/criminal exhibit very strong support for recognition of such marriages.
So, in summary, you can be a non-bigot and oppose gay marriage. But you need to ally yourself with bigots if you want your side to win.
I am sure that the Mormons will be really upset if there are no gays that will ever come to Utah ever again.
Now thats a threat with teeth in it.
Supposedly over 70% of the financing for yes on prop 8 came from the Mormon Church.
Gays banning Utah???? Like it was ever a destination for gays. I don't think gays banning Utah will make much of a difference.
And what is the Utah brand? I heard it has pretty mountains. I have flown in to Salt Lake City and it looked pretty but have never been there for more than a couple of hours.
Right now the rare clumbers are looking longingly at me because they want to go outside. There little eyes have love them.
Let's all love. Love, I say.
Have you seen a
brand new day
Have you seen a
brand new day
But it doesn't make long-term strategic sense.
If there's a single sentence to sum up SSM advocacy in California, that would be it. SSM would already be legal if the advocates were better at this game.
Is there a better way to mobilize Mormons for the next battle in this war? Stupid.
I am sure that the Mormons will be really upset if there are no gays^H^H^H^HCalifornians that will ever come to Utah ever again.
Now thats a threat with teeth in it.
Fixed it for you.
Utah should fight back and ban all the gays in Utah.
That would be 4 lezzies, a drag queen and one gay male.
Send them somewhere else and ban the gays from Utah.
I actually have read Salt Lake City has a pretty decent gay life which I found surprising.
What is it like to live in Utah? Utah seems like a state we don't know much about. At least me. It seems so foreign and exotic and for that reason a little horny, but too white. I don't like doing white guys-that is boring.
Is Chicago the new hot international destination?
Crimso: "California votes against gay marriage, so supporters of gay marriage naturally take it out on Utah. Why are they letting themselves get distracted from California by getting bogged down in Utah?"
It's politically incorrect (and perhaps not safe) to picket black churches in Los Angeles, even if they supported Prop. 8.
So basically a bunch of White liberal homosexuals want to attack Mormons in Utah because 70% of black Californians and 53+% of latinos said NO to homosexual marriage.
I'm waiting for these whiteys to get their precious liberal asses into Oakland and LA and tell the negroes and the meztizos that they are angry at them for their reactionary, hate driven values and votes.
It'll be a long wait.
As gays we can't ban the negroes and hispanics.
The are our downlow partners.
We have sex with them when the girlfriends are not around.
We need them and they need us.
There does seem to be some odd misdirection in taking this battle to Utah, while ignoring the elephant in the room.
Here's the connection I don't get: To what extent did all that Mormon spending against gay marriage actually influence African-American voters? Since when do African Americans care what Mormons think? How many African Americans are going to change their viewpoint as a result of a gay boycott of Utah?
Gays have always known that blacks don't like them. It is a fact. The poor gay blacks are right in the middle of all of it. But if a gay says a black is homophobic they are called racist.
The jews on the otherhand voted overwhelmingly no on prop 8.
The gays and jews have always been friends.
Here's the connection I don't get: To what extent did all that Mormon spending against gay marriage actually influence African-American voters? Since when do African Americans care what Mormons think?
It's not always clear where the money is coming from when you see a political ad. They need to list who paid for it, but the group always has a name like "People for Truth, Justice, and the American Way".
And yet the jews rarely participate in the downlow activity while blacks and hispanics do.
A very interesting dichotomy.
Sullivan points to a much more constructive approach.
Dogs and gays have always been friends too.
Prop 8 rivals seek support in black churches
"The LDS people are assisting us because they have more resources," [Pastor Ray] Williams said.
Sullivan refers to this strategy as "calling the LDS church's bluff." Interesting choice of words. After all, it looks like African-American Californians called Barack Obama's bluff.
I have to say... Titus makes the argument well that homosexuals aren't interested in marriage at all, but interested in destroying traditional sexual morality.
I know that this isn't necessarily true and that the marriage that many homosexuals want is that old fashioned monogamous forever, but I hardly think that only bigotry informs the opinions of those who see homosexual marriage as a deliberate threat to marriage and religion and everything good and wonderful in the world.
How much is valuing marriage and wanting to be able to marry, and how much *really* is about tearing down traditional morality?
Notice the leadership President-Elect Obama is showing on this issue, standing up for religious rights in America?
No? Oops. Me neither.
I guess those of you who voted for him are really glad now, are you not?
Reverant said:
"It seems pretty damned clear that the non-homophobic opposition to gay marriage is a minority position, and a weak one at that, which is why people who don't think homosexuality is immoral/criminal exhibit very strong support for recognition of such marriages.
So, in summary, you can be a non-bigot and oppose gay marriage. But you need to ally yourself with bigots if you want your side to win."
I respectfully disagree - the vast majority of people I have met who are anti-legalizing gay marriage truly do not hate gays and many favor some sort of civil unions.
I live next door to two very lovely women who are "life partners." We're friends and neighbors: I certainly don't "hate" them; to the contrary I would not hesitate to come to their aid and try to protect them from harm with my Remy 870 if need be. Some sort of civil union would be fine with me. But I vote against gay marriage. I'm just not in favor of polygamy which I happen to think would get teed up next. (The Kos kids are already floating it, I've heard). Because I think Polygamy is a destabilizing influence on civilization and social order. Just my opinion. I'm just not big on even the possibilty of opening up that door. Call me whatever names you want for having that belief.
But aside from that, even if what you say IS true, I would point out - isn't that the case for many many political alliances? For example, most people who are registered democrats and perfectly decent citizens, sometimes have to "ally themselves" with the far left, "Code Pink" flag burning types in order for THEIR side to win, right? Isn't that just political reality? If "you are defined by who you associate with" is such a big deal (or any sort of deal at all) then surely Bill Ayers, Reverand Jeremiah, and Tony Rezko should have disqualified Obama, right?
There may be arguments against gay marriage whether or not those making them are "allied" with bigots or homophobes; just as there may be arguments against the war in Iraq whether or not those making them are "allied" with Code Pink and/or the Communist Party of America protesters. It is a shame that I vote the same way as bigots on this issue; just as you may find it a shame that your and Ann's votes were cast alongside and in concert with the most virulent America hating leftists. As the saying goes...Politics makes strange bedfellows.
mcg said...Prop 8 rivals seek support in black churches
"I am not trying to rail against gay people; we have gay people in our music department," Ray Williams, pastor of the First Morning Star Baptist Church in Oakland, said at the pro-Prop. 8 rally. "When you look at the people getting married in San Francisco, you didn't see very many blacks. It's not a distinct issue in the black community."
Interesting that if the Mormon Romney was the Republican nominee Mormon activism would have been focused less on opposing Pop 8 and more on getting Romney elected.
So if the Republican idiots hadn't chosen a state winner take all system in the primary Mitt Romney would be President and Prop 8 might have failed.
I suppose that John and his pals could go after the Utah brand and destroy it. Or, you know, they could act like adults instead.
I've got an idea...
Package same sex marriage with a measure to redefine marriage *up*. Let there be civil unions available to everyone, and let "marriage" also be available to everyone, but make it much much harder to dissolve. No more no-fault... you've got to show that the other person did you wrong. In sickness and health, for better and for worse. And if you're the one who wants out, you have to want out badly enough to leave without getting to take everything with you when you go.
Decide what you want - a civil union and domestic partnership - or a marriage. If someone wants the *word* so bad, they can have what comes with it.
Defining marriage up at least addresses the very real fact that marriage is under attack in our culture.
Rev said,
So, in summary, you can be a non-bigot and oppose gay marriage. But you need to ally yourself with bigots if you want your side to win.
I'm not really sure where you are going with that Revenant. The world will always have groups of people labeled as haters and bigots. These two words have been overused to the extent they are almost meaningless to me. Politically speaking this means as little to me as Limbaugh, Hannity, etc being labeled bigots.
Hmm...
I suppose had you all been around fifty years ago, you would have been criticizing the Montgomery Bus Boycotters for "meeting hate with hate."
The Mormons have every right, under our doctrines of freedom of religion, to express their views. But that also means they have to take the consequences. If as a collective group you oppose civil rights for homosexuals, they and their supporters are not likely to patronize your business. Deal.
Isn't it funny and instructive to compare the way that conservatives reacted to getting a thumping at the polls to the way liberals react. After a couple of days of grim horror, conservatives are by-and-large getting over it and moving on. Liberals, by contrast, greet defeat with litigation, ballot-box stuffing, conspiracy theorizing and this kind of stuff that Avarosis is pushing. I did a blogsearch a couple of days after the election for "election"+"ashamed" and there were lots and lots of hits - but it wasn't conservatives saying they were ashamed of America for electing Obama, it was liberals saying that they were ashamed of California!
Good grief, what a bunch of drama queens! Liberals: put on your big girl panties, deal with the fact that you won on every front last week, and stop throwing your rattle out of the pram because you only got 99% of what you wanted rather than 100%. You won; take it graciously.
Revenant,
Let's assume this is true:
"Consider, for example, that somewhere between thirty and forty percent of Americans still think consensual homosexual sexual activity should be illegal."
What doesn't follow is that this is rooted in bigotry. Keep in mind that most of this group likely views same-sex attraction as changeable, not as a permanent distinction from themselves. In this light, being opposed to homosexual acts is about as bigoted as being opposed to fornication or adultery.
Of course whether or not it's ok to *criminalize* an act that goes against your morals is a different discussion. But that is not the subject at hand, we're just talking about whether or not to redefine marriage and allow same-sex couples to marry. Yes or no. California voted no.
Only 60% of Utahns are Mormon, so targeting Utah punishes almost as many of the innocent as the "guilty."
Also, what about the Yes-on-8 donating Knights of Columbus? Where are the plans to punish them? Beyond not booking your gay wedding reception at a K of C hall.
I mean honestly, I've met teenage girls with a better grip on reality than Avarosis and his weirdo liberal pals!
I'm taking the long view of this. Some day [hopefully soon] this won't be an issue anymore. Gays will be able to marry and everyone can go about their business without name calling etc.
Utah is beautiful beyond belief. And it's conservative. And Titus hasn't discovered it yet. Paradise.
Synova: Your plan sounds reasonable but do you realize just how seriously it would cripple the overall economy? The whole wedding industry alone would require billions of dollars in bailout funds. And the divorce industry? My god! Domestic relations lawyers would be lined up for blocks waiting for food stamps
Right Titus, Jews love all the fagelahs.
I respectfully disagree - the vast majority of people I have met who are anti-legalizing gay marriage truly do not hate gays
I'm not interested in quibbling over the word "hate". Let's just agree that the word "bigotry" applies and leave it at that. I don't see a huge amount of difference between a person who wants gays thrown in prison because he hates gay people and a person who wants gays thrown in prison because he feels their behavior conflicts with traditional morality. :)
and many favor some sort of civil unions.
Many do. Most do not.
Simon
I'm a Liberal and I read lots of Liberal blogs. I have to ask where you get your information? It is not 'all those dern Liberals' in general who are upset about Prop 8. Most of us are taking it in stride and actually much more happy because of Obama's win. It is primarily gay rights activists and some gay folks who are protesting. Let them protest. Are you opposed to that? Just please don't paint with such a broad brush stroke.
I adore Utah! Deer Valley has ski caddies who meet you at your car and carry the skis to the lift area for you. Alta has the most wonderful glade skiing and the only place I've ever been where the beginner slopes are moguled from top to bottom. Solitude has wide open spaces with mogul fields one can ski into and out of with ease. Did I mention that Deer Valley has elegant restaurants at the side of the slopes? What's not to love?
Maybe California's gay community hate the Mormons because the Latter-Day Saints have their own movie industry?
ricpic said...
"beautiful beyond belief. And ... conservative."
Is it "who is Christina Hendricks," Alex?
Mormons, I guess, are supposed to change their principles to conform with homosexual activism. If gays could magically take away heterosexuals' right to marry the opposite sex, they'd do it -- out of pure spite. And everyone knows it. Who owns the hate here?
Utah has skiing that rivals Colorado. The slopes are wonderfully family-friendly. They boast Olympic level runs and skiers. Their back bowls are breathtakingly stunning. A few less skiers will only help the Utah brand.
I said this before and came under attack, but I'll say it again, these people really need to find a new agnomen because the term "gay" no longer cuts it. False advertising.
Bad, bad, bad sour approach.
But while set on protesting, why not lash out at the religious group that would have their heads and not the group who participates in blocking for the nonce state sanctioned marriage? They've chosen the softest of all targets. I'm unimpressed.
What doesn't follow is that this is rooted in bigotry. Keep in mind that most of this group likely views same-sex attraction as changeable, not as a permanent distinction from themselves.
Hopeless ignorance is not a defense against accusations of bigotry. If, for example, I refuse to hire black people because I honestly believe all black people are lazy and stupid, I'm still a bigot. I'm just an *ignorant* bigot.
In this light, being opposed to homosexual acts is about as bigoted as being opposed to fornication or adultery.
That argument only works if the people in question think fornication and adultery should be illegal, too. Few Americans feel that way. If you think sex between two unmarried women should be criminally punished and sex between an unmarried man and woman should not be, the claim that you're not exhibiting bigotry doesn't hold water.
The gays should be encouraged as things are looking good for their cause. I hear that President elect Obama has appointed Golan Cipel as Director of Homeland Security. It looks like everything will work out just fine.
Matt said...
"It is not 'all those dern Liberals' in general who are upset about Prop 8 ... [i]t is primarily gay rights activists"
And the political leanings of those gay rights activists are...? Can we not say with 99.9% certainty that one could fire a barrage of grapeshot into one of these protests and not hit a McCain voter?
Still, I will happily acknowledge that many liberals do have a grip and consider preparation 8 to be a minor bump in the road. (And well they might, given that the clock is ticking on it it and all similar measures passed in recent years.) I'm just bemused why some - including some who comment here - insist on acting like such sore winners.
If you think sex between two unmarried women should be criminally punished and sex between an unmarried man and woman should not be, the claim that you're not exhibiting bigotry doesn't hold water.
But (a) hardly anyone believes that and (b) that's a settled issues as of Romer and (c) that's totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
"If you think sex between two unmarried women should be criminally punished...."
I think it should be filmed and posted on the internet so we can make an informed judgement. Please provide a link.
Thank you.
Syn,
Just so. It's a political loser, but you're right: The answer is to define marriage up. Place a serious burden on it; include benefits for having children; penalize for divorce.
This is what society used to do. This is what was lost in the '60s and '70s and what makes this discussion a little bit silly.
The entire text of Proposition 8 is "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Same-sex couples still have all the other benefits granted under domestic partnership. We're pretty much arguing about a word.
If you think sex between two unmarried women should be criminally punished....
I think it's criminal to even think that's criminal.
Mormons, I guess, are supposed to change their principles to conform with homosexual activism.
Why not? They changed their principles to conform to the federal government's desire that monogamous marriage be the law of the land. Later, they changed their principles to discard their belief that blacks were inferior to whites. It isn't like there's no precedent for politically convenient revelations.
Let's just take my own *down* marriage/divorce experience as an example...
Wedding:
ring.........$5,000.
dress.......$2,500.
church.....$500.
gifts ........$10,000.
limo.........$400.
cake.........$279.
honeymoon at the beach.....$3,500.
kids/pets $1.750,843.
30-year mortgage..$602,429.
Divorce:
her attorneys... $150,000. +/- $50,000.
my lawyer... $7,136.53
Now, I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out, but as you can see, we plowed quite a few bucks into the economy. Define marriage *up* and you'll wind up sucking all the romance out of the deal and reasonable parties will simply walk away. We'll all end up living in our own little separate cabins in New Hampshire without heat. Kind of like how I live now.
What Trooper said!
I once saw a video with Honey Wilder and Kay Parker going at it that definately should been illegal, cause it was so hot it could set your tv on fire.
Of course they weren't married at the time... Just related... In the story... Not in real life... You know what I mean... all you pervs.
Can we not say with 99.9% certainty that one could fire a barrage of grapeshot into one of these protests and not hit a McCain voter?
Um, Simon... this is a group of people who feel very, very strongly that Proposition 8 should not have been passed. McCain supported Proposition 8. Obama opposed Proposition 8. So yes, it would be shocking to discover that a group of people vehemently opposed to the passage of a law had voted for the guy who supported it over the guy who opposed it.
But (a) hardly anyone believes that and (b) that's a settled issues as of Romer and (c) that's totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion.
Claim (a) is false; like I noted earlier, approximately a third of Americans believe exactly that.
That is is settled law simply means that the people in question are *frustrated* homophobes, rather than homophobes with the ability to throw gay people in prison. :)
Most of the female porno stars of the late seventies and early eighties were very enthuastic in performing in girl on girl scenes. Kay Parker, Honey Wilder, Gloria Leonard, Raven, Seka, Ginger Lynn, Traci Lords and Christy Canyon were all happy to get right in there and go for the gusto. Strap it on and go for it so to speak.
The only one who was overly political about it was Erica Boyer. The rumor was that she was a committed lesbian who would not have sexual intercourse with a man. I mean she would blow you all day long but no vagina for you.
She did find a specialty though, she only did anal. In fact in a lot of movies that was the only reason why they hired her. She was just there for the anal.
Sort of like Michael here at Althouse.
Revenant,
"If, for example, I refuse to hire black people because I honestly believe all black people are lazy and stupid, I'm still a bigot. I'm just an *ignorant* bigot."
If you did that then you recognize a distinction between black and white people. That is why bigot applies because you dislike *black* people. But if you view everyone as being potentially susceptible to same-sex attraction, and you don't think anyone should partake, then there is no group distinction. It's just an action that you believe no one should do.
"That argument only works if the people in question think fornication and adultery should be illegal, too."
Giving that fornication and adultery are currently illegal in many states I think it's safe to say that many do.
"If you think sex between two unmarried women should be criminally punished and sex between an unmarried man and woman should not be, the claim that you're not exhibiting bigotry doesn't hold water."
As long as we're talking about acts instead of people then no, there is no evidence of bigotry. Acts can vary in severity. I'm not arguing for the wisdom behind that viewpoint though.
Did you get all of that info from Kearns Goodwin as well, Trooper?
Giving that fornication and adultery are currently illegal in many states I think it's safe to say that many do.
You can think whatever you want. It is a fact that support for criminalization of consensual heterosexual sex is in the single digits. Fornication and adultery aren't illegal in ANY states. There are laws on the books to that effect, but they remain on the books because they have no legal power and people don't care enough to bother removing them.
As long as we're talking about acts instead of people then no, there is no evidence of bigotry.
Apparently you don't know what the word "bigotry" means. If bigotry can only apply to people and not to acts then it is impossible to be an "anti-Mormon bigot". They all chose to be Mormons.
Revenant: What do you think of people that would be in favor of civil unions for same sex couples?
Are they homophobes for believing marriage should stay between a man and a woman?
I'm very much enjoying this discussion, by the way. Thanks to all of the contributors.
The thing about watching lesbo love...I feel left out.
That would be *people who...
Meade --
"Domestic relations lawyers would be lined up for blocks waiting for food stamps"
Good.
Revenant: What do you think of people that would be in favor of civil unions for same sex couples? Are they homophobes for believing marriage should stay between a man and a woman?
I already explained that it was possible to oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe. I would guess that the "civil unions only" folks have a lower rate of homophobia than the "shove 'em back in the closet" crowd.
At the same time, it is hard to think of any coherent reason for giving gay people all the benefits of marriage but insisting that the government not use that word. Gay people ALREADY get married, in churches or in private ceremonies. They call their marriages "marriages", as do other people. The only thing they don't get is all the juicy government benefits that married people get. If you give them those, too, then what's the point of demanding that the government say they aren't really married? That's like saying it walks like a duck and it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck but for God's sake don't call it a duck -- call it a "civilly recognized waterfowl" instead. Can anyone offer a *rational* reason for behaving in that manner?
Of course there's a "Utah brand", see for instance this: travel.utah.gov
And, can the Althouse Archivist let us know if this is the first time that she's realized just how un-liberal many "liberals" are?
Note that the site in question was involved in at least four smears against Palin: link, link, link, link. If Althouse or anyone else wants to do something, perhaps they should consider pointing that out as well.
Revenant,
"Fornication and adultery aren't illegal in ANY states. There are laws on the books to that effect, but they remain on the books because they have no legal power and people don't care enough to bother removing them."
Are you assuming that everyone that would support criminalizing homosexual acts would actually want the law to be enforced? I find that doubtful. Unenforced moral laws serve as a statement of cultural standards, some people like that. Why else would the laws remain on the books?
"If bigotry can only apply to people and not to acts then it is impossible to be an "anti-Mormon bigot".
If you dislike Mormons then you dislike Mormons, I'll let you choose a word to describe that. But what action in particular are you complaining about which transcends their religious classification? A better example would be the FLDS. You can want polygamy to be illegal without being a bigot. The fact that polygamy is tied into the identity of the FLDS church is beside the point, it's ok to view polygamy as unacceptable.
I don't like to blow my own horn Darcy, but I am generally recognized as one of the leading authorities on late seventies/early eighties porno in these United States. I try to be modest about it as Bissage is very jealous.
Also if I could blow my own horn I would never leave the house. And I would want to marry myself. But that's another story for another day.
Someday I will tell you about my encounters with Vanessa Del Rio and the Circle of Doom
Can anyone offer a *rational* reason for behaving in that manner?
There often aren't any *rational* reasons for moral values, and wanting them to change or not is likewise not entirely rational.
What is the *rational* reason for the age of consent to be what it is, or to think it's ooky for first cousins to have (protected) sex, or for someone to not be able to drink until he is 21?
Morality isn't entirely rational, yet our society needs morality. Calling people haters when they aren't ready to see change is counter productive.
I'm for gay marriage. I'm not so much for other kinds of marriage that are currently unacceptable. What would happen if one of those other groups that can't currently get married decided everyone that doesn't agree with them is a hater?
The changing of accepted morality is hard. It just is. Going against the churches (or a state) is a horrible idea. Better to try to understand and change opinions from the perspective of the people who aren't yet ready.
Plus Doris Kearns Godwin does not care for the delights of Sapphic love. She is only into “granny” sex tapes. Specifically young girls having graphic sexual encounters with balding older men. On a toilet.
She is super freaky.
Allegedly
Revenant,
"Can anyone offer a *rational* reason for behaving in that manner?"
Based on reproductive reality, society needs opposite-sex unions. It requires a large amount of them if it wants to survive and meet it's future needs. In contrast, it doesn't need same-sex unions at all.
Providing a bias in favor of opposite-sex unions makes sense given their superior average worth. That is why same-sex marriage makes no sense to me on a secular level other than a bizarre attempt at forced fairness in spite of the biological truths.
Look at it like this, which way would society rather have bisexuals swing? What would be better for society in the long run? Why shouldn't we provide incentives based on this?
Simon
Sore winners
Obama's win and the passing of Prop 8 are mutually exclusive. It is possible to have more than one feeling about the issues of the day. If you were gay I am sure you would at the very least be a bit disturbed that a right had been taken from you.
Look at it like this, which way would society rather have bisexuals swing?
Swing on this!
In "Hannah Does Her Sisters"
(1986), Erica Boyer won the competition among her sisters for the hunky delivery man who proceeded to make his delivery at the back door so to speak.
That made her a prototypical "sore winner."
There often aren't any *rational* reasons for moral values, and wanting them to change or not is likewise not entirely rational.
But what's the moral value here? The people in question are conceding that people should be allowed to cohabit, have sex, raise children, receive their partner's retirement benefits, enjoy hospital visitation rights, have community property, et al... they just can't use the exact word, "marriage". They have to use a different word, "civil union", which describes the same state of affairs. How is that a MORAL objection? What moral tells you that it is acceptable for gay people to do all the same things heterosexual people do, but not to use a certain word to describe doing it?
I can see moral objections to allowing gay marriages to be recognized, but those objections would apply equally to civil unions. What I don't see is the moral (or rational) argument for allowing "marriage in all but name" buy explicitly denying the use of the name by the government (while allowing its increasingly widespread common usage by people).
Since when did a church have a "democratic right"? I thought "demos" meant "people" in Greek, not "tax-exempt charitable organization." Guess I was wrong.
If you dislike Mormons then you dislike Mormons, I'll let you choose a word to describe that.
I don't have to choose a word. The word "bigotry" already exists, and defines the behavior in question. You are entitled to think that "bigotry" only applies to disliking people based on their innate traits, but as a matter of English language usage you are mistaken on that point.
The main focus is going to be going after the Utah brand
I don't understand why people are demanding something that it's on it's way to extinction.
If "marriage" is a sound investment; I got some GM and Fanny Mae stock to sell you.
Unless the idea is "marriage" as a symbol of acceptance by the society at large. Marrying the society at large may need to go on a few dates first. What's the rush ;)
Doesn't this Mormon mob look like an old fashion shotgun wedding?
If you were gay I am sure you would at the very least be a bit disturbed that a right had been taken from you.
How is marriage a right?
It's just not, at all, a right. Not in any culture and not in ours.
Is same sex marriage a good idea? Maybe. If it was ever presented that way. In addition to having and raising children, families are the base unit of social welfare and support. In this sense marriage is worth promoting without considering reproduction, and divorce is not just a personal tragedy but a significant detriment and drain on society.
Why do so many people oppose giving up the *word* marriage? Because it feels like giving up.
Gays will get the right to marriage when no one *cares* anymore. When we are all just too tired to fight the disintegration of this fundamental social unit anymore.
"Til death do us part" *already* means, "until I'm not having fun."
To be clear about it... framing the question as a "right" is so much as saying that the "right" is important and marriage can go hang.
Frame the question as a promotion of "until death do us part" marriage, of promotion of marriage because it's valuable and desirable and a community good to support stable and permanent partnerships. Be PRO-marriage.
In the seminal work of Mormon based porno, Ron Jeremy and Raven starred in the famous porno-biopic “I’m a little bit County & I’m little bit Rock and Roll, but we are both Freakn’ Whores.” It was the story of a brother and sister singing act who had to perform weird and kinky sex acts to get on television where they had a reputation as a clean and wholesome family act.
Based on a true story.
The balding old guy gig is a nice gig if you can get it...and then do it. I wonder how many of those old guys get a heart attack trying to do it? A lot of wheezing past the two minute mark, I've noticed.
I can see moral objections to allowing gay marriages to be recognized, but those objections would apply equally to civil unions. What I don't see is the moral (or rational) argument for allowing "marriage in all but name" buy explicitly denying the use of the name by the government (while allowing its increasingly widespread common usage by people).
You are watching a transition. The morality was always that marriage was between a man and a woman. For much of this country's existence, being gay was rarely discussed and certainly not practiced openly. People, in the past 30 years or so, have moved to be more accepting and more inclusive of gays, including finally! legally recognizing gay relationships. Don't use a trend toward inclusiveness *against* people.
There is also the fear that if they/we let marriage change for one group, it will change a lot. It's entirely rational to consider the ways additional changes in marriage could change our society.
It the sex on the toilet thing that is the hardest to master. You body keeps getting mixed signals.
It doesn't know if you are coming or going.
So to speak.
Based on reproductive reality, society needs opposite-sex unions.
First of all, I asked for a rational argument for allowing civil unions and not allowing recognition of gay marriage. Your argument doesn't address that request.
Secondly, what a society needs is a stable population level -- a steadily growing population eventually runs out of space and resources, while a steadily shrinking population eventually dies out. It does not need "opposite-sex unions" per se.
Finally, your argument is an argument for favoring people who bear and raise children. It is not an argument for favoring heterosexual marriages over homosexual marriages, since many homosexual marriages produce and/or raise children and many heterosexual marriages do neither. Rationally speaking, a lesbian couple with children conceived via artificial insemination are much more valuable to the long-term health of society than a childless Baptist couple -- so what's the rational argument for giving the latter more marriage benefits than the former?
So even if one was ignorant enough to believe homosexuality is chosen, the argument that society needs to force those people to marry heterosexually or not at all would remain ridiculous.
How is marriage a right?
Synova, it is a fact of law that gays had the right to government recognition of their marriages, and that this right was taken away from them. You could argue that nobody enjoys a natural right to marry, and I'd agree with you. But they did enjoy a LEGAL right, just as heterosexuals do, and THAT right was most definitely taken away from them.
Frame the question as a promotion of "until death do us part" marriage, of promotion of marriage because it's valuable and desirable and a community good to support stable and permanent partnerships. Be PRO-marriage.
Exactly!
So even if one was ignorant enough to believe homosexuality is chosen,
I don't understand the value of this argument, or calling one side "ignorant".
Look around. We've got Lindsay Lohan deeply in love with a woman after a series of men, Madonna cavorting on stage with both genders, and Anne Heche having a series of male lovers after Ellen.
One could look at many examples and come away with the idea that sexuality is a choice.
Better to go with the idea that it doesn't matter, as long as one is willing to be committed to just one person.
There is a possibility, that gays are just the first in a long list of of people who voted for Obama and will live to regret it.
There are others beside me who are good at pointing out the obvious.
First of all, I asked for a rational argument for allowing civil unions and not allowing recognition of gay marriage. Your argument doesn't address that request.
Because it feels like giving up.
I'm not sure that's a rational argument for allowing one but not the other, but I think it's probably the real reason.
As for having children... yes, we need to do that, but I don't see it as an argument for marriage so much. Attitudes about children and having them (they ruin your life, consume resources, and destroy the world) are a different disaster.
Still...
So even if one was ignorant enough to believe homosexuality is chosen,...
I think it's pretty ignorant to think that most people *don't* have a choice. Human beings are generally equal opportunity when it comes to sex. If some of us are born one way or the other, the vast majority would have sex with anything and anyone that could be configured to rub the right part.
You know I hesitate to mention it but Althouse has the same exact hair cut now that Honey Wilder had in "You're a Bad Bad Bunny" a 1979 Dark Brothers release.
In it Ms. Wilder played a lonely college professor who had vivid dreams about having sex with a large rabbit. This continued until one day her next door neighbor showed up with a bottle of wine and a bunny suit.
The really scary part about the whole movie.
The neighbor’s name was Simon.
From a link on Instapundit:
Family caregivers provide an estimated $237 billion in unpaid services a year.
they just can't use the exact word, "marriage". They have to use a different word, "civil union", which describes the same state of affairs. How is that a MORAL objection? What moral tells you that it is acceptable for gay people to do all the same things heterosexual people do, but not to use a certain word to describe doing it?
It's bit analogous to trademark infringement- you just can't infringe another group's mark.
I'm in a heterosexual civil union-performed at a city hall, by a judge. I check "married" on the tax form, but I also consider my state of matrimony different than had I been married in church by a priest. If we lump all the states of matrimony together, I would still expect those who consider marriage a rite to want a distinctive word and I expect they have a right to the original name and concept.
Revenant,
"First of all, I asked for a rational argument for allowing civil unions and not allowing recognition of gay marriage. Your argument doesn't address that request."
Yeah, I realized that after I had posted. That's not my position, I don't favor same-sex civil unions either. My argument is that society should favor opposite-sex unions over same-sex unions period.
"a steadily growing population eventually runs out of space and resources"
Given current demographic trends of our culture versus other less desirable cultures I'm not very worried about overpopulation at the moment.
"Rationally speaking, a lesbian couple with children conceived via artificial insemination are much more valuable to the long-term health of society than a childless Baptist couple -- so what's the rational argument for giving the latter more marriage benefits than the former?"
I said superior average worth. Opposite-sex unions carry with them the built-in advantage of procreation, same-sex unions do not. Same-sex unions might provide part of the benefits of opposite-sex unions (ability to adopt, ability to provide stability), but they will always lack that quality and will therefore never be as essential to society.
"So even if one was ignorant enough to believe homosexuality is chosen, the argument that society needs to force those people to marry heterosexually or not at all would remain ridiculous."
You're taking the easy route, forget about whether or not opposite-sex attraction is learnable. As I said before, consider bisexuals. There are at least as many bisexuals, if not more, than homosexuals. Why would society be apathetic about whether they join an opposite-sex or same-sex union when opposite-sex unions have obvious benefits that same-sex unions lack?
Ann has never even lifted her pinky to help gay rights.
And she's straight. So its irrelevant what Ann thinks about this idea.
Every single gay person I've spoken to about this thinks it is a good idea and plans on boycotting Utah - including Sundance. There is massive pressure on Robert Redford to move the venue.
Mormons are scum. Every fucking single one of them. They believe that they get to rule their own planet when they die - so they are also insane.
Boycott Utah!
I mean... I flip past some reality something on television... the cute girl is going to meet her fiance's family and wonders how they will react to the fact that she's bisexual.
Wha???
California should also be boycotted.
As should every hate state that has made gays second class citizens.
Including Wisconsin - one of the biggest hate states of them all. Every resident who continues to reside in Wisconsin tolerates discrimination against gays.
Because it feels like giving up.
I don't see how that is a rational reason. The people in question have already given up; they've conceded all the stuff that matters. Its like saying "ok, you are allowed to charge people money in exchange for sex, but you are not allowed to call yourself a prostitute". That's Orwellian, don't you think?
I think it's pretty ignorant to think that most people *don't* have a choice.
People can choose to have sex or not to, and who they do or don't have sex with. Those are choices. Who they are attracted TO is not a choice. Nobody gets to choose that.
So people "choose to be gay" if you define a man who is sexually attracted to men and not to women, but who doesn't actually HAVE sex with men, as "not a gay man". But I think that's pretty ridiculous, don't you? I don't stop being heterosexual just because I'm not getting any.
If you define homosexuality in terms of attraction rather than action -- which is how the term is generally defined these days -- then I think it is obvious that it isn't "chosen". We don't choose who we find sexually attractive. What a world we'd live in if we did! Rape, incest, and adultery would be virtually nonexistent, and charming but plain and chubby women would never have to worry about competition from the dumb and annoying skinny girl with the big tits.
homosexual marriages
An oxymoron. The combination of the man with the woman gives marriage its essence. If you take the man or the woman out of the equation, it's no longer marriage. It would be all yin and no yang, or vice versa. Like low calorie ice cream, or non-alcoholic beer, same-sex marriage cannot be other than imitation.
I would never deny gay couples their substitute for marriage, however.
A very interesting and timely expose of religious bigotry and intolerance was the most popular of Christy Canyon’s movies at Vivid Video in which she played a Mossad agent who infiltrated an anti-Semitic militia in “Where the Goy’s Are.” The busty Ms. Canyon played a secret agent who was “inserted” into a surfer/biker gang led by Peter North and Jamie Gilles. She uses her unique charms to investigate and prosecute this anti-Semitic biker gang where she smothered the leader with her ginormous boobs until he surrendered.
This movie has served as the source material for the current FX series “The Sons of Anarchy.”
Katie Segal of Married with Children fame plays the Christy Cannon role.
There are so many people here who are so wrong on so many different points!
Let's me just respond to the "slippery slope" polygamy argument: Lame. Try again.
Study your history. Marriage used to often involve one man and several women. It was the Mormons' favorite way to tie the knot up until only recently. Long story short, don't tell me that two people of the same gender being allowed a legal marriage will lead to polygamy.....polygamy preceded same sex marriage.
This is only one point of many to make. Should I explain how the California courts have already stated that they will never sanction polygamy because of its documented correlation with statutory rape and incest?
With all that said, the protesters need to back off the idiotic Mormons. While it is completely justifiable to despise and criticize these people, it doesn't make sense strategically.
It's kind of sad really. All the Mormon church really wants is to be accepted as a valid religion by all the other religions, so they picked a wedge issue to be at the forefront of that they thought might make them seem "normal" to the Evangelicals and Catholics. Poor guys.
downtownlad said...California should also be boycotted.
As should every hate state that has made gays second class citizens.
Including Wisconsin - one of the biggest hate states of them all. Every resident who continues to reside in Wisconsin tolerates discrimination against gays.
Name a state where the majority of blacks and latinos are pro gay marriage.
Why not boycott every US city with a large black and latino population?
Why? Because you are a liberal wussbag who fears black/latino male aggression.
So you fixate on non-threatening White people like Mormons and spineless cheeseheads.
I'd like to have sex with a dog on my street, maybe even marry the mutt, but this idea creeps out my neighbors, and apparently it's illegal in my state (those MORALISTS!) Wonder if I could get it on a referendum?
Study your history. Marriage used to often involve one man and several women. It was the Mormons' favorite way to tie the knot up until only recently.
So polygamists had their right taken away from them.
Is that an outrage?
Should their right be restored?
In the seminal Kirdy Stevens film “Cheese-heads” the famous porno star Harry Reams had his final performance. He played an alien from the Planet Remulac who unfortunately lacked a spine and was forced to lie in a basket at the university where he managed to get a job as he was a cunning linguist. Also starring Traci Lords as the Beaver and Raven as his wife Connie.
It was Mr. Ream’s last performance because he was so enthusiastic that he rubbed off his trade mark porno guy mustache that he was never able to grow back and thus was forced to leave the business.
He now sells real estate in Las Vegas and is a motivational speaker.
Based on a true story.
ZPS, you really can't be too quick to dismiss the slippery slope argument.
Either it is acceptable for government to regulate marriage at all, or it isn't. Perhaps you consider polygamy a non-starter---fine, for the sake of argument, take it off the table. What about consanguinous or incestuous marriage (between adults of course)?
At least those who would take government out of the marriage business altogether are logically consistent. But if you honestly want to see gay marriage legalized but agree that other permutations should not be, you have to deal with the slippery slope argument.
Gee, Ann. I think this is the party you voted for...just sayin'
All the Mormon church really wants is to be accepted as a valid religion by all the other religions, so they picked a wedge issue to be at the forefront of that they thought might make them seem "normal" to the Evangelicals and Catholics. Poor guys.
I don't think the Mormon Church did this to seem "normal," but rather because they are conservative and desire to uphold traditional marriage (regardless of their past).
Second, it's not that Evangelicals believe that Mormonism is not a valid religion, it's the conviction that's it's not a Christian religion.
Mormons stand quiet for years while societal boundary after societal boundary are crossed, and finally they take a stand and eveyone says that are haters.
But the evidence that Mormons are haters does not exist.
If you want to see examples of Mormon leaders urging the Mormons to do something, here or here
How can you watch those and still claim that Mormons are haters?
It defies logic.
Mormons want to be seen as Christian, which by their own beliefs, they clearly are not. They have been trying to blend in for years: ending polygamy, accepting Blacks (at least in theory), etc.
Rev, I don't dispute that some people are strongly oriented, but as a *species* I think it's baloney.
A person doesn't have to deny that some people truly are "born that way" to also admit that human sexuality is essentially equal opportunity. The limits on our sexuality is, in large part, external conditioning.
I have a great deal of sympathy for a man or woman who really is not attracted to the opposite sex... what a horrible thing to try to force something different. But I have little or no sympathy for the concept of being "bi-sexual" since I believe humans are generally omni-sexual, so at what point does this become an "orientation?" And the "lifestyle" issues of promiscuity or the idea that a person who leaves a long term spouse and children because they want a different, less confining, life style. How, really, is that person any different from the one who exchanges a husband for a new, better, husband, or exchanges the old wife for a new wife?
Boycotting Utah and picketing the Mormon church is really, really gay.
A person doesn't have to deny that some people truly are "born that way" to also admit that human sexuality is essentially equal opportunity. The limits on our sexuality is, in large part, external conditioning.
At this point the jury is still out - it seems to be a mix of reasons.
Well stated, MCG. Gays don't address the slippery slope argument because it would force them to admit that they want gay marriage, well, because they just want it. The issue is nothing but a contest of unadulterated political muscle masquerading as some sort of serious-minded civil rights problem we must wrestle with. Hogwash. Why don't gays just say they want the right because they think they can get the right. I'd have more respect for the argument that way.
quayle:
You mean crossing the boundary by allowing blacks to be part of their church? How dare society demand equality!
Also, they did their share of boundary crossing. Polygamy, anyone?
If we have to tolerate Mormons and their wacked out beliefs about Jesus coming to Latin America and that their alcoholic and pediphilic Prophet was called by god, they should be a bit more tolerant.
The Yes on 8 campaign was evil and full of lies. Lies are not Christian. And neither are Mormons.
richard,
That's not right. Same-sex couples want their relationships legally recongized just like everyone else's. That's it. Why don't they address the slippery slope, as you say? Because they aren't the ones interested in incestuous, polygamous, or bestial marriages. That's why.
Mormons want to be seen as Christian, which by their own beliefs, they clearly are not. They have been trying to blend in for years: ending polygamy, accepting Blacks (at least in theory), etc.
I feel I must kindly correct the record here.
First on blacks: Joseph Smith was an abolitionist as were all Mormons in the early-mid 1800s. That is one of the reasons that Mormons were kicked out of Missouri.
As documented by Josiah Quincy, president of Harvard College and later Mayor of Boston, Joseph Smith was an abolitionist and proposed selling government lands to buy and free the slaves, thus preserving the right of property, but still freeing the bondsman. But Joseph Smith proposed this in 1844, a full 11 years before Ralph Waldo Emerson proposed it..
Quincy wrote that if Emerson was advanced for his time in making that proposal in 1855, “what shall I say of the political and religious leader [Smith] who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844”?
Further, In the entire history of the church, Mormons have never had segregated congregations.
Third, there are no cases of Utah being like the "Christian" south states in their treatment of freed slaves or of blacks in the 1900s. Utah was not a slave state, was not segregated, and was never the target of the courts of the department of justice to end its treatment of blacks, as other “Christian” southern states were.
Forth, Mormons build just as nice of churches in black neighborhoods as they do rich white neighborhoods. You don’t see that anywhere in Christianity, expect perhaps with the Catholics. Ever noticed how evangelical and Baptists churches in rich towns are plush and large, and the churches in the black parts of town are run down and small. Not so with Mormons. They are all the same.
Fifth, When priesthood was extended to the blacks, the entire church turned on a dime in one week. There were no hold outs or splinter groups. That is not the mark of racists people.
So, the evidence just doesn’t support the notion that Mormons were ever haters of blacks or racial bigots. The entire picture just doesn’t support the argument.
Second, it's not that Evangelicals believe that Mormonism is not a valid religion, it's the conviction that's it's not a Christian religion.
That's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Aside from Judaism, which some fundamentalists think has an ongoing role in God's plan, there IS no non-Christian religion that most Christian faiths view as valid.
"That's not right. Same-sex couples want their relationships legally recongized just like everyone else's. That's it."
No, some of us don't. Some of don't want any marriages to be legally recognized. I don't need the blessing of the State to form a romantic relationship. Do heterosexuals?
Also, they did their share of boundary crossing. Polygamy, anyone?
When you say "polygamy anyone?", do you mean Abraham or Isaac? Or how about Jacob?
How ironic that Islam would probably have been very comfortable with a Mitt Romney president once they found out that he was devout, did't drink, and had polygamy in his past.
If we have to tolerate Mormons and their wacked out beliefs about Jesus coming to Latin America and that their alcoholic and pediphilic Prophet was called by god, they should be a bit more tolerant.
Pedophile prophet has a certain ring to it, but it isn't substantiated with any facts.
It is likely, or true even, that Joseph Smith married a 16 year old, but the burden is on you to prove that marrying 16 year olds was exceptional or considered a wrong in the frontier American west in the 1800s. Lots of 16 year olds were married back then.
(Just to be clear – the group in Texas is not in any way associated with the Salt Lake based Mormon church. They are a sect that broke off in the early 1900s.)
As for the other theological issues, nobody is forcing you to accept them. Accept them or not - its your choice.
And when you talk of tolerance, I would remind you that Mormons got the stuffing beat out of them by the other Americans until around 1900. The Mormons made their claims and argued their position of “free exercise” under the constitution. When their arguments were rejected, they conformed to the rule of law.
clearly there should be some punishment of the Mormon church for spending 20,000,000 dollars on the yes on 8 campaign. 20 million dollars is a lot of money to strip fellow citizens of their legal rights.
Thank god they saved children of gay parents from being able to say that their parents are married. I know I feel better knowing that those children are growing up in unmarried households.
Gay marriage is for lesbian mommies and Andrew Sullivan idyl on cape code...why not give it to them.
Thanks for your response, Revenant.
I just wish the gays would keep quiet, mind their business, don't look for special rights and quit molesting our children.
Out of sight and out of mind.
That's pretty much a distinction without a difference. Aside from Judaism, which some fundamentalists think has an ongoing role in God's plan, there IS no non-Christian religion that most Christian faiths view as valid.
I guess it would depend on what someone means by the word "valid."
Taking the normal sense of what valid means, I think most Evangelicals would say that all religions are valid (and so too atheists :)
Rev, I don't dispute that some people are strongly oriented, but as a *species* I think it's baloney.
"Some" people? That implies that most people AREN'T strongly oriented. Do you honestly believe that most heterosexuals don't have a strong orientation towards the opposite gender?
And what do you mean "as a species you think it's baloney"? Every mammalian species on Earth has a strong predisposition towards heterosexual sexual activity, with exclusive homosexual behavior being rare. What's the rational basis for concluding that what is instinct in everything from mice to elephants is *chosen* in human beings?
An even better question would be why the heck men put up with all the crap we put up with to get women to sleep with us if most of us aren't really THAT committed to heterosexuality. :)
But I have little or no sympathy for the concept of being "bi-sexual" since I believe humans are generally omni-sexual, so at what point does this become an "orientation?"
Presumably there is a spectrum of preference, with various people covering a wider or narrower range. But the evidence suggests that men are heavily concentrated at the two extremes, women somewhat less so.
Rev wrote: "Aside from Judaism, which some fundamentalists think has an ongoing role in God's plan, there IS no non-Christian religion that most Christian faiths view as valid."
I concur, but I would change "some" to many. Of course, I am not a fundamentalist. I think that most evangelicals like me would concur.
And I also think that persecution is good for the Church. We had a time where we were the religion of default. You remember, Jim Crow, rampant alcoholism, and treating unwed mothers (what a quaint term now!) so badly that abortion was made legal.
We did not do so well from my perspective. Now, with perhaps growing persecution, it will mean something to say that you follow Christ. It will involve defacto sacrifice. I think that is a good thing as seriously following Christ always involves sacrifice.
Here is praying that we start doing better.
Trey
Mixalhs said...
"Why don't [proponents of gay marriage] address the slippery slope ... ? Because they aren't the ones interested in incestuous, polygamous, or bestial marriages."
That doesn't work. If I propose to drop a daisy cutter into a crowded mall to take out a drug kingpin, I can't credibly refuse to address civilian casualties on the grounds that I'm not interested in or specifically targeting civilians. Likewise here: if you propound an argument for gay marriage that would seem to have the predictable upshot of legalizing polygamy and so forth, you have to address why either (1) it won't have that result or (2) it will but that's okay.
"clearly there should be some punishment of the Mormon church for spending 20,000,000 dollars on the yes on 8 campaign"
Really? Should that punishment start before or after we look into the 600,000,000 or so that Obama collected from who-knows-where and used to buy his way into the Oval Office?
"That doesn't work. If I propose to drop a daisy cutter into a crowded mall to take out a drug kingpin, I can't credibly refuse to address civilian casualties on the grounds that I'm not interested in or specifically targeting civilians."
Why not? Bush and Donald Rumsfeld did.
donn wrote: "I think most Evangelicals would say that all religions are valid"
I can't agree. Evangelicals believe that salvation comes only through Jesus because it is in our Scripture. Evangelicals are big on the Scriptures. It is called Solus Christus. Here is a blurb from one of the Evangelical umbrella organizations.
"We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father. We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ's substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited."
Trey
I'm interested in some thoughtful answers to Simon's last sentence.
Thanks.
UPDATE: CBN reports:
Several churches have been vandalized by apparent supporters of same-sex marriage since the idea was banned in California last week, local police have reported....
Look, I just want to say that those are probably NOT individuals - gay or otherwise - who would make good marriage partners.
So, the evidence just doesn’t support the notion that Mormons were ever haters of blacks or racial bigots.
They expressly forbade black people from being priests until 1978.
Q.E.D.
"Likewise here: if you propound an argument for gay marriage that would seem to have the predictable upshot of legalizing polygamy and so forth, you have to address why either (1) it won't have that result or (2) it will but that's okay."
My great-great-great grandfather had 11 wives and 57 children. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for polygamy!
"Look, I just want to say that those are probably NOT individuals - gay or otherwise - who would make good marriage partners."
Only a faggot would use something as wussy as a BB gun in a terrorist spree.
I'm a faggot. I'm allowed to say faggot.
I'm also looking for more porn star biographies.
Kidding.
I'm a wussy. I'm allowed to say wussy.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"Let's me just respond to the 'slippery slope' polygamy argument: ... Study your history. Marriage used to often involve one man and several women."
As usual, you present a talking point and cite no evidence for it. Don't tell us to "study history" - cite evidence of your assertion. The burden of proof rests on you.
"It was the Mormons' favorite way to tie the knot up until only recently."
We required some of the western states to ban polygamy as a condition of entry to the union, upheld by the Supreme Court in Reynolds. If polygamy happened, it was quite definitely aberrant.
"We required some of the western states to ban polygamy as a condition of entry to the union, upheld by the Supreme Court in Reynolds. If polygamy happened, it was quite definitely aberrant."
Are you calling my ancestors "aberrant", knuckle-knobs?
Trooper York said...
"The really scary part about the whole movie[?] The neighbor’s name was Simon."
Ha ha.
Where's the "political violence in USA" tag, Althouse?
Taking the normal sense of what valid means, I think most Evangelicals would say that all religions are valid
Hm, I think you're quite wrong on that point.
Valid (adj)
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason
2. producing the desired result; effective
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative
Let's take, for example, Islam. Islam holds that Jesus was not divine, nor was he the final and ultimate prophet revealing God's will. Furthermore, following Jesus' teachings rather than those of Mohammed is not sufficient to allow you into Heaven, and made in fact result in you being excluded from Heaven.
From a Christian perspective, this means that Islam denies the central tenet of Christianity and teaches people the wrong was to secure eternal life. So Islam is unsound, wrongly founded, produces undesired results (assuming the desired result is "following God's will" or "getting into Heaven" or the like), and lacks either force or authority. By any standard, Islam would seem to be an INvalid religion, from a Christian point of view. It may have individual beliefs that are valid (e.g., generosity to the poor), but taken as a whole I don't see how the word can be applied.
Today's Mormon Church does not want to have to practice polygamy. This Church expended far too many assets (money, people and goodwill) to defeat gay marriage in only one state. When Mormons stopped the practice of polygamy it was solely for the reason that the practice was illegal. Their sacred doctrine would still require polygamy were it now legal.
Here’s the irony: the Mormon Church hates polygamy even more than it could ever hate gays. Gay marriage is no threat to the continued existence of Mormonism; legal polygamy is a death sentence.
Aside from Judaism, which some fundamentalists think has an ongoing role in God's plan, there IS no non-Christian religion that most Christian faiths view as valid.
It takes a special kind of willful bending of language to say that Mormons are not Christian.
Usually when people say Mormons are not Christians, what they are really saying is that Mormons are not trinitarians - i.e. God the Father, Jesus, Holy Ghost are one and the same being.
Mormons believe that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are seperate persons.
Mormons would point out that the concept of the trinity was absent in Christ's church until the 4th century.
The Mormon's straightforward case that they are Christian is set forth here and here.
Palladian?!?
Blogger Palladian said...
"That doesn't work. If I propose to drop a daisy cutter into a crowded mall to take out a drug kingpin, I can't credibly refuse to address civilian casualties on the grounds that I'm not interested in or specifically targeting civilians."
Why not? Bush and Donald Rumsfeld did.
8:14 PM
1) BS
2) Unworthy of you
3) Those weren't OUR civilians
4) Why doesn't OBL just hang out in Times Square or the Ginza or the Times Square equivalent in Pakistan's capital, then?
5) Oh yeah, irrelevant, total non sequitur
6) Other than that, PROFIT!!!!!!11!
Sorry, Nichevo. I was just practicing "cruel neutrality". And preparing for the day (soon I suspect) when Bush Hatred is legally mandated.
QUAYLE,
It takes a special kind of willful bending of language to say that Mormons are not Christian.
I think what they are saying is that Mormonism is Christian heresy, like Gnosticism. Not being a Christian, though, perhaps I am wrong or am using the wrong word.
I believe in the BODACITY OF HOPE.
Darcy said...
"I'm interested in some thoughtful answers to Simon's last sentence."
I suppose that one answer is to simply refuse to engage the point. They don't have to answer - they can say that they don't have to answer to people who have concerns. But that's been the problem proponents of same-sex marriage have, the most basic problem of all: they don't feel, most of them, that they should have to justify their view. they don't feel that they should have to convince people. Revealed preference suggests to me that they feel that it should be enough to claim that this is a right, brand their opponents as bigots, and expect everyone to fall in line behind them. As a consequence, they keep losing because they just will not argue for their position as opposed to simply insisting on it.
Zachary,
What you don't seem to realize is that the very fact that polygamy used to be allowed in our ancestors' cultures -- and in the case of some recent immigrants, existing cultures -- makes the slippery slope argument MORE, not less, credible.
If the courts decide that people have an inherent right to monogamous homosexual marriage, which has almost NEVER been allowed in this or any other culture, then how can it deny a right to polygamous marriage, which has been practiced in almost EVERY culture in one form or another? People who worry about the courts discovering spurious "natural rights" where none previously existed have good, legitimate reasons to worry about things like legalized polygamy, simply because there is no legitimate argument for a natural right to gay marriage that does not also grant a natural right to polygamy, or consensual incest, or any other icky personal consensual arrangement people might feel like getting into.
Where the slippery slope argument DOESN'T hold water is when it is applied to democratic actions. If we democratically grant gay couples the right to marry (or, as in California, "marry in all but name"), then the argument for why polygamy won't come next is simple: because most people don't want polygamy. Most people don't want legalized consensual incest.
But when the courts (and all too many gay activists) adopt a position of "fuck what the people want, this is about natural rights", it falls on them to explain why that natural right covers *exactly* two non-blood-relatives of whatever gender, and neither more nor less. You haven't done that, because you can't.
That bimbo! I guess you don't care but she was toying with my affections. La Belle Dame is a damned tease! Fortunately y'all are here. I think blogging is much more about the ecosystem, i.e. posters, than about the host many times.
Yes, Palladian, let's all welcome our new socialist overlords. ;<
Death to Ming! Oh no, wait, that wasn't it...AAAH!!!!!!!!!!!
Palladian said...
"I believe in the BODACITY OF HOPE"
I believe in the audacity of buying a bunny suit.
Form Palladian's link: While in St. Louis, Andrus preached many sermons. Among those who joined the church due to his preaching was Carl Eyring, who would later become a long-serving president of the Indian Territory Mission in Oklahoma, and who was the grandfather on the noted physicist Henry Eyring.
Henry Erying was a demi-god in science. I mean, the man had disciples, and invented a whole school of thought.
Revenant-
I agree with every word of your 8:49 PM post. perfect.
They expressly forbade black people from being priests until 1978.
So on that same logic, God is a biggot and hates all the son's of Jacob except Levi.
Or rather would you say that God can give or withhold the priesthood as He sees fit.
Here's my paternal family tree:
Ruluf Andress (or Andrews or Andrus), great-great-great-great grandfather. 2 non-concurrent wives.
Milo Andrus, great-great-great grandfather. 11 wives, some concurrent, some not. Some divorced, some divorced and remarried, etc. 57 offspring.
James Andrus, great-great grandfather. 2 wives, sisters (!) concurrent. 20 offspring.
Alexander Burto Andrus, great-grandfather. 2 non-concurrent wives. 6 offspring.
Calvert Brooks Andrus, grandfather. 1 wife. 4 offspring.
So you see, I owe a great ancestral debt to both Mormonism (though my father's family didn't practice, "Jack" Mormons, if you will) and to polygamy. Yay polygamy!
Valid (adj)
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason
2. producing the desired result; effective
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative
Does atheism meet def #1?
Yes.
Does atheism meet def #2?
Yes.
Does atheism meet def #3?
Yes. Or do you disagree?
It takes a special kind of willful bending of language to say that Mormons are not Christian.
Would that be the same kind of special bending of language used to say that an organization which denied people leadership positions on the basis of their race wasn't racist? Or was it a different sort of bending? :)
Usually when people say Mormons are not Christians, what they are really saying is that Mormons are not trinitarians
That is one of many areas in which the LDS differs from other Christian faiths. Other obvious examples include (a) their belief that the Book of Mormon as legitimate gospel rather than a heretical text and (b) the beliefs relating to the ascension of mortals to divine stature.
So on that same logic, God is a biggot and hates all the son's of Jacob except Levi.
I'm not really interested in arguing about the moral failings of fictional characters. But I would observe that God wasn't the one who said "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood". That was the entirely mortal head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Brigham Young.
Apparently God un-cursed "Cain's seed" in the late 70s. Go figure.
I agree that Revenant's 8:49 was a good answer to Simon's question. And if we voted in gay marriage tomorrow, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I want to encourage that kind of commitment in a loving relationship.
I do worry about the dam breaking here, though. And offering the idea that we democratically decide as opposed to the courts finding a "right" sounds good, and so does the fact that we would have enough sense to draw the line behind two non-blood-related adults.
However, can I just say that I'm not in the mood to trust the voting public right now, though?
The great thing about having Mormon ancestors, especially Mormon ancestors who were Pioneers and who knew the Prophet, is that your genealogy is already thoroughly researched for you. I can point to relatives named Randolphus or William Vel Thomas who lived in Warwickshire in the 1300's.
Yet strangely enough, the most important line, the patrilinear one, goes only as far back as my great-great-great-great grandfather Ruluf. Nothing is known about where he came from or who his parents were. dum dum DUM! I think he was torn from the thigh of Zeus.
Revenant, Brigham Young brought racialism into the Church. "None of Joseph Smith's statements ever mentioned blacks in the context of a right to hold or not to hold the priesthood of the church. However, LDS scripture teaches that the gospel shall be taught to "all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."(D&C 42:58) The elders of the church were commanded that "every man which will embrace it with singleness of heart may be ordained and sent forth."(D&C 36:7) There was no exclusion in LDS scripture based on race."
Thanks, Brigham!
James Andrus, great-great grandfather. 2 wives, sisters (!) concurrent. 20 offspring.
Damn, it would take a special kind of courage to marry sisters at the same time.
1. sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason
Does atheism meet def #1? Yes.
Say what? What sort of "Christian" thinks a belief whose entire foundation is "God does not exist" is "well-founded"?
2. producing the desired result; effective
Does atheism meet def #2? Yes.
How, exactly, does denying God's will and winding up in Hell qualify as "producing the desired result"? Neither atheists nor Christians want that end result for atheists.
3. having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative
Does atheism meet def #2? Yes. Or do you disagree?
I disagree that any Christian would actually think the belief that God doesn't exist was "authoritative", and especially not that it was cogent. As for force and weight, how can a false belief have force or weight?
Certainly from MY perspective atheism is valid (and Christianity isn't). But from a Christian perspective atheism is anything but a valid belief system.
"Certainly from MY perspective atheism is valid (and Christianity isn't). But from a Christian perspective atheism is anything but a valid belief system."
Atheism isn't a "belief system" is it? It's more like 7-Up: The Un-Belief System. No metaphysics! Never had it, never will!
Nichevo wrote: "I think what they are saying is that Mormonism is Christian heresy, like Gnosticism. Not being a Christian, though, perhaps I am wrong or am using the wrong word."
You are correct sir! Nichevo, you and Rev and Palladian get my vote as three non-Christians who know more about Christianity than many Christians. It is always a pleasure to read what you guys post. Carry on!
Trey
Quayle - Thanks for cutting through the anti-Mormon bigotry. One of my brother-in-laws is a Jack Mormon, but has many practicing Mormon family members I've met. All good people. Really good people.
******************
Hoosier Daddy said...
Wasn't there a similar percentage of black voters also suported the ban?
I'll hold my breath for the gay protest march in South Central LA.
Not to mention that the LGBT Drama Queens have yet to invade any Mosque for a little protest theater like they did St Patrick's Cathedral in NYC, descrating some church fixtures and disrupting masses.
The little wussies know what the outcome in a black church or a mosque would be.
I still say the Catholics should have thumped the tar out of the homo brigade at St Pats. Or, better yet, rouged their cheeks, shaved their assed and tied them up dressed as altar boys for the priests to deal with.
***************
Darcy said...
I'm also looking for more porn star biographies.
Kidding.
Well Darcy, Trooper York has been on a run, even mentioning an esteemed Professors hair cut reminding him of an old portn star. While of course not diminishing her gravitas..which could be applicable to both ladies...
But not to get off the topic, we have the topic of female Mormon porn stars who do LGB but not T.
Courtney Simpson - 4.0 GPA, national squad backup gymnast, ASU cheerleader, full academic scholarship, Mormon, doctor's daughter. Found sex in college, went nuts in a way that suggests Catholic girls gone bad have nothing on Mormon babes. Put her considerable flexibility, intelligence, and athletic skill to noble work in 3 years of vigorous "I can't believe she did that! It's physically impossible!" among her many porn flicks.
Holds the #2 spot in "Greatest College & Pro Cheerleading Scandals".
Now out of porn and rumored to be in med school.
Belladonna, Kelsey Michaels - 2 Mormon mainstream teen models gone naughty. Very naughty. Belladonna's dad is a retired AF Captain and Bishop in LDS.
Brandy Alexandre - Another vigorous Mormon. 3-letter athlete and skilled surfer. Porn star of the 80s.
Annette Haven - From back in Trooper Yorks era in the 70s. Known as the 1st porn star with movie star looks & bod. Trained as a ballet dancer, cut off from Mormon parents for eloping with boyfriend.. She tried a new line of work when ballet didn't work out..
Google is wonderful. It has opened up vistas of research never contemplated before.
Revenant said...
"Where the slippery slope argument DOESN'T hold water is when it is applied to democratic actions. If we democratically grant gay couples the right to marry ..., then the argument for why polygamy won't come next is simple: because most people don't want polygamy."
While I agree with much of what you say, I can't agree that pointing to the ballot box defeases the slippery slope. The problem remains that once you throw out the authority of tradition to define the institution of marriage, it's gone, and it isn't much of a defense to say "we choose not to do this today"; tomorrow we may choose to, which is the very essence of the slippery slope. Once you put a foot on the slippery slope, there isn't a logical stopping point.
Perhaps therein lies the fundamental difference between people on this. People who are against same-sex marriage tend to regard marriage as a noun: as an institution that you take on its own terms. People who are for it tend, it seems to me, to see marriage as a verb: as something you do, on your own terms.
Going after Utah for a California vote is a little like PETA activists throwing paint at fur-wearing women while ignoring leather-clad bikers.
Palladian, I'll see your one G3-grandfather Andrus and raise to my two G3-grandfathers Heber C. Kimball (43 wives, 65 children)
and Orson Pratt (10 wives, 43 kids). Note, not all of either one's wives had children.
That's not just a couple of large branches in my family tree; those are entire f'ing trees by themselves.
My G3-grandmother, one of HCK's wives, practiced polyandry as well. While married to one man, she also married Joseph Smith. She stayed married to that man, after Smith's murder, when she married HCK.
I wonder if you and I are related. Mitt and I are through Pratt.
Rev,
I'm not a person that thinks only my views are valid; I guess that's not the case with you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा