Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[SoonerCoug]

That's a slippery slope isn't it? Some people might consider drugs an integral part of the pursuit of happiness. How about marrying a ferris wheel?

What is the relationship of the Declaration of independence and the Constitution? Would an argument referring to the DOI hold up in court.

Forgive my ignorance, but the constitution doesn't mention this does it?

Homosexuality is a normal variant in human biology. Comparing it to "marrying a ferris wheel" is ridiculous. It's as much a part of their happiness as heterosexual marriage is to heterosexuals. Comparing homosexuality to an abnormal, rare variant isn't fair either.

[KillerDog]

The comparison between persecution of Mormons and blacks is unfortunate, to put it mildly.

Were you intentionally misstating his position or was the misstatement accidental?

[KillerDog]

But equating boycotting with voter intimidation practiced against black people during the Civil Rights Movement seems like an argument that will:

1. Only appeal to the church's most ardent defenders.
2. Can potentially alienate more members who feel uncomfortable with the church's political activity.
3. Look desperate/pathetic/foolish in the eyes of most non-Mormons.

Even if a non-Mormon would otherwise be inclined to support the church's anti-gay-marriage position, the comparison to suffering black people is going to turn off many.

Is that the comparison he made? I don't believe so. I think it is clear that he used a well known example of intimidation and mistreatment and its resulting EFFECT as a comparison to the EFFECT the response in California to the Prop. 8 vote. I think he isn't comparing treatment as much as how any intimidation used as a political devise is reprehensible because of the chilling effect it has on democracy.

The real question is, are you intentionally misunderstanding in an effort to strengthen your personal feelings and arguments or do you really not read that well?

[SoCalCoug]

Is that the comparison he made? I don't believe so. I think it is clear that he used a well known example of intimidation and mistreatment and its resulting EFFECT as a comparison to the EFFECT the response in California to the Prop. 8 vote. I think he isn't comparing treatment as much as how any intimidation used as a political devise is reprehensible because of the chilling effect it has on democracy.

The real question is, are you intentionally misunderstanding in an effort to strengthen your personal feelings and arguments or do you really not read that well?

You're splitting hairs on a statement that makes an emotional appeal. Elder Oaks is the one who brought up the analogy. His analogy has a reasonable interpretation and an emotional interpretation. A good analogy will use both to strengthen the point. A poor one will require the hearer or reader to split hairs.

[KillerDog]

You're splitting hairs on a statement that makes an emotional appeal. Elder Oaks is the one who brought up the analogy. His analogy has a reasonable interpretation and an emotional interpretation. A good analogy will use both to strengthen the point. A poor one will require the hearer or reader to split hairs.

The quote, properly placed in its context, is perfectly clear what the analogy means. The emotional interpretation put forth in this thread and in the paper can only be surmised if the reader takes the quote out of context. In his context, it is clear that Oaks is only talking about the negative effect which can arise from people attempting to intimidate others and thereby preventing the appropriate democratic process from occurring.

IOW, I reject you analysis that I'm splitting hairs. Read the speech or even that section of the speech and it is clear he is in no way talking about anything but the effect.

[TripletDaddy]

Absolute silence from certain posters who have been very loud in this thread so far speaks volumes.

hey dummy! i pointed out a few pages back that Oaks was drawing parallels, but highly unlikely that he was intending to compare the two issues.

Bonus that you are reading this but can't respond!

[TripletDaddy]

In a related development....a few hours ago, this, re: the persuasiveness of "precedent and tradition"....

A federal judge refused today to dismiss a constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, ruling the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage raised legal and factual issues that required a trial.


U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, ruling after nearly two hours of arguments in San Francisco, rejected contentions by Proposition 8's proponents that precedent and tradition clearly showed last November's ballot measure permissible under the U.S. Constitution.


Walker previously ordered the Proposition 8 campaign to disclose its internal memorandums and communications to gay rights lawyers. The campaign is appealing that order to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on 1st Amendment grounds.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-challenge-to-prop-8.html

The media covering this a few hours announced that interviews at the courthouse off the record indicated the expectation that this will shimmy up the ladder to the USSC sooner than later.

Hear that? Footsteps......

[KillerDog]

I wonder what the grounds were for ordering the Prop. 8 Campaign to release its internal memoranda and communications?

[LA Ute]

In a related development....a few hours ago, this, re: the persuasiveness of "precedent and tradition"....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-challenge-to-prop-8.html

The media covering this a few hours announced that interviews at the courthouse off the record indicated the expectation that this will shimmy up the ladder to the USSC sooner than later.

Hear that? Footsteps......

I haven't dug into this very far, but I don't think there are the votes on the Supreme Court for a pro-gay marriage ruling. Maybe they're hoping Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas or Roberts will die in time for Obama to appoint a liberal. All they need is one vote, after all.

[TripletDaddy]

I haven't dug into this very far, but I don't think there are the votes on the Supreme Court for a pro-gay marriage ruling. Maybe they're hoping Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas or Roberts will die in time for Obama to appoint a liberal. All they need is one vote, after all.

lol. you are basically SeattleUte-lite.

[LA Ute]

lol. you are basically SeattleUte-lite.

Every yin needs its yang.

[SoonerCoug]

I can't believe the Oaks remarks are featured on the front page of LDS.org. This quote sums up how ludicrous his comments were:

"Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops' lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths?" asked University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell. "By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the '60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two."

[Maximus]

I can't believe the Oaks remarks are featured on the front page of LDS.org. This quote sums up how ludicrous his comments were:

"Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops' lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths?" asked University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell. "By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the '60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two."

Again, he does not compare the violence towards black and the backlash against mormons. he is mearly saying the fact that there is a backlash is similar.

[SoonerCoug]

Again, he does not compare the violence towards black and the backlash against mormons. he is mearly saying the fact that there is a backlash is similar.

Gays and their allies are the ones fighting for civil rights. It's ludicrous to suggest that Mormon marriages are at risk because of gay marriage.

[DU Ute]

Again, he does not compare the violence towards black and the backlash against mormons. he is mearly saying the fact that there is a backlash is similar.

But you can't get worked up in self righteous indignation over that!