The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

[il Padrino Ute]

Honestly, my observation locally indicates that such is not the case any more, although i get what you are saying.

Perhaps in the weeks right after the election, but since then, the heat has died down considerably. There are no more protests and boycotts and I haven't heard of anyone getting hassled outside of chapels.

The ones here that are still blaming the LDS Church for the world's woes are the ones that have an anti-Church agenda, independent of the gay marriage issue. They will pop up again in a year or so once Mitt announces and gets back on the trail.

Yes, I'm talking about right after the election, as I believed that was what others were talking about based on this article linked by Lebowski:

http://monterey.montereycountyweekly...wAd?oid=574575

I didn't notice until just now that the article was written last month, so perhaps there are a few who still blame SLC.

[cowboy]

oh! ok. My bad. I misread.

I was about to give up meat for a few weeks just to get back at you. Thank goodness you clarified!

Tears were shed. Smiles were shared. Kumbaya was sung.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Of course I am. I am also aware and I assume you are, the media suggests that support both financial and with time came from members outside of the state as well as the California members. Now that I think of it, I was solicited more than once by a member to give time and or money. My statement earlier in retrospect that I knew no one personally who gave time or money was wrong. There were 3 people out of all the people I know personally.

So when someone says "members fell into line", they could very well be talking about "members", not just very active, very conservative, very I will do what I am told no matter what I think, "members".

Do you want to deny that many journalists try to write their articles in such a way as to portray "members" of the church" as non thinking robots.

I think the sentence in question was both fair and accurate given the context and topic of the article. And I think your objections are rather silly. Sorry.

[BigPiney]

I think your 30% number is way too high.

In my ward we had about 20% of active members participate and way less than that even give money.

Of course apathy is the word du jour in my ward, so we aren't representitive of most California wards.

[ERCougar]

I was being TIC, but truthfully, those are basically the two main reasons everyone has.

My wife voted Yes. She thinks our kids might catch the gay at school. That is her big concern.

My wife also would have voted yes, and while she doesn't think kids will catch the gay, she is concerned that elementary school age children are too young to have to deal with variations from the "normal" family picture. While a legal definition of marriage has little effect on what kids see, I have to admit that she's right that it would remove a barrier to the normalcy of homosexuality. Where we disagree is whether this is a bad thing. I'd gladly take my youngest kids to a gay pride parade if it meant that they would learn to lovingly accept people who have different morals. My wife wouldn't let me. Yet in practice, she's much better than I am at loving people from all different backgrounds.

The argument that may have some validity is the radical departure from our history that the formalization of gay marriages would represent. We've based our civilization, our tax structure, property rights, etc. on the basic heterosexual marriage and family model. I'm not sure a departure from this would have any effect, but I don't know that and neither do you. As a believing LDS member, it gives me a little pause when my accepted prophet says this would strike at the moral foundations of our society. He may be wrong, but he also may be right.

There are a lot of homophobic people in the Church, and the unfortunate (and I think, unintended) consequence of the Church's involvement is that suddenly, a lot of these people feel vindicated in their homophobia. My wife is hardly one of these people and she sees this as tragic.

Overall, I have to agree that the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely.

[byu71]

I think the sentence in question was both fair and accurate given the context and topic of the article. And I think your objections are rather silly. Sorry.

No need to be sorry. After all it is just an opinion and you didn't take it to the level of calling me a racist, bigot, homo phobe or an ignorant SOB because of the opinion I have.

[KillerDog]

<YAWN>

Gay people are different.
Different is good.
Different is bad.
We want to be treated the same.
We want to treat you differently.
Different is bad.
Different is good.
Different is natural.
Different is against nature.
What about our Rights?
What about our Rights?
You should think differently.
You should change your actions.

<YAWN>

[Color Me Badd Fan]

My wife also would have voted yes, and while she doesn't think kids will catch the gay, she is concerned that elementary school age children are too young to have to deal with variations from the "normal" family picture. While a legal definition of marriage has little effect on what kids see, I have to admit that she's right that it would remove a barrier to the normalcy of homosexuality. Where we disagree is whether this is a bad thing. I'd gladly take my youngest kids to a gay pride parade if it meant that they would learn to lovingly accept people who have different morals. My wife wouldn't let me. Yet in practice, she's much better than I am at loving people from all different backgrounds.

The argument that may have some validity is the radical departure from our history that the formalization of gay marriages would represent. We've based our civilization, our tax structure, property rights, etc. on the basic heterosexual marriage and family model. I'm not sure a departure from this would have any effect, but I don't know that and neither do you. As a believing LDS member, it gives me a little pause when my accepted prophet says this would strike at the moral foundations of our society. He may be wrong, but he also may be right.

There are a lot of homophobic people in the Church, and the unfortunate (and I think, unintended) consequence of the Church's involvement is that suddenly, a lot of these people feel vindicated in their homophobia. My wife is hardly one of these people and she sees this as tragic.

Overall, I have to agree that the government should just get out of the marriage business entirely.

If I had voted in California in the last election, I would have probably written in "present" on Prop. 8. As long as domestic partnerships or whatever they're called, get the same legal rights as heterosexual marriages do, then I just don't see the big deal one way or the other. If anything, the anti-gay marriage stand, while also supporting domestic partnerships, is the more ridiculous point of view because basically you're fighting over a label. From my understanding, a huge portion of people who are against gay marriage don't mind domestic partnerships and a gay couple having the same legal rights that married people enjoy with the exception of the adoption of children. Even if the term "marriage" is extended to gay couples, that doesn't necessarily mean that they would have the same rights as heterosexual couples in adopting children.

I can kind of understand why gays want to fight for the marriage term because they view it as symbol of equality. It probably wouldn't have hurt Rosa Parks much if she just walked to the back of the bus, but symbolism counts for something so she sat at the front of the bus.

[SeattleUte]

I'm worried about this thread. At the rate it's going it will easily overtake my New Approach to the Book of Mormon as a best seller.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm worried about this thread. At the rate it's going it will easily overtake my New Approach to the Book of Mormon as a best seller.

Aha... This explains your stubbornness in that thread. And it answers the question posed in yet another thread.

[YOhio]

I'm worried about this thread. At the rate it's going it will easily overtake my New Approach to the Book of Mormon as a best seller.

Waters was right about you. That's what Satan said about Jesus' plan in the Pre-Mortal Counsel.

[RobinFinderson]

To answer the questions of some who wonder why gay marriage is matters if civil unions offer all of the same benefits --

It matters during tax season, when partners in a gay civil union are still unable to file a joint tax return.

It matters when gay partners in a civil union are traveling, and their relationship status and benefits change dramatically as they cross state borders.

It matters if the legal process of attaining civil union status is more costly than the equivalent process for heterosexual couples.

[byu71]

To answer the questions of some who wonder why gay marriage is matters if civil unions offer all of the same benefits --

It matters during tax season, when partners in a gay civil union are still unable to file a joint tax return.

It matters when gay partners in a civil union are traveling, and their relationship status and benefits change dramatically as they cross state borders.

It matters if the legal process of attaining civil union status is more costly than the equivalent process for heterosexual couples.

I am all for equalling out those 3 items. Let's just fix the civil union statute's and leave marriage the way it is.

[YOhio]

The Mormons are coming!

http://www.mormongate.com/

[TripletDaddy]

LOL @ 800 number to "call in tips." Very cloak and dagger.

That is a sweet poem. Grace should have used it for his ward talent show.