The Bigots’ Last Hurrah

[ERCougar]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but it didn't take very long for someone to pull out the bigot label. That's annoying and not fair. My wife has her reasons for opposing legalized gay marriage and none of them have anything to do with hating gay people or thinking anything less of them. I disagree with her but I certainly respect her opinion and I know there are others out there who have decent reasons not borne of hate for their stand.

For all your enlightenment, SU, you sure can be provincial.

[SeattleUte]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but it didn't take very long for someone to pull out the bigot label. That's annoying and not fair. My wife has her reasons for opposing legalized gay marriage and none of them have anything to do with hating gay people or thinking anything less of them. I disagree with her but I certainly respect her opinion and I know there are others out there who have decent reasons not borne of hate for their stand.

For all your enlightenment, SU, you sure can be provincial.

Perhaps you could deign to read the the thread then before calliNg people provincial. The title of the thread is a copy of a title of a NY Times op-ed piece from yesterday's edition linked in the first post. I didn't start it, by the way. So the thread's departure point was an article in the NY Time calling opponents of gay marriage bigoted. That's where the word was introduced here.

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

[SeattleUte]

On a scale of 1-10 how "utterly intolerant" would you say you are in the LDS churches stand on gay marriage. I would put myself at about a 3-4.

10. I'm utterly intolerant of it. It's wrong.

[ERCougar]

Perhaps you could deign to read the the thread then before calliNg people provincial. The title of the thread is a copy of a title of a NY Times op-ed piece from yesterday's edition linked in the first post. I didn't start it, by the way. So the thread's departure point was an article in the NY Time calling opponents of gay marriage bigoted. That's where the word was introduced here.

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

Fair enough...
sorry
Sort of.

[tooblue]

Perhaps you could deign to read the the thread then before calliNg people provincial. The title of the thread is a copy of a title of a NY Times op-ed piece from yesterday's edition linked in the first post. I didn't start it, by the way. So the thread's departure point was an article in the NY Time calling opponents of gay marriage bigoted. That's where the word was introduced here.

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

Well, a premise of the article is that if you oppose gay marriage that's what you are, as well as a bigot. You have said plenty. The article (an op-ed piece on the NY Times, the paper of record, no less) is about the emerging mainstreaming of gay culture and gay marriage. So you are the one who should be insecure.

You did start it.

[byu71]

10. I'm utterly intolerant of it. It's wrong.

My guess is, correct me if wrong, that the you are are a 10 also on mormons belief in the Book of Mormon, a current Prophet and other beliefs. Would you then consider yourself a bigot when it comes to the LDS church, at least according to the definition in the dictionary?

[Colly Wolly]

I DEMAND AN APOLOGY!

LOL.

[TripletDaddy]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but it didn't take very long for someone to pull out the bigot label. That's annoying and not fair. My wife has her reasons for opposing legalized gay marriage and none of them have anything to do with hating gay people or thinking anything less of them. I disagree with her but I certainly respect her opinion and I know there are others out there who have decent reasons not borne of hate for their stand.

For all your enlightenment, SU, you sure can be provincial.

Just out of curiosity, what were the reasons?

Kids catching the gay at elementary school or Mormons being forced to catch the gay at the temple?

[Indy Coug]

For it to be "our Gettysburg" (the Church representing the North obviously, not the South) the Church would have to win not just the battle but the entire war.

The war against gay marriage will be lost, my friend. There is no doubt. It's only a matter of time.

The war is member vs member, not member vs gay "rights".

[TripletDaddy]

The war is member vs member, not member vs gay "rights".

Which group of members is the anti-slavery analog?

[byu71]

Which group of members is the anti-slavery analog?

Do you come down on the side of those who would equate being anti gay marriage with those who would have been pro slavery? I get lost in the debate when someone throws out a TIC post and doesn't indicate it as such.

I know I do this too and it is great for affect, but I am curious about your actual position on those who oppose gay marriage.

[CardiacCoug]

The war is member vs member, not member vs gay "rights".

You're saying this was the original intent of the statement? No way. This is your spin on it.

The original intent of the statement was clearly an analogy to the political battle over gay marriage.

[byu71]

The war is member vs member, not member vs gay "rights".

I don't think war has broken out. War would mean pro gay marriage members would be calling the "anti's" bigots and the "anti's" would be calling for gay marriage supporters to have their recommends jerked. That isn't going on yet.

[TripletDaddy]

Do you come down on the side of those who would equate being anti gay marriage with those who would have been pro slavery? I get lost in the debate when someone throws out a TIC post and doesn't indicate it as such.

I know I do this too and it is great for affect, but I am curious about your actual position on those who oppose gay marriage.

Turthfully, I don't think the Gettysburg analogy is a very good one, and I was using my question to point that out. If Indy is correct and Pres. Monson is meaning that this gay-rights thing is a member vs member battle, then which group is the pro-slavery group (meaning the group that has taken a ridiculous position against civil rights) and which group is the anti-slavery group (the group that wants to extend civil rights)?

Additionally, I see no reason to think that this gay marriage issue is going to lead to massive "spiritual" casualties. It is pretty much a dead issue at this point in Church. While it is still referenced here and there, are there vigorous debates and angry mobs of members threatening to leave the Church? There have been some, yes....but anything close to epic proportions? Hardly.

To answer your question, I do not think those that oppose gay marriage are slave-owner equivalents. I do think we are denying gays some basic civil rights and using religion to do such, but I personally don't equate an inability to legally marry with indentured servitude, rape, and torture. Again, this is why I think the Gettsyburg analogy isn't very good. I think it was used for dramatic effect even though it really made little sense and was poorly thought out. It apparently worked, though, because some people are still using it.

[cowboy]

I do think we are denying gays some basic civil rights and using religion to do such...

I try to stay away from this topic because I know that people on both sides hold strong beliefs. Still, against my better judgment, I'll wade in. What rights are denied gay couples through Prop 8 that could not be granted through civil unions?