Yahoo: "Mormon Mom Who Fought For Prop 8 Now Fights for Gay Son"

[clackamascoug]

Clack, you might just want to tap out at this point. Yikes.

Ok... boss.

[jay santos]

<deleted - privacy violation>

I'm a big Grapevine fan. I've been reading Grapevine posts for 10 years. I don't think he wants to be treated with kid gloves. If a person says something offensive, whether they be ____ or gay or whatever, it's OK to call that out. I didn't say you, Grape, and BRM are assholes. I like you and Grape. What you said (and continue to say) was offensive.

I understand your point of view. I understand that to you it doesn't seem offensive (and honestly it's probably what I would have said 15 years ago). And what you say isn't quite as offensive as what Grape said, and I'm not gay, so really I should probably butt out. But I'm pretty sure gay people would be offended by both you and Grape.

[jay santos]

I'm just pointing out that there is nothing that grape has posted that isn't completely supported by innumerable writings from LDS sources pretty high up in the chain of command on the subject, up to and including the current time. Maybe you've got something to counter that?

I wouldn't say Grape is at the core of Mormonism, but I would say he is very representative of a segment of Mormonism that exists today in a minority view and was a majority view maybe 30/40 years ago in the heart of Utah Mormondom, ie the environment a lot of us were raised in.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ok... boss.

I am not your boss. You are certainly welcome to blather on if you like.

[woot]

<deleted - privacy violation>

Yeesh. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you haven't thought about this very much. Here's a better way to think about it: Every human is different. Our bones are shaped differently, we have different numbers of arteries and nerves, different hair color/density/type, etc. Some humans even differ in whom they find sexually attractive. Variation is the rule in biology, not the exception. Humans also have a long history of deciding that certain types of variation are more acceptable than other, and considering the latter to be defects. The faster we can rid ourselves of that malicious trend, the better.

The line between normal variation and pathology can indeed be blurry sometimes, so perhaps that would be an interesting conversation to have. Needless to say, there is no reason at this point (other than religious indoctrination) to single out homosexuality.

[ERCougar]

I wouldn't say Grape is at the core of Mormonism, but I would say he is very representative of a segment of Mormonism that exists today in a minority view and was a majority view maybe 30/40 years ago in the heart of Utah Mormondom, ie the environment a lot of us were raised in.

I don't think he's at the center. I don't even think he represents a majority view much of the time (although wrt homosexuality, I think he does). What he does represent is what the written record of Mormon leaders has to say, without all of the dressing up that Mormons often do to make it more palatable. That's what I meant by "core".

[Non Sequitur]

Grape is not close to being the core of Mormonism. He's the drunk uncle at whom you politely nod. Clack is closer to the core of Mormonism. He holds the same opinions, but for entirely different reasons.

[Uncle Ted]

Serious question:

Given the attitudes of conservative religious persons in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, doesn't that go a long way disproving religion altogether?

The written script is fairly blunt in its condemnation of homosexual behavior, despite what modern science seems to indicate.

The "proof" of religion relies on the actions of its dumbass leadership?!?

If you are looking to disprove religion then you should find a mathematical model that shows that life could have simply started by an accident. The probability that life just happened in the relatively short period of time the earth has been around is so small that it is mathematically impossible. It would be a better argument that someone in an UFO dropped off the ingredients of life during while vacationing in this part of the universe. I guess that makes ET our God. Of course, who is ET's god?

[San Juan Sun]

Clack, you might just want to tap out at this point. Yikes.

In some other dimension, he's making a good argument.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Oh brother. I guess I forgot you are the authority on all things mormon. Good thing what you whine about isnt actually what mormonism is at its core.

I endorse this "oh brother". Sorry ER, but that sounded like a parody of a bad SU post.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Serious question:

Given the attitudes of conservative religious persons in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, doesn't that go a long way disproving religion altogether?

The written script is fairly blunt in its condemnation of homosexual behavior, despite what modern science seems to indicate.

Wasn't that long ago that you were using science to condemn homosexuality. Yawn.

[ERCougar]

I endorse this "oh brother". Sorry ER, but that sounded like a parody of a bad SU post.

Funny. The "oh brother" made it sound like a...oh, never mind.

I'm still waiting for something from any LDS authority contradicting what grape just said. Anything. Should be pretty easy since he's so far afield from mainstream LDS doctrine.

[Topper]

Wasn't that long ago that you were using science to condemn homosexuality. Yawn.

With a theology that posits homosexuality to be a sin of choice, and science showing it is not, it shows that those beliefs in that god are false. Hence, homosexuality proves the lack of god.

[woot]

With a theology that posits homosexuality to be a sin of choice, and science showing it is not, it shows that those beliefs in that god are false. Hence, homosexuality proves the lack of god.

As silly as this argument seems, it does seem pretty similar to BKP's logic. Why would god create gay people?, he asks. The fact is that the god he believes in wouldn't ever do such a thing. He uses that as evidence that homosexuality isn't part of an individual's essential identity, but if you accept the fact that gay people exist, then BKP must logically believe in a false [version of, at least] god.

BKP is a throwback that way. BRM's Mormon Doctrine is chock full of similar arguments. If evolution is true, Adam and Eve didn't exist, if they didn't exist there was no fall, no fall no need for atonement, no need for atonement then the whole thing would be a shame. Ergo, evolution can't be true. But evolution is true, ergo the whole thing must be a sham (according to BRM).

It's good for the church that they've moved away from such arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that this sort of argument kept generations of mormons believing. And frankly, these seem like honest arguments that are exactly what I would expect to see in "the true church". And they would have gotten away with it too if not for those meddling scientists.

[Topper]

As silly as this argument seems, it does seem pretty similar to BKP's logic. Why would god create gay people?, he asks. The fact is that the god he believes in wouldn't ever do such a thing. He uses that as evidence that homosexuality isn't part of an individual's essential identity, but if you accept the fact that gay people exist, then BKP must logically believe in a false [version of, at least] god.

BKP is a throwback that way. BRM's Mormon Doctrine is chock full of similar arguments. If evolution is true, Adam and Eve didn't exist, if they didn't exist there was no fall, no fall no need for atonement, no need for atonement then the whole thing would be a shame. Ergo, evolution can't be true. But evolution is true, ergo the whole thing must be a sham (according to BRM).

It's good for the church that they've moved away from such arguments, but it doesn't change the fact that this sort of argument kept generations of mormons believing. And frankly, these seem like honest arguments that are exactly what I would expect to see in "the true church". And they would have gotten away with it too if not for those meddling scientists.

Smile.