Can't defend this one

[TripletDaddy]

One of the things I got out of Prop 8 is how neither side of the debate has much of a clue about what the other is really like. Maybe with time that will get better.

Another blanket statement.

I know what it is like to be opposed to and fearful of homosexuality. I used to be opposed to homosexuality, gay marriage, and the like.

I think it is you, rather, that is lacking.

[faith]

I know a bunch of gay members who are openly out and have retained their church membership in full standing. Granted I know a lot more gays who are former members but saying the church kicks someone out just for being gay simply isn't true.

The church has done some rather surprising (and progressive for them) things to learn how to deal with its gay membership and has been doing so for many years. These are things that the general membership would not believe if someone clued them in.

I agree with you that the church doesn’t kick someone out just for being gay. However, some of my Gay Mormon friends would not consider the way the church has dealt with their homosexuality in any way “progressive”. I specifically recall the experiences of a very close friend at BYU. She had just returned to BYU from her mission and told her bishop that she was gay and her Bishop advised her to see a therapist. My friend went to see this therapist who proceeded to try to change her sexual orientation. I believe that this way of dealing with gay membership contributed to driving my friend from the Mormon church.

[RobinFinderson]

I was 41 (I am an old fart, like Palo Alto). I don't accept Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and the Proclamation in its entirety and in context is not focused on homosexuality.

You miss my point entirely. There are many things wrong in the world, and if homosexual behavior stopped tomorrow the world would still "groan under its iniquity," to borrow a phrase from the D&C. (I am speaking doctrinally here, not polemically.). So it is wrong, I think, to single out gay behavior for condemnation.

That's all.

I didn't miss your point. I just didn't address it. I actually agree with your main point, if all you are really saying is that the church shouldn't "single out gay behavior for condemnation." But you built that point on a couple of wobbly legs.

The Proclamation came out at the historical moment when the church was strongly interjecting itself into politics regarding gay marriage. You weaken your rhetoric when you act like this was a coincidence. It wasn't. The Proclamation continues to be used as a tool to justify the church's actions.

As to your blanket statement about what you perceive as the failure of the two sides to understand each other, I'll let DDD's response stand.

[Shaka]

I agree with you that the church doesn’t kick someone out just for being gay. However, some of my Gay Mormon friends would not consider the way the church has dealt with their homosexuality in any way “progressive”. I specifically recall the experiences of a very close friend at BYU. She had just returned to BYU from her mission and told her bishop that she was gay and her Bishop advised her to see a therapist. My friend went to see this therapist who proceeded to try to change her sexual orientation. I believe that this way of dealing with gay membership contributed to driving my friend from the Mormon church.

I'm in agreement that the church hasn't dealt at all well with homosexuals. However they have come a long way since the days of aversion therapy. Fifteen years ago it would have been nearly impossible for an out homosexual to remain in his ward simply because of the stigma associated with being gay. Where I live near SLC attitudes have evolved tremendously and a homosexual can be far more comfortable being active in the church.

My best friend's father is a prominent psychologist who has done a lot of consulting with the church specifically regarding how to deal with homosexuals. Lest you think this guy is a cookie cutter conservative LDS shrink I should tell you that he's a dead ringer for Jerry Garcia and has been known to wear colored shirts and Birkenstocks to church. I on the other hand was a typical homophobe teenager. Due to experiences on my mission I decided I needed to do a better job understanding homosexuality because I was uncomfortable with how I treated gays in past situations. In addition to my psychology and sociology classes in college I had many deep conversations with my friends father. He really opened my eyes regarding homosexuality. He also discussed with me some of the things the church was doing in an effort to better understand how to deal its gay members. I'm not going to get into what these programs were as I brought them up on another message board and was called a liar. I will state that a couple of the programs were very progressive at the time. These programs were not publicised and the reaction of many on that other message board is a perfect example of why.

I'm not saying being a gay Mormon is a bed of roses but it isn't nearly as difficult as it once was. I suspect it will get become easier as the attitudes of church leadership and the general membership progress.

[LA Ute]

Another blanket statement.

I know what it is like to be opposed to and fearful of homosexuality. I used to be opposed to homosexuality, gay marriage, and the like.

I think it is you, rather, that is lacking.

You've got me on the blanket statement. I was posting too hastily. What I meant was that generally, there are far too many people on both sides who don't understand the other side. I am sorry for my imprecision.

As for what I am "lacking," you just need to get to know me better. You'll love me, I promise.

[TripletDaddy]

You've got me on the blanket statement. I was posting too hastily. What I meant was that generally, there are far too many people on both sides who don't understand the other side. I am sorry for my imprecision.

As for what I am "lacking," you just need to get to know me better. You'll love me, I promise.

As a CUF brother, I already love you.

I am not sure there is a lack of understanding. There is just a disagreement. It isn't hard to understand that some people are opposed to homosexuality and are concerned that gay rights legislation may encroach on traditional family values. Also, it isn't hard to understand that others are not opposed to gay rights legislation and do not feel that gay rights will encroach on the traditional heterosexual lifestyle.

[Tim]

I've never been to Ridgecrest, but I did Prop 8 organizational work with people within the geographical boundaries of that stake.

What were their names. I'm not busting your chops, I'm genuinely curious. I know most of the members there.

The people there were very dedicated

I wouldn't call it dedication, at least not what I saw and what my dad experienced. I'd call it obsession.

[LA Ute]

As a CUF brother, I already love you.

I am not sure there is a lack of understanding. There is just a disagreement. It isn't hard to understand that some people are opposed to homosexuality and are concerned that gay rights legislation may encroach on traditional family values. Also, it isn't hard to understand that others are not opposed to gay rights legislation and do not feel that gay rights will encroach on the traditional heterosexual lifestyle.

I don't want to beat this to death, but what I mean is that for the most part, straight Mormons have little empathy for, or understanding of, gay people and their lives. In that regard Mormons are not too different from other straight people.

From my conversations with gay friends and colleagues over the years, I think they probably understand straight people's lives better, since they mostly came out of that life. Still, empathy is largely missing (another generalization, I admit).

The activists on either side whom I met also seem to be unwilling or unable to see any gray areas or nuances at all. They make Seattle look reasonable.

I do not want to sound like I think everyone should sing kum-ba-yah, but I think everyone in this debate could do a lot more listening.

[LA Ute]

The Proclamation came out at the historical moment when the church was strongly interjecting itself into politics regarding gay marriage. You weaken your rhetoric when you act like this was a coincidence. It wasn't. The Proclamation continues to be used as a tool to justify the church's actions.

We will have to disagree. Official proclamations are very rare in the history of the Church, and to the extent you are dismissing the one on the family as simply a political instrument primarily directed at gay life, I think you are taking an unsustainable position that adopts the conspiratorial view of the Church as primarily a political organization.

As to your blanket statement about what you perceive as the failure of the two sides to understand each other, I'll let DDD's response stand.

I clarified my admittedly overbroad statement in a response to DDD. If you read it, you may see the irony of your comments, which exemplify the refusal to recognize nuance that is all too common in this debate.

[SeattleUte]

The ACLU issued their release in response to outcry from the anti-Buttars camp (i.e, moderates and liberals, pro-gay rights activists - the guys in the white hats in your binary world), some of whom were demanding that he be removed from office. It had absolutely nothing to do with the LDS statement. The only link between the two was that AA happened to quote both statements in one post; a post that unfortunately coincided with your Friday night buzz.

Lebowski, demonstrably your intellect is formiddable, and I'm sure you're a superb engineer and scholar. But you don't get the ACLU's mission and purpose. The ACLU is not concerned about recalls, about democracy in whatever manifestation. They are concerned, inter alia, about theocracies.

BTW, the Lebowski-type Mormons are making a tactical mistake in trying to silence Buttars. You all have your bleeding hearts in the right place but in this instance the road to hell is paved with good inentions. Buttars is performing the service of laying bare the true face of the LDS Church and therefore hastening enlightenment. Dialogue in whatever form is good. Fortunately you Lebowski-type Mormons are such a tiny minority in Utah and the LDS Church your misplaced good inentions can't carry the day.

"Binary" is one of those words like chiasmas that has its own special definition in a narrow Mormon subculture. If I'm "binary" so is 99.9% of the literate world that has paid any attention to Mormonism. I'm just drawing logical conclusions from the evidence. My views are not that radical or out of line with commentators who have paid any attention to this from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times.

[SeattleUte]

Seattle, Seattle, thou that stonest the prophets . . . .

Wrong. I am the one here defending Buttars' right to say what he's saying and applauding the ACLU.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski, demonstrably your intellect is formiddable, and I'm sure you're a superb engineer and scholar. But you don't get the ACLU's mission and purpose. The ACLU is not concerned about recalls, about democracy in whatever manifestation. They are concerned, inter alia, about theocracies.

The ACLU is not concerned about democracy and free speech? Just theocracies? That's funny.

Why did they put all that stuff in the press release about democracy and free speech? If the real motivation behind the release is a theocracy, why wouldn't they say something (anything!) about the church in the statement? Would you have us believe that the ACLU makes a habit of trying not to offend the church?

BTW, the Lebowski-type Mormons are making a tactical mistake in trying to silence Buttars. You all have your bleeding hearts in the right place but in this instance the road to hell is paved with good inentions. Buttars is performing the service of laying bare the true face of the LDS Church and therefore hastening enlightenment. Dialogue in whatever form is good. Fortunately you Lebowski-type Mormons are such a tiny minority in Utah and the LDS Church your misplaced good inentions can't carry the day.

OK, that made me laugh.

"Binary" is one of those words like chiasmas that has its own special definition in a narrow Mormon subculture. If I'm "binary" so is 99.9% of the literate world that has paid any attention to Mormonism. I'm just drawing logical conclusions from the evidence. My views are not that radical or out of line with commentators who have paid any attention to this from the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times.

You find Buttars reaffirming. I find you reaffirming. It's all good.

[SeattleUte]

The ACLU is not concerned about democracy and free speech? Just theocracies? That's funny.

Why did they put all that stuff in the press release about democracy and free speech? If the real motivation behind the release is a theocracy, why wouldn't they say something (anything!) about the church in the statement? Would you have us believe that the ACLU makes a habit of trying not to offend the church?

Let me get this straight. You think the ACLU is concerned about Buttars being removed from office and thereby silenced through a legitimate democratic process like impeachment or recall? You can't possibly believe that. That's patently absurd. Let's ask the lawyers. PAC, LA?

What do you think of this compromise?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22rauch.html

It seems to me like it may be a good solution. Do you think the LDS Church would go for it? I bet not.

Note that even the pro-marriage signatory to this column acknowledges the First Amendment would protect churches form having to conduct gay marriages, exposing one of the prop. 8 lies.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Let me get this straight. You think the ACLU is concerned about Buttars being removed from office and thereby silenced through a legitimate democratic process like impeachment or recall? You can't possibly believe that. That's patently absurd. Let's ask the lawyers. PAC, LA?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they are responding to the outrage over his comments and the pressure being put on the Senate to silence or remove him from office. No in the sense that they are not worried about legitimate democratic processes. They are in fact arguing that we should let them work.

Here is the ACLU press release:

http://www.acluutah.org/FreeSpeechPR22009.pdf

See anything in there about the church?

Here is the church's statement in its entirety:

“From the outset, the Church’s position has always been to engage in civil and respectful dialogue on this issue. Senator Buttars does not speak for the Church.”

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top...6w.cspx?rss=20

Both releases came out simultaneously.

What I find absurd is you thinking that his freedom of speech has somehow been violated by the church's statement.

Here is another article on the story:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11752522

Note that nothing in the article supports the link you suggest. Rather, it supports my argument:

While gay-rights advocates across the nation fired off 15,000 e-mails demanding the Utah Senate formally reprimand Chris Buttars, a half-dozen backers of the outspoken senator tied white bands over their mouths in protest of the outcry, labeling it a "gag order."

Buttars gained an unlikely ally, the American Civil Liberties Union, which he described in his explosive interview as having "black hearts."
"While we disagree vehemently with Senator Buttars' views, we strongly support the Constitution's free-speech protections," the ACLU of Utah said in a statement.

Mike Thompson, executive director of Equality Utah, an advocacy organization for gay and transgender Utahns, said he "appreciates" that the Senate has stripped Buttars of two committee posts, but called the penalty a "slap on the wrist."
Senate President Michael Waddoups' "dismissive attitude and focus on Buttars' First Amendment rights misses the real point here," Thompson said. "The real issue is whether or not such radical beliefs should control the legislative process."

I have been searching the blogs and I can't find a single comment yet that would support your ACLU-church link. I'll keep looking.

In the meantime, I liked this comment:

http://senatesite.com/blog/2009/02/word-from-aclu.html

Impressive statement from the ACLU. My respect for them is doubled.

I also vehemently disagree with the Senator, but I don't see the merit in demands for his resignation or suggestions of "sensitivity training." In fact, I am less appalled by Sen. Buttars statements than I am the tepid response of the Senate President.

The Senator is free, and should remain free, to feel gay activists are the greatest threat, just as I am enjoy the same right to say he is a bigot for such an oversimplified view of people many of whom I consider close friends and valued family members. All either he or I or any activist for any cause can do is hope to reach more people than the other. Democracy in action, if you will.

When Buttars speaks out with such blatant lack of education regarding gay citizens and taxpayers of the state, and even (shhh!) his district, the job of those who advocate equality for all gets that much easier.

He shouldn't be silenced. He should be given a TV show! (Picture it: The Chris, Gayle, and LaVar Hour. Tell me you wouldn't watch!)

Amen to that.

By all means, I would love to have PAC and LAUte weigh in.

[LA Ute]

Wrong. I am the one here defending Buttars' right to say what he's saying and applauding the ACLU.

Just giving you a hard time. If I can't do, what are apostates good for?