Can't defend this one

[LA Ute]

LA, I love you, man. It could never be different. We have too much shared past, too much shared homeland, too many shared passions.

Aw, there you go again, playing on my innate sentimentality.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lebowski, I think it's cute but a little sad that you feel the need to believe most LDS are like you. Clearly they're not. Most LDS supported Prop. 8. Buttars is an elected official in predominantly Mormon west Salt Lake. You are here because of your distaste for LDS rank and file you see on CB. I submit that objective evidence shows the hate we see on CB reflects the official LDS position.

No, what's cute is your hopelessly binary world view (you truly are Tex's soulmate). I never said that most LDS are like me. I said that most LDS are better than Chris Buttars. If you can't fathom that distinction, I just don't know what else to say.

What's also cute is your absolute confidence that you have your finger on the pulse of all things LDS. You haven't darkened the door of a church in 30 years. You haven't read an LDS book since Fawn Brodie's "masterpiece". You live in Seattle. But by God, you read CougarBoard. That's the gold standard.

And are you saying that the LDS Church is not embarrassed by Buttars? Why did it issue the disclaimer? It's embarrassed but neither you nor the LDS Church can articulate why the LDS position is different from Buttars, I submit. Let's see what you come up with.

Another swing and a miss.

I am sure they are embarrassed by Buttars. Hence the short disclaimer.

I am puzzled why you think I should defend the LDS position on this issue. If you were paying attention, you would note that I have been against Prop 8, etc. from day one.

What I found embarrassing was that in the middle of this interesting discussion, you make the bizarre claim that the church was stifling free speech by distancing themselves from Buttars (you took the ACLU statement completely out of context). Once again, your zeal and hyperbole are so over the top that you end up inadvertently casting the church in a sympathetic light. Since I share your love for irony, that always makes me chuckle.

As for free speech, I assume the ACLU felt it had to issue the press release for a reason. Buttars' free speech rights are being threatened. Are you saying it is not because of concern about damage to the LDS Church's image?

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.

[RockyBalboa]

I talked to my cousin yesterday that ran for office several years ago, and he thinks Buttars is a great guy.

I told my cousin that Buttars is a butthole.

Also, I never voted for my cousin back then.

One of the few times in my life I voted for a democrat instead.

[TripletDaddy]

"I think the bulk of people in Utah agree with 90 percent of what he said," Sen. Dennis Stowell, R-Parowan, said on Stephenson's radio show.

"Most of what Senator Buttars said, I agree with," Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, said in a weekly Red Meat Radio program he hosts on K-TALK.

"It happened, not because he said a lot of things wrong, but because he decided to be the spokesman again," Stephenson said.

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11757628

So is this true? Does the vast majority of Utah agree with Buttars? This seems to support SU's contention of Buttars basically=Church on this issue.

[LA Ute]

So is this true? Does the vast majority of Utah agree with Buttars? This seems to support SU's contention of Buttars basically=Church on this issue.

I think the real problem, as I said in another post, is the singling out of gays. To many people in an insular religious culture, gays and the gay lifestyle are scary and disgusting. But (viewing this from a religious and somewhat allegorical perspective) homosexuality was not the only reason Sodom was destroyed, nor is it the only societal evil decried in the Proclamation on the Family. (It's not even mentioned in the Proclamation, unless I'm mistaken.) And yet we don't hear state senators giving provocative speeches about spouse abuse, adultery, and the like and how those societal ills are sending the country to hell in a handbasket.

Why? Many reasons, but among them are the (irrational) fear and revulsion I note above, and also the cheap political points guys like Buttars can score with their constituencies by playing on that irrational fear and revulsion.

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.

[Tim]

and the Ridgecrest area.

LA Ute, what's your connection to Ridgecrest? I grew up there, and my family still lives there.

I posted a number of times last fall about some of the heavy-handed tactics used by the bishopric of my parents' ward to get people to vote for Prop 8. Guilt tactics, passive threats, worthiness calls, etc. My time in my home ward at Christmas helped me see that the bigotry is indeed real, but that for most of the people, it was an ignorant, naive bigotry. I don't think they have bad hearts, they just don't know any better.

[LA Ute]

LA Ute, what's your connection to Ridgecrest? I grew up there, and my family still lives there.

I've never been to Ridgecrest, but I did Prop 8 organizational work with people within the geographical boundaries of that stake. It's really a far-flung stake. The people there were very dedicated, and it wouldn't surprise me if occasionally some might have gone "over the top.". I seem to recall the Prop 8 passed with a "yes" vote above 70% in that area.

[RobinFinderson]

I think the real problem, as I said in another post, is the singling out of gays. To many people in an insular religious culture, gays and the gay lifestyle are scary and disgusting. But (viewing this from a religious and somewhat allegorical perspective) homosexuality was not the only reason Sodom was destroyed, nor is it the only societal evil decried in the Proclamation on the Family. (It's not even mentioned in the Proclamation, unless I'm mistaken.) And yet we don't hear state senators giving provocative speeches about spouse abuse, adultery, and the like and how those societal ills are sending the country to hell in a handbasket.

Why? Many reasons, but among them are the (irrational) fear and revulsion I note above, and also the cheap political points guys like Buttars can score with their constituencies by playing on that irrational fear and revulsion.

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.

A couple of points. First, while The Proclamation on the Family may not explicitly say anything about gay people or gay marriage, the expansion of civil rights for gay people was definitely the impetus for it. This is an historical fact that everyone understood when the proclamation first came out. The Proclamation may address several issues, but gay marriage was definitely the big issue on the public stage when it was issued.

Second, I take exception with your point that, "neither side of the debate has much of a clue about what the other is really like. Maybe with time that will get better." Mormons understand what gay people are like, because gay people are just like everyone else. Simple empathy in its most elemental form is all that is required. Likewise, the gay community was raised by predominantly heterosexual parents who sent them to regular schools and regular churches (not gay schools and gay churches).

[SeattleUte]

But (viewing this from a religious and somewhat allegorical perspective) homosexuality was not the only reason Sodom was destroyed, nor is it the only societal evil decried in the Proclamation on the Family. (It's not even mentioned in the Proclamation, unless I'm mistaken.) And yet we don't hear state senators giving provocative speeches about spouse abuse, adultery, and the like and how those societal ills are sending the country to hell in a handbasket.

What a fascinating obsdervation from the uppermost eschelon of Mormonism's elite profesional and highly educated class. Yikes, I wonder what the rabble is thinking.

LA's explanation for what is going on: The gay lifestyle was one of the reasons God totally destroyed Sodom. (This an allusion to a fable in Genesis; no, clearly Mormons are not creationists.) The gay lifestyle a "social ill" like "spouse abuse, adultery, and the like" that "are sending the country to hell in a handbasket." Buttars is talking about the gays instead of these other comparable social ills becuase gays are so much more scary and disgusting to your average Utahn.

Now, Lebowski, tell me again how Buttars is different from your LDS church?

[LA Ute]

A couple of points. First, while The Proclamation on the Family may not explicitly say anything about gay people or gay marriage, the expansion of civil rights for gay people was definitely the impetus for it. This is an historical fact that everyone understood when the proclamation first came out.

Second, I take exception with your point that, "neither side of the debate has much of a clue about what the other is really like. Maybe with time that will get better." Mormons understand what gay people are like, because gay people are just like everyone else. Simple empathy in its most elemental form is all that is required. Likewise, the gay community was raised by predominantly heterosexual parents who sent them to regular schools and regular churches (not gay schools and gay churches).

I think you're playing it a bit fast and loose with the notion of "historical fact." Can you substantiate that claim?

As for understanding, you're not helping much. If you think the spokespeople for the No On 8 side have a good, empathetic understanding of their opponents' point of view, or that many of the ardent supporters of Prop 8 have the same kind of understanding of what gay people's lives are like, then you and I just see the matter very differently.

[RobinFinderson]

I think you're playing it a bit fast and loose with the notion of "historical fact." Can you substantiate that claim?

As for understanding, you're not helping much. If you think the spokespeople for the No On 8 side have a good, empathetic understanding of their opponents' point of view, or that many of the ardent supporters of Prop 8 have the same kind of understanding of what gay people's lives are like, then you and I just see the matter very differently.

I don't know how old you were when the proclamation came out, but I was at BYU (or just about to return after my mission) and the proclamation and its context were the biggest thing to hit the church in some time. The Wikipedia article that I linked to before has a history section that reflects my own recollection:

The Proclamation was issued soon after the church's major involvement in the first flurry of legal and legislative action banning same-sex marriage in Hawaii and elsewhere. In March 1995, Utah had passed a state law banning same-sex marriage, and in April 1995, the legislature of Hawaii revised its statutes to ban same-sex marriage, resolving a court battle on the subject in which the church unsuccessfully sought to become a co-defendant.

The document was first read in the general Relief Society conference, a women's meeting on September 23, 1995, after which it was discussed extensively in the October 1996 general conference. Numerous copies of the Proclamation were printed and many were framed for display in the homes of church members, a practice that has continues today more than a decade later.

[Jeff Lebowski]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_11757628

So is this true? Does the vast majority of Utah agree with Buttars? This seems to support SU's contention of Buttars basically=Church on this issue.

If you are willing to accept SU's premise that everyone against gay marriage is the equivalent of Buttars, then you could make that case. To me it is more evidence of what I have been arguing for years: the Utah state legislature is full of nutjobs and extremists with little accountability. Kind of the right-wing equivalent of what you see in Chicago.

Howard Stephenson has a long history of being one of the biggest idiots in the legislature. And the other senator is from Parowan. This is exactly what I would expect from both.

You missed one the best quotes from Stephenson:

http://deseretnews.com/article/0,514...7,00.html?pg=1

Stephenson disagreed with Buttars' claim that he alone killed any gay-rights bills, noting that much of the legislation was killed in the House.
"For him to claim the glory for that, truly he's delusional on this issue," Stephenson said.

"Darn it, I am a bigot too. I want some credit!"

This discussoin reminds me of a couple of years ago when the legislature passed a school voucher bill after several years of narrow defeats. When he learned that there was a movement to collect signatures and put a referendum to overturn the vote on the ballot, Senator Bramble claimed in an interview "The public doesn't like the bill because it leaves too much money for public schools. That's why they want to overturn it." (to make it pass, they had to increase school funding in some areas). Complete nonsense. The legislators then went all-out in a campaign to defeat the referendum. The referendum passed and the voucher bill was overturned by a staggering 60-40 margin. Many predicted that there the would be a big shake-up in the next election and that the "out-of-touch" reprsentatives would get tossed out. It didn't happen. Bramble won his seat back with a 60-40 margin. People here vote for state office based on perception of national party issues. They just vote party line. There is almost no accountability at the state level. It's maddening.

Finally, to accept SU's premise you would also have to explain what happened with Governor Huntsman's recent statements regarding his support for civil unions and gay rights. A recent poll showed that 70 percent of Utahns either had an unchanged opinion or thought more highly of him due to his statements. 30 percent disapproved. I think if you put the common ground bills on a statewide ballot, they would have a decent shot at passing.

[Shaka]

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.

[LA Ute]

I don't know how old you were when the proclamation came out, but I was at BYU (or just about to return after my mission) and the proclamation and its context were the biggest thing to hit the church in some time.

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.

[LA Ute]

What a fascinating obsdervation from the uppermost eschelon of Mormonism's elite profesional and highly educated class. Yikes, I wonder what the rabble is thinking.

Seattle, Seattle, thou that stonest the prophets . . . . But I digress. As a bizarre distortion of what I said, your post can only be described as spectacular. I'd try to respond further, but I am in church with the "rabble."

BTW, I think you should consider changing your avatar. Can you find a likeness of Inspector Javert somewhere?