Time Magazine has an interesting article on the lasting effects of the LDS church’s involvment in Propostion 8 and what they will do in 2010 when the ammendment is attempted to be repealed.
Read it here
And since we’re talking about same sex marriage again; I felt vindicated by this Moth Podcast about the awkward experience of seeing two gay twins making out with each other at a wedding.
LDS & Evangelical Conversations 
Yeah, I know some gays that strongly object to homosexual relations between close relatives, but since there’s no possibility of such activity being a reproductive relationship that could harm potential offspring, I don’t get the fuss about two gay or lesbian twins getting it on. In other words, it’s not utter depravity like heterosexual incest.
I suppose Steve, by that logic, heterosexual incest would be just fine if they used adequate protection. Right?
I’m a bit up in the air about this.
On the one hand, I didn’t support the LDS Church’s stance on this. I felt very resentful that California worship services were politicized the way they were. It felt like a big distraction from the business of the Gospel, and also a misguided strategy for saving marriage.
So, I kind of wish they’d drop it going forward.
But on the other hand. The gay community has acted like complete spoiled brats in response to the LDS campaign.
The thought of these idiots feeling like they cowed us makes my blood boil.
I’d like to see the LDS Church stick with the issue, just to show up the jackasses on the Daily Cos. Rub their noses in it.
No, that’s not Christlike at all. But I’m rather ticked off about this at the moment.
That story was AWESOME. The end.
Somebody give Seth a hug….it probably shouldn’t be me….I never got the hang of ‘man-hugs’…
GERMIT
Germit, I was once in your shoes. Then I found this.
😉
Seth R. said:
I can understand the sentiment.
I have mixed thoughts on the matter as well. I believe in marriage (for most people), and I agree that there are sound reasons for not changing the legal definition of marriage. On the other hand, the gay-rights movement is far from the biggest threat to marriage as an institution. There are some strong cultural forces at work, including the acceptance of divorce and cohabitation, that cause more damage to the institution than the tiny minority of the population that is gay ever could.
I’m not sure what the best thing to do about that is. The danger of the political approach is mentioned in the article. Collectively, evangelicals allowed themselves to become identified as a political movement during the past few decades, and I think that hurt their cause and detracted from their mission. Do those of us who are Mormons want to see the same thing happen to us? We have a unique message to offer the world, and involvement in politics can detract from it.
Part of the problem is that while evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons have similar views about marriage, we collectively aren’t a lot better at it than the population as a whole. Perhaps our efforts should be concentrated on making our own marriages better (don’t ask me how that’s done) and be the salt of the earth in that way.
TOMCHIK : wish I’d had THAT before I went thru scouts…and jr. high….oh, well….who says the brits aren’t helpful ?? I’ll wait for a sporting event that my team is likely to win, and start off slowly..
ERIK: Absolutely spot on about the ev.’s and politics….this becomes the ultimate tar baby (are we still allowed that analogy ?? If not, use ‘white macademia merengue baby…’) Most ev.’s , IMO, have NO idea how this has co-opted the message. Here’s hoping we wake up and get it.
GERMIT
What the hell is the “Los Altos, Calif. church headquarters” mentioned in the TIME article?
GERMIT – glad I could help out! Let me know how it goes! 😉
I wonder if Homosexual Marrage supporters knew what they were fighting for… I mean really knew, like marrage without the rescue baot of devorce, higher tax penitallies, the whole Wife (I didn’t hear you say that, because if I did you would be soooooo Dead) Stare, the necessity to sleep in the same bed of the one person on the planet that can remove your brain and fill your head with idol Chat, and fill your day, week , year with monotnous tasks that you don’t want to do but will so you can get to the fun things you really want to do but eventually know the list never ends and if you do what you want you will get that death stare again…. Oh, the list goes on, and on…
Well if they really knew, I wonder if they would be trying so hard to pass lageslation to support “Gay Marrage.”
I mean what is the bennifits of it after all? Do these benifits outweigh the standard Married realtionship irritations and hardships?
I think far too many people get married as it is… half get a divorce, and that is the strait facts (Punn not intended) .
This all from a happly married man who is enamered with his wife (a woman), but sees the world through the eyes of an egalitarian.
-D
Are you serious, D? I’m trying very hard to read that comment as satire, but I can’t see it. Because, you know, whether or not you think it’s moral, there are plenty of same-sex couples that have lived together for years, if not decades, and almost always without the legal benefits that come along with actual marriage. I think those people know exactly what they’re fighting for.
Actually, I’m having a hard time making sense of your comment at all.
Yup, you can take it seriously. I have lived with people before… For several years before mariage. None of it could prepare me for what the legal and religous implications of mariage intale.
I can see why you think me satirecal, you may think as I am LDS I would want to restrict people from leagal mariage of same sex couples, However, that is mistaking a small portion of the Church membership opinion as all of our’s. I would not fear nor would I care if we opened all of the legislatured mariage upon all couples (with the limit of only 2 people involved) if we all had the same benifits and consequences place on us. Most of the “same-sex mariage” bills I have seen offer benifits only, (No Tax penitalities, nor credit shifting upon the soupses death, ect.). Look, it is a packaged deal. You either put forth the exact same treatment, or keep things as they are.
As LDS, I feel it would be offering people a choice to use their agency if it were leaglized, that is at the same time a good and dangerous thing. It does not matter if my personal opinion about same-sex mariage is a good or bad thing. I should not have to choose for others on the matter. I think it should be just however, and not only the ligitmate benifits involved.
On a personal note, I would want to restrict divorce in the nation, for all peoples. As I think we should consider mariage wisely and with real concern before taking the plunge into that new life. Heck, maybe mariage should not be a legislature issue at all but a religous/spiritual one only. Now wouldn’t that be a gas?
Some general advice and warrning on mariage to all:
There are two people invloved in a mariage, and husbands, you will never again have it your way (except maybe at Burger King).
God bless you all, may you make righteous decisions in your own life,
-Ditchu
husbands, you will never again have it your way (except maybe at Burger King).
thats it……I’m switching to BK……thanks for the heads up Ditchu…. lets hope I can handle the calories.
Whitney: if you are having ‘interpretive issues with Ditchu, you are not alone, I did a scooby doo head shake once or twice myself
Whitney, I was going to write pretty much the exact same thing, but shut the browser before I did.
ditchu–the way you describe marriage is NOTHING like mine, or any other married couple I know. I’m sorry that you appear not to like your wife very much, or her idle chat, but your experience is not the norm. It is the norm of comedy sitcoms because tension and drama make for good comedy.
I find it interesting that in NH where the governor demanded specific wording on protections for religious groups in the SSM bill, the legislature did not pass the bill where it previously looked as if they might.
I’m not saying that the governor’s language caused the bill to fail, but it seems to me that it didn’t help.
Um, the LDS campaign took away their right to married.
Oh, what spoiled little brats they are. Seth, sometimes I think you’re one of my favorite Mormons, but then you say stuff like this and I think you’re just a jackass.
Kullervo,
1. it all came down to the voters, no matter who spent money where, or who said what, when our representitives send a bill out to the voters it is in their hands if it passes or not. No campaign took mariage away from anyone… The voters did.
katyjane,
Sorry to give you the mis-impression of what my mariage is like, I offered only one side of my mariage to balance the rosey view prople have of mariage. It has been my experience and observation that most sit-coms go beyond the “norm” and to that extent I agree with you. I would ensure you that I do love my wife and over the eleven years we have been married All of my fore-mentioned items occurec in repitition, but it was ancored with the good times and sweet things in a honest to God mariage of love.
I was just pondering and sharing my ceriosity.
I do think people in general take mariage too lightly. Gay or strait, we seem to know we have an ejection hatch called divorce and as americans we use it far too often. I Think many more people would obstain from mariage and other such civil unions if they did not have an escape hatch like divorce.
-Ditchu
First, I don’t see what an overly rosy view of marriage has to do with this. I doubt same-sex couples are any more naive than heterosexual couples on the matter. Statutes don’t care if you have a messed up view of marriage or not, and it’s pretty patronizing to tell an entire group that they should consider rethinking their position on this just because “marriage is hard.”
Second, let’s not forget that divorce is not just about dissolving a marriage, but dividing assets as well. Eliminating access to divorce would almost certainly lead to more couples cohabitating; some of them may create some sort of legal arrangement, but the rest would have one hell of a breakup to deal with if it falls apart. Maybe you’re redeeming the word “marriage,” but you’re not changing anything in the real world.
Ditchu…I would LOVE to respond to your posts….just as soon as I understand them… but your are sure welcome here to give us all the ceriosity you want…..I say “go for it”
11 yrs….I give ya a “wazzupp” for that
GERMIT
Whitney,
Wow, you have me wrong.
I am not telling any “entire group that they should consider rethinking their position on this just because “marriage is hard.”
I posed a question, a pondery, and that is why I chose to use the wrod “Wonder…”
My solid stance is that All mariage should be the same, without consern to sex, there is however a culturally defined infulence of mariage by Gender. Now gender is more the roll one would exibit in society closelly associated ( and often confused) with sex. Sex is male/female but there is a varried range of gender. It is not really sex but gender that effects mariage the most.
That all being said, I think I have done a good job of expressing that I am not singleing out any specific group on this topic but sharing my thoughts on mariage as it plays a part in the topic of this page.
As to rethinking one’s position on this just because “marriage is hard.” Yup, that is a good idea. But who should rethink their position??? Everybody. Appariently the group is bigger than you thought.
God bless,
-Ditchu
Lame, bullshit, and not really completely true. Spend a bajillion dollars and a bajillion hours campaigning and pushing for a referendum, and then when it passes, hold up your hands and say “Hey, don’t blame us! Blame the people who voted for it!” That’s called being willfully obtuse.
The Church went balls to the wall to try to convince people to vote for it, and it did so because it knew that doing so would in fact convince people to vote for it. Otherwise, the money and time spent would make no sense.
“Pot, meet my friend Kettle.”
Ditchu,
Sorry, I’m saying your “pondery” is irrelevant. The post is about how the LDS church will handle same-sex marriage politics in the future. “Wondering” about who really understands the real commitment involved in marriage is completely unrelated to the debate about whether certain groups should have the legal right to get married, unless you’re talking about 12-year-olds.
I agree people should take marriage more seriously. But I also think people should take voting, education, and basic grammar and spelling more seriously. I certainly won’t discourage voting, college, or commenting on blogs just because people don’t do so.
I’m sorry. I’m feeling feisty today.
“Um, the LDS campaign took away their right to married.”
Um… they had no right to be married Kullervo.
Neither do you. Neither do I. No such right exists to begin with.
What they really wanted was a government endorsement of their lifestyle. They didn’t get it.
Kullervo,
Are you saying that voters have no power, no real action in our political selection and legislative system?
What is the point in voting then?
I will have you note that most of the funding for the campaign in question was produced not by any church, or group of churches, but by citizens who thought they were doing something right, now do I agree with them? maybe not, but they have just as much right to waste their money in a campaign against something that was likely not to pass anyhow.
you say, “Otherwise, the money and time spent would make no sense.” well it dosen’t make sense, I think it is a waste, but I also think that about politicians spending billions of other people’s dollars in the hopes to get elected. I also think it is disgraceful how some politicians will spend money they get from the tax payers for their curent jobs to seek after a position at a higher lever of Government. But most still do it.
how much do you respect people as cattle if a few billion dollars can buy their votes (when it is not even handed strait to the voters).
Makes one want to get in line and moo, the next time they vote.
If money rund the votes lets do away with the whole balloting system and just ask the richest guy in the country what he wants…
????
-D
And you try reading the Daily Kos these days any time the topic of Mormonism comes up.
The rhetoric is downright frightening in both it’s ignorance, and its sheer hatred.
Whitney, I like it when you feel feisty. Like, a lot.
Yes we do; marriage is a fundamental constitutional right. Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 US 374 (1978). You can disagree with the Supreme Court about the Constitution, I guess, but when you do, you are wrong. The Supreme Court gets to make legally binding interpretations of the Constitution; you do not.
But that’s not even relevant. Even if Zablocki only applies to heterosexual marriage, gays in California were given a legal right to get married, which was then revoked. Thus they had a right (a legal right whether Constitutionally derived or not), and then the right was taken away.
Call it whatever you want. They could marry the people they love, and then they couldn’t, and they were justifiably furious about it. People start wars and rebellions over less than this.
It’s pretty fucking easy for you to sit back and call them spoiled brats when you enjoy the socially secure privilege to be married to the one you love.
You made your bed, now lay down in it.
Like I said. I don’t want the government endorsement of my marriage. It’s a privilege they can keep to themselves, thanks.
This is not an area we’re going to see eye to eye on Kullervo.
I think a good portion of the liberal online world is talking like the KKK right now.
And I’m a liberal.
For all the bigotry I found at church back in Utah. Nothing approaches the level I’ve experienced since last November.
And as you well know, I didn’t make this bed. I opposed the action from the start.
Well, that’s not entirely fair, because the government has made it its business to get involved in marriage, and while I would personally prefer that the government just concern itself with civil unions and leave marriage to churches, the fact is that marriage is permanently intertwined with the government. Stating a libertarian principle is dodging the issue.
Well, it’s something that I’ve been consistently saying for a while now.
And if the gay community thinks this kind of payback crap is going to end up hurting the Mormon community more than it hurts their own community, I think they’re going to be rather unpleasantly surprised.
Outside of the New York Times newsroom, they aren’t half as popular as they think they are. They overdo the backlash, it’s going to hurt them more than anyone.
Seth wrote
What they really wanted was a government endorsement of their lifestyle.
yeah, that, AND culture wide accetance from most would be great too…many want some kind of religious (christian) nod as well.
what the culture decides to do, and the gov’t decides to do is mildly my business; but getting ‘white, yellow, black , gay ” status is an afront to reality, and what GOD has told us, this does not have to be written into american law to placate me, but I’m not going proudly wear some kind of hate-monger badge just because a group has a beef with GOD’s view on homosexual sex. and , yeah,yeah, yeah, that’s MY interpretation of it….blah,blah (we all have our interpretation of it)
as for the media gays, most of them are the BRATS that Seth has described. a small minority, but a very vocal, militant minority.
Yeah… like the KKK in a weird alternate reality where black people had exercised their collective political muscle in order to deny the fundamental right of marriage to white people.
So, not like the KKK at all.
Dear Germit,
You are a blithering idiot. And you are a bigot.
Love,
Kullervo
Here’s a rule: when you persecute other people, and they are angry at you and hate you for it, you do not get to say that you are being persecuted. The sickening audacity absolutely boggles the mind.
You know, Kullervo,
It’s really funny that you have to resort to name calling when people don’t agree with you.
If you can’t express your ideas without name calling, swearing, and calling for the destruction of Mormonism, well, you actually make the anti-Mormons look like they’re good on the inside by comparison.
The moment you think gays should protest and get people fired because they have a differing viewpoint than the gays is the moment I should start protesting you and your pagan-anti-Mormon bigotry.
Let’s see you publish your address and we’ll see what happens to you when people start vandalizing your property for having a different viewpoint.
You are such a hypocrite. Instead of allowing others to believe differently than you do, you insist on “punishing them for their beliefs”, because they violate your own philosphy. I’m sorry Kullervo, but until gay-loving liberal hypocrites like yourself manage to outlaw free-speech, we still have the right to believe differently than you do.
Here is a new plan!!!
Let’s get Government out of civil unions all together!
This would cover all marriages and any type of union that is not a part of Corporate law, or Laws reforming government itself.
Let’s get out of the entire benefits vs. bias debate and institute laws that every person of age 18 and above can list one other person to be their beneficiary in life, allow them to change at any given time (with bureaucracies’ time constraints), and choose any living person of age 18 or older. These beneficiaries will get any benefit now expected of a married person but without any claim of union. Then we can leave “marriage” up to Religious institutions, and Cultural Spirituality.
-Ditchu
Kullervo: I don’t stay with exchanges that are vicious and personal, but I’ll try this for awhile. “Blithering idiot”??, possibly, I don’t have a rejoinder for that, you may be right.
I am unashamedly bigoted to behavior, not people, there is a difference. If someone (let’s just say…..ME) has a problem with laziness, or greed, or pride, they don’t need condemnation , but they need freedom and a way out. That’s what Jesus offers.
Jesus does not need to save someone from being black, curly headed, or just a little fat. Homosexuality, or ANY sexual brokenness is not in that category. That doesn’t mean that being gay is topic #1 between those of faith and those who are living homosexual lifestyle. I won’t back down from extending to people the hope of the gospel. If that makes me a “hater” in your eyes, well, guess you’ll have to give my white elephant christmas/kwanza gift to someone else. I’ll get over it.
As to persecuted, you are right about many throwing this word around too loosely. I know I didn’t use it in reference to myself. Ther “brat” comment stays, but that sure does not make me persecuted.
Any of the above can be explained further, I know you’ve had some trouble following my posts.
GERMIT
One point of Anonymous’ bears repeating: short of plotting my violent death ,physical harm to others or the overthrow of the government, I defend the gay communities to say, print, publish, broadcast most anything.
Are they as adamant about my freedom of speech ? I think that’s what Seth was getting at with the KKK comment, but I’ll let him fill that out.
Whitney, I like it when you’re feisty too. You’re very subtle in it, but you totally get your point across, and it’s hot. 🙂
Seth, I think that maybe you mistake internet gays or internet people for what is going on outside of the internet. So even if the wackos are saying crazy, insane stuff, all of the gay people that I know just want the same rights that I enjoy. Just like every Republican isn’t Ann Coulter (thank God!), every gay person isn’t the person spouting hate online.
Anonymous–funny you should write what you write under the cover of anonymity. Let’s see you publish your name. 😉
Gays should have the same rights as me. It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with liberty and justice.
Also, Seth, I can understand how someone like you–who hasn’t played a role, really at all as far as I know, with regards to Proposition 8, would be annoyed with people blaming you for the actions of your church. Sure, you choose to stay a member, but you’re not a member BECAUSE of their actions. And may even disagree.
Katyjane, I was just about to call out Anonymous for the exact same thing. The irony of this comment…
Let’s see you publish your address and we’ll see what happens to you when people start vandalizing your property for having a different viewpoint
…coming from a person posting under Anonymous was not lost on me.
Man up anonymous! At least Kullervo has the balls to cuss at people under his publicly identifiable handle!
OK kayjane.
I am willing to concede that I haven’t exactly seen the gay community at it’s best.
And anyone who takes the Daily Kos as defining the American Left (which I’ve come close to doing here) is probably quite mistaken.
The radical voices I have encountered online are indeed radical bigots who are acting like spoiled brats.
But I am willing to concede that these voices do not represent all or even most of the gay community, or liberals in general.
Nor do I imagine the campaigns to fire people, target Mormon homes, vandalize, or send neighborhood hate letters represent the will of most gays.
But Kullervo, you are not going to convince me that publishing hate lists of Mormon contributors is ever OK.
End of story. Over and out.
(and I agree anonymous is over the top)
Psychochemiker apparently let “Anonymous” use his computer.
HA. hahahahahaha.
Hey quick question for those who are pro-same-sex marriage.
I currently do not have the right to marry a man. How is it that I have more rights than a gay man? Neither of us can marry a man.
I recognize the argument doesn’t sway you, but I’m interested to hear your response.
Tim, that is a good question. But you don’t want to marry a man, so it’s kind of beside the point. Being denied the right to form committed contracts between consenting adults is the crux of the issue for me.
And for the record, I am of the “civil unions for all, marriages left up to churches” option. I recognize that this means some messiness as we will have some churches granting marriages and others not, so gay couples will say, “We’re married!” and others will say, “Nuh-uh!” But oh well.
I don’t have to agree with someone’s choice to be in total support of their right to make it.
What Katie said.
I would add that I am in the exact same camp as her, but since I doubt all 50 states will switch to a civil union system (imagine the outcry…the government trying to “abolish marriage”), I’d rather just get past the semantics of this and legalize same-sex marriage.
I know there’s some discussion about what this means for churches that refuse to perform the ceremony (alluded to in the article), but since churches can already discriminate against who they’ll perform marriages for, I think that fear is misplaced, to say the least.
But you don’t want to marry a man,
I don’t want to marry Roseanne Barr either, in fact, just like gay men, I don’t want to marry almost every woman on earth. That doesn’t mean my rights are being denied, I’m exercising a choice.
If it’s just being allowed to marry who you want then gay twins should be allowed to marry and everyone should get out of Oedipus’s business as well.
Yes Tim,
I did.
And no, I’m not going to tell you who needed to use my computer.
(I am glad, however, that I logged out of that shared computer).
Quite frankly,
I don’t care to engage with people who try to censor others.
I won’t engage in Kullervo’s puerile conversation.
And quite frankly, Tim,
Shame on you for not stopping such vulgar expressions, hatred, and bigotry.
Thanks PC for lending me your computer earlier.
Tim,
Allowing Kullervo to spread his bigoted filth through his nasty potty mouth reflects how good of a Christian you are. Those who interact with Mormons and “so-called Christians” like yourself take notice.
By your fruits, Tim, we know who your true master is.
TimNow see, reductio ad absurdum is a bad way to make an argument. Because we can take it the other way too and start talking about how the government could conceivably start deciding that other “types” of marriages aren’t acceptable in society, and then we end up with a bunch of logical extreme arguments that don’t really say anything about the value of our positions.
Let’s pretend for a moment that the government has decided that two people with degenerative genetic disorders can’t get married. For one, the government doesn’t think it’s moral to allow the potential kids to come into this world with the same disorder. Also, if both partners are sick, there’s a good chance the government will end up paying the medical bill if neither partner has reliable/sufficient income, and we’d hate to have them becoming a drag on society. Of course, all of this is backed up with lots of science and economic studies that confirm the government’s fears are a virtual certainty. Sure, they can’t help having the disease, but the cost to society is undeniable.
Those people still have the right to marry others who don’t have the disorder. So what’s the problem?
The problem is that we can all agree that the government has no business telling two committed people that they can’t enjoy the same legal rights as their healthier counterparts.
[Let the record show that I am in no way trying to say that homosexuality is comparable to a genetic disorder.]
KatyJanes point about media/blogger gays vs. avg. gay next door (whose lawn and dyed concrete walks probably look 10X better than GERmIT’s ever will) is well said.
I had to stop and think because I work side by side with gays every day: they are no more, or less, BRATS than me. So let me backpedal a little, the public face of the movement is RUDE; on a one-on-one level, they’re just regular broken people…like me.
Kullervo: learn some manners from your wife…please.
Whoa, anonymous–Kullervo has a potty mouth, but you’re totally over the edge right now. Bigoted? Because he feels differently than you?
Tim, the point isn’t the right to marry a man or not. I mean, then I have more rights than you because I do have the right to marry a man and you don’t. You have the right to marry whoever you would want–because you would want to marry a woman. A gay man does not have the right to marry whomever he wants–another man. It’s like saying that black people used to have the right to drink water too–just out of the ‘colored’ fountain. And, in a way that was more ‘fair’–they at least could get a drink.
I don’t understand why anyone would care if a gay man married another man, or if a gay woman married another woman.
Anonymous said:
Bullsh#t. This isn’t about having a different viewpoint than gays. This isn’t about having a different viewpoint. This is about denying people the right to get married. Gay people aren’t pissed because Mormons don’t believe homosexuality is compatible with Heavenly Father’s plan. They are pissed because the Mormon church pulled out all the stops to strip them of their right to get married. It’s not about something Mormons believe; it’s about something Mormons have done to them. They’re not vandalizing your property
I don’t insist on punishing people for their beliefs (Also, why did you put that in quotation marks? Who are you quoting? I did not say that. Learn how to use punctuation, d#ckbag.). I’m just saying that it’s ridiculous to complain and cry foul when the little kid you are beating up hits you back. I’m not saying I want you to be punished. I’m saying you can’t f#cking complain when you reap what you sow.
Also, swearing and calling people names is awesome, assface. You’re just too much of a sissy to swear like a man.
{note from Tim: I’m the one who put swigglies in Kullervo’s curse words, not him. I don’t want my site blocked by funky internet security software}
Hey quick question for those who are pro-religious-freedom.
I currently do not have the right to attend a Christian church. How is it that I have more rights than a Christian? Neither of us can attend Christian worship services.
I recognize the argument doesn’t sway you, but I’m interested to hear your response.
Germit–thanks! I do have manners. And we are working on Kullervo’s, especially when it comes to our asshat neighbors who are going to get us evicted. Now THEY are dickbags.
Kullervo–you make me laugh every day. I’m glad I get to be married to you.
Again, the audacity blows my mind. How rude of that little geek to actually hit back. What a little sh#t.
Whoa psychochemiker–good cover-up. You totally pulled the wool over my eyes.
I approve of this thread.
See, I think that it just has everything to do with not being an asshole.
Drama Llama FTW.
No no, Germit. You have had some trouble being coherent.
Thanks, Tim. I’d hate to ruin anyone’s fun just because I have a potty mouth. Oh, and also because I am not a f#cking sissy.
Easy for you to take the moral high ground when you’re the one administering the beatings, isn’t it?
Kullervo, you rise from amongst the law texts ; you wrote
Again, the audacity blows my mind. How rude of that little geek to actually hit back. What a little sh#t.
what audacity are you talking about, you’ve lost me
as to my posts, if you want conversation, I’ll need to know which parts are incoherent (to you); blanket statements like “your posts are inscrutable” don’t help me….unless you are joking and jerking my chain….sometimes I cant’ tell
GERMIT
I currently do not have the right to attend a Christian church. How is it that I have more rights than a Christian? Neither of us can attend Christian worship services.
Point taken.
But in the case of your example nobody has the right to religious freedom and what you are calling for is an expansion of freedoms. It’s not so much equality you are after as something more (different, new, etc.)
I don’t hear anyone arguing, “yes we want to change the definition of marriage to include same sex couples”. It’s a much harder sell to say that, so I understand why nobody is going that route. But I have a feeling even if they did, the outcome would be the same in about the same amount of time.
It’s not like marriage has been for “opposites” because of Christianity or the Bible. It’s been that way for all of recorded history across all cultures. Same-sex marriage is new and I guess I’d be more comfortable with the rhetoric if it was just acknowledged as new.
But it’s really just a baseline-shifting game. Does marriage mean “lifetime sexual commitment between a man and a woman,” or “lifetime sexual commitment between two people?” It’s not so much a matter of changing definitions as it is figuring out what we think the important part of the definition really is.
Germit, I think all of your post would be helped if you got to the point and left out the little asides (and jokes) running through your head in the middle of your sentences. If you want to share something funny on your mind, start a new sentence. It will help us all understand where you’re coming from better.
Psycho, by choosing to direct your comment anonymously you reveal that you knew there was something wrong with what you were about to say. You couldn’t support it with your real persona. As a general rule in blog commenting and forum discussions, “sock puppets” are poor form. If you want to say something, then you need to have the courage to say it in a way we know who it is coming from.
Sock puppets, in general, get called out by administrators.
Actually, Tim, I don’t really care what we call it. I just recognize that the term marriage carries heavy religious connotations for people, and since my concern in this debate is about legal rights, I would advocate for a more “legal” term. I think a “separate but equal” system fails on both philosophical grounds and in practice, so unless each state manages to ditch its need to sanction marriage licenses in favor of civil unions, I think the term “marriage” is on the table.
Kullervo: this is uncalled for but is there a video where we can all learn to “swear like a man” or are you talking short stint in the navy ?? I hope it’s not the navy, I’d get put in a submarine…the way this thread is going, with Elton John and Gene Simmons as bunkmates.
It doesn’t have to be the Navy. The Army will do.
See Germit, that was just a silly comment to make.
Elton John has no interest in you. He’s married.
Gene Simmons is not gay. He just makes awesome music, and you should be so lucky as to be in a confined space with him.
Gene Simmons talked sh#t about Adam Lambert, and so he is on my d#ckbag list. Also, let’s be honest here: Gene has one hell of a righteous tongue, but Kiss just isn’t really all that great of a band.
Nah, Gene Simmons just said that it’s silly to compare Adam Lambert to rock legends like Keith Richards or Mick Jagger because even if he’s more talented than both of them, he’s just never gonna BE Richards or Jagger. And that’s pretty much true. But who cares, if Lambert is as talented as everyone says he is, he won’t need those comparisons anyway.
Obviously I will retract that if there was some sort of slur involved.
Okay, I have now caught up on my entertainment gossip.
Whatever, Gene Simmons got sued by a groupie/girlfriend after he was bragging about bedding hundreds of women, so he’s probably just bitter that he doesn’t get to talk about sex and others do.
Whitney: I agree with your points on this. It’s a shame , I think, that more people of faith won’t budge on some kind of ‘civil union’ step by the government, but I’m also not sure that this would be enough for the gay community. This entire topic is very muddled with what the word “marriage” means in a religious sense with what it means legally and judicially.
This will not be an easy knot to undo, perhaps impossible.
LOL: actually I had the wrong Simmons: I meant RICHARD Simmons…. I think I could deal with Gene, but I would need an interpreter.
Nope, now you’re thinking of Ozzy Osbourne.
And once again, just because someone is gay does not mean they will jump you if you’re trapped in a room with them.
They will both likely disagree with you about your stance on this issue, but who cares.
“Easy for you to take the moral high ground when you’re the one administering the beatings, isn’t it?”
I have no idea what you mean by this.
Okay, I’ll break it down for you:
Step 1: You smash a kid’s face in.
Step 2: Kid gets pissed, and lashes back in whatever way he can. He’s not stronger than you, so he spreads vicious rumors about you.
Step 3: You get morally indignant and talk about how it’s not right to spread rumors.
The moral of the story is that you are a dickbag.
Sometimes I like sweatin’ to the oldies.
Whitney: thanks, got my KISS-ers scrambled up, yes I was thinking of mumbling OZ.
Well said about being jumped. After three years of working with a gay/bisexual (and at times several), I’ve yet to have any kind of weird advance. Well said.
I loved sweatin’ to the oldies!
I think I love Billy Blanks more. Even though his costume was too tight in the nethers.
You are going to rock and roll hell. Sorry, dude.
Fact is Kullervo, I’m not even sure who you are talking to at this point.
I didn’t personally do anything to the gay movement. I didn’t vote to take away their “rights” – real or theoretical. Last time there was a vote of civil unions in Colorado, I voted in favor of it.
So why are you taking this out on me?
All I did was note that people on the Daily Kos are acting like bigots. And they are. I also objected to intimidation and personal targeting that as far as I know, is not being done the other way, and even if it was, I don’t think it would matter.
So, who is this “you” you are talking about?
BILLY BLANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If by “too tight” you mean fantastic, I totally agree.
Yeah, sorry Germit, Ozzie was in Black Sabbath.
But I encourage you to continue with your classic rock education.
Fantastic… until he gets sweaty. Then it’s just kinda gross. 😀
Seth, maybe Kullervo’s analogy would make more sense if it was like,
1. Your clique collectively smashes some kid’s face in (regardless of your participation, you are a member of the clique and you remain a member of the clique, for whatever reason, so you get associated with any jerkwad things that the clique does.) (NOTE: Are groups of boys considered cliques? Or is that just girls? Irrelevant, I suppose.)
2. Kid blah blah blah…
You didn’t personally do anything to the gay movement. Except that you provide money to an organization that does. One of the temple recommend questions is if you associate with a group that is fighting against the church (or something like that). You are associating with a group that is fighting against a perceived right. You are associating with a group that the other side thinks is acting in a way that is discriminatory.
It causes inflammatory feelings. It gets me all fired up, and I’m not gay. I can only imagine how I would feel if I was gay.
You are a member of an organization that actively works to deny marriage to gays, and you publicly and unambiguously voice your assent to, loyalty to, and support for this organization’s leadership at least once a year. You help to fund this organization with a substantial portion of your income. You do not, as far as I know, openly dissent. Membership in this organization is entirely voluntary. You are thus culpable.
Sorry, Katie Langston, because I know this barrage hits you too, along with a lot of other people who I think are otherwise fantastic. But I feel pretty strongly about this: Proposition 8 was a big part of the reason that I finally went ahead and had my name removed.
I think Mormons are mostly really great people, but I think the Church is pretty sh#tty.
Katy, the analogy would make more sense if some of my friends were making fun of the skinny kid on the playground, and pushing him around. I told them to leave him alone, but they didn’t.
Instead of ditching my friends, I still hang out with them.
Then the skinny kid takes a baseball bat to one of my friends in a back alley after school, because unbeknownst to us, he was being beaten by his dad regularly and already had issues.
You really think that [taking marriage away from gay people]:[the stuff gays and their friends have done in retaliation]::[making fun of a kid]:[hitting beating the crap out of someone with a baseball bat]?
Seriously, I’m going to assume that you’re not being willfully obtuse here, and just being blinded by your own position of security with relation to the matter.
Marriage and family are a big fucking deal. One of the biggest deals imaginable. If someone started messing with your marriage and family, you would go completely apeshit. Shoot, this is not even a hypothetical: in the 1850’s, Mormons went to war over it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
You really think that gay people are acting all that unreasonably? Please.
Seth, how did you tell your friends to leave the skinny kid alone? Did you write to the leaders of the LDS Church?
Not that persistently Katie.
Never said I wasn’t culpable.
Kullervo: just so I understand your position better: leaving aside for a second the legal, and social, aspects of gays being married, what is your view of churches having a view against gay marriage as a spiritual union ?? I’m of course aware that these areas currently ‘bleed over”, but is there such a thing as a moral stand against gay marriage (at least spiritually) for religious reasons ?? Could this ever work if the two , religious and legal, were ever distinct ?
GERMIT
BEST. THREAD. EVER.
🙂
Germit,
Personally, I think that churches that teach that are silly. HOWEVER, they get to decide that. If churches don’t want to recognize gay marriage, that’s their business. The government doesn’t get to make religious calls like that, though, and the only reason that the government does is because of religion. I can’t think of any non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marriage.
I especially don’t understand why the LDS Church cares that much, since temple marriage already wouldn’t be allowed for gays, so why deny them happiness for time? It’s not like denying them the right to marry is going to make them join the LDS church, you know?
Oh, and Tom, clearly you’re missing out on the actual best thread ever. 😀
Katyjane wrote:
I can’t think of any non-religious reason to deny gay people the right to marriage.
I can’t think of one either. This may have been a case of religion meddling way too far in the affairs of gov’t. I thnk gov’t is about to return the favor regarding religions right to openly teach and preach on the morallity of sexual choices. This could be a case of ‘now we’ve made our beds..’
“I suppose Steve, by that logic, heterosexual incest would be just fine if they used adequate protection. Right?
I’m a bit up in the air about this.”
I know, I am a bit up in the air about incest as well. . . . and polygamy.
I wouldn’t care about consensual incest. Read Flowers in the Attic.
I mean, I wouldn’t do it, and to me it is a gross idea. But people probably think that a lot of things that I do (extra mayo on my sandwiches, for example) are gross.
Sex is nice.
But it does have to be managed. The potential for hurting other people is simply too great with that kind of intense intimacy.
How it is managed is up for discussion of course.
I wouldn’t care about consensual incest
like, say, between a 10 yr old and her 20 yr old brother/cousin/uncle ?
Good luck getting a clear read on what’s really going to be ‘consensual’. I’ve heard similar statements about teachers and their students. I think Seth’s statement holds up pretty well here.
I wouldn’t equate incest with mayonnaise. But I do think they’re both yucky.
Germit, a 10-year-old cannot legally give consent on anything.
well, exactly, so are we talking about incest among 18plus….or ?? Even if the age thing were somewhat equal, I think the potential for harm just boggles the mind (to use a Kullervo-ism). Take all the crap that often happens in “break ups”, now stir in the “and my ex-partner is also my sister…”.
The only plus I see is that HBO ,and
cable in genral , will thank one and all for the circus fodder.
Why would you assume that anyone is arguing for permissible sex between a child and an adult?
to compare incest to extra mayo boggles my mind.
I didn’t assume anything, but ages were not mentioned. But if incest is on the table, how can age disparity not be part of this conversation ? What’s allowed in full for marriage is going to be winked at while “dating” or just “going out” ….or come to think of it : living together.
Back to Seth’s comment: this ends up being about a lot more than “two people in love”. The prohibition is more harmful than THIS ?? I’m not buying any of that.
GERMIT
What about it? I can’t tell people what to believe and teach in their church, and neither can the government. The idea that legalizing gay marriage would result in churches having to sanctify gay unions is just plain ignorant. Churches can discriminate racially if they want to, or for any other reason. Take Mormonism and the black priesthood ban for example. People were pissed about it, yeah, but there was absolutely no legal recourse. The only pressure that could be brought to bear was social pressure and indirect legal pressure (i.e., step up legal challenges to the Church on other grounds because you’re pissed that the Church is racist).
Uh… why? Seriously. Don’t be a dumbass. What could possibly make you think this kind of thing was “about” to happen? Other than paranoid alarmist propaganda?
Even if anyone were talking at all about legalizing incest here, having sex with your sibling is not the same thing as having sex with a little kid. There’s no slippery slope there. The law–almost all of the law, actually–applies differently to children all across the board. Kids can’t vote, can’t enter into legally binding contracts, can’t drive, can’t smoke or drink, can’t go to regular prisons. They don’t have the same rights as adults, and they are also not held to the same standard of responsibility as adults.
In our society and legal system, children are treated fundamentally differently. There’s a wall there. That’s how age disparity is not a part of this conversation.
Nope, more straw man talk. Age disparity is an issue for a couple reasons. First. You cannot enter into legally binding contracts (e.g. marriage) in this country until you have reached a certain age. States have wiggle room on the marriage issue, but generally, 18 is the standard for most contracts. There’s no reason that would change if same-sex marriage were legalized, because you’re looking at two separate inquiries–the age of legally-binding consent is a much broader topic than marriage.
Second. States are increasingly cutting some slack on the statutory rape issue so that 18-year-olds don’t get labeled sex offenders for sleeping with their 17-year-old girl/boyfriends. However. The reason that children in general may not consent to sexual relationships is because it is understood that 99% of them don’t understand the implications of those relationship; thus they would not be in a position to give informed consent. For the 1% who may be able to grasp what they’re actually doing in a healthy manner, the law has said it’s going to err on the side of protecting the others.
This is not the slippery slope that you’re trying to set up. This country routinely takes a stand against child trafficking and child marriage throughout the world. Why? Because it’s recognized that just like recruiting a child to run around with an AK-47, marrying off a kid who cannot possibly understand the consequences of that action–even if they think they do–is destructive.
A contract between consenting adults who understand the contract they’re making as well as another group of consenting adults who already have the ability to make that exact same contract is in no way the rational predecessor to society sanctioning child marriages and sex with children.
My comment is not responding to Kullervo…even though it is worded in such a way as to look like it is. I’m talking to Germit :), and it just so happens that Kullervo and I are in complete agreement.
Okay, lawyers (& hot Methodist law students), I has a question for you. I recently came across an old article in Christianity Today concerning the legality of barring polygamy. John Witte Jr. of the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University writes:
I’m not agreeing with his views, just asking for an honest evaluation of them. And if there’s any validity to them, can similar logic be applied to banning gay marriage?
I have to go get ready for my hot date with Katie Langston. I hope to be back to regularly commenting sometime next week.
whitney: are you saying , then, that if the two (or more ?) parties are of consenting age, the state should have no interest whatsoever in their sex lives ? Is that saying too much, or is it that everything you’ve said about gay marriage transitions here as well (assuming we’re talking about adults) ? Father /daughter , mother/son sex OK if the kid is 18 ?
I’m reserving saying anything on incest, Germit, because I think the conditions that would lead to a parent “consensually” sleeping with their progeny, regardless of age, involve a lot of mental illness and severe manipulation that likely started when that that son or daughter was a child.
But if we’re talking about two (or more) consenting adults outside of incest, then yeah, I think the government should stay out of it. I mean let’s keep people educated about STDs and safe sex practices and such, but I lean libertarian there.
[And now I’m looking over Jack’s comment.]
Jack, I would respond to that by saying I have the same concerns about polygamist marriage. (Maybe I’ve been taken in by sensational news reports, so I could be misguided in those concerns.)
I do not have the same concerns about gay marriage simply because gay unions, whether government-sanctioned or not, just don’t result in the same issues. I just can’t see a reason for opposing gay marriage other than opposing being gay, and since sexual preference is not a crime in itself (hi, thought-crime!), permitting a marriage contract between consenting adults in that context seems perfectly fine to me.
[*Tangent*]
Some may try to argue that by that logic, we shouldn’t punish child molesters because that is “their sexuality.” That’s a fallacy. Being aroused by children is horrible, but it’s not illegal. It’s only when you act on the impulse (or take steps to act on that impulse a la “To Catch A Predator”) that it becomes illegal, for reasons discussed in my previous comment.
Having drawn up that imaginary argument, I’d just like to say…I know a lot of people believe homosexuality is a perversion, but I think that comparing it to sexual misdeeds against children through logical extension is both wrong and stupid. People who sleep with kids have a whole other set of issues, so there’s no reason to discuss age at all in relation to this subject.
To clarify, these are the concerns I tend to share about polygamy:
I don’t think polygamy confusing kids is valid. Plenty of kids have step-parents and they’re fine.
I might also take issue with whether it condones adultery, because if you’re married, it’s not technically adultery, but I think it might go in with the rivalry thing.
Anyway.
The strongest argument against polygamy is the argument from moral repugnance.
Oh, yeah. And for someone who has no repugnance, none, zip, nada, I don’t know what to say to that person. Use a very large multiplier when applying this to incest, at any age.
Regarding the incest theme, “no slippery slope ??” that boggles my mind, what’s left of it. I think it’s the Himilayas of slippery slopes.
I have started to notice that the direction of this Blog is going down. The swirling water had me confused a bit but now I see the other side I appears we here are at the bottom of the toilet bowl.
People are just striking out at each other and it is an insult to intelligent discourse.
I’m out of here before we all get flushed away with this…stuff.
For anyone else who wants to discuss the issues without slinging insults and their own hate, I say Swim, swim like the dickens…
-D
What’s the Himalayas of slippery slopes?
Oh no, ditchu, you will be sorely missed.
“Sorry Germit. We have decided not to let you get married, because–we are not really sure–but some of us are afraid that if we let you get married, we will eventually wind up accidentally having to let people marry baby ducks.”
Even if that makes sense from a social standpoint, which I am not at all conceding, it is still a pretty shitty thing to tell Germit, and your weak social-ramification argument isn’t really going to mean much to him.
Whitney: I meant marriages, and I’d say any sexual relationship really, within a family. Thanks for asking.
Kullervo: I guess what is self-evident to you is not that for me. So we’ll just have to disagree on this one.
Ditchu: yes, I think it’s regressed, also, not sure how that happened. I hope you find good blog conversation elsewhere. If my comment about not getting your posts seemed condescending, forgive me, sometimes what I think is funny just isn’t. God bless.
GERMIT
Whitney: the above referred to the incest comments: obvously not “man and wife” type family… thanks
Honestly, I think it’s pretty useless to talk about incestual marriage in this context. Even if courts and/or voters could be persuaded that such a thing was legally okay (and are you seriously concerned that such a thing is on the horizon??), I think that’s a bridge you cross when you get to it. Trying to explore the social ramifications of that is so speculative at this point that it’s just an exercise in typing a lot and getting worked up over a non-reality.
Besides, this post is about how the LDS church handles gay marriage as a political issue. I think we’d all agree that the LDS church will have significant support from other religious and social organizations if the issue of incest marriage comes up, in which case they won’t be facing the same types of conflict that they do today (i.e. the church became the poster child for Prop 8 support, whether or not it intended to).
Trying to explore the social ramifications of that is so speculative at this point that it’s just an exercise in typing a lot and getting worked up over a non-reality.
I’m hoping, praying, and sometimes preaching so that this will play out the way you and Kullervo say it will. In this case, I sure hope you are right.
Well, here’s one way to look at it. Ancient Greek culture was fine with homosexuality. In fact, some would argue that they openly condoned sex between teenage boys and older men. And they STILL gave us Oedipus, who married his mother without even knowing it, and went on to tear his eyes out in shame.
Which is to say, a society that openly tolerates homosexuality can still view incest as something it doesn’t like.
Fearing that gay marriage will result in marriage among immediate family members is just way too speculative, and even if it did somehow become legal, I don’t think you’ll have a hard time convincing people not to do it. The subset of Americans who would actually want to marry their brothers or sisters or parents is very, VERY small. Time to spend your energy on something else.
Time to spend your energy on something else.
I actually like this tack more and more: an appeal to JESUS, WHO HE is and what HE taught. I think it’s always been the right time to major in the majors, and tho we blog for hours about almost everything, your point is on the mark here, why not focus on the best and brightest…well said.
Besides that, focusing on any one particular culture war is soul-killing, or so it seems to me.
GERMIT
Bullshit. You broke out “self-evident” which means you have nothing but unreasonable fear to back up your claims. And let’s be clear here: you are the one making the following claims: 1. that the government is about to start dictating moral teachings taught in church, and 2. gay marriage is a slippery slope to incestuous marriage with a baby iguana.
You’re making the outrageous claims, you have to ddefend them. So, pony up. Please give an example of the government intervening in the moral teachings of a church, ever. Alternately, please explain how you think such an outcome is likely in the near future, or even plausible (and in the interest of not being stupid, please limit your projections to scenarios that bear at least a passing resemblance to our actual existing legal and political culture).
Second, please explain how gay marriage leads to incestuous marriage. Again, limit yourself to our society’s actual social culture and legal and political system.
Tim, obviously I wasn’t trying to say that incest and mayonnaise have the same level of moral repugnance.
And I certainly wasn’t talking about letting children have sex with their parents.
Mostly, I just agree with Whitney. She is True.
Nobody has ever been able to give me a non-religious reason why gay people shouldn’t be able to marry each other. And I believe in religious freedom–including the freedom to NOT believe in or practice the majority’s religion.
Jack,
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Law School has an essay contest where the topic must relate to LGBT issues. (I don’t know if it’s formally sponsored by the Law School, but you get the picture).
A recent essay was submitted by an LDS writer with the thesis that those favoring legalization of gay marriage and those favoring legalization of polygamous marriage should unite because their arguments are almost identical.
The essay won the contest. I am fairly certain this LDS individual was not in favor of legalizing polygamy or gay marriage but the parallels between the arguments from the two camps are striking. I wish I had the essay, but, alas, I don’t.
I heart you, katyjane.
Kullervo, I feel like I just read an essay question for a Family Law final.
Finally, I support the chastity of baby iguanas.
Whitney –
Having multiple heterosexual sex partners is not a crime in and of itself, so why not legalize polygamy?
Whelp, I would refer back to the previous concerns noted…From a legal perspective, I concede that it’s a similar argument, and in theory I’m fine with it.
In practice, because of the power/religious systems that seem to produce polygamy, I would remain concerned about the position that leaves women in, as well as the implications for consent and emotional health.
I recognize that those arguments are very patronizing to women who embrace polygamy.
So I guess that’s to say that I wouldn’t like it in practice, but I would have to concede the legal argument on that. On the other hand, I have three sister-wives whom I adore, so in theory, I should probably be even more fine with it.
Polygamy is trickier than gay marriage. As you are adding more parties to a contractual agreement, you have more issues financially to deal with. Who is whose beneficiaries? Who gets married to whom? Who has to consent to the marriage? (All prior married people, or just the two getting married?)
If those details were ironed out, I don’t think that I would have a problem with legalization of polygamy. It works on Big Love. So long as I don’t have to do it, with the exception of my current, beautiful, intelligent, funny sister-wives of course, I’m cool.
Katyjane is True, too.
Kullervo: you need a hobby or pet or something. You can’t act the (insert your favorite moderated word here) , spew out names and insults, and expect someone to just “pony up”. You seem to really like winning, why not just call this a win for you. Hoooray. I love the internet thing, but I’m not that desperate.
As to the gay marriage to incest thing, I was misunderstood , but I’m not blaming anyone else here. The topic shifted and I followed it. I never said the slippery slope was gay to incest, but I can see where a fair reading of the posts would result with that (mis)understanding.
What allowing 18 yr old, and older, immediate family members to intermarry would result in would be 10,000 kinds of hell. The whole topic just slimes me, I’ll give you a two-fer, you can win this one also, there’s nothing I could possibly say (IMO) that would sway you on this one either.
Wow, you are on a roll.
Hope your school goes well.
GERMIT
No no. It doesn’t work like that.
Fine, we drop the gay marriage to incest argument. I accept your concession of victory. But the “government is going to start telling churches what they can teach” argument is a serious no-go. It’s propaganda, pure and simple. Give me one thing, anything you can solidly base that fear on. Go.
Also, I am not in school anymore. I graduated.
Congrats on the school, two of my brothers have gone that route, it’s a grind, from what I’ve heard.
Deal on the propaganda, I’ll post something tomorrow, Sun at the latest.
If we could stay on the issues and avoid ‘other stuff’, I’m guessing that those few who read my posts would enjoy it more, and not feel like they walked into a custody battle or something.
GERMIT
I just finished reading the article about 20th Century Nazi Germany and the propganda tools used by the Reich.
It’s hilarious that today’s pagan apostates use the same double-speak and billigerent acting that Hitler used in the 1930/40’s.
No rights were denied.
And Kullervo, you do not yet have the power to define truth by Fiat.
Just because Kullervo says, “Thus sayeth Kullervo” doesn’t make it’s so.
Make no mistake, Kullervo, you don’t convince anyone with your name-calling ad-hominem arguments. Just because you screech louder, doesn’t make you right. In fact it makes you look small, petty, and foolish.
psycho,
I’m going to answer this because frankly, I’m tired of listening to Kullervo calling people here “dickheads.” So I’ll save him the bother.
It doesn’t make much sense to accuse Kullervo of name-calling and “truth by fiat” in a post that essentially does the same thing in reverse.
Calling Kullervo a “pagan-apostate” and likening his comments to Nazi-ism isn’t likely to lead this conversation anywhere productive.
[applause to Seth.]
Kullervo, you’re a drama queen. And American Idol sucks so it doesn’t really matter that Adam Lambert didn’t win; apart from Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood, none of the winners have amounted to anything anyways. And I’m not sure if singing country music ever counts as “amounting to anything” no matter how famous you become, so Carrie Underwood doesn’t even count.
Whitney, you’re a lush.
Seth, you’re puerile and temperamental.
Psychochemiker, you’re a whiner.
Katie, you’re an LDS apologist.
Tim, you’re an anti-Mormon and a pervert.
Katyjane, you’re a pottymouth and a bad influence on your children. I’m very disappointed in you.
Aaron, you’re condescending and rude.
Blake, you’re pompous.
Gloria, you’re misandrist.
Jessica, you’re so bubbly sometimes I just want to pull you out of my computer screen and slap you on the side of a Brady Bunch lunchbox.
Jared, you’re insipid.
Eric, you’re a turncoat.
Germit, you’re a sycophant.
Brian, I can think of nothing bad to say about you, except for that you suck for not making it to dinner with me and Katie last night.
There. I have now flamed all of our regulars. If I neglected to flame you, it is because you are inconsequential to me and not even worthy of insult. You can stop calling people names now, I have done it for you.
Love,
Everyone’s favorite b#tchy, merrily sexist, perverse, irritable, tongue-firmly-planted-in-cheek evangelical
I’m not trying to define by fiat. Germit is. Germit says “it is so.” I say “prove it.” Germit pitches a fit, and runs away pouting. The end.
Also, Kelly Clarkson is awesome.
“Just because Kullervo says, “Thus sayeth Kullervo” doesn’t make it’s so.”
Here in Finland it does.
Jack:
“insipid”
really?
(where I’m from, dems fight’n words)
I’m consequential! I’m consequential!!
Whitney’s not a lush. Not totally. But she’s laughing pretty hard right now.
I see Anonymous made his way from Psychochemiker’s house to Whitney’s house and is now posting from her computer.
Yeah, that was so weird.
I am familiar with many of the bloggers posting on this thread from other blogs and even though I have not been participating as of late or even on this blog at all, except for maybe once a time long ago. I found the current thread interesting. I had a thought/question and would be interested to hear your thoughts or feedback. Am I way out there with this premise or could there be some validity to it?
When the LDS church started to become so involved in prop 8 I was actually surprised as were many of my LDS family and friends. Has I had been under the impression the LDS Church had somewhat softened its position on the gay issue. But then it occurred to me the issue could really come down to just that, had they backed themselves into a corner with the way they had softened or with the current position regarding homosexuality. Correct me if I am wrong as I am getting most my impression on the LDS Church most recent stand or position from the mouths of LDS that I have had discussions with, but it had seemed that the LDS official position had lightened up some on the homosexual issue i.e. SSA (Same Sex Attraction) They were no longer trying to “cure” SSA but were accepting it as something they didn’t fully understand, and the real and only sin of SSA was acting out sexually on it, a person would be fornicating if there is not legal gay marriage.
Here comes the conundrum if gay marriage were to become legal what can of worms would that open? From what I understand there is quite a large group of gay LDS that are fairly vocal in CA, how would the LDS Church deal with an openly gay couple legally married wanting to be an active part of an LDS congregation?
It seems that if the LDS Church didn’t see it causing problems for them internally they would have just left well enough alone and continued to teach homosexuality as a sin or weakness, just a thought.
Coventry, if that’s the case, it would totally be a case of policy running the doctrine.
Not that this hasn’t happened before in the LDS Church, but still…
An openly gay, legally married couple (by the law) would still not be following the dictates of the LDS Church, thus would not be eligible for baptism, priesthood, etc. The church can internally define an acceptable marriage as between a man and a woman without necessitating the same rules be legislated throughout the country.
That certainly was what they did when they were on the other side of the law, practicing polygamy when it was illegal.
Other than the social opprobium that the Church already suffers over the issue? Absolutely none.
Deny them temple recommends, disfellowship them, excommunicate them. The legality of their marriage would basically be irrelevant.
Come on people, think back to the pre-Manifesto race issue. The Church openly discriminated against black people long after Civil Rights legislation was passed, and there was absolutely no legal recourse against the Church because of it. If gays were protected under civil rights acts or something similar (note that merely making gay marriage legal would in no way afford gays those civil rights protections), then the Church could just not get federal funds if it discriminated against gay people. The end. And that’s only if the Church actually discriminated–it could continue to teach whatever it pleased (at present for example, a white supremacist church would be free to teach whatever it wants about other races, but it’s religious schools just can;t get federal funding if they actually discriminate in admissions–there’s a case about this). So students at LDS universities might not be able to get federal student loans, but then only if those universities actually discriminated against their gay students.
And again, this is only if Civil Rights applied to gays, which is a whole lot more than just legalizing gay unions. Legal gay marriage might be a step on the road towards full civil rights protections for homosexuals, but even if that point was reached, it would still just forbid actual discrimination, not moral teachings at all, and it would only even forbid discrimination in things like housing, commerce, and by institutions that receive federal funds. None of this would stop churches from teaching that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of god (and if a church wanted to forego federal funds, it would be free to discriminate all it wants), and none of this would affect a church’s tax-exempt status. And again, this is not pure speculation: this is the state of the law currently as regards race.
Thanks for the thoughts and input. Hopefully just like the racism practiced in the past someday social and moral conscience will prevail in regards to this issue, I just wish the process wasn’t so slow.
But it is important to emphasize the role of social and moral conscience: despite the overwrought reactionary fears of social conservatives, the “gubmint” is not about to step in and start mandating what churches can teach and believe or punishing them for teaching and believing the wrong thing. They never have (and never will) with race, and they never will with sexuality.
Jack,
I’m not sure which hurts more – that I’m not considered a “regular” or being “incosequential”. 😦
Although, I understand that it’s impossible to say anything bad about me, so I don’t fault you for not trying to come up with something.
Don’t feel too bad. It ain’t that impressive a clique.
I think Jack’s simply referring to all the people who have been here since she started showing up here.
But Kullervo, Katyjane and I (and others) have been here a lot longer than she has. So maybe that makes us like… supercool or something….
Yeah… that’s it…
Tom was at my wedding, so he’s more consequential than all of y’all put together.
But Tom, you’re going to have to comment here more often if you expect me to start insulting you. It’s not an honor I bestow easily; you have to do your part.