damned if you do, damned if you don't... (about prop 8)

[_Brackite]

But I do hope that cooler heads prevail in this case, and they lay off the restaurant.

Yes, I do hope that you are right about this.

[_Brackite]

The very Blue and the Liberal State of Vermont has Civil Unions for Same-Sex Couples. The State of Vermont has had Civil Unions for Same Sex Couples, Since July of the Year of 2000. Why hasn't the very blue and the Liberal State of Vermont Legally Recognized Same-Sex Marriages yet? After all, First-Cousin Marriages are Legal, Within the State of Vermont. The State of Vermont may very well be the next State to Legally Same-Sex Marriages. Here is the Following information from Wikipedia:

On Feb 9, 2007 state legislature bill H275 was introduced to provide for same-sex marriage and on 25 July 2007, Democratic House and Senate leaders in the state legislature announced the creation of a committee to study the issue of same-sex marriage. The committee reported in April 2008 but declined to make a recommendation. Legislation is expected in 2009. [1]

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unions_in_Vermont )

[_Danna]

As society moves along every one seems to become more tolerant claiming its normal for a man to love a man , or a man to love his sheep , or a guy that went to a Muslim school to run our country (while they are killing people in India over thier belief system) where does one draw the line . Sure you just keep telling your self Hey it wasn't excepted before but heck that sheep looks like she likes it .. As humans tolerate themselves to extinction .

My parents sent me to a Mormon school. Are you saying I would be fair game for any anti-mormon, or liberal, or anti-fundie if I ran for public office?

[_Danna]

The local gay and lesbian group acknowledged the antipathy blacks had to gay marriage and found it "outrageous." One of the leaders astounded me by arguing that blacks were naturally prejudiced because of their history of being discriminated against.

Nonsense of course, but the words of someone who is trying to explain something inexplicable.

Thus, there is nothing "wrong" with the blacklist and the four actions I describe above, but the blacklist is leading to "wrong" things. Interruption of religious services and violence directed at Mormons who had nothing to do with contributing money. It would be rather narrow-minded to not see the relationship between the two.

Agreed. Mormons have been blamed en masse. This is wrong. Even if it is the result of directives from the bretheren who also seem to assume LDS homogeneity on this issue. The 'connection between the two' came from SLC in the first place.

Most Mormons, myself included, did not contribute to Prop 8 because we hate gays. Rather, we don't think that expanding marriage beyond a male and female relationship would be a good thing.

Don't do it then. I assume you think that consuming alcohol is not a good thing either. Would you ban everyone from drinking? And coffee is not a good thing. Hey, ban Starbucks.

Who made you, or Thomas Monson, the arbiter of 'a good thing'.

As Elton John said publicly about his relationship with his partner: "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage. . . . You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."

Elton John speaks for all gay people like you speak for all Mormons around the world. And he is not quite correct in applying the UK situation to the US. Civil unions have different legal status in different countries - marriage is more than just a word in the US. Elton is unlikely to be aware of the intricacies of US medical insurance, next-of-kin, and inheritance law. Also he may think differently if he ever wants to have a child with his partner. As you will be aware, marriage confers quite specific rights in the US, and SSMs are only asking for equal rights for partners, not extras or double dipping.

Here downunder, and in most western countries I believe, a civil union has all the rights etc. of a marriage, with one key exception - a civil union partnership cannot adopt children, or both be equal parents to a child. Only one of the couple can be a legal parent, or adopt a child as an individual. So my sister and her partner of five years cannot 'have a child together'. Is that the 'essence' of the institution of marriage? Many heterosexual married couples make a mockery of parenting.

Personally, I think polygamy between consenting adults is a personal choice as well, although I suspect the major anti-polygamy lobby would come from insurers and employers contemplating granting spousal rights to half a dozen spouses per employee.

[_Gadianton]

I think it's fascinating to observe double standards of apologists on this issue. If some gay people, who are bound together with other gay people as a social class only, slash the tires of a few LDS cars, then the apologists cry out, "Look how awfully the gays are behaving," as if the actions of a few could be generalized as actions of the whole group. But then if a band of Mormons go on a killing spree at Mountain Meadows -- Mormons who are bound together to other Mormons as a social class, as a isolated religious society, and by strict religious rights and a strict, authoritarian priestly leadership body -- they say, "Um, Um, the church leaders didn't condone that, these people had nothing to do with true Mormonism. This is really just a fluke, what are the odds huh? You can't blame the church for it at all and even the slightest insinuation the church might have had something to do with it is pure bigotry and just shows how persecuted Mormons are."

[_Jason Bourne]

I think it's fascinating to observe double standards of apologists on this issue. If some gay people, who are bound together with other gay people as a social class only, slash the tires of a few LDS cars, then the apologists cry out, "Look how awfully the gays are behaving," as if the actions of a few could be generalized as actions of the whole group. But then if a band of Mormons go on a killing spree at Mountain Meadows -- Mormons who are bound together to other Mormons as a social class, as a isolated religious society, and by strict religious rights and a strict, authoritarian priestly leadership body -- they say, "Um, Um, the church leaders didn't condone that, these people had nothing to do with true Mormonism. This is really just a fluke, what are the odds huh? You can't blame the church for it at all and even the slightest insinuation the church might have had something to do with it is pure bigotry and just shows how persecuted Mormons are."

I think there are valid points here. My guess is the radical behavior against Mormons is more by a few than most and I note that on the news a few nights ago there were some gay person/groups speaking out about such actions.

[_antishock8]

In other words the violence is justified?

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right in my world. Both the bully and the skinny kid should be punished. Self-defense is one thing. Revenge is something else entirely. I have no sympathy for people who do not control their anger. Personally I believe that most gays understand this and are not resorting to violence.

Asshole. Don't put words into my mouth. Screw you for doing that. Typical Mormon BS. Take what I say as meaning what I say. That's that. Don't read more into it. If I have something to say I'll say it. What I write is what I think. I'll give you the same consideration.

[_asbestosman]

Don't put words into my mouth.

Then I apologize for misreading you. Will you really grant me the same privilege? You have also put words in my mouth which is when I did it to you about the Republican party (but only after admitting it and only to make a point). I was not attempting to put anything in your mouth in the latest post. There's really no need for you to lose your temper with me. And calling it typical Mormon is silly--I'm hardly a typical Mormon and I'm unaware of a Mormon habbit of tyring to put words in another's mouth. In any case, here is how I will respond instead:

Of course it's wrong for the bully to claim it's the innocent victim here and quite pathetic. However, violence is not justified by skinny kid either. Luckily I think most gays are decent folk who do not resort to revenge and who do control their tempers even when things are most difficult. I think it shows great strength of character on their part (the ones I know anyhow). It's too bad some are making a bad name in the public eye for many. I would punish any skinny kid who seeks revenge just I would the bully.

[_harmony]

The thing is, this was an election issue. People voted. Not all of the people who voted were Mormon. Not all Mormons voted for Prop 8.

A side lost. That's what happens in an election.

I'm not saying "get over it". I'm saying "work on your grassroots, get your act together, and put it on the ballot again in 2 years."

The great thing about a society that decides issues via the ballot box rather than the gun or intimidation is that whatever is decided this year can be undone next year. So, No on Prop 8 supports: get to work; quit wasting your energy on what's done; get to work to undo it.

[_rcrocket]

In other words the violence is justified?

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right in my world. Both the bully and the skinny kid should be punished. Self-defense is one thing. Revenge is something else entirely. I have no sympathy for people who do not control their anger. Personally I believe that most gays understand this and are not resorting to violence.

Asshole. Don't put words into my mouth. f*** you for doing that. Typical Mormon s***. Take what I say as meaning what I say. That's that. Don't read more into it. If I have something to say I'll say it. What I write is what I think. I'll give you the same consideration.

There's a special place in my heart for the trailer park denizen who can't communicate except with vulgarities.

I read your post. It looks to me that you were justifying violence. Don't use with me the silly platitude "don't put words in my mouth," an overworked phrase which really has no meaning in intelligent discourse.