Did Mormons help the gay marriage cause?

[_rcrocket]

I see that Shades thinks highly of you. Do the two of you also throw turds on the roof of the local synagogue? Oh, wait, that would require you to give up your anonymity.

[_mms]

and the Mormon "win" keeps bearing fruit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1395.story

[_collegeterrace]

and the Mormon "win" keeps bearing fruit.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1395.story

Wow, I read this line and just about creamed my jeans from the exmor'gasm that erupted in me:

But the outrage directed toward the church could hurt its efforts to expand.

Even the old horse that FARMs/MI loves to trot out had some tough things to say:

"The backlash is going on all over the country," said Jan Shipps, a prominent scholar of modern Mormonism who is an emeritus professor at Indiana University- Purdue University Indianapolis. "There are people who had a lot of respect for the Mormons who now say, 'Well, they're just like the Christian right.' "

That's ironic, Shipps said, given that the Mormon Church has a more tolerant stance on homosexuality than some evangelical groups. The church has pointedly declined to state that homosexuality is a choice. And it has cautioned against programs that purport to "cure" same-sex attraction, even though Mormon theology holds that marriage is a divine relationship between men and women that continues into the afterlife.

Also, Shipps said, though the church had been riding high ever since the successful 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, the gay marriage fight and other recent setbacks have forced the church to deal with skepticism over its faith and history.

Then when I thought the article could not get any better, comes this:

First there was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's unsuccessful run for the Republican presidential nomination. Many in the church were shocked that Romney's Mormon faith was a source of discomfort for some voters.

....

And a raid on a polygamous breakaway sect in Texas last spring was a reminder of the church's practice of multiple marriages in the 19th century, even though the Mormon Church has long renounced polygamy.

Then the irony from the official spokesperson, Ott-knothead-erson:

"Latter-day Saints were just amazed to think there was such bigotry in the country," church spokesman Michael Otterson said.

Whoa, talk about persecution complex! When did the definition of bigotry include people thinking that Mormons were just plain weird?

Just curious, do the Amish call it bigotry when outsiders find their religious beliefs and lifestyle weird?

[_The Nehor]

We will be asked to risk much more.

In what way?

I don't know yet but I expect you'll be gone by then so I wouldn't worry about it.

[_The Nehor]

Wow, I read this line and just about creamed my jeans from the exmor'gasm that erupted in me:

Sexual pleasure at the suffering of others is called sadism.

[_Dr. Shades]

I see that Shades thinks highly of you.

What the Hell are you talking about? I hadn't even commented in this thread yet!

The church has pointedly declined to state that homosexuality is a choice. And it has cautioned against programs that purport to "cure" same-sex attraction, even though Mormon theology holds that marriage is a divine relationship between men and women that continues into the afterlife.

Shipps is losing it. She obviously forgot about the torture of homosexuals carried out in the basement of BYU's Jesse Knight building in order to "cure" them. She also forgot all about the church's notorious "Evergreen" program.

[_antishock8]

After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, “Why did we lose?”

I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.

I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.

But I didn’t vote for a single Republican in 2008. I’ve become increasingly alienated by the Republicans“ embrace of the religious ”social conservative“ agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.

The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a ”wall of separation“ between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

[_asbestosman]

Instead, the government’s role is to protect each person’s right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party’s embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.

I think that separation is impossible, and maybe not even desireable. That said, I don't like how the Republicans seem to be getting in bed with Christian Fundamentalists. I do, however, think that people should vote according to their consciences. If they think God wants to ban everyone from eating pork, then they should vote to outlaw it.

I also think that where possible, people should let God enforce the bans instead of government. If abortion is murder, then maybe the government needs to enforce the ban--I don't expect anyone to overlook murder if that's how they really view abortion. If blasphemy is wicked, maybe we can leave the punishment in God's hands (unless it involves libel / slander). Even then, that doesn't mean I'll just let you have your way any more than I expect you to let me have mine.