Time magazine article on backlash vs. LDS in CA ....

[_Morrissey]

Take away regard for the seventh commandment, and behold the current celebration of sex, the secular religion, with its own liturgy of lust and supporting music. Its theology focuses on self, its hereafter is now. Its chief ritual is sensation - though the irony is that it finally desensitizes its obsessed adherents, who become "past feeling" (Ephesians 4:19; Moroni 9:20)

The last sentence is complete nonsense. First of all, he offers no proof, even anecdotal that it happens. If people whose obsession is to obtain feeling and they become past feeling, why would they want to pursue that course anymore? Indeed, is that the object of the religious ilk? Let's take something like lust, if by indulging one's lust, ultimately one moves beyond lust, that would seem a good thing. In contrast, he offers that we don't want to desensitize that. What they want is a group, forever pining in a sensitive state, never able to indulge and never able to move beyond the desire. What is the advantage to staying sensitize to lust and supporting music?[/quote]

I take it then that Joseph Smith was also desensitized and past feeling? In terms of sex obsession, Mick Jagger and Bill Clinton are not worthy to lace ol' Joe's sandals. At least they did not create a whole convoluted theology to justify their lust.

Newsflash: Since humankind evolved from the primordial slime, it has been obsessed with sex. It is what those of us who don't fret constantly about others' sexual activities call 'being human.' The Brethren's obsession with sex is unsettling. It is the center of their moral universe (that and obedience to authority). They really need to get laid more and quit worrying about who else is getting laid.

[_JohnStuartMill]

The Mormons are telling people how to get married. I think that about sums it up.

[_wenglund]

May I interupt the bashing here of the LDS Church for attempting to avert the gay advocates from perverting of the foundational institution of society, and note the U.S.News article, "Support for Gay Marriage Falls".

With Rollo's evident interest in the topic of SSM, I am surprised that he or she has yet to mention it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Ray A]

"I've had personal experience with gay people, and I weep with them," says official LDS historian Marlin Jensen, but the "context for our being so dogged about preserving the family is that Mormons believe that God is their father and that they have a heavenly mother and that eventually their destiny is to become like that." The alienation felt by gay Mormons was highlighted in 2000, when one of them, 32-year-old Stuart Matis, committed suicide on the steps of the Los Altos, Calif., church headquarters.

You'd forgive anyone for thinking that Jensen belonged to a different branch of Mormonism if you read the comments section in the Deseret News reporting the bashing of Perez Hilton:



Sheesh | 10:07 a.m. June 22, 2009

Too bad others didn't join in the punching. Perez needs to go away.
Creepers | 10:18 a.m. June 22, 2009

"Perez Hilton" creeps me out.
Jim | 10:32 a.m. June 22, 2009

Hip-hip hooray.



2 cents | 10:41 a.m. June 22, 2009

What kind of idiot seeks medical help in the form of a tweet? PH is a self-promoter to the nth degree. I don't feel bad for him.
It'd be worth it | 10:42 a.m. June 22, 2009

Just to slug the guy.
Something doesn't seem right | 1:03 p.m. June 22, 2009

The article says that Perez says he was punched from behind. Then he has a picture of himself showing an injury under his eye. To me it seems that it would be very difficult to hit someone under the eye from behind. I just don't see how attacking someone from behind will leave that amount of damage below the eye. Also, I don't believe that there would be a lot of blood from that small of a cut.
Please just go away | 1:07 p.m. June 22, 2009

Perez Hilton needs to just go away - he does nothing to advance the cause of ANYONE'S rights and his actions do nothing but cause backlash.

Mr. Perez Hilton - your 15 minutes are up!
cindy | 1:07 p.m. June 22, 2009

The best thing we can do for this guy is to quit paying attention to him.
Hilton is a lowlife | 1:14 p.m. June 22, 2009

Perez Hilton is a bottom feeder with no respect for anyone or anything. The guy who hit him really shouldn't have stooped to his level, but man, what a loser.
Lasertrac | 1:23 p.m. June 22, 2009

Mario Lavandeira is a parasitic party crasher who loves to to bath in the pool of victimization when he gets whats coming to him. He's lucky this "fag" wasn't the one who worked him over. If a job's worth doing its worth doing well.
to: something doesn't seem right | 1:25 p.m. June 22, 2009

he may have hit his face on the ground. this article made my day. heehee
But.. | 1:27 p.m. June 22, 2009

He still didn't deserve the treatment he was given, gay or not.
call 911 | 1:29 p.m. June 22, 2009

Next time he needs help, he should call 911 instead of Tweeting. It works up in Toronto as it does in the States!

Three digits vs who knows how many for the tweet? Someone wanted some attention!
Perez=Hypocrite | 1:40 p.m. June 22, 2009

Astonishing! By Perez Hilton's own admission, he says he used a gay slur against someone else. Sorry, Perez, but I don't feel one bit sorry for you. This action reveals your hypocrisy to the world. As someone who cares about many gay people, I'm offended that Hilton would try to insult someone else by using a term he himself considers hateful.

So "Perez," looks like you got exactly what was coming to you--no more, no less.
Re: But.. | 1:42 p.m. June 22, 2009

Uh, yes he did. From what the article says his mouth wrote checks his body couldn't cash.
RE: But.. | 1:27 p.m. | 1:47 p.m. June 22, 2009

He didn't deserve the treatment he was given? Well, violence is never a good thing, true. But on the other hand, what do you expect when you go around slinging highly offensive terms at people in a deliberate attempt to wound them? Flowers?

A *heterosexual* who used this term in this way would probably get exactly what Perez Hilton got. Right? This is just what happens when you play with fire--you get burned.
Yep! | 1:54 p.m. June 22, 2009

Finally, got what he deserved!!!
Hilarious | 2:11 p.m. June 22, 2009

Perez Hilton opened his big mouth once to often! I love the picture,, lol looks like he is going to cry! He can dish it out, but he can't take it...
It's ok to hit bullies | 2:17 p.m. June 22, 2009

I guess what goes around comes around. I guess there'll be a lot of people cheering that someone slugged the bully.
Good | 2:39 p.m. June 22, 2009

Hit him again! Harder, Harder!
My guess... | 2:48 p.m. June 22, 2009

PH's 15 minutes of fame should about over.
Jake | 3:20 p.m. June 22, 2009

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy! Think I'll go out and buy a Peas album.
Anonymous | 4:13 p.m. June 22, 2009

re: Hilton is a low life. Bottom feeder? No more like a total nelly bottom. LOL
Anonymous | 4:36 p.m. June 22, 2009

maybe the title of their next album should be, "Dishing 'em out..best of the black eye....peas."
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This outpouring of Christian love, tolerance and cheek-turning just warms the cockles of my heart.

And this isn't even September 1857. One typical comment:
"Finally, got what he deserved!!!" Now if Hilton had been killed, no doubt this mob would have felt that "he got what he deserved".

[_JohnStuartMill]

May I interupt the bashing here of the LDS Church for attempting to avert the gay advocates from perverting of the foundational institution of society, and note the U.S.News article, "Support for Gay Marriage Falls".

With Rollo's evident interest in the topic of SSM, I am surprised that he or she has yet to mention it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I wouldn't read too much into that, Wade, considering that support for gay marriage is exactly where it was two months ago. Two data points doth not a trend make.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, Wade. Drink deep from the wellspring of poll data, or drink not at all.

[_EAllusion]

It's the second graph in the link to Silver's site that is the keeper as a trend illustrator. Utah's position gets humor points.

[_wenglund]

I wouldn't read too much into that, Wade, considering that support for gay marriage is exactly where it was two months ago. Two data points doth not a trend make.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, Wade. Drink deep from the wellspring of poll data, or drink not at all.

Perhaps were you to have done a little more reading, particularly in a math book, you may have discovered that the difference between 42% (the reported high in April) and 33% (its current level) isn't anywhere close to "two data points", let alone "exactly where it was two months ago".

Too little learning is even more dangerous, Stu. And, denial is not just a river in Egypt, from which you have evidently drunk way to deep. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Morrissey]

I wouldn't read too much into that, Wade, considering that support for gay marriage is exactly where it was two months ago. Two data points doth not a trend make.

A little learning is a dangerous thing, Wade. Drink deep from the wellspring of poll data, or drink not at all.

Perhaps were you to have done a little more reading, particularly in a math book, you may have discovered that the difference between 42% (the reported high in April) and 33% (its current level) isn't anywhere close to "two data points", let alone "exactly where it was two months ago".

Too little learning is even more dangerous, Stu. And, denial is not just a river in Egypt, from which you have evidently drunk way to deep. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

While short-term swings in polling data are interesting, they are not nearly as relevant as long-term trends. Overall, the long-term trend is up pretty much across the board. Plus, SSM has only been a publicly salient issue (that is, on the public agenda) for a relatively short time, so it is reasonable to expect the trend to accelerate at some point in the future. Finally, once the trend line does pick up and start to accelerate in certain areas, it will pull others, kicking and screaming, along with it. I assume that support for civil rights did not trend at the same rate in all states, but eventually even the more bigoted states were pulled along with the rest of society for a variety of reasons.

We are not talking about a sea change over the next year or even couple of years. I fully expect this to take some time, but at some point in the next, say, 10 years or so, we will reach the tipping point on this issue, and it will accelerate. It may even happen sooner than that.

Once one accepts the proposition that civil rights are for ALL, it becomes progressively more difficult to argue that society should withhold them from certain groups, particularly when those arguments are based on morally outdated religious beliefs informed to a great extent by the iron age superstitions.

I am fully confident that one day SSM will be the law of the land and no more noteworthy than mixed race marriage (except to the die-hard bigots). When that day arrives, those who fight it so fervently today (including the leaders of LDS Inc.) will be widely seen as the bigots they were.

[Guest]

Perhaps were you to have done a little more reading, particularly in a math book, you may have discovered that the difference between 42% (the reported high in April) and 33% (its current level) isn't anywhere close to "two data points", let alone "exactly where it was two months ago".

Too little learning is even more dangerous, Stu. And, denial is not just a river in Egypt, from which you have evidently drunk way to deep. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Individual samples in a tracking poll are sometimes, and perfectly reasonably, called "data points" in political science. Perhaps you should've been reading a better book. Doubtless you were thinking we can only refer to the individual bits of data within a sample as the "data points" but that just means you don't grasp the jargon, which is peachy given the condescension.

Statistically significant polls can have a fair amount of variance between samples. Likewise, different polls often have slightly different methodologies with different biasing effects. That's why you want to hedge by averaging out a variety of polls in a given time period to get a better read on what's going on in the population. The average of public opinion polls tend to be more accurate than even the most accurate single polls are. As JSM pointed out, when you look at that, there isn't much fluctuation in SSM support recently.

You're looking at a fluctuation in just one CBS/New York Times poll, which in of itself doesn't say much. When people got more into following polls last presidential election, you saw this mistake made again and again by naïve people with "too little learning" and in some cases too much self-confidence. And they were fueled by news reporters needing attention grabbing headlines and something to talk about.The newsweek story is a classic case of going for the headline without providing any statistical context. You actually need more information if you want to conclude as you do - with all your learning - that gay marriage support has plummeted 10 points or so in the population in the span of 2 months.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Overall I thought the article was sub-par. It almost felt like there wasn’t much going on worldwide, so they figured they’d lob a slow Mormonism pitch over the plate. Then again, ever since Time changed their overall format, I haven’t liked much of what they do.

This statement (which had nothing to do with Prop 8) did stand out to me though:

"Our Message for the World," says M. Russell Ballard Jr., one of the 14 apostles just under Monson, "is that we are His children, we lived with Him before we came here ... we're striving to keep His commandments so that when we die we can be entitled to receive all the blessings that the Heavenly Father has for His children." Ballard adds emphatically, "People like to make it complex. But it's really pretty simple."

Makes it kind of hard to argue that LDS don’t think they earn their way to heaven with stuff like this.