Plaza Incident

[Guest]

I do? And here I thought my position is that someone is lying, but we don't know who. Thanks for clearing that up.

That's a lie. It was made very clear who you believe to be lying.

So? It's not like they admitted to being sloppy drunk and blacking out.

The officer said the one he spoke to had slurred speech. That's sloppy drunk.

Supposedly after they were told to leave the premises. Probably not the best reaction in the world, but common and understandable enough that we shouldn't just go ahead and assume they were lying because of this.

No, we should know that they're lying because when it's the word of security personnel against belligerent drunks (and the security personnel go easy on them in the police report), the belligerent drunks are lying, even if the security personnel are filthy Mormons.

Maybe they just didn't want to take guff from potentially overzealous LDS security and felt they were being discriminated against.

Of course they felt discriminated against. After all, the church was antagonizing them.

You claiming it is obvious these men were lying despite not being privvy to any evidence that is strong enough to make that conclusion

You must not be reading this thread. The evidence is pretty clear, and the only reason you don't agree is because your mouth is watering over the thought of a chance to denigrate the church. I find that rather petty and bigoted.

strikes me as crippling bias revealing itself.

Can you point to one single fact from this case (please don't make me define "fact "for you) that at all supports the explanation of the gay couple against the explanation of the security personnel? No, you can't. Every single fact points to their antagonism. I'll review them for you:

- They were admittedly drunk and became belligerent when detained
- They asserted the Plaza was not private property despite the fact that they admittedly were very well aware of its status.
- They admitted being lewd.
- They admitted that they refused to leave when asked to by security personnel
- They were actively involved in protesting the change in proprietorship of the Plaza in 2003
- They claimed this proves the church's 2003 statement that no one would be arrested for behavior at the Plaza was a lie. They then said, "It's clear now they do have an agenda." Interesting that their situation would so perfectly confirm suspicions that they have had since 2003.
- The couple asserted the security personnel informed them no public displays of affection were allowed, which was, they claim, why they were asked to move along. I hope the irony is not lost on anyone of claiming security personnel asserted no public displays of affection were allowed on Temple Square.

What can you provide that at all supports their claim that it was just an innocent arm around the back and peck on the cheek? (Besides the fact that Mormons are lying reprobates.)

Me suggesting that maybe the Church's official report here isn't necessarily accurate? Not so much.

If you had said, "Maybe the Church's official report here isn't necessarily accurate," then I would have no problem, but your response was clearly patronizing and horrendously biased. That you've since lied about what you said also supports that you're just expressing your prejudices against the church and not making an altruistic plea for objectivity.

[_maklelan]

Hello Mr. Crusader,

I would respectfully suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the word "antagonize". It is very clear the Mormon church has caused homosexuals to become hostile toward it, as an institution, through their political and religious activities.

And they have always tried to mitigate that unwanted response. The Church has never wanted to foment hostility or aggression on either side. That's hardly the definition of antagonism.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Crusader,

I would respectfully suggest you consult a dictionary and look up the word "antagonize". It is very clear the Mormon church has caused homosexuals to become hostile toward it, as an institution, through their political and religious activities.

And they have always tried to mitigate that unwanted response. The Church has never wanted to foment hostility or aggression on either side. That's hardly the definition of antagonism.

Hello Mr. Maklelan,

Would you be kind enough to explain to me how denying a couple the right to marry one another, and then teaching children said couple is sinful is not antagonizing them?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_maklelan]

Hello Mr. Maklelan,

Would you be kind enough to explain to me how denying a couple the right to marry one another, and then teaching children said couple is sinful is not antagonizing them?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Because those children are also supposed to be taught that they are still children of God that deserve love and respect, and because the intention of the individual has a lot to do with whether something is meant to antagonize or not. The church is looking to protect its own rights and express its beliefs. Beyond that it does its best to foster good will on both sides. Unless you mean to stretch the definition of "antagonism" to include all beliefs or statements with which another party may take issue, you can't possibly expect me to take this biased opinion seriously.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Mr. Maklelan,

Would you be kind enough to explain to me how denying a couple the right to marry one another, and then teaching children said couple is sinful is not antagonizing them?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Because those children are also supposed to be taught that they are still children of God that deserve love and respect, and because the intention of the individual has a lot to do with whether something is meant to antagonize or not. The church is looking to protect its own rights and express its beliefs. Beyond that it does its best to foster good will on both sides. Unless you mean to stretch the definition of "antagonism" to include all beliefs or statements with which another party may take issue, you can't possibly expect me to take this biased opinion seriously.

Sir,

Preserving one's right to be a bigot, and to deny other people the same rights as yourself may be an institutional preference. That, however, does not answer the question I posed to you. Would you kindly explain to me how denying a couple the right to marry one another, and then teaching children that said couple is sinful is not antagonizing said couple?

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_maklelan]

Preserving one's right to be a bigot, and to deny other people the same rights as yourself may be an institutional preference.

I disagree with the tacit assertion that disapproval of behavior = bigotry.

That, however, does not answer the question I posed to you. Would you kindly explain to me how denying a couple the right to marry one another, and then teaching children that said couple is sinful is not antagonizing said couple?

I explained it to you very clearly. I will repeat it only once more:

Because those children are also supposed to be taught that they are still children of God that deserve love and respect, and because the intention of the individual has a lot to do with whether something is meant to antagonize or not. The church is looking to protect its own rights and express its beliefs. Beyond that it does its best to foster good will on both sides. Unless you mean to stretch the definition of "antagonism" to include all beliefs or statements with which another party may take issue, you can't possibly expect me to take this biased opinion seriously.

If you respond again with "Nu-uh!" then this discussion is over.

[Guest]

I have found Makelan's posts over on the MAD boards to reflect an attempt to have a thoughtful approach on the issue of same-sex marriage. I believe he genuinely feels he loves all people as children of the god he worships, and his heart is in "the right place" when it comes to treating people with all the social graces of niceness and the appearance of compassion.

Unfortunately, the compassion that Makelan is extending is compassion from "the eyes of the beholder," and not from the perspective of those who are so-called "strugglers with same-sex attraction." When understood from that particular vantage point, there appears to be some break-down in the application of golden rule--to treat others as one would wish to be treated.

Understanding that Makelan's motivations and inner charity are genuine, however, does little to repair the break down between the two groups (those that fight against equal civil marriage rights for LGBT couples vs. those that support them). Ironically, Makelan speaks of seeing the cognitive dissonance in others on this board, while presumably being blind to that which he appears to be experiencing with regards to this particular issue. Cog Dis is exactly the phenomenon that I named, in my head, as I read his own words (as exemplified through members of Makelan's church behaving antagonistically towards LGBT individuals and couples, while simultaneously giving lip service to "Antagonistic? Who... us...?? We're not 'antagonistic'!" The outward actions don't match the inward convictions).

I don't doubt that many Mormons feel that are "nice" to homosexuals that they may know, in person. And I fully understand that Mormons teach each other to "be kind" to those with whom they disagree.

However... "social niceties" while simultaneously proactively and aggressively working to restrict and remove civil rights, priviledges, abilities, and responsabilities of gay couples, gay spouses, gay parents, gay employees, etc. most certainly IS a sign of "antagonizing" gays and lesbians.

Based on my experience, Makelan's apparent cog dis in this realm is pretty common among Latter-day Saints. My own family often naïvely marvels that "I could take their support of Prop 8 so personally." After all, they explain, "can't we simply agree that we disagree on this issue? You have your beliefs, I have mine... can't you respect my beliefs as much as I respect yours...? Why do you have to take it so personally? Aren't we kind and accepting of you? You are welcome among our family and children (so long as you don't make your gayness apparent among your neices and nephews). We love and appreciate you. Why do you make this political issue one that we have to agree with you on?"

In so saying, Mormons absolve themselves of any responsability for their actions, seemingly blinding them to the harsh realities that their "simple political disagreement" creates in the lives of those of us who are directly affected by the legislature they innocently presume to be a mere triffle.

Ironically, when LGBT supporters then take any visible action against Mormons involvement in removing or blocking our civil liberties, priviledges, rights, or equality, Mormons then cry foul, claiming utter victimization at the hands of unjustly oppressive gays, labelling them as "the aggressors first."

I truly believe that if the shoe were on the other foot, and any group of people were proactively politically fighting against Mormons' civil rights and responabilities, all the while teaching others to "love and treat Mormons with kindness and respect," that Mormons would NOT feel that said group was a benign group that was merely respectful and kind. In such a scenario, I believe Mormons would understanably and justifiably view that group as "antagonistic," irregardless of the polite, warm demeanor said group displayed to their Mormon "friends."

Given that the roles are reversed, today, Mormons such as Makelan (and members of my own family) often don't see how they are failing to live up to their own values to "treat others as one would wish to be treated." They get the "social nicety" part of the golden rule right--but completely miss the far more important portion to legally preserve others' ability "to worship how, where, and what others may." I'd rather someone be candid that they feel my "lifestyle" is wrong or disgusting to my face--yet still respect my citizenship, relationship, marriage, and ability to protect and provide for my spouse and children on a civil level--than the way that Mormons currently "treat you nice to your face, while civilly stabbing me in the back."

So long as this gulf of differing perceptions exists between Latter-day Saints and LGBT marriage/equality supporters, I don't know that there can ever be genuine understanding on the matter.

My view,
Darin

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Because those children are also supposed to be taught that they are still children of God that deserve love and respect, and because the intention of the individual has a lot to do with whether something is meant to antagonize or not. The church is looking to protect its own rights and express its beliefs. Beyond that it does its best to foster good will on both sides. Unless you mean to stretch the definition of "antagonism" to include all beliefs or statements with which another party may take issue, you can't possibly expect me to take this biased opinion seriously.

Sir,

Again, you fail to explain to me how 1) denying a couple the right to marry one another, and 2) then teaching children that said couple is sinful is not antagonizing said couple?

Loving and respecting someone while at the same time denying them the very same right to marry you enjoy, and then to call them "sinner" on top of that is, at its core, antagonistic. You tell the couple you "love" them and "respect" them, but you label them with a derogatory term and you deny them equal status. That is antagonistic, my friend. Your church has aroused hostility from the Gay and Lesbian community. That, in of itself, is the characteristic of the word "antagonize". I am not sure why you will not acquiesce that point.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_maklelan]

It appears an eyewitness to this incident surfaced immediately after this happened, but his account has received little attention. His is the first comment on this blog:

http://www.jewishjournal.com/thegodblog ... _20090712/

How funny that these guys try to claim that they were victims. I witnessed the whole thing. First of all, these two gentlemen did much more then hold hands and kiss, they were completely all over each other. Second of all they were given ample opportunities to leave, these security guards told them politely they could stay on this easement as long as they weren’t all over each other. The two men turned things around quickly, they were drunk and completely obnoxious and rude to the security guards, cussing at them and calling them all sorts of names. That’s when they arrested them for trespassing not kissing. Funny how these two “victims” claim to be victimized, when in reality they were just picking a fight, and wanted some attention which they got.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Is any of that mentioned in the police report? Public drunkenness is a crime in Salt Lake City, isn't it, so why wouldn't the couple be charged with that as well? Derek's eyewitness story is fishy.