The Liberal Lie on Prop 8

[_mentalgymnast]

The common thread is the ability to assess morality based [only] on experience and objective societal benefits...

Yeah, that's worked real well.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I love when you elohim-believers project your morals onto those of us that don't believe in christian mythology as if your perceived (and narrowly defined) "morality" has anything to do with what we believe....Explain how any of the things you listed as "ok" are immoral among non-god-fearing consenting adults....or are you saying that we should all cave and adhere to your blind-faith notions of "moral" behavior?

The things that I listed are not considered to be immoral among those such as yourself. You are a progressive, right?

Of course you're not going to cave in. You're a progressive. You see that as being admirable, correct?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

- questioning minors about their sexual activities

I don't know that this would be considered to be unnatural or abhorrent by those that are living the moral standards of the church. For those that aren't, or have strayed, I suppose it could seem to be so. Sexual activities are intimately connected with morality. The church sees itself as acting as a steward in regards to teaching directives in regards to "true north" on a moral compass.

Is that so bad?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Screech has issues with perceived issues such as:

- forcing women to wear horrid, unattractive, underwear which makes them feel frumpy and undesirable...
- teaching that "negros" were less valiant in the pre-existence
- teaching that polygamy/polyandry is the "celestial order of marriage"
- teaching my children that Joseph Smith was a great man who was true to his wife (emma) and was a "martyr" for the momo cause
- teaching young men that masturbation is "evil"
- giving Joseph Smith a free pass on infidelity while teaching that cheating on your spouse is the 2nd worst sin you can commit...
- for allowing only men to be leaders in the church (when i have 3 daughters who don't understand why they can't ever be anything more than Relief Society president)
- teaching that anything not written by a momo apologist/author is "anti"
- teaching that the OBVIOUSLY fictitious Book of Mormon is factual
- etc. etc. etc...

would you like me to continue?

Up to you. The list could be much longer.

You're relatively new at this?

You seem to be dredging up stuff that's pretty much old hat and thinking that you're the first one around the block.

Regards,
MG

[_Buffalo]

- questioning minors about their sexual activities

I don't know that this would be considered to be unnatural or abhorrent by those that are living the moral standards of the church. For those that aren't, or have strayed, I suppose it could seem to be so. Sexual activities are intimately connected with morality. The church sees itself as acting as a steward in regards to teaching directives in regards to "true north" on a moral compass.

Is that so bad?

Regards,
MG

It's creepy, deviant behavior, and often leads to creepier, more devient behavior - such as bishops asking great details about sexual behavior for their own mental fantasies, often from youngsters.

No grown man has any business asking kids about their genitals.

[Guest]

Up to you. The list could be much longer.

You're relatively new at this?

You seem to be dredging up stuff that's pretty much old hat and thinking that you're the first one around the block.

Regards,
MG

When did i say i was the first one to bring these disgusting aspects of mormonsim up? Great dodge, "old hat"...yea, calling the disgusting, deviant behavior of fundies/Nazis/klansmen/scientologists/Mormons "old hat" is a perfectly acceptable argument to counter your need to adhere to crazy beliefs...lol...so..."old hat" = deviant/disgusting/disturbing....nice...

[_schreech]

I don't know that this would be considered to be unnatural or abhorrent by those that are living the moral standards of the church. For those that aren't, or have strayed, I suppose it could seem to be so. Sexual activities are intimately connected with morality. The church sees itself as acting as a steward in regards to teaching directives in regards to "true north" on a moral compass.

Is that so bad?

Regards,
MG

Your beliefs are both unnatural and abhorrent...you disgust me...the "church" and your blind need to defend your LDS instilled, warped-beliefs are disgusting and evil...people like you make me sad...I wish you, as a christian, actually followed the teachings of Christ...unfortunately, that is not the case as you, and most blind-internet-LDS-"defenders", don't really try to emulate the teaching of Christ in any way...

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

It's been signed into law in California - Promotion of Homosexuality in Education under the guise of anti-bullying.

First, bull.. Bullying has nothing to do with homosexuality.

JSM,

I really don't have a horse in this race, but America has a long and rich tradition of bullying homosexuals. Not only were gay people denied equal treatment in court, but they also have been frequent victims of violence and harassment solely on the base of their sexual orientation.

Also, homosexuality was labeled a felony in the past in most states. "Sodomy Laws" were primarily used to target homosexuals, and the current federal government denies openly gays employment in many federal institutions like the CIA, FBI, and the army still -- nation's biggest employer in the United States -- or the National Security Agency.

The truth is, homosexuals are often harassed, insulted, discriminated against and even killed in our country just for being gay.

As far as mandating gay education in our schools, I see nothing wrong with pointing out that as far as historians can trace back the past, homosexuals have always been in existence and have contributed to society in many positive ways, including Julius Caesar, Plato, and Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman, etc., etc. Especially, if doing so means less discrimination for homosexuals.

[_Milesius]

It's been signed into law in California - Promotion of Homosexuality in Education under the guise of anti-bullying.

First, bull.. Bullying has nothing to do with homosexuality.

JSM,

I really don't have a horse in this race, but America has a long and rich tradition of bullying homosexuals. Not only were gay people denied equal treatment in court, but they also have been frequent victims of violence and harassment solely on the base of their sexual orientation.

Also, homosexuality was labeled a felony in the past in most states. "Sodomy Laws" were primarily used to target homosexuals, and the current federal government denies openly gays employment in many federal institutions like the CIA, FBI, and the army still -- nation's biggest employer in the United States -- or the National Security Agency.

The truth is, homosexuals are often harassed, insulted, discriminated against and even killed in our country just for being gay.

As far as mandating gay education in our schools, I see nothing wrong with pointing out that as far as historians can trace back the past, homosexuals have always been in existence and have contributed to society in many positive ways, including Julius Caesar, Plato, and Alexander the Great, Walt Whitman, etc., etc. Especially, if doing so means less discrimination for homosexuals.

Plato was not a homosexual and I sincerely doubt Caesar was either. Moreover, they are not going to really teach about people like, say, Alan Turing. Rather, they are going to focus on oxygen-depleting parasites like Harvey Milk. Finally, discussing the sexuality of historical figures who were actually bisexual or homosexual (instead of the ones who were not but they try to co-opt) can wait until college.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Plato was not a homosexual and I sincerely doubt Caesar was either.

Not that it matters one bit to me, but you are wrong. In Plato's text, symposium, Plato argued that love between males is the highest form and that sex with women is only for means of reproduction. Only with men, can the Greek male reach their full intellectual potential. Plato never married and had many gay lovers. Sounds gay to me.

Caesar was at the very least, very bi-sexual. His recorded boy/men lovers/affairs are too numerous to recount here. Again, sounds pretty gay to me.