The MADness of the gay marriage debate

[_beastie]

Ray,

Thanks for sticking up for me over there.

[_Ray A]

Ray,

Thanks for sticking up for me over there.

You can send the check later, beastie.

Actually, I had no idea you could even view the board. According to Wade, I have some kind of "following" here in the form of "onlookers". Why, if I'd know that I would have put on a real performance.

This has been a sort of eye-opener for me, well to be truthful, quite a remarkable one. I'll comment about this later in a lot more detail.

[_beastie]

I'm embarrassed to admit all I had to do to be able to view the board is clear my cookies. In the past, they must have blocked my IP address because clearing cookies still did not work, but it did this time.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Incidentally, there are Christians (real Christians, not pseudo-Christians like Spong) who think gay "marriage" should be allowed even though they are morally opposed to homosexual acts. I considered this position myself but ultimately rejected it.

[_beastie]

Incidentally, there are Christians (real Christians, not pseudo-Christians like Spong) who think gay "marriage" should be allowed even though they are morally opposed to homosexual acts. I considered this position myself but ultimately rejected it.

I'm not surprised that there are some who take this position. I know Christians who believe abortion should be legal while remaining morally opposed to it themselves.

[_Sethbag]

Beastie, for what it's worth, I agree that your suspension was ill-conceived, and not deserved. I think your reply to Charity was apt. She may have gone back and parsed out the verse she quoted and found a way to explain her way out of it (ie: society thinks homosexuality is good vs. society does something rampantly but still believes it's bad), but to be honest I find her rationale unconvincing.

You're right, with child abuse and all sorts of true evils going on all around us, it's the gay marriage that people keep saying is going to bring on God's wrath, so that must imply something about how they rate homosexuality compared to other supposed vices or sins.

Here's the proof of it. They may claim that homosexuality is exactly the same level of "evil" as fornication between heterosexuals. But society doesn't seem to look askance at hetero couples living together (including sexual relations) anymore. Shouldn't that fulfill the requirements Charity was giving to bring God's wrath down upon us all?

Why should society allowing homosexuals to marry constitute a graver threat of calling down God's wrath upon us all, than society no longer stigmatizing heterosexual cohabitation? And not only that, but I would wager that as a percentage of total population, cohabiting (non-married) heterosexuals constitute a far higher share than do the gays.

So why isn't Charity out there banging the drum for restigmatizing heterosexual cohabitation? Or for imposing some sort of official government act of disapproval for it, so that it will be clear the government doesn't "approve" of it? I think the answer is clear: Charity is far more worried about the gays having sex, than she is about heteros committing that grievous sin, second only to murder in cold blood, of fornication.

[_beastie]

Well said, seth. I'd like to see someone point this out to her on the thread with your apt example.

[_Sethbag]

I may go over there and do it myself. I may, but I'm not sure I will. My account was restored several months ago in that holiday amnesty, but I've never posted over there since that act. For one, I just don't really know what I wish to say over there, and for two, probably most of what I would wish to say over there would probably just get me banned again. I find I have a lower level of tolerance for the inanity of that place than I used to.

[_Brackite]

I think that god was rather smart to command plural marriage. Many beautiful people came from those marriages and a righteous seed was raised up to praise god. It made the LDS church stronger and the saints more faithful. Where would the LDS church be now if there were no plural marriage in its history? Who knows.

The Lord God did Not Command the Practice of Plural Marrial (Polygamy).

A Righteous Man is able to raise up a Righteous seed unto the Lord God, through having just one Righteous fertile wife.

Here is Now 1 Nephi 7:1, Compared to 1 Nephi 16:7-8:

1 Nephi 7:1:

[1] And now I would that ye might know, that after my father, Lehi, had made an end of prophesying concerning his seed, it came to pass that the Lord spake unto him again, saying that it was not meet for him, Lehi, that he should take his family into the wilderness alone; but that his sons should take daughters to wife, that they might raise up seed unto the Lord in the land of promise.


1 Nephi 16:7-8:

[7] And it came to pass that I, Nephi, took one of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also, my brethren took of the daughters of Ishmael to wife; and also Zoram took the eldest daughter of Ishmael to wife.

[8] And thus my father had fulfilled all the commandments of the Lord which had been given unto him. And also, I, Nephi, had been blessed of the Lord exceedingly.

Raising up a Righteous seed can and will be done through the Practice of Monogamy.

[_Ray A]

I’ll start my evaluation of this imbroglio (what else can you call it?) with the usual qualification that the MAD mods can do what they like – it’s their board. With that inanity out of the way, the larger question is whether they really want critics. in my opinion, they do, but they want “downsized” critics who become, as beastie aptly phrased it – “second class citizens”. In India they are called “the untouchables”. Beastie is also right that you have to tread carefully, and think of everything you post. This is something I noticed even when I was much more positively oriented towards Mormons, but even then, I had to gag myself (which I mentioned on the Schryver thread), which is one reason why I deleted my original account there (why I started intermittently posting again is another subject), reinforcing my view that it’s generally an “either/or” religion (with some individual exceptions). That’s a long and complicated story, and my decision was also influenced by Jean Borde’s website in Trinidad. After reading the Borde website, I really had to reassess why I was defending Mormons. It’s called a “reality check”.

I am perhaps somewhat to blame for beastie going back to posting on MAD, since it was originally my suggestion to her, privately, as a way of publicising her Mesoamerican studies and website, which I eventually became very impressed with. The amount of work she put into that was phenomenal, and it helped to persuade me in regard to some former “blind spots” I had, later vindicated by her posts on MAD. I knew in my heart of hearts that she would not be able to resist the temptation to comment on other threads, in spite of her aim to only comment on Mesoamerican/archaeology threads. She’s too opinionated (like yours truly) to confine herself to one subject, so it was no surprise to me when she started “branching out” and commenting on other threads. I could see it coming from ten miles away, both her branching out, and the “potential” suspension.

What I didn’t fully realise is the extent of the whimsical nature of moderation on MAD. Reading through the thread in which beastie was suspended brought that home to me quite clearly. And perhaps I do owe an apology to those whom I’ve castigated in the past for not “copping it sweet”. I now realise that I seriously misunderstood you, and I now feel ashamed of that misunderstanding. If I may use a term from Will, some serious ass-kissing is a requirement to remain on MAD.

It’s apparent to me, though I don’t have solid proof, that it may well indeed have been Charity’s complaint to the mods that led to beastie’s suspension. Remember, Charity is a “first class” citizen, beastie a “second class” citizen. In other words, an “untouchable”, tainted by what Packer called “disease germs”. Not a unique apologetic – “some truths are not ‘useful’”. In spite of that, I don’t wish any repercussions against Charity. She only reinforces the stereotype of the intolerant Mormon, and not all Mormons are this way. She was offended, so the mods were offended on her behalf, and I doubt they seriously thought this through. A “family member” was “under attack”, so they instinctively jumped to her defense without considering context.

The other spectacle was Wade Englund, and he deserves far less compassion than Charity. I clashed quite severely with Wade when he posted on Z, as “bzzzzzt” (not sure if I have the correct number of “z’s”). He later claimed to have reformed himself, and felt more compassionate. He “really” wanted to “understand” and empathise with ex-Mormons. I believed him, and was myself revising some of my own stereotypes of ex-Mormons (beastie correctly diagnosed this as “becoming that which you hate”, but I wouldn’t realize this until much later). The stark reality is that Wade has not changed, and he’s no more open to alternate opinions now than he was on Z. The only thing that changed with Wade was his “language” and “approach” (compared to Z.), but in his heart he retains a disgust of ex-Mormons and “apostates”, not to mention those “vile homosexuals”. He’s not as abrasive now (if you can believe that), but peppered through his posts are indications that he has never really tried to “understand”. Witness This post.

Are you starting to get the point yet?

Did you get it that time?

Wade must think we are all naïve simpletons, but little by little, we see can see that he’s really just as intolerant now as he was on Z. Occasionally we see these glimpses as in the above. If you don’t “get it”, that is, agree with Wade, you are dead wrong! He hasn’t lamented beastie’s suspension, and my educated guess is that he’d love to see her totally banned. In spite of his affectation and claims of “compassion”, this is only lip service; Wade is really as anti-anti-Mormon as they come, and he has dressed it up as a “more compassionate Wade”, wanting to “help homosexuals” (as if they have a disease), and to help ex-Mormons (as if they have a disease). He is, apparently, considered a fairly significant apologist, judging by comments and references on the Net. Will, in comparison, is quite upfront about his distaste for anti-Mormonism. Wade dresses up his disdain with “compassion” and “understanding”.

Give me a Will any day before a Wade. I like my intolerant TBMs upfront.