Plaza Incident

[_Morrissey]

How is the church antagonistic toward gays?

The Church is antagonistic towards gays by favoring laws that discriminate against them. It also teaches that homosexuality is immoral and has pressured its members to undergo extensive efforts to dispel it. Not only that, it has spent inordinately more effort on this than a variety of other issues it necessarily has moral stances on. The Church is opposed to homosexuality in a variety of ways. You might favor this state of affairs thinking there is good reason for doing it, but it clearly is an antagonistic stance. Doing it with a smile doesn't change the fundamental nature of it.

That he even asks this question implies that our good friend here is either clueless or does not pay attention.

[_Daniel2]

The reason I apologized to him is because I was actually wrong, but he also treated me like a human being despite the curtness of my initial responses. The ignorant and self-righteous indignation on this board is becoming sickening. If you'd quit worrying about my psychiatric health and start worrying about showing up for this debate you might be getting somewhere. Since that's not gonna happen, at least read my posts before you lecture me about humility.

Sir,

I will note, once again, that you possess a pathological inability to admit error. Your humility toward other posters is duly noted.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

Hey, CamNC4Me,

Internet message boards are funny things. In my experience, inflection, nuance, and tone are almost always lost or misinterpreted by posters taking opposing viewpoints.

I don't know you in Real Life. I often agree with the substance of your posts, and believe you and I share many of the same views. I have entered the discussion with Maklelan in an attempt to discuss with him the congitivie dissonance I see inherent in his view points. I don't disagree that he seems to be displaying an unusual aversion to admitting that the LDS church does, in fact, antagonize LGBT individuals and couples.

I have no idea how the inflection of your voice sounds inside your head as you type the words you do. When I read them, I hear sarcastic respect that comes across as condescending distain, rather than respectful dialogue. Few people today actually address those that disagree with them with the Elizabethan and anachronistic-sounding appellation of "Sir," and conclude a critical dissection of the opposing views with what-sound-to-me-to-be-archaic farewells like "very respectfully". I interpret them with a similiar aversion that I perceive when the LDS church trys to portray itself as "nicey nice" to my face, while obviously being antagonstic in it's other, more foundational actions. You may very well be most comfortable with such gentile mannerisms. It also brings to mind the slick gentility of certain other posters from "the other board" who would often attempt to portray themselves as "reasonable and rational and respectful," while actually saying some pretty horrific things about those that they were arguing against. I would hope each of us could strive to avoid that type of condescention.

In the interest of furthering respectful dialogue, my experience often leads me to believe that the best way to demonstrate respect is to show it, not just tell it. Again... I fully admit I could be misreading the inflection you intend, which is why I wanted to offer an alternate view.

Maklelan and I may disagree on a lot of issues--many of them deeply and frustratingly (for my part) personal--but I don't find him to be as disagreeable as most who espouse his beliefs. I would hope that our interactions with him wouuld make him feel welcome, rather than serving to drive him away. The world would be a better place, in my view, if more Latter-day Saints were like him and less like many of the posters over on "that other board."

My view,
Darin

[_JohnStuartMill]

Many disagree with your conclusion that there would be no adverse effects if Prop 8 had failed, and your lack of due diligence doesn't change the facts. Quite sound arguments have been logged by many competent law professors and lawyers (not just one single guy without a degree, as if that's really all that could be drudged up).

Well, that was the highest authority that the "Yes on 8" campaign cited, so I provisionally assume that that's the best they've got.

Please either provide the allegedly "sound arguments logged by many competent law professors and lawyers" for the claims of Prop. 8 supporters, or admit that the equivalence you've tried to draw here does not exist.