When talking to (and reading the e-mails of) my gay friends and acquaintances about Mormons, all too many of them insist on insulting that faith and its flock, largely because of the church’s involvement in the efforts to pass Proposition 8 last fall.
Recall the hysteria of the protests last fall against the passage of Prop 8? The activists directed their ire at the Mormon Church. And now, as we debate means to repeal the proposition, it seems sometimes that they would rather attack Mormons than make the case for gay marriage.
In that process, they would alienate those Mormons who, while they love their church, do not always agree with its teaching, individuals who might buck church elders and vote for gay marriage. If the issue is about the qualities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then they lose those votes–as well as those of others truly tolerant of the great variety of religions which flourish in the United States.
Last month, Law Professor William A. Jacobson noted how some bloggers were singling out one of the signatories on the Obama Justice Department brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because that lawyerThey is Mormon: “Even though others also signed the brief, and the brief must have gone through a vetting process at DOJ, Aravosis chose to single out the one person who was Mormon for scorn“.
Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate? It’s almost as if their real issue is not promoting gay marriage, but demonizing cetain social conservatives.
I think it’s an effort to avoid the fact that, IIRC, it was the black vote which really made the difference. People, especially civil rights campaigners and womanists, become quite agressive when that’s pointed out. It’s also an effort to avoid asking why they couldn’t get the vote through despite having more money. Demonising Mormons is simply a way of avoiding taking responsibility for what was an obviously ineffective campaign.
@Lisette – except the problem with your post rests with its premise, referring to the passage of prop 8, “it was the black vote which really made the difference”. See that is just not true. Work the numbers. Based on more complete post election analysis, the numbers just don’t support that black voters tipped the scales. Did they contribute? YES. Do we need to do more outreach in African American communities? YES (especially that considering how little we did last fall, we did pretty dang good).
Who were the most likely voters to support Prop 8? REPUBLICANS What kind of outreach are we doing in Republican strongholds, among republican clubs, in republican districts? In my view, the answers to those questions will determine whether we win back marriage or lose it for another decade.
True patriots understand that the Constitution provides for civil liberties, for separation of church and state, for checks and balances that prevent the tyranny of the majority from denying the rights of the minorities. That above all else, human dignity prevails. That personal conscience is higher than governmental authority. And based on these ideals, we all ought to be able to commit to the Dallas Principles. Check them out. They speak volumes to us.
There’s a troll on another blog arguing that the LDS Church and NAMBLA are morally equivalent; hatred and derangement at it’s finest.
Of course, gay activists won’t hate and demonize you for belonging to NAMBLA, so that’s one difference right there.
What if you’re a Mormon and a member of NAMBLA?
Well, if such a person wants to work in Hollywood, he’ll have to renounce the church.
BTW, Julie, What do you make of this bulge? Do all Klingons have such large clenises?
Holy crap! Most guys wish they were that “packed.”
Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith instead of making the case for the social change they advocate?
Marriage is to gays like the Palestinians are to al-Qaeda; a convenient rationalization for every anti-social and twisted behavior that they want to carry out.
I have found this board open to my thoughts as pro-life gay Christian. But even here, there’s the occasional snarky comment about how my sexual choices are guided by my relationship with Jesus. I think that much of the gay community is rooted in the rejection of God. Some of that is fair, because they have been told God hates them because their gay. But some of it is just that they don’t want God telling them that multiple partners, drugs, and exploiting young people is wrong.
It is entirely OK for Mormons to be against gay marriage as it is for Catholics to be against contraception, Hindus against eating beef, and Buddhists to be against eating meat. If you can’t, in conscience, support the Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, or Buddhists, then you can become something else. I am glad for the Mormons’ voice in the debate. I feel the case I make for same-sex covenants is stronger than theirs against, so I’m not afraid of them. Their arguments help me make my arguments better. And the voters will decide.
Christians are excluded and marginalized in the gay community. But gays don’t care about the people they oppress. For them, oppression is a one-way street and they are always the victim.
If you want to end hate, it has to start with you. Lots of people don’t understand that. They want the other side to let go of their negative feelings first, before they will let go of their own hate.
It’s like the monkey holding the treats but can’t get his hand out of the jar. Some of these groups are holding onto their hate so strongly, they can’t move on to actually get what they want: ending opposition to legal gay marriage.
I’m opposed to gay marriage. I sometimes talk about gay marriage because it’s a simpler shorthand for a larger issue and I don’t feel like going into detail in every discussion. I favor same-sex covenants with the same legal status. I believe marriage was created by God for heterosexuals because of the likelihood of children. Same-sex covenants were created by God for those not inclined to traditional marriage (known as “eunuchs” in Scripture. Eunuchs were neither castrated or celibate–look it up.)
I think that Roman Catholics have the right idea. They are staunchly against the idea of gay marriage. But their wording is such that they are not necessarily against same-sex relationships with the same status at some future date. Right now, the main argument is that same-sex is non-procreative, but there are Catholic theologians who see sex as having a unitive purpose as well, which might one day form the basis for blessing same-sex covenant.
This sort of reminds me of when the governor of New York said that he was happy to have driven Rush Limbaugh out of their state even though it meant no longer collecting tax revenue from him; it’s more important to express hate for “the enemy” than it is to make progress.
Simple question:
“Why is it that gay marriage activists are so determined to use the debate on their issue to vilify members of a particular faith . . .”</I.
Simple answer:
Bigotry
I don’t know why people are so obsessed with marriage. Marriage is a joke. 90% of married couples (gay and straight) I know of have had partners unfaithful to each other. People who say they don’t cheat are liars. It is against biology for someone to remain faithful.
Not only is it against biology to be unfaithful, it’s against God’s plan.
People who say they don’t cheat are liars. It is against biology for someone to remain faithful.
At least one leftist is honest about the contempt they hold for commitment and monogamy. It’s somewhat refreshing, actually.
OTV is a friendly commentor here. Don’t want to speak for him, but I believe he may even be a Republican.
My own view is this: It is indeed against biology to be faithful… and so what? A lot of good things that humans do are ‘against biology’. If I wanted to live a life devoid of reason, morality and personal honor, expressing nothing more than my lowest animal urges and instincts, then I would be a leftist. But I happens I don’t want to be like that.
the Morons contributed $20million to uphold bigotry and hatred and they deserve all the flack for temporarily stalling inevitibility.
If you’re against same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone from the same sex. Otherwise, stay out of others’ lives. And isn’t that one of the gop’s mantras? It’s just another hypocrisy of the repugnant right.
LOL….gay liberals like buckeye have absolutely zero problem with contributing themselves to http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-see-if-we-can-follow-bouncing.html“>”uphold bigotry and hatred”.
If gay liberals like buckeyenutlover support bans on gay marriage, opposition to gay marriage, and claims that marriage is a “sacred bond” between a man and a woman as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when endorsed by Obama and the Obama Party, I fail to see why the same changes when other people do it.
Unless, of course, you’re practicing bigotry and prejudice against religion, which is what the gay community and its leaders like buckeyenutlover are doing.
It is not bigotry to oppose same-sex marriage. I think a productive debate could be held over the different dynamics of heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships. I am perfectly fine with limiting the word “marriage” to heterosexual relationships. I think the gay community should celebrate our differences. We have a whole history of same-sex relationships, and we never needed marriage before. I think we should work to get legal recognition for the unique forms of relationships we as homosexuals have developed and not try to co-opt a tradition which wasn’t created for us in the first place. It is truly dismissive of the gays throughout history to say their relationships weren’t a good enough model for us and we would rather have something straights created.
But even here, there’s the occasional snarky comment about how my sexual choices are guided by my relationship with Jesus.
Ashpenaz, speaking only for myself, I have no problem with how you decide your sexual choices. And I apologize if any of it came out snarky. My problem is that it may not work for everybody. For example, there are religious people who do not believe Jesus as the Son of God. Anyway, if this works for you, then great.
I think that much of the gay community is rooted in the rejection of God.
I’m not convinced that’s true. Sure, of course there are gay people that do reject God, are atheist, and/or even antagonistic against God and all religion (in fact, this is true of all people, for that matter). But just about all the gay people I know are not anti-religion (most are Christian or Jewish), and believe in God. At most, these persons are against religions that demonize homosexuality. And that’s where any hostility ends.
Some of that is fair, because they have been told God hates them because their gay. But some of it is just that they don’t want God telling them that multiple partners, drugs, and exploiting young people is wrong.
Agreed.
It is entirely OK for Mormons to be against gay marriage as it is for Catholics to be against contraception, Hindus against eating beef, and Buddhists to be against eating meat. If you can’t, in conscience, support the Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, or Buddhists, then you can become something else.
I don’t know much about the others, but almost all Catholics not only do not agree with the Church’s position on contraceptives, they don’t observe themselves. Heck, my parents would have had 20 children if they adhered to it, and still ended up with four. We just don’t have nearly as many large Catholic families that we’ve had in the past. Further, many Catholic persons, including priests and religious sisters are not against homosexuality. One even mentioned that same sex marriage should be allowed.
I think that Roman Catholics have the right idea. They are staunchly against the idea of gay marriage. But their wording is such that they are not necessarily against same-sex relationships with the same status at some future date.
Right now, the Church teaching is that gay persons must remain celibate. So forget about any gay relationships, let alone marriage. Of course, the teaching may change in the future (way in the future). And if and when it does, perhaps they will not be opposed to same sex marriage. In other words, if they find that homosexual relationships are no more and no less than heterosexual relationships, they may want to encourage committed same sex relationships as they do opposite sex relationships. I don’t think I’ll live long enough for this to happen though.
Christians are excluded and marginalized in the gay community.
Again, I just don’t see this, in general.
But gays don’t care about the people they oppress.
I have to agree with you there. What’s interesting is the same ones who were oppressed as teens and young adults are the ones who try to oppress others, including gay persons, when they get older. But usually it has nothing to do with religion. It may be because you’re not young enough, pretty enough, rich enough, or left enough. The rare times that I have been a “victim” of that, I just laughed it off. I suppose the key is not to allow yourself to be a victim, even if the oppression is coming from within your community.
It is truly dismissive of the gays throughout history to say their relationships weren’t a good enough model for us and we would rather have something straights created.
I don’t know if it’s being dismissive, but being realistic that many gay relationships were limited in how they could be recognized, about how open people can be. I don’t think we know for sure in the examples you cite, if these couples, while perhaps content in their relationships, would have also enjoyed the same type of recognition that their straight counterparts had, but realistic that they couldn’t.
A lot of good things that humans do are ‘against biology’.
True, ILC. I have debunked the argument that humans should only do things that occur naturally in the animal kingdom in another thread.
I wanted to live a life devoid of reason, morality and personal honor, expressing nothing more than my lowest animal urges and instincts, then I would be a leftist.
Perhaps this type of rationalization happens more to lefties, but as you suggested, this is not limited to the left. In fact, I recall in the past some Republicans/conservative posters on this blog admit they have no intention on having a committed relationship. It was either because they didn’t want to, or because they didn’t believe that gay relationships weren’t worthy of that status. On the other hand, I haven’t seen lefties on this blog admit that. Perhaps those on the right are more open about this and more willing to admit it when that’s the case.
On the other hand, I haven’t seen lefties on this blog admit that.
Um, OutliciousTV said that exact thing in comment 16 of this very thread.
Let’s be careful that by starting to paint Mormons with a broad brush that we’re not doing exactly what we’re accusing them of.
A few months ago, I was at a dinner with one of the leading “intellectuals” of America. She was a goy converted to Judaism, and was spouting off some crackpot conspiracy theory about how the Catholic opposition to Obama coming to Notre Dame was really a Mormon conspiracy.
I was too dumbstruck to say anything. What I should have said was replace “Mormon” with “Jew”, and then listen to the theory. It really doesn’t matter if Mormons as an organization have a particular viewpoint, you’re flirting with bigotry when you use that broad a brush, and start uncritically passing around these claims.
We are known by the company we keep. Perhaps #16 might consider why he hangs out with these losers. After all, he must consort with contributors to viper pit levels of gossip or he swings so freely that his level of moral turpitude as turned to turpentine. (or torrentprime.)
Pat, first, when I say “leftist” or “leftie”, I mean people committed to a Far Left ideology both politically and socially. Think Code Pink and Michael Moore and radical-queer types; people who explicitly detest what their forbears used to call ‘bourgeois convention’. Rather than, say, you. I understand there is a subset of Democrats (not reflected in the party’s current leadership) whom I would consider salt-of-the-earth mensches and even conservative. Heck, some of them are my best friends… and I used to be one myself 😉
As for this blog: Yes, I have seen some lefties here explicitly repudiate monogamy. OTV is the first person whom I know to be not-a-leftist (in my sense of the word), whom I’ve seen do the same. BTW, OTV is a nice guy: a friend-of-a-friend of mine, so we’ve met once or twice.
(Come to think of it, we met when he took me and my buddy, the mutual friend, up for a small-plane ride. It was nifty.)
#29 – I have to ask… Mile High club?
And I agree with your post on Pat. There’s left (Pat) Far left (bob) and so far left his brain is off (BNL)
just like there’s Right (Sarah Palin) Far Right (Me) and so far right he’s a cartoon character (this guy)
“Christians are excluded and marginalized in the gay community.”
I disagree completely. Yes there are anti-Christian attitudes among some but there are also many active Christians and practitioner of other religions who are part of the mainstream gay community (whatever that is). Look at the success of MCC and other gay Christian groups, as well as welcoming churches that are part of many of the larger Christian denominations. Religion is not as hated by gays as some on here would like us to believe. But of course, unless they paint all gays as satanic and out of control they can’t justify how much they despise all things gay. It’s unfair to judge the larger and varied gay communities by the actions of a few protesters and the words of some ignorant people
Um, OutliciousTV said that exact thing in comment 16 of this very thread.
V the K, I saw the comment. My understanding is that OTV is not a leftie. If he really is, I take back my statement.
As for this blog: Yes, I have seen some lefties here explicitly repudiate monogamy. OTV is the first person whom I know to be not-a-leftist (in my sense of the word), whom I’ve seen do the same.
Okay. Perhaps I missed it. Also, my comment wasn’t only about explicitly repudiating monogamy. It was also about not even trying to have a commitment, because they have said that there was no way they could stick with one man. And in a couple of cases, I recall the posters saying that they wouldn’t even have a relationship with a man (only have one night stands or such), because they viewed such relationships as inferior. Anyway, I haven’t seen these posters in a while.