DigitalShadow
-
Posts
1314 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DigitalShadow
-
-
For the sake of argument, let's say that security does hold same-sex couples to a different standard. What's the problem? It's private property. It's a religious site. Same-sex couples engaging in affectionate behavior is offensive to the diety to whom the religious site is dedicated. What's the problem in singling out the same-sex couple (other than it being a PR nightmare)?
As I said originally, I would have a lot more respect for the church if they simply said that they found the same sex affection offensive rather than trying to claim any couple with public displays of affection would have been treated the same way. If their belief is that same sex affection is more offensive (for whatever reason), why not present that to present to the public rather than poorly trying to "spin" the situation?
I personally think that if you are going to allow the public to visit private property and have rules for what is appropriate and what is not, they should be enforced equally between same sex and opposite sex couples, but the church is well within their rights to impose any set of arbitrary rules they want.
Perhaps the original couple didn't do it intentionally, but the kiss-in was definitely staged and deliberate.
The kiss-in is deliberate and I don't think it's a particularly good idea either.
-
I simply do not believe the gay couple's story that it was just a kiss on the cheek. Given the hostile reaction to the security guard, I believe they were purposely making a statement. I just don't find them credible.
I certainly don't condone their hostile reaction, but I can imagine how easy it is to lose your temper when you feel like you are discriminated against. I can see the situation happening either way.
-
The purpose of the homosexual couple was to provoke. And if we are wondering about different standards? If homosexual couples really want to make a statement why not go to a mosque in Tehran and make a statement.
One of the age old laws concerning private property in our society is the right of “quite enjoyment”. This means that you are free to use your property for your purposes as you see fit as long as you are not breaking any other established laws. It also means specifically that you have the right to remove anyone from your property that you think is harassing you. Note that the determining factor of harassing is the property owner which means that an intruder on private property is the one obligated to prove there was no harassment – not the owner.
In this case the law is clearly on the side of the LDS church. The party harassing admitted to coming to Utah specifically to harass because of Prop 8. Those that then demonstrated against the LDS Church place themselves directly in opposition to old English law to which the laws of this country are dependent. To expect that the law not apply in this situation is the very definition of “prejudice”. Also if we consider the current interpretation of “hate crimes” I do not see how the actions of the homosexuals is not only a violation of standing law but the very definition of a hate crime.
The Traveler
I don't believe that the church broke the law in any way, but I do believe that the couple was possibly singled out because they were homosexual and that the church is being dishonest in its statements of how they apply the rules against public displays of affection.
It is quite possible that the couple did this with the intention of provoking a response from the church, in which case I think the behavior of the guard was completely warranted but from the article I don't think there is enough information to assume either way and regardless of how it actually happened, the church is still being dishonest about how they apply the rules against public displays of affection.
-
It's all about the escalation. They were politely asked to stop. They got belligerent. There are first hand accounts of heterosexual couples being given the same polite request, so I don't believe for one second that they were held to a double standard. And I do believe that if a straight couple got uppity about being told to stop, they would be treated exactly the same way. There is no double standard. Sorry, that dog just won't hunt.
The first hand account you mentioned was in regards to a couple sitting in a place and kissing (also known as making out), which is far different from a peck on the cheek (which no statements given are contradicting). Do you really see no difference between those two situations?
I work about 5 blocks from Temple Square, I go there quite often and have seen many heterosexual couples there innocently steal a kiss while walking (and have even done so myself) without anyone pulling them aside, so if you don't believe for one second that there is a double standard here, you must believe they were doing more than just a peck on the cheek, and if that is the case, what brought you to that conclusion?
edit: I agree completely the a straight couple would be treated the same way if they escalated the situation, the double standard is that a straight couple would not have been approached in the first place with just a kiss on the cheek.
-
Actually we don't know that. Only the couple has made a statement saying it was a kiss on the cheek. Neither the church nor the security personnel to my knowledge has issued any statement regarding the extent of the affection. The church was clear on the fact that the couple "became argumentative and used profanity" which is what led to this being news. They escalated the situation. Now you can speculate as to why they chose to do that, but I think the reasons were clear.
That's exactly my point. The church isn't claiming the couple was making out or disagreeing with their statement, yet people are assuming the couple was making out or otherwise intentionally provoked this situation. While that could be the case, I think that's a large assumption to make.
Obviously I think escalating the situation was the wrong thing to do, but I also think it was wrong to hold a homosexual couple to a different standard than they hold heterosexual couples to at the Temple grounds which is certainly the case if the couple's statement was accurate (the article and statements from the church give no reason to believe otherwise).
-
There's a HUGE difference between stealing a kiss and making out. A lot of people here seem to assume that the couple was making out but that doesn't seem to be the claim from either the couple or the people involved in the situation.
Whether they were same sex or opposite sex, if they are making out I think it is perfectly appropriate and to ask them to either stop or leave, but from experience, I find it extremely hard to believe any opposite sex couple would be pulled aside and given a talking to for stealing a kiss on temple grounds.
If the church is trying to say that any couple seen stealing a kiss would get the same treatment, yes the are being purposely untruthful about it.
-
Here's the incident that started the controversy: Gay couple detained near Mormon plaza after kiss - Yahoo! News
IMHO the gay couple thought it would be funny to smooch in the heart of prop-8 land. They likely have no respect for the sanctity of the place, because they believe the Church to be a promoter of hate, and therefore unworthy of basic decent treatment. It just all seemed rather "in your face," rather than an innocent act of two people who did not quite realize where they were. Their confrontational attitude towards the security people only enhances my suspicions.
This protest is not about smooching on Mormon grounds. It is about further efforts to humiliate and cause to cower political enemies of the same sex marriage proponents.
I will say that I have had many walks with my wife through Temple Square and probably more than a few times had her kiss me on the cheek and saw many other couples there giving similar public displays of affection without rousing any concern from security. I think that statements like "politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been" are blatantly false from my experience, especially with something like a kiss on the cheek. I don't think either side is claiming they were sitting in Temple Square sucking face or anything like that.
Yes, they should have left when asked since it is private property, but I also have no doubt they were singled out for being homosexual as well and I would have much more respect for the people involved if they simply said that the reason they were asked to leave was because the they are not comfortable with public displays of homosexual affection.
So yes, it is entirely possible that the couple came to Temple Square specifically to make a point and/or draw media attention, but in my opinion it is also quite possible that they were simply enjoying the beauty of Temple Square and became somewhat understandably confrontational after feeling blatantly discriminated against.
-
Let me be specific – Are the policies of president Obama inspired by G-d and will help bring about his kingdom. Or are the policies that oppose the Christ and his kingdom that we ought to stand up and oppose?
Or do we not care and leave all things up to G-d – not worrying what we should support as long as we attend to our church meetings or should we oppose some things. Or if we are to stand up and be a part of something – what are the some things which we should be engaged? And what should we oppose?
The Traveler
What do you think regarding these issues? Are you trying to imply that Obama is on the "wrong" side of the great conflict going on between good and evil?
-
From my secular viewpoint, I think a lot of that hunger you describe is just natural human sex drive. It will become more controllable with age and when you get married it will suddenly become A LOT more controllable and won't dominate your thoughts once there is an acceptable release for those feelings. At least that's the way it happened with me. In any case, I guarantee that it will not feel like this for the rest of your life.
-
I would say that telling your wife would probably just unnecessarily worry her, but you probably better know how your wife better than us (at least I hope so). I also don't think the dream necessarily "means" anything, but even if it does, it's not like this is a fantasy about having an affair, sounds more like a nightmare about what could happen.
Here is one of the more interesting theories I've seen on dreams: Slashdot | Dreams Actually Virtual Reality Threat Simulation?
-
I'm sorry, I started laughing when I heard that. It just sounds like an SNL skit making fun of all the Obama memorabilia that is being sold now. I can't believe someone thought it was a good idea to make that product. This is almost as bad as Montel Williams peddling crappy coins with Obama painted over them after the election.
-
I go for gel based. It's more of a glide than a spray or roll.
-
1. What's the point of a resolution that does nothing but notes MJ is a humanitarian?
2. What's the point of arguing about it?
-
That's what I was looking for. Okay - We'll start with the idea that there is no universal truth as set forth in your previous examples:
A man, walking in the desert and wacked out on acid might come to the grand canyon. If this man imagined a bridge crossing it, hallucinated a bridge crossing it and it felt good to him to have a bridge where he was, if he attempted to cross this imaginary bridge then he would still plummet to his death.
The fact that people have died alone in the wilderness seems to suggest that, even if we can not perceive the truth, that there is a universal truth. Would you agree? If not, why not, given that I can provide several examples of people dying unknowingly, though I am fairly certain you could not provide a single example where a persons ignorance saved them from the consequences of physical interactions.
I believe that there is one consistent universal truth, but I do not believe that truth is absolutely knowable from our human perspective. So while there is a universal truth, I believe it is impossible to know absolute truth. Using objective evidence and the scientific method it is possible to be reasonably sure what is going on around you, but nothing can be determined absolutely and everything can change as new evidence comes in.
Edit: When talking about events such as the creation of the universe, it becomes very hard to find objective evidence due to the scale and time frames so given our limited data the level of certainty that can be obtained goes down to the point where I personally find it useless to "believe" in one particular explanation.
-
Very nice environment and animation work. What was it rendered in? Maya?
-
Shadow? You're quibbling and dodging the question. Okay. I will get past the quibbling and assign definitions:
God: The conscious creator and maker of this universe. We do not need to assign Him aspects, yet, such as good or evil or even anthropomorphic ideals. That comes later. Until a very basic understanding that He exists comes, it's irrelevant. To say that God doesn't have much meaning outside of a specific religious context is like saying 'Outside of a religious context, George Washington doesn't have much meaning.' We are simply discussing facts at the moment and I'm attempting to start a baseline for our discussion.
Secondly, you are stating opinions as facts that simply aren't true. I could point to several non-biblical accounts that have first hand experience with the Apostles and even people who saw the Saviour himself. The supernatural aspect must be shunted aside for the moment, because what you're doing is the equivalent of someone having this conversation:
'I don't believe in roast beef sandwiches.'
'Do you believe in bread?'
'There's no evidence that horseradish exists!'
'I... Asked if you believe in bread.'
'Horseradish is a ridiculous notion on the face of it. Radish that is a horse? NONSENSE!'
'Yyyes, but do you believe in bread?'
Basically, you're dwelling on specific aspects of an item when the very baseline isn't acknowledged. It's irrelevant.
So, having answered your question of definition, I will ask: What proof would you accept of God or an afterlife's existence? Would you accept proofs that, in other areas, Science has deemed sufficient to answer questions?
First of all, I didn't think I was quibbling and I apologize if it came off that way. You found it important to have a mutually agreed upon definition of science before furthering the discussion with Godless and I found it important to have a mutually agreed upon definition of God before furthering our discussion.
If you want to start with God as simply the "conscious" creator of the universe, that is fine with me. I would say that it is possible, but I personally think it is improbable. If you assume there had to be a creator for the universe to come into existence, then who created this creator, and their creator and so on. At some point you have to say that something just always existed, many people choose to believe that something is conscious and anthropomorphize it, but I find it more probable that the universe simply existed and humans like to believe beings similar to them in some way are in charge because it makes them feel better. I also think the answer to how the universe got started is ultimately unknowable from our limited human perspective. Obviously none of us were there at the creation of the universe and it's hard enough to tell exactly what happened on earth 2000 years ago, let alone somewhere far away in the universe billions of years ago.
There is nothing that could "prove" to me exactly how the universe came into existence, scientific or otherwise, the best we can do is give guesses, but I wouldn't say any of those guesses could ever be probable enough in my mind to really say I believe in it.
Reproducible supernatural events could convince me that there is an entity with a lot of power over this planet and they could even claim to be the creator of the universe, but I still find that unlikely since it would be very hard to demonstrate that you are the creator of the universe and having unexplainable power does not automatically instill trust in my mind.
As for an afterlife, again I think it is possible but improbable. Humans want to believe they continue on past this life despite there being no objective evidence for it. If we could reliably and reproducibly communicate with the dead (I'm not talking about "psychic" cold reading crap) that would convince me that there is some kind of afterlife. If dead people generally agree on what it's like, I would probably take their word for it.
That is as straightforward as I can answer, trying very hard not to quibble. I even went back and deleted some stuff that could be considered quibbling. Everything here is my honest opinion with no sarcasm quibbling, or offense intended.
-
When I read the thread title, I started signing at the screen.
That makes me wonder how many deaf people on the internet end up very confused when they try to ask people if they know American Sign Language.
-
Oh...I'm not looking to hook up with ANYONE.
I just hate it when I've been talking to some one for half an hour, and I call them "she", when they are really a guy. Or I think I'm talking to a 30 year old, when I'm really talking to a 12 year old. Is it really that bad that I like to get an idea of WHO I'm talking to?
I don't think it's bad to get an idea of who you're talking to, but that acronym has been abused by many annoying people to the point where using it now has some very negative connotations to many people.
-
Personally, I believe that one of the most important facts in life is that no absolute truth exists.
I agree completely.
-
I think it depends on the context, but in most cases asking ASL lets the other person know that you're looking to hook up with people of the opposite sex hopefully but not necessarily geographically close to you. If that's not your intent, I probably wouldn't start out with that because the vast majority of people who would start a conversation with ASL fit what I described above.
-
We're getting a little ahead of ourselves. I'm not trying to prove Christianity is the truth - That's jumping way ahead of the game if you don't know that God exists. Instead, in order to have any type of dialogue on religion, we have to understand what each of us means by this.
But outside of a specific religious context, "God" doesn't have much meaning. If you don't define which God and what qualities he/she possesses, it doesn't mean anything to say you believe or don't believe in God.
You're looking for testable, repeatable evidence of something's existence, correct? What would you accept as proof that God did exist is what I'm asking, so we can get to the basis of your questioning. Obviously, there would have to be some type of proof that you would accept as proof that God exists, or that an afterlife exists. Would anything that is testable, repeatable and confirmable work?
My point is that most definitions of God are not provable or disprovable. Past death, we don't really know what happens because due to the nature of death, we can't exactly ask dead people how it went. Most religious claims conveniently only provide "proof" after we have passed this seemingly unknowable barrier which makes them not very useful in my opinion.
If it were scientifically demonstrated that life continues after death and we can reliably communicate with people on "the other side" and people overwhelmingly confirm the story of a particular religion, I would say that it is more than likely true.
I would also like to point out that the argument that first hand accounts applying to both C'thulhu and the Greek Gods is simply not true. There are Greek Legends that talk of people who met the Gods, but there are no first hand accounts. If you compare that to first hand accounts of people who met Buddha, Confucius or Jesus, you will see that they are very different to accounts of C'thulhu and Zeus.
My point was that many stories of mythology reference historical places, events and even people but also have supernatural events, but are dismissed outright as false by most people. If you're counting the Bible or any religious text for that matter as a straight first hand account, it is questionable how much is actually from the original person. Given the "telephone game" effect and the motives for intentional editing, I find it hard to believe that any scriptures more than hundreds of years old remain in tact enough to really count as a first hand account.
-
Congratulations, but she doesn't look very evil to me.
The truly evil ones never do.
-
I don't mean to butt in here, but since I think I'm in much the same philosophical boat as Godless, I'll throw my 2 cents in as well.
Now: What would you consider to be proof? There are different types of proof:
I believe things to the extent that they are supported by evidence and give reproducible results.
There are historical proofs, such as first hand accounts and third hand accounts. Generally, these are accepted for historical occurences.
There are similar historical "proofs" for Greek and Roman mythology. As far as I can tell, the Bible doesn't particularly stand out from any other mythological account. Some historical accuracy mixed in with supernatural accounts usually only implies that those accounts have been exaggerated over time, not that the supernatural events actually happened.
There is the Scientific Method. The scientific method requires recreating something in a controlled environment. Dove Soap floats. We know this because someone once pushed the Dove bar down in to a tank of water, pulled back, watched it rise and made a checkmark. Then, that person repeated that again and again. Obviously, one cannot recreate the life, birth and death of Jesus Christ in a controlled environment. However, by that token, we can not prove the existence and/or events in any persons life.
There is logical proof: Many concepts of mathematics and modern living can be attributed to recreateable inductive proofs. Pi, for instance, or soft sciences such as archeology, paleontology or psychology.
Mathematics and soft sciences rely on the functionality of theories. Things are tentatively assumed to be true because they produce usable results given a certain situation, but they still remain as theories that can be revised or discarded as they are applied to new situations and new data is revealed.
The way I see it, most religious beliefs are simply theories that demand you bypass any scientific rigor and simply accept them as true, usually promising rewards for believing and/or punishment for disbelief. While I believe that most religions offer a reasonably useful set of moral values, that doesn't make them "true" any more than it makes a fairy tale with a useful message true. Yes there are useful parts, but that does not mean you need to accept the supernatural parts too.
What would you consider proof, Godless? First hand accounts? Logical continuations? A big fire burning in the sky saying 'God exists'?
What would you accept as proof that Cthulhu exists? or even that God doesn't exist? I don't think there's any one definitive piece of evidence could prove or disprove any deity, but in my mind testable claims would certainly help the credibility of religions claiming to be the "truth."
-
Nope sorry Mahone. No money for you. Although you should go talk to President Obama. I just got an email for him this morning, he wants to give me £1,000,000 sterling silver. Such a nice guy. Maybe if you'd ask him he'd give you some too. Oh and you should play the lottery, in the past week I've won the Irish lottery, the English lottery, and a few others. Who knew you could win without even entering. Nice of them.
This gives me a great idea for the next big email scam...
Dear <insert name here>,
President Obama's new stimulus plan has just been put in to place and our records indicate that you are qualified to receive $20,000. In order to get your share of this massive government handout, all you need to do is reply to this email with your bank account information and within 2-4 weeks the money should arrive in your account.
<some fake name>,
US Department of the Treasury
<add official looking seal>
Kissing on Temple Square? Everybody?
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
In light of that information, I would have to say I'm leaning much more toward this situation being at least semi-intentional on behalf of the couple. If they indeed were drunk enough to be slurring words and it was 10:30 pm as john doe indicated, that alone would be enough to politely ask them to leave. I still think the church is doing a horrible job of handling this situation, but at this point I don't really feel sorry for couple either.