SL Tribune: Mormon church is evolving, Steve Young’s wife tells LGBT crowd

[Guest]

And studies have shown that children need both genders for healthier psychological well-being.

[Soulsearcher]

And studies have shown that children need both genders for healthier psychological well-being.

Actually studies show children raised in same sex house holds are just as well adjusted if not more so depending on the study that's read. ( i'm not so worried or convinced about the "maybe better" but really i haven't seen a single study on same sex parenting that shows any real difference on mental well being )

Edited September 20, 2013 by Soulsearcher

[Soulsearcher]

But . . . but . . . we're right!!!!

In all seriousness: I see what you're getting at, but I don't think it's quite that simple. I mean, look at racists (to whom we conservative Mormons have already been quite generously compared in this very thread). Even relatively genteel expressions of racism are immediately pounced upon. The problem isn't the way the attitude's expressed--it's the attitude itself.

The playbook has been leaked; the writing's on the wall. Mormons and other religious conservatives aren't just supposed to "play nice". Like yesterday's racists we are supposed to retreat quietly into the shadows, never to be heard from again except when we are trotted out in eighth-grade history lessons on Harvey Milk Day as a reminder of what a despicable place America used to be.

The point that tends to be over looked when using this argument is that the "play nice" attitude that's been adopted by the church is new. relatively speaking it's trying to change it's message after the bridge has been burnt and this goes with the most of the christian faiths. Their message was so heavy handed and they did do a lot of damage that people tend to hear the old message whenever the new message is being said and reacting to the old message.

Kinda like what the pope said in the link. The focus has been in the wrong tone for so long people both in and out side only know the laser focus of some messages and no matter how nice or compassionate they are now, the damage has been done. Kind of how people here keeps saying the gay agenda isn't done and they "know what's coming next and what the gays are really thinking" The gays ted to feel the same when it comes to religion and now neither side has any faith in the other not matter how much people might try to better the situation.

[Just_A_Guy]

Kind of how people here keeps saying the gay agenda isn't done and they "know what's coming next and what the gays are really thinking" The gays ted to feel the same when it comes to religion and now neither side has any faith in the other not matter how much people might try to better the situation.

Agreed. But--and we've had this conversation before--social liberalism generally doesn't have a very good history of saying "well, mission accomplished--let's shut down our 501©(3) and go home!". Mission drift is perhaps endemic to all institutions, but especially institutions dedicated to progressivism.

We conservatives are kinda tired of hearing, "no, really, we mean it--this is the last thing we'll ever ask of you!!!!" It's not that liberals are necessarily dishonest. It's that they keep changing their minds. (Or, in their terminology, "evolving".) But even so, it kind of undermines their credibility at the bargaining table--whether it be on gay rights, race relations, gender issues, economic theories, etc. And yeah, I realize conservatives evolve too. But conservatives generally evolve towards the left. The left, by contrast, evolves . . . even more to the left. I mean, who'd have thought, in 1967, that overturning a law prohibiting a white man and a black woman from marrying, would one day be used to overturn a law prohibiting a white man and a white man from marrying? Who could have guessed--even fifteen years ago--that "gay rights" logically included compelling an evangelical Christian photographer, at the point of a government gun (well, government fines, and if she doesn't pay 'em, she goes to jail escorted by people with guns), to take pictures of two gay women kissing each other? (Well, some Mormons did, I suppose. And we were promptly dismissed as crackpots and slippery-slopeists.)

Modern liberalism doesn't really compromise; it just waits. It took conservatism a while; but more and more we're understanding that the liberalism of 2023 isn't going to consider itself bound by liberalism of 2013. So regardless of the intentions or conscious plans of your side at the aisle at present--the simple truth is that striking a deal with you folks in 2013 really is a sucker's game.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

Agreed. But--and we've had this conversation before--social liberalism generally doesn't have a very good history of saying "well, mission accomplished--let's shut down our 501©(3) and go home!". Mission drift is perhaps endemic to all institutions, but especially institutions dedicated to progressivism.

We conservatives are kinda tired of hearing, "no, really, we mean it--this is the last thing we'll ever ask of you!!!!" It's not that liberals are necessarily dishonest. It's that they keep changing their minds. (Or, in their terminology, "evolving".) But even so, it kind of undermines their credibility at the bargaining table--whether it be on gay rights, race relations, gender issues, economic theories, etc. And yeah, I realize conservatives evolve too. But conservatives generally evolve towards the left. The left, by contrast, evolves . . . even more to the left. Modern lberalism doesn't really compromise; it just waits.

So if liberalism of 2023 isn't going to consider itself bound by liberalism of 2013, then what's the point in striking a deal with it in the here-and-now?

And i understand, but this is exactly why gays don't trust this new loving approach of some churches. You drew the connection of

(But then again: once you decide that religious conservativism = homophobia, and homophobia = hate, and hate = abuse, all kinds of things are possible. Maybe that's the end-game. Why stop at redistribution of wealth, when you can redistribute children?)

As much as you can't have faith in liberals, do you really think after a lot of the venom of the past and even some now that gays will really feel loved by churches? The message and approach has changed but the past exists and sadly for a long time you're going to see even small things from religion offend because of the past. really for the most part we can deal with "it's wrong" but really by someone of faith just saying " it's wrong" we hear the words of the past and hold them accountable. Just like you tend to hold the entire community responsible for the acts of the most vocal in liberals. Not saying it's good or right, but can't expect anyone to just all of a sudden change their perceptions. people keep begging for time to see the LDS have adapted, must give the same time to the other side.

[Just_A_Guy]

As much as you can't have faith in liberals, do you really think after a lot of the venom of the past and even some now that gays will really feel loved by churches? The message and approach has changed but the past exists and sadly for a long time you're going to see even small things from religion offend because of the past. really for the most part we can deal with "it's wrong" but really by someone of faith just saying " it's wrong" we hear the words of the past and hold them accountable. Just like you tend to hold the entire community responsible for the acts of the most vocal in liberals. Not saying it's good or right, but can't expect anyone to just all of a sudden change their perceptions. people keep begging for time to see the LDS have adapted, must give the same time to the other side.

I get that there are hurt feelings on your side.

But what exactly are you proposing--that Mormonism put itself in time-out for ten years while society and the courts evolve the way your side wants them to? The most vocal liberals of today, are the liberal mainstream of tomorrow. And your mainstream already fully supports what happened to this photographer in New Mexico; and the Canadian mainstream supports what happened to that pastor up in Canada. This is already existential for us. Reconciliation is important, but not at the expense of survival.

And I'm sure you think my prediction about kids is histrionic and unrealistic. If I'm wrong, I owe you lunch in twelve years.

But you know what? The YFZ raid, in conjunction with what SCOTUS did earlier this year, showed us that the government infrastructure and nearly all of the legal theory is already in place to do to LDS kids what was done five years ago to FLDS kids. Mormon children stay in their homes only at the good pleasure of the secular liberal mainstream. That should scare the bejeebies out of anyone. It won't, but it should.

Anyhoo, we've been through all this before and I'm not sure we'll convince each other. PM me, and we'll set up that lunch meeting for 2025. :)

[lagarthaaz]

T All that I have asked for – is a clear statement of a benefit that proponents of homosexuality understand to be necessary to justify for them, me or anyone to support and encourage homosexuality as the only means or even the best means to better society.

The planet currently has over 7 billion human inhabitants, with a capacity for holding between 4 and 16 billion people (dependent upon variables such as how much space each individual needs to live, produce food, etc). Medical advancements and improved nutrition over the past 50 years have seen a rapid increase in the population. Experts in the field are expecting 9.3 billion by the year 2050. We are well on our way to an unsustainable population.

When we're not preserving human life through medical technnology, overpopulation is kept in check by nature - people age, get sick with terminal or other illnesses, and die. What if homosexuality is simply another one (not all) of nature's controls to prevent overpopulation of the human race? That could be viewed as a definite 'benefit' to humanity.

What if it's true, as some have theorized, that same-sex couples may naturally fill the gap for foster and adoptive parents for children that heterosexual couples have abandoned? I have read about documented cases in the animal kingdom where same-sex animal couples have incubated eggs and nurtured young (eg. Roy and Silo, the chinstrap penguins). If it's 'natural' in parts of the animal world, then why not in humans?

I'm just not scientific enough to figure it all out, but these are some of the theories that have crossed my mind when trying to find a beneficial 'reason' why some people are born with same-sex attraction.

Or, living with same-sex attraction could just be as Elder Oaks says, another way to show a person's obedience to gospel principles. The blessings for a faithful, unmarried LDS who keeps his or her covenants (and sexual impulses under control) for a lifetime without the possibility of marriage must surely be untold in the afterlife, no matter what their sexual orientation. The blessings of exaltation are surely, a 'benefit' for anyone.

Edited September 21, 2013 by lagarthaaz

[Soulsearcher]

I get that there are hurt feelings on your side.

But what exactly are you proposing--that Mormonism put itself in time-out for ten years while society and the courts evolve the way your side wants them to? The most vocal liberals of today, are the liberal mainstream of tomorrow. And your mainstream already fully supports what happened to this photographer in New Mexico; and the Canadian mainstream supports what happened to that pastor up in Canada. This is already existential for us. Reconciliation is important, but not at the expense of survival.

And I'm sure you think my prediction about kids is histrionic and unrealistic. If I'm wrong, I owe you lunch in twelve years.

But you know what? The YFZ raid, in conjunction with what SCOTUS did earlier this year, showed us that the government infrastructure and nearly all of the legal theory is already in place to do to LDS kids what was done five years ago to FLDS kids. Mormon children stay in their homes only at the good pleasure of the secular liberal mainstream. That should scare the bejeebies out of anyone. It won't, but it should.

Anyhoo, we've been through all this before and I'm not sure we'll convince each other. PM me, and we'll set up that lunch meeting for 2025. :)

Actually the church has already done what i'd like, it's changed the message a little and it's tone quite a bit. The problem is the damage was done. Sadly the word mormon in the gay community it connected to hate and pain. It's going to take time for that to change but it will to a degree over time, but until that time comes you really can't be shocked that people still cringe when Christians in general go to say "it's wrong" It's not right and doesn't excuse the lengths some are going to take on religion as a whole, but it is understandable. the present is paying for the past and then some and it's sad, but it's a price that's paid and it's the same one the gay community is starting to pay and i do wish they'd learn before it gets to much worse. It's not so much reconciliation as i think that's started, it's moer letting the scars heal, and that can be a long painful process for all involved. I mean lets be honest, many of the posters here are great and have got the message, but a few still tend to be heavy handed and get silent support, so while a majority might not share the same way of brow beating or belittling, if they aren't corrected or chastised by the mainstream how are others supposed to believe the change and want to give those who are trying a fair chance. How many times have people here said they can appreciate the way i try to say or do things, but it means little because my community tends to speak louder by their actions?

[Just_A_Guy]

I hear you, SS. But here's the thing--and it may not be pretty or right, but it's the way it is:

Attitudes are softening on the right, largely because gay marriage opponents know they're going to lose and they're preparing to accept the new status quo--stages of grief, and all that. But what slap in the face is going to deter the winning side from the natural human impulse for tyranny?

Look what's happening to Steve Lively (admittedly, not a nice man; but still--whatever happened to free speech?). Look what happened to Elaine Huguenin. We Mormons can't afford to sit back and wait for your side to heal--your legal eagles and academics are assiduously pressing on with their campaign to make latter-day George Wallaces of us all.

[McLainDow]

Some day God will take care all these things, He will be the judge of all things not us. we just need to love our neighbor. we need to do what is right for our God and be the light and example of others that are caught in the evil world!!

I love this comment. know that I am glad I am not burdened with having to judge others and can just try to be a conduit of Christ's love.

[Soulsearcher]

I hear you, SS. But here's the thing--and it may not be pretty or right, but it's the way it is:

Attitudes are softening on the right, largely because gay marriage opponents know they're going to lose and they're preparing to accept the new status quo--stages of grief, and all that. But what slap in the face is going to deter the winning side from the natural human impulse for tyranny?

Look what's happening to Steve Lively (admittedly, not a nice man; but still--whatever happened to free speech?). Look what happened to Elaine Huguenin. We Mormons can't afford to sit back and wait for your side to heal--your legal eagles and academics are assiduously pressing on with their campaign to make latter-day George Wallaces of us all.

As always you make good points. The slap in the face really could be anything. What did it take for religions to change their tone? They were the "winning side" for ages and yet something had to happen to make them change their tone in a drastic way and have them even start making more of an out reach. Again it really is the more extremes of each side or the most vocal and recognized that tend to be the issue. most of the little people aren't the issue.

The Steve Lively case isn't so much free speech to me. I have no problem when someone is telling the truth, yay free speech. If you are telling known falsehoods or setting an agenda to cause harm with your speech then i'm not so sure it's still free speech, but again that could come from our laws governing it in canada. Remember that the african governments that mr. lively spoke to cite his as a huge part of their motivation to set a death penatly in their anti homosexual laws. He can say he never said it was good, and doesn't want the death penalty really but he knowingly lied and stoked an already raging fire. Now aside from the libertarians I do really wonder if people would have so much to say about Elaine Huguenin if she'd turn away blacks or a religious group. Would people be so upset that someone called her out on breaking the law then? I do get the religious freedoms argument, but where does it stop? If people start claiming their old testemant right to start stoning people does that really by pass the law of the land just because they claim the bible tells them so? It might sound silly but really the laws for business ethics are there, so if we say religion trumps one set of laws can you promise me that it will end there? I do more side with your view JAG, but i also see why some people, more so in america aren't comfortable letting it slide. We can also be pretty sure, just like the cake maker in Oregon i think it was that their "religious outrage" is pick and choose. They were willing to make divorce cakes, cakes for dog weddings, ect. so really things that might or should go against their morals they were more than willing to be paid for. As much as people cry foul over these people being persecuted, i think it's a fair bet that they might choose to speak out on that issue just for the fun of it while letting other "sins" slip by to line their pocket book. I have a little trouble worrying about selective religious freedoms if they pick and choose what to stand for and what to ignore.

Again I'm not saying i disagree in general, but my level of sympathy sits around the level of sympathy people have for gays who do things just to get a rise out of people when they really could just get through it quietly.

[Misshalfway]

Actually the church has already done what i'd like, it's changed the message a little and it's tone quite a bit. The problem is the damage was done. Sadly the word mormon in the gay community it connected to hate and pain. It's going to take time for that to change but it will to a degree over time, but until that time comes you really can't be shocked that people still cringe when Christians in general go to say "it's wrong" It's not right and doesn't excuse the lengths some are going to take on religion as a whole, but it is understandable. the present is paying for the past and then some and it's sad, but it's a price that's paid and it's the same one the gay community is starting to pay and i do wish they'd learn before it gets to much worse. It's not so much reconciliation as i think that's started, it's moer letting the scars heal, and that can be a long painful process for all involved. I mean lets be honest, many of the posters here are great and have got the message, but a few still tend to be heavy handed and get silent support, so while a majority might not share the same way of brow beating or belittling, if they aren't corrected or chastised by the mainstream how are others supposed to believe the change and want to give those who are trying a fair chance. How many times have people here said they can appreciate the way i try to say or do things, but it means little because my community tends to speak louder by their actions?

The only way to healing for everyone involved is the same answer that has been given since the beginning of time. The answer is forgiveness.

I've recently re-studied the story of Jonah. He was the prophet at the time and was a righteous man who loved his people. The city of Ninevah had offended and hurt his people in serious ways. The Lord commanded Jonah to preach to them. He couldn't. His heart was too hurt and he wanted justice. The Lord worked with Jonah (with the help of some sailors, a storm, and the belly of a whale) until he softened his heart enough to at least obey. Jonah returned to at least preach to Ninevah, remind them of their sins, and teach repentance. To Jonah's dismay, the people (his enemies), repented. His heart was again heavy and he isolated himself in despair. The Lord, helped Jonas see the sin that had entered his heart and asked him again if the people of Ninevah shouldn't be offered mercy.

It's the same story here. There is lots of pain in between the gay community and the church. But there is only one cure. I suppose both sides could dig in their heals issuing all sorts of punishments waiting till the day of justice!... or to the bending of one another's will. But then...wouldn't that just procrastinate the day of our mutual healing?

Mercy and forgiveness work better than the nursing of old wounds. It's always been that way and it always will ... regardless of how slow we are to learn the lesson.

[Soulsearcher]

The only way to healing for everyone involved is the same answer that has been given since the beginning of time. The answer is forgiveness.

I've recently re-studied the story of Jonah. He was the prophet at the time and was a righteous man who loved his people. The city of Ninevah had offended and hurt his people in serious ways. The Lord commanded Jonah to preach to them. He couldn't. His heart was too hurt and he wanted justice. The Lord worked with Jonah (with the help of some sailors, a storm, and the belly of a whale) until he softened his heart enough to at least obey. Jonah returned to at least preach to Ninevah, remind them of their sins, and teach repentance. To Jonah's dismay, the people (his enemies), repented. His heart was again heavy and he isolated himself in despair. The Lord, helped Jonas see the sin that had entered his heart and asked him again if the people of Ninevah shouldn't be offered mercy.

It's the same story here. There is lots of pain in between the gay community and the church. But there is only one cure. I suppose both sides could dig in their heals issuing all sorts of punishments waiting till the day of justice!... or to the bending of one another's will. But then...wouldn't that just procrastinate the day of our mutual healing?

Mercy and forgiveness work better than the nursing of old wounds. It's always been that way and it always will ... regardless of how slow we are to learn the lesson.

I fully agree with you, but forgiveness doesn't come over night. Sadly it keeps going back to each side over compensating while the other side tried to adapt and forgive, neither side can just sit for a time and let wounds heal. JAGs posts say that The churches won't because it cost's them political and "moral ground" so the other side has to keep pushing back as well. until one side is willing to sit and lett healing begin we'll just keep re-opening old wounds and letting them fester.

[Just_A_Guy]

As always you make good points. The slap in the face really could be anything. What did it take for religions to change their tone? They were the "winning side" for ages and yet something had to happen to make them change their tone in a drastic way and have them even start making more of an out reach. Again it really is the more extremes of each side or the most vocal and recognized that tend to be the issue. most of the little people aren't the issue.

The Steve Lively case isn't so much free speech to me. I have no problem when someone is telling the truth, yay free speech. If you are telling known falsehoods or setting an agenda to cause harm with your speech then i'm not so sure it's still free speech, but again that could come from our laws governing it in canada. Remember that the african governments that mr. lively spoke to cite his as a huge part of their motivation to set a death penatly in their anti homosexual laws. He can say he never said it was good, and doesn't want the death penalty really but he knowingly lied and stoked an already raging fire.

I don't know enough about Lively to know whether he's conscientiously lied; but even so--the precedent is dangerous. You're basically saying that if person a says x, and person b runs with that and does something bat-shizzle crazy--person a is responsible even if person a was saying "no, don't do this crazy thing" the whole time. And it feeds back into the discussion you and I had back in May on that other thread--if Tom Monson says something, and the Westboro Baptist Church happens to quote it in the midst of a more inflammatory sermon, and gay kid c commits suicide because of it--suddenly, Tom Monson is responsible?

It may be a very logical argument against freedom of speech. But it's still an argument against freedom of speech.

Now aside from the libertarians I do really wonder if people would have so much to say about Elaine Huguenin if she'd turn away blacks or a religious group. Would people be so upset that someone called her out on breaking the law then?

Surely no one's saying Huguenin refused to do--say--a graduation picture, or a family reunion picture, where one of the subjects happened to be gay? Huguenin wasn't turning them away because of who they were; she was turning them away because of a specific activity they were demanding she abet.

Logically speaking, under the New Mexico precedent, a black photographer should be required to photograph a social gathering of white individuals--even if that gathering happens to be a KKK rally. Otherwise, the photographer's just discriminating. Right?

I do get the religious freedoms argument, but where does it stop? If people start claiming their old testemant right to start stoning people does that really by pass the law of the land just because they claim the bible tells them so? It might sound silly but really the laws for business ethics are there, so if we say religion trumps one set of laws can you promise me that it will end there?

Refusing to do business with someone is a long way from stoning them. And the tension between religious freedom and social regulation is not new----start with the Reynolds discision against Mormon polygamists in the 1890s, right up through the RFRA cases about a century later. I'm not the one trying to change the historical balance--you are.

We can also be pretty sure, just like the cake maker in Oregon i think it was that their "religious outrage" is pick and choose. They were willing to make divorce cakes, cakes for dog weddings, ect. so really things that might or should go against their morals they were more than willing to be paid for. As much as people cry foul over these people being persecuted, i think it's a fair bet that they might choose to speak out on that issue just for the fun of it while letting other "sins" slip by to line their pocket book. I have a little trouble worrying about selective religious freedoms if they pick and choose what to stand for and what to ignore.

Classic incrementalism.

FWIW, I think your specifics are inapposite. A dog wedding is a joke, and everyone who participates knows it. Do you really want your photographer, or caterer, approaching your wedding the same way (s)he'd approach something like that? And a person can oppose divorce while still acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary and even, occasionally, liberating.

But even if we assume, arguendo, that there was inconsistency--a state-guarantee of religious freedom that is conditioned on a non-adherent's viewing that religion's teachings as being internally consistent, is pretty much worthless. Honestly, SS, I don't think it's right for anyone to arrogate to him or herself, the right to choose what another person's moral priorities should be.

(Incidentally--what if Huguenin had taken the job, and then turned up at the wedding with a ginormous "God hates . . . [fill in expletive of choice]" poster and took to screaming out quotes from obscure portions of the Bible at inopportune moments (clicking away with her camera all the time)? Can the State force her to just shut up and take the pictures? The New Mexico decision, I thought, left that awfully vague.)

Again I'm not saying i disagree in general, but my level of sympathy sits around the level of sympathy people have for gays who do things just to get a rise out of people when they really could just get through it quietly.

Frankly, gays (and for that matter, straights) could probably "get through" a legal inability to marry pretty quietly, too.

Yet, here we are.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Soulsearcher]

I don't know enough about Lively to know whether he's conscientiously lied; but even so--the precedent is dangerous. You're basically saying that if person a says x, and person b runs with that and does something bat-shizzle crazy--person a is responsible even if person a was saying "no, don't do this crazy thing" the whole time. And it feeds back into the discussion you and I had back in May on that other thread--if Tom Monson says something, and the Westboro Baptist Church happens to quote it in the midst of a more inflammatory sermon, and gay kid c commits suicide because of it--suddenly, Tom Monson is responsible?

It may be a very logical argument against freedom of speech. But it's still an argument against freedom of speech.

Surely no one's saying Huguenin refused to do--say--a graduation picture, or a family reunion picture, where one of the subjects happened to be gay? Huguenin wasn't turning them away because of who they were; she was turning them away because of a specific activity they were demanding she abet.

Logically speaking, under the New Mexico precedent, a black photographer should be required to photograph a social gathering of white individuals--even if that gathering happens to be a KKK rally. Otherwise, the photographer's just discriminating. Right?

Refusing to do business with someone is a long way from stoning them. And the tension between religious freedom and social regulation is not new----start with the Reynolds discision against Mormon polygamists in the 1890s, right up through the RFRA cases about a century later. I'm not the one trying to change the historical balance--you are.

Classic incrementalism.

FWIW, I think your specifics are inapposite. A dog wedding is a joke, and everyone who participates knows it. Do you really want your photographer, or caterer, approaching your wedding the same way (s)he'd approach something like that? And a person can oppose divorce while still acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary and even, occasionally, liberating.

But even if we assume, arguendo, that there was inconsistency--a state-guarantee of religious freedom that is conditioned on a non-adherent's viewing that religion's teachings as being internally consistent, is pretty much worthless. Honestly, SS, I don't think it's right for anyone to arrogate to him or herself, the right to choose what another person's moral priorities should be.

(Incidentally--what if Huguenin had taken the job, and then turned up at the wedding with a ginormous "God hates . . . [fill in expletive of choice]" poster and took to screaming out quotes from obscure portions of the Bible at inopportune moments (clicking away with her camera all the time)? Can the State force her to just shut up and take the pictures? The New Mexico decision, I thought, left that awfully vague.)

Frankly, gays (and for that matter, straights) could probably "get through" a legal inability to marry pretty quietly, too.

Yet, here we are.

That's one thing i don't understand about americans. They clamor behind freedom of speech but they don't seem to want to be accountable for their speech. " it's not my fault" seems to be something that keeps popping up. Anything can be said but the fallout of that speech aren't claimed as readily as the freedom to speak them.

Let's use the KKK analogy and some of Mr. Lively's thoughts about gays but switch for the term black. If MR. Lively had gone to a KKK rally and said that really the whole nazi movement had been a black plot and all of the major players in the in the nazi party were black. Blacks only seek to steal and corrupt your children and are the source for much of the evil in the world. Now after MR. Lively leaves the KKK decide it's time to start lynching again because they take MR. Lively's words to heart. Afterwards after getting them all stirred up with nothing but lies and pretty transparent ones, he turns around and says " well it's not my fault they want to cause them harm. Does he truly have no accountability for the words he said? Are his hands clean and no one can hold him accountable for any part of inciting violence? He's claimed to be the foremost expert on the subject and claimed everything he said is fact and action must be taken and left the door open, but he isn't at fault in the least? This i don't understand.

I'm of two minds on your example of the photographer. If the photographer refused just because they are white, i'd say they were in the wrong. If the photographer refused because the group would most assuredly use the opportunity to purposefully degrade and possibly harm the photographer then i would surely see no reason to refuse. The state law does not compel the photographer not to deny on those grounds. Age, sex, sexual orientation religion or disability are the grounds i remember that can't be discriminated against. I'm not sure where the KKK would fall under those guidelines.

The examples of the cake maker were to me and many others showing that in reality they didn't take marriage all that seriously in the first place, just chose to make a loud noise to drum up business by standing up to the big bad gays. Their argument would have held much more water if they were willing to show marriage in all forms was sacred. "we'll celebrate dogs getting married and the joke it makes of marriage, but those evil gays, how could we?" A person can oppose same sex marriage but realize it brings joy and still forms a major bond to the people involved can't they?

Again you dismissed but didn't answer the question of what laws can religion toss away in the name of freedom. You have many times in the past said that i might say you are safe ,but you say the gays will keep pushing, but you dismiss the same concern on the other side. In your view our concerns seem silly and not really worth entertaining, but when the shoe is on the other foot you really want to stand your ground and not give much in defense of your values. So Where do you want the laws drawn for religious freedom. Are they always to trump other laws. Only in whom does business with who? Where is the line clearly marked, and where is the line of freedom from religion marked? There has been the odd case of people doing harm to gays citing it was their religious duty as defense and while thankfully it hasn't been accepted yet, it only takes once( like the gay panic defense) to become and acceptable defense. You think this possibility doesn't bother us as much or more than a photographer being told they can't break a state law. Listen to some of the more right wing politicians and their views on gays and wonder why we fear exactly how far the religious right groups will go in the name of faith and why for more than a few they just wish religion in general was gone. I find it sad and as my presence here shows i'd prefer to find common or friendly ground, but some of the posters here in agreement or not are a bit of a special breed vs those many of us find away from the computer.

You and i aren't really as far apart as it might sometimes seem to others, but we both do see things from the other side and have felt the pushes from the other side a little more clearly and it's left us mistrusting of the potential for good and the vows on the other side.

[prisonchaplain]

The planet currently has over 7 billion human inhabitants, with a capacity for holding between 4 and 16 billion people (dependent upon variables such as how much space each individual needs to live, produce food, etc). Medical advancements and improved nutrition over the past 50 years have seen a rapid increase in the population. Experts in the field are expecting 9.3 billion by the year 2050. We are well on our way to an unsustainable population.

When we're not preserving human life through medical technnology, overpopulation is kept in check by nature - people age, get sick with terminal or other illnesses, and die. What if homosexuality is simply another one (not all) of nature's controls to prevent overpopulation of the human race? That could be viewed as a definite 'benefit' to humanity.

Overpopulation is already near its peak. Some parts of the world are experiencing rapid "greying" (Japan, Korea, Western Europe). After 2050 it is expected that world population will begin to decline.

The Coming Global Population Decline

Same sex attraction is found in roughly 3% of the world's population, so I suppose it could be seen as a small blessing during overpopulation. Does this mean that this group will be blamed during depopulation?

[Just_A_Guy]

That's one thing i don't understand about americans. They clamor behind freedom of speech but they don't seem to want to be accountable for their speech. " it's not my fault" seems to be something that keeps popping up. Anything can be said but the fallout of that speech aren't claimed as readily as the freedom to speak them.

So, is Tom Monson and/or the LDS Church responsible for the spate of gay Mormon youth suicides? And what should be done about that legally?

Let's use the KKK analogy and some of Mr. Lively's thoughts about gays but switch for the term black. If MR. Lively had gone to a KKK rally and said that really the whole nazi movement had been a black plot and all of the major players in the in the nazi party were black. Blacks only seek to steal and corrupt your children and are the source for much of the evil in the world. Now after MR. Lively leaves the KKK decide it's time to start lynching again because they take MR. Lively's words to heart. Afterwards after getting them all stirred up with nothing but lies and pretty transparent ones, he turns around and says " well it's not my fault they want to cause them harm. Does he truly have no accountability for the words he said? Are his hands clean and no one can hold him accountable for any part of inciting violence? He's claimed to be the foremost expert on the subject and claimed everything he said is fact and action must be taken and left the door open, but he isn't at fault in the least? This i don't understand.

Morally, your position may have merit; but legally, I agree with what our Supreme Court has already done in Brandenburg v. Ohio and other cases: it depends on whether the "advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action". And when you're trying to influence the legislative process of a foreign power--all bets are off.

I'm of two minds on your example of the photographer. If the photographer refused just because they are white, i'd say they were in the wrong. If the photographer refused because the group would most assuredly use the opportunity to purposefully degrade and possibly harm the photographer then i would surely see no reason to refuse. The state law does not compel the photographer not to deny on those grounds.

Then the New Mexico Supreme Court deliberately misapplied the law. Huguenin believed same-sex marriage to be morally repugnant, and viewed an enforced violation of her own moral code to be both degrading and harmful to herself.

Age, sex, sexual orientation religion or disability are the grounds i remember that can't be discriminated against. I'm not sure where the KKK would fall under those guidelines.

The KKK is a subset of a racial group (whites) that engages in a specific course of conduct. The lesbian couple in Huguenin was a subset of a larger sexual-orientation group (homosexuals) that wished to engage in a specific course of conduct. I see no difference, except that you disagree with the conduct of one subset and agree with that of the other.

The examples of the cake maker were to me and many others showing that in reality they didn't take marriage all that seriously in the first place, just chose to make a loud noise to drum up business by standing up to the big bad gays. Their argument would have held much more water if they were willing to show marriage in all forms was sacred. "we'll celebrate dogs getting married and the joke it makes of marriage, but those evil gays, how could we?"

Well, first off, I would venture to guess that the baker's qualms weren't just about the sanctity of marriage; it was about the fact that the marriage would include sex. It is very possible to have no objections to two dogs--married or otherwise--having sex, while still believing on religious grounds that sex between two persons of the same gender is in every case a sin.

Second, even if you try to force this into a sanctity-of-marriage paradigm, it may be worth noting that the canine marriage wasn't a legal marriage at all and no one thought to the contrary.

And third--it seems that what your position really boils down to is "whatever your sincere religious/moral beliefs are--if you don't "take them seriously" (as defined by me) at all times, then your right to act according to those beliefs evaporates."

Does a Mormon make a joke or say something humorous involving a temple? OK--but their legal right to exclude nonbelievers from the temple is now gone. Did you just make a complaint about a romantic partner? Well, you must not take "marriage" very seriously, so the state won't ever issue you a marriage license. Did a female dress immodestly? Why, all well and good--but if she ever declares herself to be a victim of rape, the law will presume she consented to the sexual activity.

A person can oppose same sex marriage but realize it brings joy and still forms a major bond to the people involved can't they?

So, we're all legally bound to celebrate and assist in whatever activity--however repugnant--two random people publicly claim "brings joy and . . . forms a major bond" between them?

Again you dismissed but didn't answer the question of what laws can religion toss away in the name of freedom. You have many times in the past said that i might say you are safe ,but you say the gays will keep pushing, but you dismiss the same concern on the other side. In your view our concerns seem silly and not really worth entertaining, but when the shoe is on the other foot you really want to stand your ground and not give much in defense of your values. So Where do you want the laws drawn for religious freedom. Are they always to trump other laws.

Again--the legal contours for freedom of religion already exist, and have since Reynolds. We aren't the ones trying to change that. Your side is; and so the burden lies with you.

There has been the odd case of people doing harm to gays citing it was their religious duty as defense and while thankfully it hasn't been accepted yet, it only takes once( like the gay panic defense) to become and acceptable defense.

(Parenthetical: The gay panic defense is rooted in (dubious) psychology, not religious freedom.)

You think this possibility doesn't bother us as much or more than a photographer being told they can't break a state law. Listen to some of the more right wing politicians and their views on gays and wonder why we fear exactly how far the religious right groups will go in the name of faith and why for more than a few they just wish religion in general was gone.

The differences being that a) they're nowhere near in a position to carry out their agendas, and b) many of their purported agendas weren't even possible even before the gay rights movement really picked up a head of steam back in the late 1980s.

I find it sad and as my presence here shows i'd prefer to find common or friendly ground, but some of the posters here in agreement or not are a bit of a special breed vs those many of us find away from the computer.

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, SS, but what common ground do we really have? You've defended forcing Mormons to support gay marriage in a way we find repugnant, by aiding and abetting these wedding ceremonies. You've defended the establishment of a legal framework that will allow the gay rights lobby to sue the Mormon Church out of existence--or at least into silence--as soon as it's fully in place.

I mean, here's how I see it: Hordes of my neighbors are attacking my house with hammers--they aren't just threatening it; they're doing it. You walk up, take in the scene, and observe that I really didn't need the particular window they just bashed out. Oh, and the house was kind of an eyesore, so it's understandable that my neighbors are so upset. Wouldn't it be nice if I just took a walk around the block to give them a chance to calm down a bit? You promise, I'll still have a house when all this is over--just ignore those two loons over there holding a plat map to my property and the blueprints for a new casino; they're not really running the show here. Oh, and as I'm heading out for my little walk, won't I be a good fellow and hand them that stick of dynamite they're reaching for?

You tell me you can control the mob. Experience tells me you are my friend, and that you are sincere. But observation tells me (and I say this with brotherly love) that you're nuts. You tell me that part of the problem is that one or two of my friends are meeting in a living room across town, trying to figure out how to obtain an atom bomb. You know what? Help me get the mob off my lawn, and then we'll go deal with those other morons if or when it looks like their schemes have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting off the ground.

Let me reiterate that I've enjoyed discussing this with you, respect you personally, and have no doubt of your personal integrity. But I'm no longer sure there's quite as much common ground between us as you'd like to think there is.

You and i aren't really as far apart as it might sometimes seem to others, but we both do see things from the other side and have felt the pushes from the other side a little more clearly and it's left us mistrusting of the potential for good and the vows on the other side.

Touche.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Dravin]

So, we're all legally bound to celebrate and assist in whatever activity--however repugnant--two random people publicly claim "brings joy and . . . forms a major bond" between them?

Yep, the question isn't, "can they" it is, "must they."

[Soulsearcher]

So, is Tom Monson and/or the LDS Church responsible for the spate of gay Mormon youth suicides? And what should be done about that legally?

It depends what he says to me. If he is telling out right lies with the purpose of stirring up the pot claiming to be a foremost expert that can't be disputed i do believe he's to be held accountable. As for legal outcome i'm not sure exactly where it falls, but my grasp on some charges are hazy at best. The old example of shouting fire in a crowded place while knowing there isn't a fire comes to mind. If he makes a passing comment that others take out of context and blow out of proportion then no i don't hold him accountable.

Then the New Mexico Supreme Court deliberately misapplied the law. Huguenin believed same-sex marriage to be morally repugnant, and viewed an enforced violation of her own moral code to be both degrading and harmful to herself.

Here i would disagree, while the KKK may be made up of whites, it is it's self an organization with out legal protections under the non discrimination clause in any state that i know of. They themselves are not a class of people. Using the Reynolds argument that you quoted she took an action with refusing to do the job which to me does stand with the ruling in that case. You can hold the values, but if taking action on those beliefs violate the law then you are accountable for it. The LDS have an entire article of faith that revolves around this premise. Though correct me if i read the case wrong lol i'm having a lot of catching up to do on american law when talking with you, though i do enjoy it.

The examples with the Cake maker and holding to their faith evenly in this case is applied to business. If you hold the claim as did the bakers that they can't support this marriage because marriage is sacred and they will not support a mockery of marriage then yes i expect them to apply it evenly. The second you make an exception you open yourself to scrutiny. If you are constantly nagging someone about the WOW will holding a cigar and a beer, then your moral high ground comes into serious question. The example you give are fine because they are personal and don't effect others really it's on a personal level, but if you are picking and choosing who to do business with knowing you are going against state law, then you probably shouldn't be making the exceptions to your policy and not expect to get slapped on the hand.

So, we're all legally bound to celebrate and assist in whatever activity--however repugnant--two random people publicly claim "brings joy and . . . forms a major bond" between them?

This was a direct reference to how someone can be against divorce but recognize it's benefits and so find the moral gray zone to celebrate it with baking a cake. Even if it's something you are morally against but you can find some good in it you seemed to say it was ok to bypass morals and go ahead with the job. So again where does one draw this line?

(Parenthetical: The gay panic defense is rooted in (dubious) psychology, not religious freedom.)

I was more going with the most people found this silly but it is still an accepted defense in the court system because it was accepted one time and became precedent. You think there aren't people who look at the outrage people have over the cases you quote and wonder how long before someone tries to use the same argument when they beat or kill a homosexual. "Well judge you see it's ok to take the action of denying service because of my faith and what it says in my bible, so there are also a lot of cases where my bible tells me to kill these people so it must be ok as well" Sounds stupid i know but tell me you haven't seen anything as stupid as this before in the american court system "twinkie defense" anyone? Again I'm not saying these will be successful defenses, but it only takes one in a really red state.

The differences being that a) they're nowhere near in a position to carry out their agendas, and b) many of their purported agendas weren't even possible even before the gay rights movement really picked up a head of steam back in the late 1980s.

Now here is a great point. 1) more and more people are getting behind these people because they see things as you do. The huge threat to religion so more and more people are listening to these people. 2) Do you know why these agendas weren't possible? They were already in place either legally or silently. You had a group of people scared or legally lock into silence. You lived in fear and this was not only supported but championed by people of faith. You talk about what's coming and what might be, but remember as much as you are scared and entire segment of people was kept there for ages and were you as willing to stand up for them during this time as you want people to be there for you now in your time of crisis? Again religion set the tone for exactly how supportive and understanding to be when pursuing an objective and how much forgiveness and understanding to give.

I'm not trying to be a smart-aleck, SS, but what common ground do we really have? You've defended forcing Mormons to support gay marriage in a way we find repugnant, by aiding and abetting these wedding ceremonies. You've defended the establishment of a legal framework that will allow the gay rights lobby to sue the Mormon Church out of existence--or at least into silence--as soon as it's fully in place.

You tell me you can control the mob. Experience tells me you are my friend, and that you are sincere. But observation tells me (and I say this with brotherly love) that you're nuts. You tell me that part of the problem is that one or two of my friends are meeting in a living room across town, trying to figure out how to obtain an atom bomb. You know what? Help me get the mob off my lawn, and then we'll go deal with those other morons if or when it looks like their schemes have a snowball's chance in Hades of getting off the ground.

Let me reiterate that I've enjoyed discussing this with you, respect you personally, and have no doubt of your personal integrity. But I'm no longer sure there's quite as much common ground between us as you'd like to think there is.

And i still think there's more common ground that you think lol. I support mormons seeing there has to be a line. An understanding that there are people who disagree and maybe society has to accept both. Just as the LDS church seeks balance and peace with other faiths that might actively work against them. I seek civil marriage and the church understanding that sadly the government has co-opted their institution and it really does have more than one definition in a civil arena. Now when it comes to any religious institution i never want to see their right to turn away people from seeking marriage in their place of worship. That is their home it's protected by law and i don't ever want to see that law challenged. After reading Reynolds i like the outcome if i read it right, there is a line between beliefs and taking action based on those beliefs. I have no issue with that and so really don't see how following that through would see the church silenced or shut down.

Again i wonder where you were when the mob was your mob. You can call me nuts, and really i can't argue, i enjoy being a little nuts, but when the mob was yours what did you do, how loud did you stand up and cry "THIS IS NOT RIGHT!" The mob that's in place now is looking back(wrongly) and see that old mob still there as fierce as ever and growing(again wrongly) they don't see the one or two guys they see the millions and millions of christians in general still fighting the old battle in the old way. Our common ground is seeing things are not like they were, they need to change in a way that both sides can sit back, show basic but somewhat (i hope) mutual respect and stop the war of heated and often inaccurate words. If this isn't ground i share it saddens me and I'm sorry i've read things so wrong.

I do understand your concerns, and i can see some of what you are saying for possible things to come. To me some of them sound just as silly as some of my worries do to you, but that doesn't lessen the impact it has on you and the fear and worry that comes with them. I do feel for you and i would hope to do things to try and remove that concern from you. I do just hope you realize i lived my entire life that way. the constant fear, the words of hate and dismissal, the things you hear and read now that's been my entire life and for many of the activists that are fighting now, that's been their life to. Listen to the things you and others say " well you might have a point but", "well morally maybe, but legally" ect ect, these are being said both ways because both groups are very much at the same point a place of constant role reversal that's not helping. i lived the life you fear because "your side" didn't stop and have the consideration you want now. Now one showed us the way to stand down and try to find the balance. I'm hoping really that's what you want and again where our common ground is?

[Dravin]

So again where does one draw this line?

That's to be determined by the individual whose morals are involved.

[Just_A_Guy]

It depends what he says to me. If he is telling out right lies . . .

But who determines whether they're lies?

. . . with the purpose of stirring up the pot . . .

Who defines "stirring the pot"?

. . . claiming to be a foremost expert that can't be disputed. . .

What if he claims to be a prophet of the Most High God?

The old example of shouting fire in a crowded place while knowing there isn't a fire comes to mind. If he makes a passing comment that others take out of context and blow out of proportion then no i don't hold him accountable.

Understandable. Follow up on the link I gave in my last post to Brandenberg. I think it's a reasonable middle-ground.

Here i would disagree, while the KKK may be made up of whites, it is it's self an organization with out legal protections under the non discrimination clause in any state that i know of.

You don't quit being part of a racial group just because you happen to be in an organization.

Using the Reynolds argument that you quoted she took an action with refusing to do the job which to me does stand with the ruling in that case. You can hold the values, but if taking action on those beliefs violate the law then you are accountable for it.

But to my knowledge Reynolds and its progeny functioned to restrain outrageous religious activity; they did not constrain activity which the religious adherent found reprehensible--except in some very limited situations vis a vis your obligations to the federal government (paying taxes, for example).

If religious freedom doesn't safeguard you from being compelled, at the point of a government gun, to participate in activity you believe to be wrong--then what does it mean?

I mean, in ancient Mesopotamian societies, you had to contribute your goods--and sometimes your daughters--to the state-sanctioned religion to facilitate a divine mating drama. It was required. In modern times--If the AMA or whoever decides that it is physiologically healthy to lose your virginity at age 15, and pushes through a new law requiring parents to send their children to a state-run brothel on their 15th birthday to ensure that that happens in a clinically safe manner--on what basis do you, as a Mormon, opt out? "That would never happen", you say. Well, why not? Wherever you are politically, there is clear and convincing evidence that the scientific process (and professional associations devoted to it) can be gamed for political reasons--whether it be tobacco smoke, the harmfulness (or lack thereof) of thimerosal, global warming . . .). So if/when that happens, where's your protection? It doesn't come from any constitutional guarantee of religious freedom or individual liberty, under New Mexico's new and wonderful interpretation of the First Amendment. So . . . what, then?

The examples with the Cake maker and holding to their faith evenly in this case is applied to business. If you hold the claim as did the bakers that they can't support this marriage because marriage is sacred and they will not support a mockery of marriage then yes i expect them to apply it evenly. The second you make an exception you open yourself to scrutiny.

I reckon the baker didn't think he was making an exception at all. He just defined his moral code differently than you did. Whose definitions govern?

This was a direct reference to how someone can be against divorce but recognize it's benefits . . .

Erm, my position was that you can be generally against it while recognizing that sometimes, for specific reasons, it may be justified. Apologies if I wasn't clear. You're not bypassing morals; you're saying that the fact that an exception applies makes it moral in this instance notwithstanding the general rule.

So again where does one draw this line?

More to the point--who gets to draw it?

Sounds stupid i know but tell me you haven't seen anything as stupid as this before in the american court system "twinkie defense" anyone? Again I'm not saying these will be successful defenses, but it only takes one in a really red state.

Oh, I've seen all kinds of tomfoolery; but that's why we have appellate courts and why SCOTUS, back in DC, holds right of review for all federal constitutional matters. If SCOTUS approves the Twinkie defense, or gay panic--yeah, we've got a problem.

Now here is a great point. 1) more and more people are getting behind these people because they see things as you do. The huge threat to religion so more and more people are listening to these people.

I don't follow. Can you clarify?

2) Do you know why these agendas weren't possible? They were already in place either legally or silently. You had a group of people scared or legally lock into silence. You lived in fear and this was not only supported but championed by people of faith.

Which agendas, specifically, are you talking about? The one where all gays are put to death? The one where gays can be beaten just for being gay and the law looks the other way? I would like to think that, to the extent conservative Christians allowed that to happen, they sincerely didn't understand exactly what was going on--and when they did, they by-and-large cooperated to fix it.

You talk about what's coming and what might be, but remember as much as you are scared and entire segment of people was kept there for ages and were you as willing to stand up for them during this time as you want people to be there for you now in your time of crisis? Again religion set the tone for exactly how supportive and understanding to be when pursuing an objective and how much forgiveness and understanding to give.

If you want to say "yeah, payback stinks, doesn't it?", that's fine. But be aware that it sort of undercuts your whole "we mean you no harm" schtick.

I support mormons seeing there has to be a line. An understanding that there are people who disagree and maybe society has to accept both. Just as the LDS church seeks balance and peace with other faiths that might actively work against them. I seek civil marriage and the church understanding that sadly the government has co-opted their institution and it really does have more than one definition in a civil arena. Now when it comes to any religious institution i never want to see their right to turn away people from seeking marriage in their place of worship. That is their home it's protected by law and i don't ever want to see that law challenged. After reading Reynolds i like the outcome if i read it right, there is a line between beliefs and taking action based on those beliefs. I have no issue with that and so really don't see how following that through would see the church silenced or shut down.

To the extent that your line ends my free exercise of religion once I step outside the meetinghouse doors, I disagree with it. And when we get together for that lunch in 2025, I'll be very interested to see if your line hasn't moved even further to the left. I think it will have.

Again i wonder where you were when the mob was your mob. You can call me nuts, and really i can't argue, i enjoy being a little nuts, but when the mob was yours what did you do, how loud did you stand up and cry "THIS IS NOT RIGHT!" The mob that's in place now is looking back(wrongly) and see that old mob still there as fierce as ever and growing(again wrongly) they don't see the one or two guys they see the millions and millions of christians in general still fighting the old battle in the old way.

To all intents and purposes in the United States and the First World generally, the "old mob" is a couple of irrelevant, cranky, toothless old geezers nattering on someone's front porch while the world passes them by. And I think your side knows it.

Our common ground is seeing things are not like they were, they need to change in a way that both sides can sit back, show basic but somewhat (i hope) mutual respect and stop the war of heated and often inaccurate words. If this isn't ground i share it saddens me and I'm sorry i've read things so wrong.

I'm happy to play nice in general. The trouble is, you now insist on being the sole arbiter of what "playing nice" means, and you demand the right to punish those who fail to meet your standard.

I'm not gonna lie: We had potential, SS; but your position on Elaine Huguenin threatens to be a real deal-killer. Here you have a woman whose sole offense was telling a lesbian couple that no, she didn't agree with what they were doing and no, she wouldn't facilitate it--even for money. The state's response was to enter a judgment confiscating her hard-earned money. If she doesn't comply, she goes to jail. If she resists imprisonment, she will be killed.

If you agree with that, then I must say--in sorrow, not in anger--that no. We have no common ground. Because what you say--though you say it very diplomatically--is that "your rights, JAG, are whatever I say they are; and my right not to be offended trumps all."

I do understand your concerns, and i can see some of what you are saying for possible things to come. To me some of them sound just as silly as some of my worries do to you, but that doesn't lessen the impact it has on you and the fear and worry that comes with them. I do feel for you and i would hope to do things to try and remove that concern from you. I do just hope you realize i lived my entire life that way. the constant fear, the words of hate and dismissal, the things you hear and read now that's been my entire life and for many of the activists that are fighting now, that's been their life to.

Hate and fear and dismissal, we can deal with--we're Mormons; and for those of us who grew up outside of Utah we've probably taken our dose of it in our time.

What we haven't had to deal with, was a state or federal government that told us what we could or couldn't say or what kinds of sin we had to facilitate regardless of our personal feelings or our church doctrine.

i lived the life you fear because "your side" didn't stop and have the consideration you want now.

SS, I've read a great deal of your posts and have thought a lot about your situation over the past couple of years of our correspondence. I know that, on a personal level, you've been to hell and back; and I don't discount it. Please understand that what I'm about to say, I do not say lightly: You have lived virtually nothing of the life I fear.

You know why the United States of America, at its worst, has never done to its people what the Nazis did, or what Mao did (Did you know Mao subscribed to the ancient Chinese belief that an emperor who deflowered a thousand virgins would become immortal-and he did his best to attain that goal?), or what Stalin did, or what the Romans, Assyrians, or Sumerians did? It's not because we've evolved to become intrinsically better. It's not because our science is better. It's not because our philosophy is better. It's because we've set up a system where no one individual or group can become powerful enough to get away with that kind of crap.

The strength of the federal system is that it wasn't--couldn't be--a winner-take-all scenario. In America--unlike the Soviet Union--there was no one power that could tell you what not to say, or how to worship, or where you could or couldn't work. Now--thanks in large part, though not entirely, to the gay rights movement--there are certain things I can't say, certain places and days in which my form of worship must not enter, and certain lines of work I'm not allowed to try my hand at, unless I toe the party line.

Once you create a government where somebody theoretically can do something, it's only a matter of time until someone rises to power who will do it--on a scale far beyond anything that anyone ever imagined. Old Babylonians, Assyrians, Romans, Communist Russia and China, 1930s Germany--Different actors; same script.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

Late to the party here. I'll just say that the Church has changed it's stance very little. It still teaches that homosexual relations are sinful. That marriage should only be between a man and a woman and that children should be raised in a home with a mother and father if at all possible. The only thing that's changed that I can see is the church leaders saying that same sex attraction isn't a sin. Only acting on those feelings are sinful. Same for heterosexual attractions outside of marriage. Being attracted to the opposite sex isn't sinful but having sex with someone you're not married to is.

So I really don't get what all these bridges are that the Youngs and others are supposedly building. The Church has NEVER taught that we should kill, belittle or bully gay people. Some individual church members may have taken business into their own hands and done that, ( as in gone too far in their effervescent efforts on Prop 8), but I can safely say that the prophet never told anyone to shout down gays who oppose Prop 8 or beat them to a pulp. I honestly don't know what church members did during that time in CA that was so offensive apart from standing up for straight marriage. I don't know why so much offense was taken and why the LDS Church took the lion's share of blame for any wrong-doing against gays during that time. Why, really, are Mormons so negatively linked with gay bashing? I just don't see it happening. I never have. I really don't see that the Church has much to apologize for or that so many bridges are in need of repair.

As far as families disowning their gay children, this is something that has never ever been encouraged by church leaders. So again the church isn't to blame if that happened. If parents did that, it was their ineffective way of handling difficult information about their kids.

Also, this "evolving" statement is baffling to me. How will the church ever change in regards to gay marriage? To condone it would essentially destroy the most fundamental doctrines of the church and the church would cease to even exist. This was confirmed to me in the temple this week. It would completely change the temple ceremony, too.

As for any further "softening" that some see the church needs to do, how, within the parameters of our doctrines do we soften up any more than we have without losing the strength of our beliefs? We are already taught to love all of God's children. What more do we need to do?

Edited September 23, 2013 by carlimac

[Soulsearcher]

But who determines whether they're lies?

I think being it was well documented that homosexuals ended up in concentration camps and died with other groups would clearly show that Lively's claims that it was a homosexual plot is a clear lie. When most every fact goes against something some one is saying it can be pretty clear they are telling a lie. as for stirring the pot, going in with inflammatory untrue information aimed as stirring up hate in an already volatile situation would seem to be a good example of stirring up the pot. Now if this is considered ok to the majority i suggest we no longer ban anti's on this site. Being their goal and methods are identical we shouldn't limit their free speech should we? Even if this is an LDS site we really have no issue with people presenting their version of the truth( which tends to be very clearly not based in fact or well researched) trying to undercut and belittle people while trying to cause contention right?

Now if a prophet of god was saying these things an completely ignoring fact for the purpose of doing nothing but creating a harmful and hate filled environment for any class of people yes i would hope they could be as accountable as anyone else. If you think you'd support the prophet creating an environment of hate and violence then that i think would be where i think i lose faith in you, much like you do with me on the photographer.

You don't quit being part of a racial group just because you happen to be in an organization.

Agreed they are still white, but you didn't prove they've been turned away because they were white, you clearly said they were part of an unprotected organization. If you had said that he only turned them away because of their race then yes i'd have an issue with it as i said. I know it's distasteful, but there are reasons for these types of laws, and possibly the time for them has run it's course, but the laws are still on the books. As people have said to me numerous times, maybe it's time to quit crying and making a scene and start trying to change the laws. that being said i don't think you'd get the biggest push back from gays if you tried.

I'll be honest, as i've said in the past I'm not a huge fan of these laws. The reason i support the idea of them is the carry over to housing and employment issues. I personally still live in a place that can fire me or kick me out of my home because i'm gay. Now some might think great, this is fine and there's nothing wrong with it because it's still religous freedom if they kick me out on the street or fire me leaving me no means to support myself. A wedding cake might not be the begin all or end all, but losing employment or shelter becomes a bigger issue. So as much as i dislike holding a gun to anyone, like it or not in some cases the gun is in the other hand pointing at the other person and those laws are all that's keeping the trigger from being pulled. Might be a huge difference to you and i know they aren't directly related but sometimes it's not something silly like a cake or a photo and sometimes it might not be as easy as just crossing the street for something important because one person won't sell it. It's a conflict for me.

I don't follow. Can you clarify?

You had said the people promoting agendas that concern me don't have the following, but they are gaining. The amount of right wing Christians that are cheering russians not laws on homosexuals has been staggering for me. reading some of the feed back or hearing it on tv is insane. They want it in the US. The louder the talk about religion getting erased grows, the more and more power these types of people get.

Which agendas, specifically, are you talking about? The one where all gays are put to death? The one where gays can be beaten just for being gay and the law looks the other way? I would like to think that, to the extent conservative Christians allowed that to happen, they sincerely didn't understand exactly what was going on--and when they did, they by-and-large cooperated to fix it.

The main agenda i'm worried about now is getting gays to shut up and go back in the closet. They want us to disappear back to the fringe again and just roll over and accept things the way they used to be and let religion set the tone again. There are the extremes of putting gays to death and so on but it's not the extremes i'm worried about. I'm scared of having to hide again, to be told i have to be ashamed and have to cower and hide again. If mainstream christians didn't know it's because they didn't want to, it was always there and they played the part by repeating the words and phrases, so if they didn't know they were harming people by marginalizing them, can they really complain no one cares if they are marginalized now? They only sought to fix it after they were called out and someone decided to make a big fight out of it. I'm not saying any of this is right, or any of the neglect was intentional. I'm not saying anyone set out with evil or hurtful intent, but it was done and sadly it's being done again by the very people who should have learned from their own experiences.

I don't want it to be a matter of payback but that's what it's become and i don't think people are any more aware of it that the churches were 50 years ago. A goal is set but sometimes it glosses over the more personal impact along the way and i wish it was different and i do try my part to change it, but for the time being my voice and the voices of those like me are a bit drowned out, just like the voices of the few seeking change on your side in the past were for a long time.

The old mob i speak of is the churches of past years. The ones who didn't treat gays like people, who didn't love the sinner very well or draw the line that yes it's a sin but we are still people. Things have changed so much and i really do keep trying to praise the LDS church for how far it's come. As an organization i am amazed at it's growth and energy put into trying to send such a strong message and trying to get past some of the way things were done in the past. Now it's the few, but there hasn't been enough time for my group to see the mob is gone and now they've formed their mob. People are reacting before stopping and looking and thinking and it happened before, it's happening now and it will keep happening in a cycle and i don't know how to stop it as much as i might want to.

We talk about where your rights end but i do ask where mine end. For your rights to not end at the meeting house doors, mine have to end at the door to my home. Business's don't have to hire me, sell to me, i can be denied a home, i am denied marriage and security with a partner of my choice, but you keep your full rights with you every step. Is there a way we both have rights beyond a door way or must it always be on or the other? It may seem silly, but stop and think if you would. Take your arguments to a gay forum or liberal forum and make your case. Chances are you might get laughed at or dismissed and told really your rights aren't all that important because they don't see the value or importance of them. If each side sees no value in what the other seeks and can't find a middle ground then will any of this end?

I don't have the right answers. You say i haven't lived the life you fear. Maybe your right? I couldn't live my life for 30 years. For the first 20 if i'd lived in the States i could have been arrested in places for just being intimate with a person of my choosing. The government told me who i could form a life long bond with. Employment and housing guidelines set by the government and the people allowed me to know i might never be safe in a place for any period of time. In some places just going to a gathering place to meet others like myself could lead to arrest. Displays of affection in public could also lead to arrest or fines. Even in the privacy of my own home i could be arrested if it was suspected i was being intimate with another man. As a class of person i had no protection. That was all by the government that you say doesn't have enough power. WE couldn't speak, we couldn't be ourselves, we couldn't act. We had to hide who and what we were from the public and the government. Is this not close to what you are scared of? Maybe it's not as drastic as what you are afraid of, but it's got to be close.

The government could do all those things and it's changed. I agree i have fear that things could get worse for people of faith and i hope to do what i can to stop it, but as a cycle if it does come we've seen it can change. It can get better with enough power behind it, but i think, like the gay rights movement, it might work better if you get more people on your side and again i go back to what the pope just said. If you want to get the people back on your side, you don't have to back down, but change the focus, show the compassion rather that the laser focus. The LDS church has started this, now if the other faiths can maybe we can stop things before they go too far.

One other thing i've noticed. A lot of the time you comment on me apart from the group. I understand why, but remember I'm a part of the group. You show the defeatist attitude and make me seem like I'm such a small part and i am, but instead of encouraging me it seems like you dismiss me off into nothingness when it's people like me you actually might need more of. I am one, but there are many more like me who would love to help, but we do tend to be laughed at or dismissed by the people we'd like to help. Before me and my boyfriend broke up we were talking about Russia. and i was making the case for why we should care. I was passionate about educating people and letting them know exactly what the laws said and the gaps that they didn't say. Education of the truth was the key. His response was, it's all the way over there and doesn't impact us, no one needs to hear about it the gays over there can deal with it themselves. Right now sadly you are being dismissed as all the way over there by people who would like to help, maybe instead if picking the small differences it might be time to grasp to the larger bonds and hopes. Complete agreement isn't needed so much as common hope for a somewhat similar outcome. Heck if the LDS could join with the catholics to fight gay marriage, don't you think Christians could join with the gays that actually want to help them because they believe in them?

[Just_A_Guy]

Now if a prophet of god was saying these things an completely ignoring fact for the purpose of doing nothing but creating a harmful and hate filled environment for any class of people yes i would hope they could be as accountable as anyone else. If you think you'd support the prophet creating an environment of hate and violence then that i think would be where i think i lose faith in you, much like you do with me on the photographer.

There you go again, Soulsearcher. Who defines "harmful"? Who defines "hate"?

You control the definitions, so you control the law--and therefore, me.

Agreed they are still white, but you didn't prove they've been turned away because they were white, you clearly said they were part of an unprotected organization.

To clarify: Under US nondiscrimination legislation, it's not that you can discriminate against one race but not another. You don't discriminate on race--period. Technically, refusing to hire someone because he's white (or a crime against someone because he's white) is also illegal discrimination; it just isn't prosecuted very much at present because a) it's admittedly more rare, and b) both our President and his Attorney General are black, and honestly--they grew up with affirmative action; and I don't think they see a problem with it.

As for my hypo: the would-be photographer can't discriminate on the Klansmen's race--but she can refuse to handle the job because anticipates that the activity she will be asked to document is morally reprehensible generally; and especially so to herself as a black person.

Similarly--Huguenin couldn't (and, as far as I know, didn't) discriminate based on the prospective clients' sexual orientation. She discriminated because she anticipated that the activity she would be asked to document was morally reprehensible generally; and especially so to herself as a conservative Christian.

Huguenin didn't refuse to handle a family portrait that included a gay person. She didn't refuse to shoot a graduation shoot for a gay person. She didn't refuse to cover a bar mitzva for a gay person. She refused to cover a specific kind of activity. Presumably she would also have refused to cover a wedding between two straight males.

I know it's distasteful, but there are reasons for these types of laws, and possibly the time for them has run it's course, but the laws are still on the books. As people have said to me numerous times, maybe it's time to quit crying and making a scene and start trying to change the laws.

Some progress is actually being made on that, actually--for example, the recent SCOTUS decision re Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. But it's slow going. Professional victimhood is big business.

that being said i don't think you'd get the biggest push back from gays if you tried.

I think the left generally would howl bloody murder--as they did with the Shelby County v. Holder decision. And yeah, I think gays would hop right onto that bandwagon. (I'd love to be proven wrong, though!)

The reason i support the idea of them is the carry over to housing and employment issues. I personally still live in a place that can fire me or kick me out of my home because i'm gay. Now some might think great, this is fine and there's nothing wrong with it because it's still religous freedom if they kick me out on the street or fire me leaving me no means to support myself. A wedding cake might not be the begin all or end all, but losing employment or shelter becomes a bigger issue.

Quite understandable. And like you, I'm not fond of them--but I think they're necessary to the degree that other options are not readily available. But once there's a critical mass of people willing to service a minority market, I think such legislation should be removed. The hard part is figuring out when you've reached "critical mass", and whether you differentiate by service (example: we get to the point where there's not really a housing crunch for gays, but we still have lots of restaurants who won't serve gays--do we let the legislation sunset, renew it as-is, or make different laws for different sectors of the economy?)

So as much as i dislike holding a gun to anyone, like it or not in some cases the gun is in the other hand pointing at the other person and those laws are all that's keeping the trigger from being pulled.

Yeah; but pointing a gun at a person is a terrible thing; and I don't think a freakin' wedding cake or bunch of pretty pictures justifies it. So what do we do--impose legislation but only for basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) while letting the "invisible hand" govern the rest of the economy? Seems messy, from a statutory drafting point of view; but maybe that's where we're going to have to go.

You had said the people promoting agendas that concern me don't have the following, but they are gaining. The amount of right wing Christians that are cheering russians not laws on homosexuals has been staggering for me. reading some of the feed back or hearing it on tv is insane. They want it in the US. The louder the talk about religion getting erased grows, the more and more power these types of people get.

Making it all the more important to get some safeguards for religion built in, immediately. But I'm reasonably confident it won't happen. I hang out on a lot of libertarian blogs, some pretty influential, and nearly all supporting gay marriage. And the general consensus whenever this kind of thing gets floated seems to be "to heck with 'em. We're winning, and in another five decades they either fall into line or cease to exist."

Don't you remember when Dallin Oaks noted that the backlash against the Church after Prop 8 had long-term ramifications for religious freedom, and Keith Olbermann promptly proclaimed him the "worst person in the world", and the gay-rights community--including many Mormons--piled on?

I do.

I'm scared of having to hide again, to be told i have to be ashamed and have to cower and hide again.

I'm trying to think of a way to put this tactfully, and I can't think of one, so please just accept that I'm not trying to be hurtful or draw unkind comparisons--but this is the best way I can put it:

I deal with victims of spousal abuse, a lot. They live in mortal fear of their abusers. Their fears are well-founded; but it also leads them to make all kinds of irrational choices well after the danger is actually over.

With all due respect, I think your situation is analogous.

I don't want it to be a matter of payback but that's what it's become and i don't think people are any more aware of it that the churches were 50 years ago. A goal is set but sometimes it glosses over the more personal impact along the way and i wish it was different and i do try my part to change it, but for the time being my voice and the voices of those like me are a bit drowned out, just like the voices of the few seeking change on your side in the past were for a long time.

Don't think I don't appreciate it. I do. I hope you succeed. But I think your compatriots outside of Mormonism are mostly out for blood; and I think your compatriots inside Mormonism are hoping the secularists win because they want to see Mormonism change and are willing to sic the Feds on their own church if that's what it takes.

I don't see that changing, and I don't see the tide of public opinion reversing.

We talk about where your rights end but i do ask where mine end. For your rights to not end at the meeting house doors, mine have to end at the door to my home. Business's don't have to hire me, sell to me,

So can I. Remember, I grew up as a Mormon outside of Utah, in a heavily Protestant town in central California. I knew what those Protestants thought of me, because I went to school with their kids. But, you know what I found out? Pretty much all of the grocers, restauranteurs, and shopkeepers figured out that my money was as good as anyone else's, and didn't bother to ask what religion I was.

. . . i can be denied a home, . . .

Under federal mortgage guidelines, I don't believe you can. Under landlord-tenant law? Sure . . . but so can I. It's just that in my case, "I can't rent to you--you're a Mormon" becomes "I can't rent to you--someone else just gave me a month's rent to hold it for them".

It's interesting to me that the same political wing that argues immigration restriction is stupid because it drives immigration underground and only exacerbates the problem it's supposed to address, somehow think that anti-discrimination law will cure the problems it's supposed to address. I'm willing to give it a whirl, but if sixty years of the Civil Rights Act--plus every legal mechanism that's been deployed against the Klan, plus everything that's been done to overtly racist institutions like Bob Jones University--hasn't eradicated racism; then I think we should keep a healthy sense of perspective about what fair housing legislation will and won't accomplish.

i am denied marriage and security with a partner of my choice, but you keep your full rights with you every step.

Marriage ≠ security. And honestly, I wouldn't get worked up if state-sanctioned marriage was wholly done away with. I have a civil marriage, because the Church wanted me to get one. It doesn't define my relationship. It doesn't make my wife and I love each other any more. Sure, it probably gives me some tax and social security bennies--but honestly, I don't think I should be getting them just because I happen to be married; and I'd willingly (if painfully) give them up.

Is there a way we both have rights beyond a door way or must it always be on or the other? It may seem silly, but stop and think if you would. Take your arguments to a gay forum or liberal forum and make your case. Chances are you might get laughed at or dismissed and told really your rights aren't all that important because they don't see the value or importance of them. If each side sees no value in what the other seeks and can't find a middle ground then will any of this end?

What is my case, in your view? And aren't you kind of proving my point?

I don't have the right answers. You say i haven't lived the life you fear. Maybe your right? I couldn't live my life for 30 years. For the first 20 if i'd lived in the States i could have been . . . That was all by the government that you say doesn't have enough power.

Wait--what? My position is that government has too much power.

WE couldn't speak, we couldn't be ourselves, we couldn't act. We had to hide who and what we were from the public and the government. Is this not close to what you are scared of? Maybe it's not as drastic as what you are afraid of, but it's got to be close.

The government could do all those things and it's changed.

Sure, but we've (all) learned the wrong lesson. Rather than say "wait a minute--what the flip are we doing, setting up a government that can ruin someone's life like that? Let's pare it down", we're saying "hey, that's pretty cool--let's soup this thing up, and let me be in charge for a while!"

If you want to get the people back on your side, you don't have to back down, but change the focus, show the compassion rather that the laser focus. The LDS church has started this, now if the other faiths can maybe we can stop things before they go too far.

SS, as long as non-celibate gays are excluded from Mormon baptism and temples, I don't think gays will flock to our side. At best, railing accusations will be reduced to a scoff and a change of subject. People don't like to be told they're sinning. And your side is increasingly coming to believe that they don't have to hear it any more. So they'll continue their attempts to muzzle the opposition. It's not because your side of the aisle is morally inferior; it's because that's human nature.

One other thing i've noticed. A lot of the time you comment on me apart from the group. I understand why, but remember I'm a part of the group. You show the defeatist attitude and make me seem like I'm such a small part and i am, but instead of encouraging me it seems like you dismiss me off into nothingness when it's people like me you actually might need more of. I am one, but there are many more like me who would love to help, but we do tend to be laughed at or dismissed by the people we'd like to help.

I appreciate that. I guess my two immediate reactions are:

1) Bring 'em here, and let's talk to 'em, and we'll try to behave ourselves. Who knows? Maybe we'll solve the world's problems.

2) Honestly, if their idea of "help" is that we submit long-term to the kind of treatment Elaine Huguenin is getting, then I'm not sure I really want that kind of help. Fair housing? Sure. Civil unions? Great. Nondiscrimination in the commercial sphere generally? OK. But I really don't think it's asking too much for me to insist that I not be compelled to host, cater, photograph, or solemnize a same-sex wedding; and if you (and people like you) aren't willing to accept that from the get-go, then I don't think discussions will be productive.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

I watched the video last night and found Steve Young's talk very entertaining and with some very good points. But interestingly, he only mentioned anything at all about LGBT's in the very last phrase of his 20 min. talk. It was very general and vague. Something to do with having charity for LGBTs.

Dh started to watch his wife's talk. I didn't but from what I gather, it seems as if Steve Young is being taken along for this ride by his wife, kinda just for show. Maybe just because he is a name to open doors. I believe he has genuine compassion for them because he's a genuinely nice guy. But I don't get the feeling he is out there campaigning for the church leaders to change anything. It's his wife who is in the driver's seat with this effort.