Gotcha. You can’t be blamed for any of your actions, because you don’t want to do them, but you’re commanded by god…
If you support something, you’re liable for your own actions in supporting it, regardless of liking it or not. If you support keeping something from being legal, then you’re basically saying you think it should be illegal, with the aforementioned penalties.
If you’re not willing to have people harassed, sent to jail, and threatened with harm/death for non-compliance, then don’t get involved.
And then, your saying you don’t agree with it… that’s silly for something that’s supposed to be based on faith. If you don’t agree with the words of the prophet, then you don’t believe in the religion. Take it 100%, it’s all divinely inspired and you should take it as your own, or it’s all horseshit made up by some asshole who wanted a harem. Can’t have it both ways.
This is news to me too, and it sounds appalling. What States make a solemn ceremony between the same sex illegal, and what is the severity of the penalty? It seems to me that it would be difficult to enforce. I mean, I hear about “commitment ceremonies” all the time - some friends of mine had one. Are they illegal some places too? I don’t get it.
White Night: You are smoking something, man. Jumping to waaaay too many conclusions. I would like some evidence that Mormons advocate violence/harm/death against gay people. They are not agreeing with SSM, (an opinion I do not share, and I am not a Mormon, by the way.) Not agreeing with SSM does not equate encouraging violence against gay people. Please give some evidence to us that it does, or stop smoking whatever it is you are smoking!
I didn’t say that I’m not responsible for my own actions. Stop making straw men and assigning me to believe in them.
My opinion is, SSM should be not legally recognized, but not illegal either (in the sense of throwing people in jail for practicing it).
I’m regretting getting involved, believe me.
(Cussing deleted by Flinx)
Gee, sometimes I wish everything were so black and white as you paint things. I believe in the Proclamation on the Family. The Proclamation doesn’t mention jailing homosexuals, however, so I feel free to believe what I want on that issue.
As a Mormon, I am allowed to have my own opinions as well. Should my opinions be wrong, I will change them. And yes, < gasp > , one can even disagree with something the prophets say and still be LDS.
I’m not a fundie who believes in 100% infallibility of all statements made by all church leaders at all times. Prophets are fallible and human. “A prophet is only a prophet when he is speaking as such.” (paraphrasing Joseph Smith). Even leaders of the LDS church are allowed to disagree with each other, have their own private beliefs, etc.
So the penalty in many cases is not severe, but there are penalties nonetheless. The most troubling one in Wisconsin is 765.30(1)(a). So when a state legalizes SSM and a couple from Wisconsin goes to that state to marry then returns to Wisconsin, they are potentially subject to two years of incarceration. While it’s unlikely a judge would sentence a couple to that harsh of a sentence, it’s still a possibility and a definite disincentive for couples to attempt to assert their Constitutional rights in this state. As for enforcement, the law provides for the clerk of courts or any other interested party to advise law enforcement of the violation. As long as the people participating in the commitment ceremony don’t seek to file marriage licenses, that shouldn’t trigger any criminal sanctions.
There is a difference between religious ceremonies and civil ceremonies. Gay couples have religious commitment services all the time, but they are not legally recognized by the state they’re in (except for a few municipalities here and there, and even then only as a “domestic partnership”). If they went to the courthouse to obtain a marriage license, a clerk could not issue them one (especially in those states that have passed DoMA-like laws), so, in essence, if they did, they would be performing an illegal act, and Otto quoted some penalties above.
If enough people lobbies and voted, wouldn’t the law change?
And if so, how Would families be threatened? Can you explain exactly?
Personally, I think The Family is any people related to each other living together.
Penny, please feel free to check out the many other Great Debate threads that address these very issues - “Domestic Partnerships,” “Gay Marriages/Parenting,” “Homosexual ‘Rights?’,” and several others. All has been explained there.
No, you just said you wouldn’t be doing this if you didn’t believe in the religion, because you don’t believe SSM is a bad enough to warrant being illegal. Right?
So, religion is based on faith, but you don’t really have to have faith in everything, just some parts, and you’re still in good standing?
Sounds kind of convenient.
I would suggets that if you don’t believe 100% of what was handed down, supposedly directly from god, and guided by his will, then you’re not really a believer. Either god was wrong, people directly empowered by god were wrong, or it’s al 100% correct. I don’t see how a believer can say otherwise and expect to not be labelled a hypocrit.
So, there’s a derogatory term for those who truly believe. How convenient. It would be a real hassle for you to actually live your life based on the rules in the books you profess to believe in.
And there’s a big difference between “all church leaders at all times.” and “God, as quoted in by his prophets”. The bible is supposedly to be divinely inspired. This should mean that god is fairly happy with the translations. If so, I would imagine god would be a little happier with you if you actually followed the rules, as written, not as convenient.
What, don’t like getting flamed because your false sincerity isn’t believable?
Tolerance would be in saying that while you don’t agree with the act, you would take no action (voting against legalization) to harm those who perform the act.
Tolerance isn’t “Well, you’re scum, but you’re not worth my active time to insult or harrass, so I’ll only do it when easy, like in an impersonal vote.”
And I still have trouble in understanding how you want to vote against allowing people to do as they wish with their bodies, but expect to avoid taking away someone’s rights.
That looks like a bit of a contradiction to me. You state that you are against SSM, because the prophet of the LDS specifically asked members to oppose it, then you say that the LDS is not responsible for your words.
You’re a mess of contradiction, and you’ve shown that your tolerance stems mainly from lazyness, in that you still oppose SSM, preaching vehemently against it in fact, yet can be motivated to do nothing more than perhaps vote against it. And this again comes down to you not being at all tolerant, just preferring to have others (legal system and the force to back it up) do your dirty work for you.
You’ve said
“I’m tolerant”
“The LDS is not against SSM”
“I’m against SSM because of the LDS”
“The LDS is against SSM”
“I don’t want to take away anyone’s free agency”
“I’d vote against SSM”
“I not trying to take away anyone’s rights”
“I’m trying to follow the prophet”
“I am allowed to have my own opinions as well”
“I will not go against the prophet”
“Prophets are fallible and human”
That, is a mess of contradictions. The prophet can be wrong, but you will always blindly follow, regardless of the fact that the LDS didn’t ask you to do so, at the same time as the prophet of the LDS asked you to, and you won’t go against the prophet, and you’re doing so based on your own opinions, yet following the prophet.
Um, yeah. And you expect us to believe this?
I don’t need a straw man argument, you haven’t given me anything I can’t disprove by simply quoting your own words, in context.
Quote me out of context all you want, WhiteNight. I’m abandoning this thread out of sheer disgust for the way you are twisting my words. This will be my last post to you. I won’t be responding to you further.
Flinx, I don’t see how I could have quoted you more in context. It’s your own words that betray your complete lack of understanding.
You obviously wanted to be commended for your decision to not act upon your view, as if it was some great moral strength, not laziness. Well, tough. All I can say is that I hope you feel how it is to be in the oppressed minority someday, and to have some jerk want you to be thankful for his lack of oppression. That even while he feels that you’re scum on the bottom of his shoe, he’s too lazy to actually oppress you, so he wants to be praised for this, like it’s moral virtue.
Maybe in a few years you’ll grow out of the particular brand of stupidity you call the LDS. It couldn’t help but make you a nicer person, and you might recognize the complete lies you’ve been spouting for what they are. I don’t hold out much hope for this, but hey, you never know. Even you could turn out to not be a complete jerk. Maybe.
Will someone please tell WhiteNight that I know all about what it means to be an oppressed minority, as I’m “gay” myself? Geez, some people. Oh, and tell him I’m still not talking to him. Hmph!
[rant]
And before anyone says, “Yeah, but you’ve got a girlfriend and are attracted to her, so therefore you aren’t 100% gay,” I’ll say, you’re right. I’m not 100% “gay” and I love my girlfriend. But I’ve struggled with same-sex attraction most of my life, so I get to wear the pink triangle anyway.
The trouble with coming onto a message board in the middle of someone else’s conversation, without lurking first for a week or two is, you don’t know the context of what’s being talked about and are prone to make erroneous assumptions. This may or may not apply to WhiteNight–I don’t know–but it seems to me as if he may have just found the website and barged into this thread, attacking me as a “sociopathic freak” without even bothering to find out what I was talking about or where I was coming from. He apparently didn’t know my history, my personality, or anything about me, but felt free to call me a “freak” because of my religious beliefs, which he doesn’t understand at all anyway.
This thread was an attempt to mend the rift between anyone I may have offended in other threads on this subject, which WhiteNight may or may not have read. I didn’t create this thread to say, “I’m wonderful because I tolerate gays!” If I wanted people’s approval, why would I have disagreed with SingleDad when he praised me for being persuaded by a “superior argument”? Shouldn’t I just have said, “Gee, thanks, I’m wonderful, aren’t I?” to him if I was seeking praise? My purpose in this thread was to apologize for being forceful in other threads on the subject of SSM.
I reserve the right to vote my conscience. If certain people are going to say I’m being forceful by voting, then I will accuse them of being just as forceful by casting their votes.
Flinx, I understand your frustration. Not that I am “on your side” altogether, (I am not Mormon, and I have no problem with SSM.) However, I have not been impressed with White Night’s insults, and his melodramic leaping to conclusions, ranting, etc.
One thing I am curious about with this SSM thing. And I’m sure it’s been asked before… As I previously mentioned, I am not against it - no skin off my nose who gets married - so why would I care? But, in my view (as an “outsider”) the thing that would seem to be the “Biggie” would not necessarily be the actual marriage ceremony, but the rights and benefits couples get by being married. (Health Insurance, taxes, and misc. other things.)
If a law were passed that gave gay couples these benefits, equally and identically to the ones married hetero couples get, how far would that go to satisfying the gay population in this issue? (I think that CA has passed something like this, but I get easily confused…) To me, I think it would be a BIG thing - to get all those “perks” that married couples do. I have some friends who have been together for like 20 years, they share a house, and are totally committed to each other, and it just seems wrong that in the eyes of the law, they are just “roomates”. I would think that having these legal benefits would make them very happy indeed, whether or not they actually had a “legal” marriage ceremony. (They could have a commitment ceremony, after all, and have a big party!)
Gee, here I thought the pink triangle was a symbol of gay pride, not gay self-loathing.
And before you start, yes I am well aware of the origin of the Rosawinkel as a symbol of the oppression of homosexuals by the Nazis, and I realize you’re really into your own oppression just now. For those who don’t know the story, when the Nazis came to power, among their first official acts were the outlawing of abortion and the expansion of paragraph 175, the law against male homosexual acts to include same-sex touching and even homosexual thoughts and fantasies (criminalizing abortion and homosexuality, now who in present-day America does that sound like?). Violators were sent to prison, and then to labor camps where they were made to wear the pink triangle, as the Jews were made to wear the yellow star. After the camps were liberated, homosexual prisoners were left in the camps or sent back to prison, because paragraph 175, the law used to send them there, was pre-Nazi and therefore “legitimate.” Compensation for these men was not granted by the German government until 1982, 30 years after other prisoners received it. The pink triangle became a symbol of gay pride in the face of oppression in the early 1970s.
So no, Flinx, I don’t think you get to wear the pink triangle after all, unless you mean to identify yourself as a capo (a tool of the oppressor).
I think Otto’s comment about self loathing fits here.
It doesn’t matter to me why you don’t support gay rights, or that you yourself are gay. Totally irrelevent. As is my gender attraction.
If you don’t support gay rights, and would go so far as to oppose them, then you’re a jerk imho.
If you don’t actively oppose them, just in easy ways, like voting against gay rights, then you’re merely a lazy jerk.
The hypocrisy comes in when you say that you’ve stopped your anti-gay talk, yet would still support it. And when you say that you’re allowed to be free thinking, but that you’re being forced into this stance by your religion.
If you don’t oppose gay rights, then don’t oppose them in any way. If you do oppose gay rights, then decide if you think it’s because gays are an abomination, or because your religion told you to. If it’s the latter, they obviously don’t like free thinkers.
I think this thread provided all the context needed. Your first post and fourth posts, which were written when I saw the thread, provided enough hypocrisy. I wasn’t replying to your previous threads, merely to what you said in this one.
Doesn’t. I did ‘barge’ into the thread, if you count posting to a new thread barging… I didn’t realize I needed a license.
Other than that, I’ve been here longer than you, not that it matters. A first poster could recognize hypocritical statements.
Actually, I think it’s you who don’t understand your religious beliefs. You keep accusing me of quoting you out of context, no matter how much I provide, so I won’t quote, but I will remind you that you claimed in seprate posts that 1) you are encouraged to form your own opinions and 2) that your stance on these issues is dictated by the church. That statements conflict. I realize religion isn’t based on logic, but I think something that glaring should be obvious.
And as I said, you background is completely irrelevant to me. I really don’t care about you, or what you’re like.
I wouldn’t ask you to vote against you conscience, but I will call you a hypocritical liar if you say you’re tolerant of gays, but your vote indicates otherwise.
Perhaps it’s because my intention was not to impress. Until this MB gets a karma system like Slashdot, and starts paying $$ to popular posters, I don’t care who likes what I have to say. But I will speak my mind truthfully, and say what I feel.
If Flinx doesn’t like attacks, he shouldn’t be hypocritical, throwing around blanket judgements on people based on their lifestyle.
(His statement about god’s wrath based in part of homosexual behaviour indicated that he pretty well though gays are/were damned completely.)
Before you post again, why not try to reconcile some of those conflicting quotes that I mentioned. If you can do that, show me. Explain yourself. Your words are what represents you, not your supposed semi-gay feelings, or a pink triangle pin. Until your words make sense, don’t expect a lot of respect.
Okay, much as I hate to do this, I’m going to swallow my pride and admit that I am a hypocrite. I’m not only inactive in the LDS church, I haven’t studied LDS doctrines as well as I should have for a long time. I’m no authority on what the LDS church teaches.
Here is a web article that explains the LDS teachings on same-sex attraction MUCH better than I ever could:
I apologize for being pig-headed and prideful. I of all people have no right to be teaching LDS doctrine, so I will refrain from doing so until/unless I am worthy to teach. Yes, WhiteNight, you’re correct when you say I’m confused and contradictory. That’s what happens when you’re double-minded and hypocritical.
(I will say one thing, though: I’ve been a reg on this board for several years, dating back to the time when it was on AOL, not just since this year. I changed names. But you couldn’t possibly have known that if you’re new. Like you said, it doesn’t matter how long someone’s been here anyway.)
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Flinx, whether I agree with WhiteNight or not is irrelevant - you have constantly and consistenly stated this over and over. No one expects you to be an authority, and no one expects you to teach us all LDS doctrine. You have always, and can only, speak from your own personal experience.
Personally, I don’t find you hypocritical for claiming to be gay-supportive but still voting against SSM’s; I disagree, of course, but I don’t think that’s particularly hypocritical, because I understand your religious beliefs and background, and that has to be taken into account when thinking about your personality.
WhiteNight’s got some good points, but I think he’s being hypercritical of you.
