Okay, ya gotta count me also!
Flinx, I would agree that I’m being hypercritical of you.
I think it’s warranted in cases where people are making decisions that have large reprocussions on someone else, or worse, a group, and they don’t have really good, well thought-out reasons. You were (are?) ready to comdemn a whole group for actions you admit you don’t think are all that bad, and why? On the say-so of a prophet you don’t sound like you really agree with…
To me, you should be hypercritical of someone saying something like that. If your reasons can’t stand up to intense scrutiny, they’re probably misguided.
And as to why I slammed you? It’s a thing I have against religious people… I don’t really care what people want to believe if they do it in the privacy of their own homes, but when they start using it as proof of something in a debate, or to justify something important, like rights of gays, or taking them away, it just grates…
But, anyways. I didn’t care about your background because I don’t dislike you, I dislike what you say. I freely admit to attacking your opinions, and you, but I don’t apologize for it. What I do say is that I have nothing against you.
WhiteNight, while we’re on the subject of being hypercritical and full of contradictions, maybe you can reconcile the following statements that you have made towards me:
I reply that I am an “oppressed minority” and you respond with:
If you want me to respond to your questions, please submit them one at a time. Also, I would require an apology before I actually engaged you in further debate. Your name-calling was juvenile and unwarranted. Now apologize or I won’t play with you!
Hey, we had a nice game of three-square going here!
(and he’s MY sociopathic freak! 
I must stand corrected here: he’s My gorgeous babe. He’s not a freak!:::sticks tongue out at whitepoop and goes home:::::
I mean, you the person don’t bother me, I don’t know you and never will. It’s what you expressed. I really think that you’d have to be a bit sociopathic to not see the contradiction in saying you don’t have anything against gays yet voting against them having the right to live as they wish. And it’s not just saying that you don’t agree and won’t, you actually wanted to get the force of law involved.
But anyways, if it was personal, I’d know who you are and dislike you. As it is, I haven’t noticed anything your other posts and probably won’t because I don’t come into the GD much, so I don’t have a mental picture of you to disagree with.
It doesn’t matter to me that you’re self loathing, as Otto suggested. You’re doing that to yourself.
I want you to be in the situation one day of being an oppressed minority, having a bigotted jerk (not yourself) insult you, then tell you to be greatful that they’re not oppressing you as much as they could be.
Who and what you are though is irrelevant. If I was black, would it be okay for me to advocate racial hatred towards blacks? If I was Jewish, would it be okay for me to oppress and kill others in the name of Nazism? Hell no. Who and what you are is irrelevant… It’s what you do and say that matters.
Nope. You can respond to my one message with multiple messages if it makes you feel better. To me, a post that covers multiple questions is easier to read, and easier to write, than seperate small posts. It also has a better chance of being internally consistent and coherent.
(The exception to this rule would be when the topics are completely different, but that’s only on boards that support real threading. On here, a parent thread can be split, so joining two topics doesn’t mean people miss your message.)
Whatever. You won’t get one because while I have been rude to you, I think you deserved it.
Let me try to get the UBB bolding code right this time.
A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION WITH FLINX
Q: Do you believe that homosexuals are scum and an abomination?
No, I don’t. One has to distinguish between the person and the actions, however. I do think, based on biblical and extra-biblical sources, that the act of homosexual sex is an abomination, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.
Q: Are you against “gay rights”?
That depends on how you define “gay rights.” If you mean, “Do you believe that gays should have less rights than straight people do?”, then the answer is no. I believe that people who struggle with same-sex attraction should be given every right and consideration that heterosexuals have. I think we as a nation especially need to be cognizant of the discrimination that is going on regarding hiring gays or renting to them. I definitely think we should make it illegal to discriminate in housing and employment opportunities against gays. If you mean, “Should gays be allowed to marry someone of their own sex?”, then I say, only if the government doesn’t legally recognize it. Being allowed to marry someone of your own sex is against the law for heterosexually-oriented people as well as “gays.”
Q: Why are you against same-sex marriage being legalized?
Because I believe that if it is legalized, many will choose that option (to marry a member of their own sex) who otherwise would not have chosen so if it had not been legalized. I also believe that marriage is a sacred, God-given institution, and SSM threatens to cheapen and change that institution. I believe that the family and marriage between a man and a woman are central to God’s purposes for His children. This is a religious opinion, and I’m not trying to force it onto others (other than casting my vote against SSM). I am totally against making SSM a criminal act, however.
Q: Are you disgusted by homosexual sex? Is that what motivates you to speak against SSM?
Yes, I’m disgusted by homosexual sex. But that doesn’t mean it is the motivating factor in my opposition to SSM. I’d say the motivating factors are the Proclamation on the Family and the LDS church’s opposition to SSM in Hawaii, California, etc.
Q: Do you support the Prophet of the LDS church?
Absolutely. I believe he is God’s mouthpiece on earth.
Q: Explain your statement, "If I were not a Mormon, I would be siding with you [Otto] on the SSM issue."
I meant that if I did not know what I know, I’d ignorantly be promoting SSM. Since I know that the dissolution of the family unit will bring God’s wrath (see the Proclamation on the Family), I hardly want to promote a practice that will harm or jeopardize people’s salvation.
Q: Are Mormons allowed to have their own opinions, even if those opinions go against what the prophets say, and still be members in good standing?
Yes. However, we are instructed that if we have dissenting opinions on important matters that the prophets teach as doctrine, we are to keep such opinions to ourselves and not publically teach or express them.
Q: Is the LDS Prophet ever wrong? Are LDS leaders infallible?
When speaking as a prophet, the President of the LDS church is speaking the will and mind of the Lord. So in this sense, when speaking as a prophet, President Hinckley cannot err, as the Lord has promised that He will never allow the Prophet to lead the church astray. When I say that even the LDS leaders are fallible human beings, I don’t mean that their words aren’t true when they are speaking as prophets. Thus, I believe that the Proclamation on the Family is an inspired document that should be followed.
Q: So in conclusion, you believe that SSM threatens the family. How does it do this? What do you care?
Like I said before, if legalized, SSM will cause people who would otherwise not have had the option of a legal “gay” marriage to choose that option, thus thwarting God’s purposes for those people.
DISCLAIMER: The above statements are those of “Flinx” and are not official pronouncements of the LDS church, and may or may not accurately portray LDS doctrine. Flinx accepts full responsibility for his words. They are his and his alone.
Ooo, Flinx, I’m impressed! Nicely done.
A few questions (of course):
Struggling? I’m not struggling. I’m doing quite well, thank you very much. 
… but letting them marry is bad. You do see how this puts an entire segment of the population into second-class status, right?
C’mon, Flinx - this is far too juvenile a statement for you. You’re capable of much more reasoned discussion than that.
I can’t remember if we covered this otherwise, but do you think suddenly a whole lot of people will “turn gay” if SSM’s are legalized? If so, tell me your thoughts on sodomy laws.
And your thoughts on “Who Wants To Marry A Multi-Millionaire?” As CalifBoomer said, the institution of marriage needs help, but same-sex marriages are the least of its worries.
Esprix
Esprix wrote:
Only if you assume they can’t change or marry heterosexually. Everyone has problems. If an alcoholic can stop drinking, I think a “gay” person can stop “gaying” too. <g> It’s very hard, but it’s possible, IMHO.
All right, I’ll give you that one. But I do believe that it isn’t taking away gays’ rights by forbidding them to legally marry another gay. They can always marry heterosexually (although there will be problems).
No, of course not. But a lot of gays would marry other gays who otherwise would not have.
I think that show was a travesty and made a mockery of marriage. You’re right when you say there is more wrong about marriage in our country than just SSMs becoming legal. Divorces, broken families, “quickie” weddings in Vegas, etc. But the mere fact of the LDS church’s strong opposition to SSM indicates to me that this is an important issue that I shouldn’t compromise on.
Your opinion and beliefs have nothing to do with the preponderance of psychological facts - period. This is where we differ in opinion. I guess since Jews can obviously stop “Jewing” they belong in Hell with the rest of us sinners. And I think, with a little help, you could stop “Mormonising” someday, too. (I hope you see the sarcasm in that sentence, because as much as I’m growing to despise your religion and its beliefs, I’d never ask you to change.)
Yeah, like a painful, miserable existence that destroys at least two lives, more of they have children.
I don’t think this is the case - whether or not the state sanctions it or not, gay couples are living happy and healthy lives together anyway, whether they had a religions service of union or have just been together for years and years. All civil unions do is give them equal treatment in matters pertaining to spouses; otherwise, to get all those same responsibilities, they’d have to hire a team of lawyers to track down, document and legalize all the many hundreds of them that there are. A waste of time and effort and money when straight couples can do it for $50 at the courthouse.
So what about those sodomy laws? Still on the books and enforced in some states, yet non-missionary position sex takes place all the time. Doesn’t seem to be curbing anyone’s private, consensual activites much, homo- or heterosexual.
I say clean up your own house before you start throwing stones at others, LDS included.
All in all, your position is contrary to every person’s right to choose. You chose your religion, and obviously feel strongly. I ought to have the same right to choose whomever I want to spend my life with, and be treated with dignity, respect and equality under the law.
I know, I know, old argument. It just saddens me that, IMHO, your religious beliefs run contrary to not only what you say you stand for, but for what this country is built on.
Esprix
Esprix wrote:
Whoah there! If you think for one minute that I’m condemning you to hell for being a sinner, you’re waaaaay off track. I am the Chief Sinner who’s going to go to hell. Compared to me, Alan, you’re a saint. I never said you were going to hell for your sins. If I gave that impression, I’m sorry. I don’t know anything about you, to judge you worthy of hell (or heaven).
Sodomy laws? I think they’re ridiculous.
Good advice. I think I’ll take it and stop posting for a while. I seem to be drawing fire wherever I go on this MB.
You know, I am this close to agreeing with you. I don’t have all the answers. I don’t know (ultimately) why male-male or female-female marriages are forbidden. I just take it on faith that there is a very good reason for it. I don’t need to mention the Proclamation again, do I? It doesn’t explain everything, but it makes it clear enough that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. That’s my faith. I’m sorry if you don’t like it. You don’t have to believe in it if you don’t want to.
I’d like to see you happy, but some things are contrary to the nature of happiness. SSM is one of those things, apparently, that will not result in ultimate, lasting happiness. You don’t have to agree with that, but I’m just expressing my opinion.
However, I do respect your right to choose your own lifestyle. I really am experiencing a bit of cognitive dissonance on this issue. But anyway, I’m signing off the SDMB for the day, so don’t expect any replies until tomorrow or later on in the week. I’ve got to change my asbestos undies–these ones are about worn out from all the attacks I’ve garnered lately.
Shame on you Esprix! Now ya made him go change his underwear!::::get the blue pair in the top drawer, Bill::::
p.s Whats cognitive dissonance?
… but you know enough to know that SSM’s are going to bring God’s wrath down upon us all. This so smacks of, “I don’t like them niggers, but I guess I like you ok…”
When I said “us sinners,” I included you, because I know your feelings on the subject. No, you’ve never given me any fire n’ brimstone speeches, so no apology is necessary. My point was that if, as you believe, homosexuality is a choice or, more precisely, that it can be changed, then obviously religion can be changed, too, so I’m guessing you think all non-Mormons should consider some good “reparative therapy?”
Yup. They’ve been completely ineffective in putting an end to homosexuality (or other “deviant” sexual practices among hets). So why would stopping same-sex couples from marriage do any better? They certainly wouldn’t stop same-sex couples from becoming couples. If religious institutions can’t even keep the institution of sex “holy,” what’s the point of trying to save the institution of marriage?
Aw, c’mon, now - you have to keep posting. Even if we forever disagree (which I think will be the case), you have to think of it as an exercise in shoring up your own resolve. If you can make it through the firestorm here, you really do have a strong belief, eh?
And once again, this is what it comes down to - faith, which cannot be quantified or explained rationally. It just disappoints me that you obviously personally feel one way, but are allowing that blind faith to make you act contrary.
Well, we definitely disagree on this one! I’m looking forward to the day when I can settle down with one man for the rest of my life, and, maybe, forever - just like you want to with someone. It saddens me that you can’t see that love and commitment as a happy thing, when I think it will be wonderful, and a gift from God.
Well, as I’ve pointed out before, it just doesn’t seem that you do when you can so easily take someone else’s direction and act in a manner that is contrary to equality. I do believe you’re acting in the way you feel is best, and I do think you should go out and vote whichever way you feel you must on the issues at hand, but I sure hope you don’t win this one.
{hee hee} Well, we will look forward to your newly-suited return.
Esprix
So Now I have to rub his head til it fels better? :rolleyes:
Please just call me typoqueen from now on;;;sigh;;;that would be feels, and thats my final answer.
Esprix wrote:
As I have said numerous times, my opinions related to Mormonism are not necessarily the official LDS position. There are many gay Mormons who feel that SSM should be legalized. There are liberal, Democratic, conservative, Republican, intellectual, scholarly, and other types of Mormons who might disagree with my beliefs. Please don’t take what I say to be official Mormon doctrine and hate the LDS church because of it.
Oh, no, I know you don’t represent every individual Mormon, but you do seem to know enough about Mormon doctrine for me to form an opinion (well, there have been other sources I’ve encountered besides you), which is that I don’t much care for it.
Esprix, who is glad to be a UU
Esprix, I’m sorry to hear that you have a negative opinion of my church, but I guess to each his own. I’ve probably not been the best example, either. I hope you won’t reject Mormonism simply because of my opinions and example. 