I posted that thread because I was extremely angry. It’s in the Pit, which as I understand is the place for it. If it makes you feel better to dismiss this tragedy and news of it as “high profiling” a “victim status,” then you go right ahead. You already have yourself twisted up in more knots than any Boy Scout could ever tie, so what’s one more?
I’m sure it would be much easier for people like you and Boomer to pretend that anti-gay violence doesn’t happen. It does, so he tries the next best thing, which is to downplay it and accuse those who are rightly angered by it of “exploiting” it. Too damn bad if you don’t want to hear about it. You know how you can stop hearing about it? Convince your murderous str8 brethren to stop doing it. If your kind didn’t go on killing rampages against my kind, there’d be nothing to report.
Otto, there is no contradiction in Flinx’s viewpoints. As a citizen, and as a person with some same-sex attraction, he is in favor of laws that protect and enhance the status of gay people. As a devout member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, he is in a peculiar position with respect to the gay marriage issue.
One of the tenets of the Mormon church is that the current President of the Twelve Apostles speaks with authority, effectively in the Voice of God, when he makes a public pronouncement. You may find the analogy to papal infallibility helpful. Although a given Pope or Mormon Prophet may be a blooming idiot who cannot reliably add three and three twice in a row (pardon the exaggeration, Mormons and Catholics!), when he speaks with the authority of the Church behind him, the Holy Spirit intervenes to assure that he will not lead the church astray. Flinx has noted in a number of places, including the Gay Marriages thread, where the current Prophet, Gordon Hinckley, has indicated that it is God’s will that Mormons oppose gay marriages on the basis that it will destroy the fabric of the American family, and (hence?) remove God’s blessing from this country, exposing it to His wrath.
You and I do not have to agree with Flinx’s views. We do not have to believe in the inspiration of his Prophet. But we do have to respect the religious conviction that makes him stand behind the leader of his faith, at some emotional cost to himself.
Flinx and Monty, please correct any imprecisions I may have made in posting the doctrine in question.
Otto, you misinterpret my stance. I advocate legislating against SSM because I believe it threatens the institution of the family, not just because it is a sin. The prophet hasn’t spoken about legislating against oral sex, but he has spoken against SSM becoming legal. I believe the LDS prophet speaks for God, so I agree with him. I feel he has explained his position very well (see the Proclamation on the Family at http://www.lds.org/ ).
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Otto, one question: would you honestly have posted a news article about a straight man whom a bunch of gays caused to commit suicide by making him feel bad about his sexuality? Would you have entitled your thread “The Gays claim a victim”?
Plus, if the Mormon Prophet had spoken out against oral sex, there’d probably be a whole lot of Mormons who’d throw their hands up in despair and cry, “NOW what am I going to lick on Saturday night?!”.
Flinx, a couple of questions, intended as non-confrontational. Although they do seem a bit in-your-face, please do not take them as such:
In your experience, is it not true that there is some extensive misunderstanding of what homosexuality is among the Mormon leadership?
Given that the church calls for fellowshiping and assistance to the gay Mormon, is there an undercurrent of anti-gay sentiment? From what little I have read by/about gay Mormons, I would guess that there is in fact such.
Would it not be a reasonable step for gay activists to try to expand awareness of what being gay is like among the Mormon hierarchy and membership, in order to combat the problems inherent in 1 and 2?
Given that, cannot the issue of the suicided gay Mormon be seen as working step #3 rather than as more in-your-face anti-Mormonism?
My personal take on this is, while I have absolutely no desire to bring more grief on the family, as Monty has urged, if publicizing his situation and suicide brings about a state of affairs that prevents even one recurrence of such a suicide, it would be worth the additional grief, etc. I would hope the family would see it that way, much as the Shepards are using Matthew’s death to expand people’s awareness of what he went through in life and the causes behind his death.
Yes, I would say that there are Mormons who hold anti-gay sentiments. But you’ve got to remember, I don’t really live in Mormon society. I stay in my room and house most of the time, and have isolated myself from all society except my family for over 10 years. Take what I say about LDS society with a grain of salt.
I think that’s a good idea (my opinion only), as long as they aren’t advocating being gay as an acceptable lifestyle.
I don’t see that man’s suicide as “in-your-face anti-Mormonism” at all. I saw Otto’s use of it in that way, but not the man himself. Who knows, maybe some misled homophobic Mormon will take a lesson from the suicide and decide not to be so hard on them.
I’d just be worried that the media hype would take on an anti-LDS stance and cause people to condemn the Mormons.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
I meant to say, “as long as they aren’t advocating homosexual behavior as an acceptable lifestyle.” Being gay doesn’t imply sinfulness. It’s the behavior that gets you in trouble, not the feelings/orientation.
Sheesh! Talk about over-reacting! I have yet to hear anyone advocating killing rampages against homosexuals. In fact, I can be quoted as having said that I oppose discrimination based solely on a person’s sexual orientation. Once again, my objection goes directly to your self-serving methodology in your efforts to obtain what I assert are special rights ie., comparing your behaviour with truly oppressed minorities such as black, Jews, the handicapped, etc. If in fact ‘your kind’ as you put it, are a protected class, why are ‘your kind’ not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1968?
IMHO, you have the absolute right to your homosexual behavior within the boundaries of other laws. Again, my objection goes to your attempts to manipulate society’s opinions through desensitization techniques, claiming victim status, etc. There are all sorts of crimes against all sorts of people. For example, I have blue eyes which puts me in a minority here in California. So, if I get crappy service in a restaurant, or if I happen to be the victim of a crime should I scream “blue-eyed-o-phobia-hate-crime-discrimination” and call for special laws to protect me?
Sorry for the imprecision in what I said. I was referring to the issue of Otto’s use of the suicide story. And encouraging that it be seen in precisely the context the portion of your quoted post that I italicized suggests.
I agree. There’s enough disinformation around about your church without adding to it. I don’t agree with its stance on gays, but then the same holds true for the Southern Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, and a bunch of other “mainstream” groups. So I sincerely hope that it is not used to condemn Mormonism (except, perhaps, as it may need to be called to account for failing to minister to its own, which ought to be done by Mormons – and I would say the same thing of my own church if it had contributed to driving a member to suicide by its stance or by its members’ stance with it failing to speak out in his behalf).
Nice point, Boomer. BTW, I have blue eyes too; shall we form a blue eyed liberation front?
If there were a history of discrimination against people with blue eyes, and someone infringed your rights or denied you equal treatment because your eyes were blue, I’d be saying that they’re the victim of a hate crime or discrimination, as appropriate. Offhand I cannot recall a history of such. But if you don’t see evidence of discrimination against gays in history, you’re being purblind on the subject. And I think they deserve equal treatment before the law, and passage of any new laws necessary to ensure they get it.
I can’t think of any law which would “protect and enhance th status of gay people” more thoroughly and effectively than SSM. I still see his position as contradictory.
Flinx
Can you explain to me how my being married to a man in Wisconsin affects in any way you or Gordon Hinckley or anyone else’s family? Any time I see this assertion, that SSM would damage “the family” (as if there’s only one family), I ask “how?” The person who makes the assertion never manages to list off specific concrete consequences to “the family.” As for God’s wrath, look to the countries where some form of SSM is recognized. Have any of them been blasted from the earth? Has a single mixed-sex marriage ended as a result?
If Gordon Hinckley died today, and tomorrow’s new “prophet” said “same-sex marriages should be legal throughout the world,” would you believe him?
I have posted, in the course of my board work at the ACLU, posted news stories that aren’t necessarily complimentary to gay people. Would I post such a story here? Probably not, but I would have posted it at the ACLU Online boards.
Boomer
“The Bible is without reservation in its condemnation of homosexuality…God’s penalty is death.” Rousas John Rushdooney, “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” p 735.
I haven’t visited the “Please list the special rights” thread yet today, so I don’t know if you’ve listed off the “special rights” there. Please do so either there or here. And excuse me, isn’t any effort to secure civil rights protection “self-serving”?
[quotecomparing your behaviour with truly oppressed minorities such as black, Jews, the handicapped, etc.[/quote]
I was fired from a job for being gay. What “gay behaviour” do you think I was engaging in at the office? How many gay people have to be fired or lose their homes or beaten or killed before we qualify as “oppressed”?
The disabled were not covered under that piece of legislation yet you seem to believe they are a “truly oppressed” minority. Not too inconsistent…
I don’t have a clue what you mean by "desensitization techniques, but as far as "claiming victim status goes…
Victim: one that is acted on and usu. adversely affected by a force or agent: as
(2) : one that is subjected to oppression, hardship, or mistreatment.
I would say that I qualify, having been “subjected to oppression, hardship [and] mistreatment” because of my sexual orientation. Why is it so important to you to deny that gay people have indeed been victimized?
If you can demonstrate that your eye color causes you to be subject to unlawful discrimination, then I would absolutely encourage you to take advantage of your legal remedies. Do I advocate “special” laws? No, because I don’t find laws mandating equal treatment to be “special.”
“The family” refers to the societal institution known as such. Of course there are different types of families–no one is saying that there is one and only one family known as “The Family.”
Otto, you have your freedom to do what you please in this country, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon others’ rights. You are free to live with someone of the same sex and do what you want with him. But what you’re asking America to do is to endorse a deviant, immoral practice as “normal” and legal. It threatens “the family” because it seeks to redefine and distort it. This is all IMHO, by the way, so feel free to disregard it if you choose.
I will vote against it. You will vote for it. That’s where we stand. No amount of argument will ever convince me to vote for it, and I suspect you won’t be swayed either.
God has a different timetable than we do. “Soon” to God may mean “a long time” to us. My opinion, again.
No, I wouldn’t, because he wouldn’t say that, since:
God won’t allow the prophet to lead the Church astray, and
The doctrine of “the family” is firmly entrenched as solid Mormon doctrine, indeed, a central tenet of the faith.
You can feel free to believe me or not on the Mormon stance on this issue. This is according to my own understanding only.
The poster formerly known as “Snark.” (Don’t ask.)
Since I can’t marry a man, your statement is falsified.
So are you, if you oppose sodomy laws.
If I’m free to live with a man and we are free to call ourselves a family, which you seem to accept, then is this not just as much a “distortion”? Yet you grant me that right. Where’s the consistency?
Very convenient. God could actually be in favor of SSM for all you know, but because He hasn’t blown anything up yet, you can argue that he really hates it but is just on his own timetable.
Are you a prophet yourself now, that you can predict what the next prophet and every prophet will say from now to Judgement Day?
I expect the prophet had a 4.0 GPA, since as an infallible prophet he must have been able to answer every question on every test right. Or does the prophet only become infallible upon the death of the old prophet?
Such a convenient philosophy…the prophet is always right, unless he’s wrong, in which case what, he’s not really the prophet? In total seriousness, how many mistakes is the prophet allowed, and of what magnitude, before he’s no longer the prophet?
As was/is polygamy. Does the prophet espouse that these days?
