Book of Mormon

[Air Wrench]

I think i'm going to kill myself.

Is that a choice or would it be better if i was gay-hence no choice?

What??

[Glacier]

I think i'm going to kill myself.

Is that a choice or would it be better if i was gay-hence no choice?

What??

I think what he is trying to say everything in life a choice - unless it is sexual in nature.

[LineontheHorizon]

BIg Ned States:

My view is that the gays have every civil right that anyone else does. Changing the definition of a word is not a civil right. No one has been able to explain to me why gay couples who reject traditional religion for the most part .. want to be involved in a traditional religious ceremony? They have civil unions, they have all the rights a married couple do under the law... why do they want to change the definition of a word?

Ned, not all gay couples reject religion as you claim. Nor is marriage always a religious rite. Many gays and lesbians are people of faith which is just as important to them as it is to you. I'm not one of them of course, but I do understand the importance of equal treatment under the law, and whether you believe it or not, as a taxpayer, that's pretty damn important in my books. As I'm sure it is with you. I'm sure that the many churches who expend tremendous efforts to keep gay people in their place would be deeply offended if say, their right to worship was put up to popular vote. Heterosexuals do not stake claim over faith, nor do they stake claim over the bond of love between two individuals. I disagree that this issue has anything to do with the definition of a word, it is about civil rights and in the case of the US, heterosexual families have at least a 1,000 more than their gay and lesbian neighbours do. Marriage is not just about religion and churches do not own the right to grant marriage licenses, the government does. Atheists, seniors, mixed ethnic backgrounds marry all the time, which pretty much takes the wind out of every weak argument that churches spew on this issue. I attempted to make the point in an earlier thread that the funding of that despicable ballot measure in California (and let's not forget Arkansas, Florida and Arizona), was funded largely by the Mormon Church and thus are deserving of the backlash they are receiving. Although I think the No side did a poor job of getting the importance of this cause out, but in the end, money talks and will buy any lie that you want to perpetuate. In this case, the lie that a gay couple's marriage will destroy families, churches and society. That is so beyond offensive that not very many groups in society would have to be subjected to such crap, but it appears to be acceptable because they "love" us.

[Glacier]

Although I think the No side did a poor job of getting the importance of this cause out, but in the end, money talks and will buy any lie that you want to perpetuate.

So if money talks, why did the side that spent the least amount of money win?

[Air Wrench]

I think i'm going to kill myself.

Is that a choice or would it be better if i was gay-hence no choice?

What??

I think what he is trying to say everything in life a choice - unless it is sexual in nature.

Was he being sarcastic?

[Glacier]

If we never hear from him again, he was serious and followed through with his threat.

[Air Wrench]

[Mr Danksworth]

I think i'm going to kill myself.

Is that a choice or would it be better if i was gay-hence no choice?

Exactly what are you trying to say? Do you need to call a help line? There is help available for people with your problems.

[Big ned]

Thank you wtw for your civil response. It is much easier to discuss disagreements with people who can do so civily. I'm very aware that not all gay people reject religion and that is why I said "for the most part". I know many who are mormons in good standing even.

Here is the problem that we run into with the gay lobby. They have already proved themselves vindictive in Massachusetts with the Catholic church. They went to the Catholic adoption agency (which they knew would not adopt to gay couples)...even when the catholics were willing to refer them to another agency that would allow the adoption, they continued to pursue the lawsuit. Now we see the reaction to this ruling in California. The gay lobbyists are great at taking one step at a time..."Oh no the churches won't have to perform marriages if they don't want to...' Similar to the way the churches wouldn't have to perform adoption services against their religious beliefs?

You mention all the groups that marry all the time, the problem with that comparison is that they are not of the same sex and trying to redefine what marriage is.

Again, I disagree with you on the church funding anything. The individual members funded it and since there is no way of tracing the money, they are just guessing at how much the lds members contributed. More recent numbers are showing less than half. The other interesting thing that is coming to the forefront on this... the lds make up 2% of californias population. The black population (which is much larger) voted 70% as a block against redefining marriage. Where are the pickets and protests against them?

Can you let me know how it is appropriate to target people for voting their beliefs?? I've been reading report after report of individual people who have been targeted because they supported prop 8, whether they be religious or not. Is that the new way of the gay lobby getting their way? Intimidation?

[JonyDarko]

Maybe they learned that new technique from the church?

[Air Wrench]

Maybe they learned that new technique from the church?

It definitely is a well used LDS technique.

[Big ned]

Yeah, those clean cut young men on bikes are really scarey.

[Air Wrench]

Yeah you are right Ned, I was only a member for 15+ years, and still am a member, but you have probably been there longer.

[LineontheHorizon]

Ned, I always attempt to be civil, but I can tell you with the frustration around this issue, it sure isn't easy and I do go back before I post usually. Call me a gay lobbyist if you want, but to me that stinks of the condescending attitude that the "church" displays towards us. You'll see in the other thread that I've put this in very simple terms and our only goal as gay couples is to be treated on a level playing field with our hetero counter-parts. Adults don't usually like to be treated like children and to me, that's how we're viewed by the so-called faithful in our society. The disrespect thrown our way by the various leadership is disgusting and the way the church handles our "sin" is so disproportionate to others. Tell me how many other biblical passages are brought into civil government by way of a vote. None that I can think of. On that premise alone, the credibility of our opponents is a big fat zero. Being an atheist, I don't submit to the teachings of a church and do not want people from those organizations making intimate life decisions for me.

[Big ned]

I'm glad you came back wtw because I want to ask you as a gay person what the difference is between having a civil union with all the rights of a married couple, and being married? I have two sticking points on this debate. I don't care what the bible says about being gay quite frankly... people who are not religious shouldn't be beholden to that and I think it is wrong to bring that into the debate.

Two points... first... I'm not sure what there is to gain for the gay lobby in forcing a change in the traditional definition of marriage. Is not civil union acceptable? I will state again (since no one seems to want to respond to it). The gay lobby has shown their stripes in dealing with the Catholic church in Massachusetts. We can not trust that the lobbyists will leave the church out of it if they get their way... that is why I am so vocal and so involved in this. It seems pretty lame to say the church should not be involved in speaking to it's members, when it is the very organization that will be under attack (if and when the lobbyists get their way).

If you want civil authorities to do the weddings, call them civil unions... I don't see how redefining a word is somebodies human rights. Even in Utah they are working on a bill right now that would give every "committed relationship" the same rights as a married couple. That includes people living together whether they are parent/child, same sex, opposite sex, siblings... if they are interdependent they will have the same rights. This is in a state that is 64% LDS. I don't think you'll find very many LDS people who want to keep equality from anyone... it's just hard to see how redefining a word is actually giving someone additional rights.