Are you really asking this question?

This is such bullshit. The so-called "Proclamation on the Family" is a political document and speech given after the same-sex marriage disputes in Hawaii. The same disputes that the LDS members and the church put their time, effort and money into. I attended an Institute of Religion fireside a few weeks back and the idiot at the podium stated that voting in favor of marriage initiatives is a form of sustaining the "prophet". Awww...how cute! Coercion at its best. Like I said...it's bullshit.

To compare a situation such as this to that of a converts experience of losing their family is fallacious. Come up with something better.

Fair enough, let's take a look at that post.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...9&postcount=33

From the post:

So this is the core of this opposition? That he finds gay sex disgusting? And you find this logic impressive?

And I find it offensive and ignorant that he would assume that opponents of prop 8 are secretly "turned just thinking about" gay sex between men. Come on.

So he appears to have little sympathy for the idea that people don't choose to be gay. He hasn't even caught up to the current church position on that one.

Oh well, that settles it.

Here we go with the evil "gay agenda" angle again. Fear-mongering 101.

Sorry creekster, but I just can't find much here that I consider "impressive".


From your last point:

You are nitpicking. My point is that the church's policy/doctrine has evolved and will most likely continue to evolve. They can't even make up their mind on civil unions. Two years ago they were firmly against them, now they send contradicting messages.

You really are in denial about the militant gay movement, aren't you.

pariah may be strong, but come on, creek-a-rino....the Church did NOT make it clear from the outset that voting No was ok or acceptable. And while every ward likely had dissenters, I can honestly say that I heard zero OPEN discussion of their opinions. It was all in private conversation. The thought was that if you said you were voting No, you could either get in trouble (which was an unfounded fear) or be treated like a pariah. Based on the reactions of folks on CB (not so much this board, with the outrageous exceptions of Exie and NorCal Cat), can you blame the No voters for simply keeping their opinions to themselves in public?

Why didnt they publish this most recent statement BEFORE the election....the one that basically says, "hey, we know many members will vote no and that all our members shape their political opinions based on personal experiences.....the main thing is that we all respect each other."

Might have made this process much more friendly.

I found this comment interesting. From what I'm hearing - and I could be wrong - it sounds as if blacks and hispanics had as much or more to do with "stopping the queers from getting married" as the Mormons did. Perhaps courgarobgon is black or hispanic - I don't know.

This is absolutely correct. Blacks and hispanics voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, and quite possibly in greater numbers than CA mormons.

Lebowski can't criticize them because he doesn't want to be viewed as racist. So instead he cannibalizes his own.

I am fairly confident that within the black and hispanic ranks that there were those who voted out of religious conviction and those who voted out of homophobia, just like in our ranks. But admittedly, I have no proof of that.

No, I am in denial that every thing that happens relative to gays is part of a vast, evil conspiracy. I think the term "gay agenda" is a cheap prop used by the wacko religious right to demonize gays and to promote fear-mongering.

Weak.

Well, that's a nice little bit of straw man hyperbole.

The truth of the matter is, gay advocacy groups have for a long time angrily and loudly forced their way into the political conversation of the country. The use terms like "intolerance" and "bigotry" as vicious weapons to lash out at anyone who opposes their agenda, whether on legitimate grounds or not. They file lawsuits. They flaunt the will of the people. They threaten companies. They get in your face.

Whatever "cheap props" have been handed to the "wacko religious right" were purchased on credit by the gay lobby. It's not my fault that your anger and bitterness blinds you to the truth of their aggression.

Sweet irony.

Are there gay advocacy groups? Yes. Do they have a political agenda? Yes. Are they the spawn of Satan? No. Do political advocacy groups use cheap tricks? Yes. Do they engage in hyperbole? Yes.

I agree they aren't the "spawn of Satan" and certainly there are those on pro-marriage side who overreact. But to pretend there's no militant gay movement is just ostrich-head-in-sand stuff.

Gay Days at Disneyland, 1997
Dale vs. Boy Scouts, 2000
MA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2003
Gavin Newsome flaunts state law, 2004
CA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2008

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Don't tell me there isn't a planned, concerted effort to force gay lifestyles into the mainstream.

Hyperbole alert.

Force it into the mainstream? No, but I would admit the gay advocacy groups seek to gain legitimacy for gay orientation and to normalize those relationships in terms of our culture.

Legitimacy, normalization, mainstream. Whatever. All say the same thing to me.

I don't mean to be snarky, but as you're usually precise in your selection of words, I'd point out that Newsom flouted state law in 2004, and flaunted state law following the court decision in 2008. Class dismissed.

That'd be a first. Now you're mocking Tex. Flaunting your superior knowledge, you flout his post. How dare you!

Didn't the majority of the people (not just Mormons) who cared to vote in California decide they wanted a marriage to be between a man and a woman (for the second time). Isn't that enough, or does the minority decide?

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...ep_flautas.jpg

All this talk is making me HUNGRY.

First of all, to throw the BSA case in your list is laughable. There was nothing in that case about "forcing gay lifestyles". It was about booting out gays based purely on orientation. If you consider fighting that kind of discrimination to be part of a militant gay agenda, then that speaks volumes about your thought process.

Second, the word "militant" is inflammatory and illustrates that the real intent of your characterization is stereotyping. Do you think it is fair to characterize Mormons as horny old men on a desert compound somewhere swapping daughters?

Vivan las flautas!

We call them taquitos out West, but I agree....yum! Tex is delicious!

To be consistent, it would appear that Tex feels that the LDS Agenda is militant as well, spending millions a year to go door to door, directly convert people into our way of thinking, exercising political muscle and capital when we see fit, etc....

Tex is cannibalizing his own again.

militant
One entry found.


Main Entry:
mil·i·tant
Pronunciation:
\-tənt\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>

I don't think the church or gay rights groups would really object to definition 2. Militant is not a bad thing when something important is at stake. So both sides would say I imagine.

Good point.

Fair, but I hardly ever hear Tex refer to an LDS "agenda," or "miltancy," so he is clearly using it as a pejorative.

In the truest sense of the word, I agree that the LDS Church is militant...heck yeah. behold a royal army....we are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er...onward christian soldiers, marching as to war.....

Like Kellen Winslow, Jr said........"I'M A SOLIDER!"

Fair enough, you disagree with my position. But don't dismiss my point that many of the people that voted in favor of prop 8 did so because they find gay sex disgusting. To its core, the gay agenda is all about being able to justify and normalize/mainstream same sex attraction. That attraction ultimately leads to having sex. And many God fearing people find that practice disgusting. Don't you? You don't have to answer that. I was not intimating that all those anti prop 8 supporters secretly got turned on by thinking about two guys having sex. I know and have read some of the oppositions arguments as well as some of the arguments made by posters on this board. Some are compelling, but, I am not convinced that the world would be a better place if we recognize same sex couples' marriages and I don't want to legitimize a practice that I believe violates God's teachings.

To be honest, I don't recall reading the Church's position on whether one is born gay or chooses to be gay. So you may be right, I am not caught up with the times. Nevertheless, I believe one becomes gay by choice. Again, I am not a sheep. I don't blindly follow dictates from SLC. I accept the counsel, I ponder it, pray about it, and then make a choice. How I came to the conclusion that being gay is a choice is the result of experiences I have had counseling with individuals struggling with same sex attraction. These experiences by no means makes me an authority on this subject, they have however, helped me reach a conclusion at this point in my life. If the Church were to send a letter to my bishop here in Oregon this Sunday asking me to to support a proposition to ban same sex marriages, I would not have to ponder and pray about it, the decision has already been made. It is and always will be my decision.

I am a hispanic mormon.

Actually, it was about denying a private organization its constitutional right to freedom of expressive association.

More inflammatory than, say, "Congratulations, you stopped the queers from getting married?"

What I mean by militant is: combative, aggressive, litigious, uncompromising, etc. I certainly see it as a negative, but I imagine some gays are quite happy their advocacy groups are like that.

Where can I find this agenda? You know so much about the gay "agenda" that surely it's set out in writing somewhere. I'd like to see it to be able to confirm what you are saying.

Wait, I thought it was about stopping gays from forcing their deviant lifestyle into the mainstream?

Why would anybody choose to be gay? We heterosexuals have no first-hand knowledge of this, but most gay people say they were always gay. And I believe them because choosing to be gay makes no sense. There are so many faithful LDS kids who want to be heterosexuals in order to fulfill all of their hopes and dreams and stay in the Church, but they ARE homosexual. They didn't choose it and they would choose to be hetero if at all possible.

I think the experience of most Bishops is that if they previously thought that being gay was a "lifestyle choice", after members who are gay tell them about their story, they change their mind. They realize that being gay is the last thing these members would ever choose.

Oh, I am not denying that it was probably a primary factor. I just don't believe it is a legitimate or persuasive reason to deny them marriage rights.

Aha... Here we have the crux of the issue. This is just plain ignorance.

And yes, you would do well to read up on the church's latest position. They have backed away from the "gay by choice" line of thinking.

For those who insist this is a choice, I always ask them to tell me about when they decided to be straight.

[Facetious interlude] For me, the answer is easy: it was when Stephen Boyd got to tear the antibodies off of Raquel Welch's scuba suit in Fantastic Voyage. And no, it wasn't Stephen Boyd who stirred my manhood, although [drifting farther off topic here] he wrote later that when, as Messala in Ben-Hur, he met Charlton Heston in the armory, he played the scene as a gay man stoked with desire. When you watch the scene with that explanation in mind, it's both creepy and hilarious, as Heston was clueless.

Back to the point, I think the Church has pretty much accepted the idea that homosexuality, at least in most cases, is not a choice, although the behavior is. Am I mistaken?

I can't tell if you're deliberately being difficult, but it's two sides of the same coin. Dale wanted to force the Boy Scouts to accept his lifestyle for the purposes of their organization, and the Scouts defended on their right of association.

Talk about unpersuasive. Of all the arguments for gay-from-birth, this is the least convincing. Why does a man choose to engage in adultery? or theft? or murder?

You might do well to read up on it as well. I don't want to answer for cougarobgon, but there's a big semantical difference between having the weakness of SSA, and "being" gay for the purposes of normalization. I know you don't see it that way, but it's consistent with the church's position.

There is nothing analogous between sexual orientation and adultery, theft or murder. What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense.

We have debated this ad nauseum, Tex. The BSA policy is based on orientation, not behavior. I agree with the right of association. I also agree that private organizations should be able to discriminate based on race. That doesn't mean that those who oppose either type of discrimination have a radical, evil agenda.

I can't believe you just posted that. Wow.

Nonsense. That's just a silly game of semantics you invented in order to wiggle your way out of a logical dead-end.

I don't find the logic "why would someone choose this" compelling. People choose all kinds of illogical things.

I don't know about "evil" and "radical" but the lawsuit against the Boy Scouts was a definitely agenda driven, which is why it was in my list. Dale enlisted the help of Lambda Legal, a gay activist group who has just filed a lawsuit over Prop 8's passing.

I don't care if you agree with me.

Why is it nonsense? Just because you say so?

agreed

all of those things are somehow "militant"?