The church has spoken...

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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

All this talk is making me HUNGRY.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

Originally Posted by Tex

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

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?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

All this talk is making me HUNGRY.

Vivan las flautas!

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

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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?

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.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

Good point.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

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.

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!"

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

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.

Originally Posted by smokymountainrain

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.

I am a hispanic mormon.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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.

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

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

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?

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.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by exUte

Then you clearly missed the unintended consequences. If you think the gays would stop with them being married by a justice of the peace, then you are wrong. Their agenda is anti-religion because they hate religion that preaches that their behavior is deviant and against the will of God. They just don't have the critical mass to move their agenda forward......yet.

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.