Prop 8 support cost him his job

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The notion that marriage is a civil right is misplaced.

Marriage is not a civil right, but owning an assault rifle is. Right.

Forty years ago, LDS members believed in segregation and opposed the civil rights movement. I'm sure they had good arguments for distinguishing between freedom of speech and racial equality.

Separate but equal, right Tex?

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Is this the real purpose? Or just a vigorous reaction to reversal / denial of civil rights? One thing is clear - this issue is not a straight up dispute, both sides see the premises, motivations, intents and results dramatically differently than the other. Not at a diametric opposition, such as an environmental issue.

Yep, you got that right. The more extreme elements of the two camps could not be farther apart. You know me well enough to know I try hard to see both sides of an issue, and although I have not posted much about both sides in this fight, I understand the "No" side of the Prop 8 debate better than you might imagine. I will just say that there is a well-documented (I'd even say undisputed) effort under way to punish those who supported Prop 8, even in small ways. I could give example after example. I object to that as quite un-American and simply deplorable. We can agree to disagree on this, but it makes me sad that people defend such behavior. Even Gavin Newsome said on TV last night that he did not approve of what happened to the theater director in Sacramento.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Marriage is not a civil right, but owning an assault rifle is. Right.

That's a complete non sequitur.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Forty years ago, LDS members believed in segregation and opposed the civil rights movement. I'm sure they had good arguments for distinguishing between freedom of speech and racial equality.

Separate but equal, right Tex?

I've detailed several reasons, several times why black civil rights are dissimilar to gay marriage "rights." And I don't know what being LDS has to do with it. Another non sequitur.

[LA Ute]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Forty years ago, LDS members believed in segregation and opposed the civil rights movement. I'm sure they had good arguments for distinguishing between freedom of speech and racial equality.

I wish those who are so fond of that analogy would try something else. I personally think we all need to learn from the civil rights era. I was a young kid during that time and only dimly aware of what was going on. One of my worst nightmares is to imagine myself as an adult at that time, or perhaps during the slavery era, and being on the wrong side of history-- opposing civil rights or supporting slavery. Any one of us could have found himself or herself on that wrong side, perhaps due to our upbringing or environment. I find that very sobering.

So when the Prop 8 issue came along, I thought hard about it. I did not want to be on the wrong side of history. After all that thought, it seems clear to me that the civil rights struggles of yesteryear did not go right to our deepest, most core LDS doctrines about the purpose of life and the nature of family and eternity. The issues of the civil rights era were of deep importance, but not the same. OTOH, the definition of marriage does go to those core LDS doctrines. Personally, I don't see two ways about that, but if you disagree, I respect that.

All I ask is that you at least consider letting go of the notion that opposing same-sex marriage is the same as opposing civil rights for African-Americans. It's quite simplistic and really is a slam on Mormons who, like me, are taking a principled position on the issue. Yes, if one assumes that sexual orientation and race are synonymous, one has a great argument. But the assumption is questionable at best. I think fair-minded people see that. Contrary to the views of some, the assumption is not "beyond debate."

My two cents.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I remember that talk well. Unfortunately, I don't remember the speaker, but it seems like it was in April conference. I'm going to try and find it.

Not a GC talk. Dallin H. Oaks, on "Dating versus Hanging out."

Now, brothers and sisters, if you are troubled about something we have just said, please listen very carefully to what I will say now. Perhaps you are a young man feeling pressured by what I have said about the need to start a pattern of dating that can lead to marriage, or you are a young woman troubled by what we have said about needing to get on with your life.

If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance.

I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him.

He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.”

The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this same thing in another way. When he was asked how he governed such a diverse group of Saints, he said, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” 4 In what I have just said, I am simply teaching correct principles and inviting each one of you to act upon these principles by governing yourself.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...____&hideNav=1

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by All-American

Not a GC talk. Dallin H. Oaks, on "Dating versus Hanging out."



http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.js...____&hideNav=1

That's probably the one I was thinking about, although he may have said something similar in another talk, too. Thanks.