"Results of Prop 8" - Response to thread in the LDS forum (ritual, moral)

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Apex

Protesters were actually yelling at patrons going into the restaurant screaming "Shame on you".

Yes, innocent patrons were unable to enjoy a meal at a particular restaurant, for a few days. That's unfortunate, but it's even more unfortunate that 36,000 Californians may have their marriages declared void. It's even more unfortunate that my gay friends are viewed as threats to children, or their love as an 'abomination'. Overcoming societal homophobia will be an uncomfortable process, especially for those caught between genuine compassion for others and loyalty to their Churches; but it will not be nearly as awful a process as what millions of gays have had to endure their entire lives.

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Apex

So she got "caught"? You speak as if she did something illegal. And that was not the impression I got from the quote in the article where her gay coworkers said,

Betraying your friends behind their backs is not illegal. Yes, some of her gay coworkers came to her defense. They are welcome to their opinions, as are the customers who were outraged. I'm not saying how people must react. That has to be determined by the people involved.

What I do object to are your comments, which lay the blame for this unfortunate situation on the victims. I.m.o. your comments suggest that the customers *must* swallow their dignity, and they are low and hateful if they fail to do so.

Did you run the thought-experiment yet?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Yes, innocent patrons were unable to enjoy a meal at a particular restaurant, for a few days. That's unfortunate, but it's even more unfortunate that 36,000 Californians may have their marriages declared void.

Are you actually claiming that this boycott will do anything to combat this, or are you trying to excuse it in a "two wrongs make a right" sort of way?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I think there's a difference between simply not frequnting a business and actively boycotting it. IMO, a boycott involves a campaign to get others to take their business away, too. In the case of El Coyote, there were even apparently picket lines. These sort of practices go well beyond a customer simply taking his or her business elsewhere.

Fair enough. (I.m.o. it's an understandable next step to what I was already talking about....I neglected it just to establish that, in principle, the 'activists' were not to blame.)

[Mr Spinkles]

Penguin,

Yes, I think the boycott will combat it. I don't think two wrongs make a right. (The boycott wasn't wrong, i.m.o.)

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I swore off discussing this topic more than a month ago, and have kept quiet ever since I made that decision. But this article really got to me. How tragic for so many people. The hatred over the LDS position on this issue is really over the top. I was personally opposed to the Proposition, but I am positively sickened over the backlash.

Katzpur, the article got to me, too. I feel terrible for the woman. And I agree any 'hatred' in response is wrong. But why did it take the 'tragedy' of a single Morman manager resigning, due to supporting discrimination and then refusing to support measures to correct it, to get you to break your vow of silence? Why were you merely "personally opposed" to a law assaulting the basic human dignity of thousands, but "positively sickened" over the nonviolent protest and boycott of a particular restaurant?

Just do a simple thought experiment: imagine Prop 8 was a ban on Mormon marriage. Really think about it. Then let me know if you still think nonviolent protests and boycotts are positively sickening. Let me know if it would be the fanatical Mormon activists you would blame for the shame and self-pity felt by a man who donated to the campaign, refused to make up for it, and now has a ruined reputation among the Mormon community.

[misanthropic_clown]

This depends on what you mean by Mormon marriage. If you mean that Mormon marriages would no longer be recognised by the state (as seems more analogous to prop 8), I couldn't give a monkeys. If you mean that Mormon temple weddings would be outlawed, I think that is a different story entirely.

As I have commented previously, the spiritual aspect of marriage is far more important to me than what the state deems fit to recognise, provided that as a couple we would be afforded legal rights to give the relationship stability (as is the case for cohabiting couples anyway).

Of course, my opinion might be different when I actually get married, but I do know I am not alone in thinking this way. Religious aspect of marriage > tax breaks.

[Mr Spinkles]

misanthropic clown,

Fair enough, it is more than just about tax breaks. It's about dignity under the law, too. You really wouldn't mind if language were written into the constitution saying "only marriage between true, non-Mormon Christians will be recognized"?

And you know who would want to write that into law....that same species of evangelicals who love you so much, that they send a few representatives to Mormon gatherings each year to try to save your souls from the path of hell you are currently on. (Isn't that nice?)

You wouldn't be just a teensy, weensy bit indignant if it was acceptable in our culture for those types to call Mormons "unfit parents"'; if they felt sorry for YOUR children because they aren't raised in a "healthy, Christian home"; if they recoiled in horror at the thought that schools will teach Mormon couples are "equal" to "true" Christian relationships?

It wouldn't bother you if you were unable to get a marriage license? Of course it's not as important as the spiritual connection between two people...for that matter, whether one rides in the front of the bus with the whites, or the back with the other blacks isn't as important as the quality of the seats....but wouldn't you feel discriminated against if the state recognized other couples, but not you or any of your Mormon fellows, simply because you are Mormon?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by DeepShadow

Wait, so I'm supposed to renounce my church if I disagree with the leadership? In that case, I should have renounced my American citizenship a long time ago.

Fortunately there are people who understand that it's possible to support an organization even if you disagree with some of its practices.

Exactly! You should never be expected to withdraw your support from your leaders just because they're outspoken bigots who spend millions of dollars in a dishonest campaign that causes very real harm to millions of people who have done no harm to them. Your own personal attachment to your religion is far more important than any petty moral concern like that. You might as well withdraw from the church because you're concerned about the Mormon LGBT youths who are driven to suicide by the church and its teachings. How stupid would that be?

That's why I still belong to the Klan. I disagree with the leadership, of course, but I'm confident that in God's good time they'll come around to a more enlightened view. In the meantime, it would be ludicrous of anyone to expect me to sever my ties with a group so deeply meaningful to me, whose spirituality is so important a part of my background and heritage.

As I wait patiently for the leadership to adopt a more broad-minded position, I continue to support the Klan with my money and time, as any normal person would do. I would deeply resent it, as you would, if anyone should call me a bigot as a result, or suggest that my loyalties are misplaced.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

misanthropic clown,

1) Fair enough, it is more than just about tax breaks. It's about dignity under the law, too. You really wouldn't mind if language were written into the constitution saying "only marriage between true, non-Mormon Christians will be recognized"?

2) And you know who would want to write that into law....that same species of evangelicals who love you so much, that they send a few representatives to Mormon gatherings each year to try to save your souls from the path of hell you are currently on. (Isn't that nice?)

3) You wouldn't be just a teensy, weensy bit indignant if it was acceptable in our culture for those types to call Mormons "unfit parents"'; if they felt sorry for YOUR children because they aren't raised in a "healthy, Christian home"; if they recoiled in horror at the thought that schools will teach Mormon couples are "equal" to "true" Christian relationships?

4) It wouldn't bother you if you were unable to get a marriage license? Of course it's not as important as the spiritual connection between two people...for that matter, whether one rides in the front of the bus with the whites, or the back with the other blacks isn't as important as the quality of the seats....but wouldn't you feel discriminated against if the state recognized other couples, but not you or any of your Mormon fellows, simply because you are Mormon?

1) I think the decline in marriage (in the UK at least) is an indication that marriage is losing its desirability in comparison to cohabiting, which still affords most (if not all) of the rights akin to marriage. I think the only people who care much about marriage are the religious, to whom it is seen as a necessary ordinance, and same-sex couples as it is seen as a move towards equality. Since my religion has a mechanism of marriage completely unrelated to the state's opinion, I really couldn't give a damn about what it thought, even to the point of the law being written as you describe. I will concede that plenty of Mormons probably would.

2) Nice... in a way. Though I feel that such people are ultimately misguided, it has to be said that their intention is genuine. Though it would be desirable for them to seek a more reserved approach, given that some of the attempts enter into the realm of downright offensive. Thankfully I have never had such a thing happen, given that the UK has a distinct lack of evangelicals.

3) Irrelevant to the prop 8 discussion. Though I am sure there are many Mormons against same-sex couples adopting, and the official stance of the Church would probably emphasise that the traditional family unit is one that needs protecting, it is my stance that same-sex couples are perfectly capable of raising children. I'd sooner see children in a same-sex couples family than go without a family. Admittedly, I would give straight couples priority, but that is not to be taken as an indication that I think same-sex couples perform worse to any significant degree.

If such an argument were presented against mormon parents, I would defend against it. But like I said, though related to the prop 8 discussion, it's a different scenario.

4) More comparable to the comfy seats would be that I think there isn't a bus at all, and that the people are merely sitting in the middle of the road. Should a temple marriage no longer require a legal marriage beforehand in the UK, I would have no desire to sit amongst them anyway. I shall be taking the taxi of this overly extended metaphor.

Again, there will probably be many Mormons who would take offence. I simply don't think legal marriage is something worth fighting for when I have a spiritual institution I would walk to the ends of the earth to get. In such a day that the latter can be done without the former, I would not seek to get legally married.