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

[Mr Spinkles]

Very well. You personally wouldn't be upset about it, so for you personally, this is a bad example. But supposing your fellow Mormons were upset about it, and they took to nonviolent forms of protest, would you really call their actions "hateful"? Suppose it came out the evangelical director of the Salt Lake City men's choir gave $1,000 to the successful campaign, so alienating his singers and the choir community (mostly Mormons) that he had to resign. Would you really think your fellow Mormons were being hateful bigots silencing free expression?

As for 3), I think I asked legitimate questions and in all fairness you should answer them. These issues cannot be disentangled. Prop 8, and the many other measures like it, is the product of a societal intolerance towards Mormons (let's say). The primary arguments given by the Yes campaign were because children have the right to be raised in a non-Mormon, "true" Christian household, etc. Even the "moderate" evangelicals produce statements like this one:

Though I am sure there are many Evangelicals against Mormon couples adopting, and the official stance of my church would probably emphasise that the traditional Christian family unit is one that needs protecting, it is my stance that Mormon couples are perfectly capable of raising children. I'd sooner see children in a Mormon family than go without a family. Admittedly, I would give Christian couples priority, but that is not to be taken as an indication that I think Mormon couples perform worse to any significant degree.

Now imagine growing up, living in a society where that is considered an abnormally "tolerant" view of Mormons, where there is heated debate about how fit you are as a parent, or what sort of threat you are to healthy society, or whether accepting you is a threat to traditional Christian families. Your response to my questions now, please: now, in light of that, tell me what would be a "non-hateful" response. Would it be "hateful" to call the measure hateful?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by misanthropic clown

If such an argument were presented against mormon parents, I would defend against it.

But your opponents are simply protecting children. They love you, they just don't approve of the Mormon lifestyle, and they want to see traditional Christian families preserved. Plus they have a right to free speech, don't they. So how would you "defend against it"?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Very well. You personally wouldn't be upset about it, so for you personally, this is a bad example. But supposing your fellow Mormons were upset about it, and they took to nonviolent forms of protest, would you really call their actions "hateful"? Suppose it came out the evangelical director of the Salt Lake City men's choir gave $1,000 to the successful campaign, so alienating his singers and the choir community (mostly Mormons) that he had to resign. Would you really think your fellow Mormons were being hateful bigots silencing free expression?

As for 3), I think I asked legitimate questions and in all fairness you should answer them. These issues cannot be disentangled. Prop 8, and the many other measures like it, is the product of a societal intolerance towards Mormons (let's say). The primary arguments given by the Yes campaign were because children have the right to be raised in a non-Mormon, "true" Christian household, etc. Even the "moderate" evangelicals produce statements like this one:

Though I am sure there are many Evangelicals against Mormon couples adopting, and the official stance of my church would probably emphasise that the traditional Christian family unit is one that needs protecting, it is my stance that Mormon couples are perfectly capable of raising children. I'd sooner see children in a Mormon family than go without a family. Admittedly, I would give Christian couples priority, but that is not to be taken as an indication that I think Mormon couples perform worse to any significant degree.

Now imagine growing up, living in a society where that is considered an abnormally "tolerant" view of Mormons, where there is heated debate about how fit you are as a parent, or what sort of threat you are to healthy society, or whether accepting you is a threat to traditional Christian families. Your response to my questions now, please: now, in light of that, tell me what would be a "non-hateful" response. Would it be "hateful" to call the measure hateful?

Firstly, it is my view that personal donations to any political campaign should not be disclosed to the public, up to an appropriate monetary limit. Thus to vote and donate should not be a matter of freedom of expression as much as a matter of being able to hold your political views privately. Therefore ideally, no one should have a clue whether or what any individual person donated to a campaign, unless that individual decided to overtly support the campaign anyway. It is unfortunate that this freedom has to be expended in favour of transparency.

Thus I would feel bound to support the notion that people have a right to express their political views in the form of a donation without being rebuked for it. That the choirmaster donated is irrelevant to his job, and so his job should not be conditional on which way he voted or donated. I would consider the Mormons to be in the wrong if they forced him out of his job. I think my view would be similar to that of 9_10ths Penguin on that point - as distasteful as we might find someones political views, if they are irrelevant to the job they hold, there is no reason that we should be able to justify the job being endangered because of their political expression. That is bigotry, regardless of which side we agree with.

I don't think I can answer the 'mormon parenthood' scenario, since I am not a parent. It's hard to imagine how I would feel if my ability in a capacity I do not hold were disputed. I am sure someone with children might be able to give you insight into that matter, but it would be my assumption that they would just ignore what society says and get on with parenting.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Thus I would feel bound to support the notion that people have a right to express their political views in the form of a donation without being rebuked for it. That the choirmaster donated is irrelevant to his job, and so his job should not be conditional on which way he voted or donated. I would consider the Mormons to be in the wrong if they forced him out of his job. I think my view would be similar to that of 9_10ths Penguin on that point - as distasteful as we might find someones political views, if they are irrelevant to the job they hold, there is no reason that we should be able to justify the job being endangered because of their political expression. That is bigotry, regardless of which side we agree with.

I don't know of any Prop 8 supporters who have been fired from their jobs, as Jeffrey Nielsen was fired from Brigham Young University for opposing Prop 8. If Mormons want to take the position that one's livelihood shouldn't be affected by one's political positions, maybe they ought to put that principle into practice themselves.

Neither Marjorie Christofferson, nor Scott Eckern, nor Richard Raddon was fired. How many gay students have been expelled from BYU? How many gay employees have been fired from Mormon-owned businesses and institutions? The rank hypocrisy of Mormons who now claim to believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression is galling and an insult to the intelligence.

Mormons have the right to support their leaders in this and other instances of rank bigotry. The victims of their bigotry have the right -- and perhaps the duty -- to censure such behavior by taking their business elsewhere. The idea that anybody has a ethical obligation to do business with people who seek to harm him is morally repugnant. It would be wrong to withhold services, and especially essential services, from Mormons, but it's just plain stupid to keep eating at a restaurant owned by people who think it's important to deny you equal rights under the law.

Even supposing Christofferson, Eckern, and Raddon had been fired, so what? How would being forced from one's job be more objectionable than having one's right to marry abolished?

It's a moot point, though, since it is and always has been the Mormons who fire and expel homosexuals, and not the other way around. I won't hold my breath waiting for the Mormon outcry over that bigotry.

[Apex]

midnightblue, please spew your hatred somewhere else.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I don't know of any Prop 8 supporters who have been fired from their jobs, as Jeffrey Nielsen was fired from Brigham Young University for opposing Prop 8. If Mormons want to take the position that one's livelihood shouldn't be affected by one's political positions, maybe they ought to put that principle into practice themselves.

Good point. I didn't know about that case; I think it colours the debate around this one a bit differently.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Neither Marjorie Christofferson, nor Scott Eckern, nor Richard Raddon was fired. How many gay students have been expelled from BYU? How many gay employees have been fired from Mormon-owned businesses and institutions? The rank hypocrisy of Mormons who now claim to believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression is galling and an insult to the intelligence.

Mormons have the right to support their leaders in this and other instances of rank bigotry. The victims of their bigotry have the right -- and perhaps the duty -- to censure such behavior by taking their business elsewhere. The idea that anybody has a ethical obligation to do business with people who seek to harm him is morally repugnant. It would be wrong to withhold services, and especially essential services, from Mormons, but it's just plain stupid to keep eating at a restaurant owned by people who think it's important to deny you equal rights under the law.

I think I should say something here; my personal issue isn't with those who chose to take their business elsewhere over the actions of the manager (who, AFAIK, was the daughter of the owner, not the owner), it was over the more extreme actions like picketing. It's one thing to choose where you want to do your business; it's another to try to drive a business into bankruptcy because you disagree with it.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Even supposing Christofferson, Eckern, and Raddon had been fired, so what? How would being forced from one's job be more objectionable than having one's right to marry abolished?

It's not more objectionable, but the one doesn't excuse the other.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

It's a moot point, though, since it is and always has been the Mormons who fire and expel homosexuals, and not the other way around. I won't hold my breath waiting for the Mormon outcry over that bigotry.

If you have support for this claim, I'd like to hear it... though maybe in another thread so we don't derail this one.

[mball1297]

Originally Posted by Apex

midnightblue, please spew your hatred somewhere else.

Why? Why is it ok for the Mormons to do it, but not others?

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Apex

midnightblue, please spew your hatred somewhere else.

I wasn't aware that you had the authority to order me off this thread or these forums.

It is, however, your church and others that have been spewing anti-gay hatred for decades, abandoning all human decency in conducting campaigns of lies, fear, and demonization of LGBT folks. To characterize it as "spewing hatred" to point that out is disingenuous at best.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

I think I should say something here; my personal issue isn't with those who chose to take their business elsewhere over the actions of the manager (who, AFAIK, was the daughter of the owner, not the owner), it was over the more extreme actions like picketing. It's one thing to choose where you want to do your business; it's another to try to drive a business into bankruptcy because you disagree with it.

As the daughter of the 92-year-old owner of El Coyote, Marjorie Christofferson is something more than just an employee. Even if she were not, it's perfectly reasonable to decline to frequent a restaurant when that visit means close personal contact with someone who supports depriving you of equal rights under the law, especially when that person has betrayed what you mistakenly thought was a longstanding friendship.

As for picketing, what's wrong with that? Are you suggesting that picketing is, in and of itself, immoral, or merely that the issue of equality under the law is unimportant enough to merit it?

Again, I don't see how it makes sense to object to picketing a business "because you disagree with it" when the thing you disagree about is depriving you of your right to marry because some people "disagree with it" on religious grounds. To reduce the struggle for equal rights under the law to a matter of mere disagreement, as if one opinion were as valid as the other, as if we were talking about a preference for Coca-Cola over Pepsi, is mind-boggling to me. We aren't talking about abstract disagreement; we're talking about real people and their lives being devalued and attacked in concerted campaigns of disinformation, lies, and bigotry. I'm glad to see that such behavior has finally begun to have some repercussions for the perpetrators.

Originally Posted by 9-10ths_Penguin

If you have support for this claim, I'd like to hear it... though maybe in another thread so we don't derail this one.

The pattern is so well known that I hardly thought it bore documenting, but there are plenty of accounts on the web, like this one about an employee fired for voting against Prop 102 in Arizona. BYU is legendary for its anti-gay policies; while the university "liberalized" its policy last year to say that "Brigham Young University will respond to homosexual behavior rather than to feelings or orientation and welcomes as full members of the university community all whose behavior meets university standards," it should be noted that receiving gifts from a person of the same sex or going out on a date (with no sexual contact) is still sufficient to get you expelled or fired.

The Mormon Church has consistently opposed any and all anti-discrimination legislation related to employment and housing, so it's hardly a surprise that the church has also been in the forefront of the fight against marriage equality for over a decade. The fact that this is business as usual for the church makes it all the worse.

[LuisDantas]

Even recognizing that the official stance of the LDS Church on this matter allows its members to vote as they choose, I have been surprised by how generally unfriendly to gays they are. It gave me quite a bit to think about in the last few months.

And I think I may have reached a better understanding of their views now. Broadly speaking, Proposition Eight was in the view of most gays and liberals an attempt at reducing their rights. But some conservatives, including many Mormons and apparently their leaders too, went through the trouble of actually creating such a document and supporting it. And they are so many that, surprisingly enough, it did in fact pass.

How can that be? First impressions aside, it can only be because for all the shock that the Proposition causes, many if not most of its supporters are acting in sincerity, not necessarily in hateful malice.

That puzzled me for quite a while, until I extrapolated a bit from my experience with LDS members (I have a few in distant family, and my first girfriend ever is a dedicated member. A sweet girl, too ). Their own arguments against same sex marriage were, perhaps naturally enough, good if incomplete hints towards their way of thinking.

So I have concluded that many LDS members and other people, which I will generally call "social conservatives" for convenience, do indeed feel threatened and disgusted by the idea of same sex marriages. For us, that is updating the law to duly recognize what is a natural right. But for them it is something else entirely.

At first I thought that all this talk of accepting a "marriage-like" arrangement that would not actually be called marriage was insulting and demeaning. I still do, truth be told. But those who talk that way are as often as not guilty of naivete as opposed to malice.

Mormons take pains to nurture and protect a fairly traditional family model; it is indeed a very highly placed value for them, although I don't think they are choosing quite the best ways of protecting it. And at its core, a beautiful model it is indeed. It is so very easy to forget about that in these days, but there is a reason why the social view of aiming more-or-less automatically for an early marriage, dedicated commitment and raising children together was so widespread for so long. It has an allure that is both strong and healthy, at least when the right conditions exist.

Of course, there is also a reason why such a seemingly perfect model has been pretty much left behind since the 1960s or so. Many reasons, in fact, not too many of which have been sufficiently understood yet. Chief and most respectable among them is the desire of choosing happiness over commitment when there is a clear incompatibility between the two goals. Not too many people look forward to divorce or single parenthood - and in my very sincere opinion, it is at least a bit sick to do so - but the plain truth of the matter is that not all unions are worth preserving.

I don't and can't support the rejection of Proposition Eight and like-minded initiatives. They are quite destructive and it worries me deeply to see them even taken seriously, much less actually voted on. But I feel that attempting to understand the worldview and motivations of its supporters is a very worthy goal, both in itself and as a means for better overcoming its umpleasing consequences. It hurts me to see people so casually talk about gays as if they were some sort of weird creature that whole-heartedly chose to follow "evil ways". But disgusting as those attitudes are, they are also direct (if badly-aimed) consequences of a desire to take care of precious social and moral values.

It boggles the mind at times, it truly does. But I once had high hopes for the people I met too. It hurt me quite a lot to see how far from their own stated goals so many people were, and how flat-out cynical so many others turned out to be. I can't blame LDS Members at all for their desire to protect values that I myself wish had survived better. It is inspiring, even, to see them do so.

Or it would be, anyway, if that didn't sometimes lead some of them to such blatant disregard to the dignity and rights of people who don't fit that worldview. I guess some of them actually believe that (for instance) homosexuality is a conscious choice, and therefore gay people "deserve" whatever they get. They're wrong, of course, but I can only assume they believe it. It would take quite a monster to hurt good people so much and still lie shamelessly about the reasons, and I flat out doubt there are many of those around.

It seems to me that hostility from Mormons and other social conservatives against homosexuals is very much a mistake, a very serious and unfair one. But counter-hostility is barely any better. The best course of action is almost certainly one that involves serious and honest discussion and gentle marketing of the reasons for and benefits from deviating from the traditional roles supported by them. It is not a crime to be gay, and it is not a moral flaw not to aim for a traditional family. But it sure is foolish, if not worse, to neglect to explain the reasons for those who don't quite accept it at face value. People can't help but feel disconfort, fear and eventually hostility to those who actively pursue lifestyles that may clash with theirs, unless some effort is made at showing mutual respect and at least attempts at understanding.

Some will say that it is a private matter, and no need for reaching out should exist. I respectfully disagree. Families are the brickstone of society and a very high social priority, in this much I wholeheartedly agree with social conservatives. Call me naive or silly - I probably deserve it, even - but the truth of the matter is that I felt shocked for more than a little while when I first came to understand how far apart the appearances and the reality of our society (well, I'm brazilian, but it is perhaps not too much to extrapolate in this way) went in the matters of family, sex and marriage. It is probably naive to want to believe in some sort of certainity that men and women will want to marry and raise children with each other, and that they will be happy and motivated at it. But it is often quite painful to realize that facts do not much cooperate with such a dream. Also, and this is often overlooked or unduly generalized, people who are hurt by unhappy circunstances may and often do spread such unhappiness in various ways, not always against their own wishes. There _are_ people who are both "unconventional" in the broad sense and dangerous or unbalanced. They're far less the rule than some conservatives would want to believe, however.

It is a shame to brand single parents, divorced people or homosexual people as less honored in any way. But it is also a shame to fail to recognize that at its core, the conservative backlash is a reaction of fear, almost panic even, and can only be duly avoided by failing to feed the reasons for that fear. Non-conservatives must reach out and manage to be duly recognized as full people by conservatives, albeit often without any reasonable cooperation from those.

[Mr Spinkles]

Even though it should go without saying, it's worth emphasizing that some of the backlash against Prop 8 is clearly illegitimate, wrong or illegal.

I am disturbed by the website "eightmaps" which supposedly shows the addresses of everyone who donated to Prop 8 across the US.