New Website: mormonsfor8.com

[Watchmen]

No, it's about transparency in our democracy and public record. If the website encouraged people to harass Mormons who donate, that would be wrong. If anyone does harass Mormons who donate, that is wrong. But disseminating public information is fine.

You know what WON'T happen to any of the people who contributed thousands of dollars to Prop 8? They won't have their marriage licenses taken away. But that will happen to 18,000 married couples in California, many of whom have children. That's not defending families, it's attacking families, and it is bigotry plain and simple.

The website demonstrates that the LDS Church's encouragement to Mormons to support Prop 8 was extremely successful. Mormons donated $14.8 million in contributions of over $1,000 each. That's nearly half of all such contributions.

Read FAQ, etc. Public information - fine. Intent? To harass. Clear to those within the target group. Might not be clear to you.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Read FAQ, etc. Public information - fine. Intent? To harass. Clear to those within the target group. Might not be clear to you.

I read the FAQ, that is not their stated intent. Whether or not that is their unstated intent is not clear. You say their intent is to harass (bigots), but it is equally likely that their intent is merely to expose (bigotry). Unless and until gay rights advocates start harassing Mormons in ways that violate their rights, the "target group" was, is, and will likely remain gays and their families. The website is doing a public service by exposing the LDS Church's bigotry on this particular issue and the enormous harm it has caused. The LDS Church--and all other organizations which supported Prop 8--richly deserves to have the spotlight shown on its own bigoted actions.

 

[Worshipper]

I read the FAQ, that is not their stated intent. Whether or not that is their unstated intent is not clear. You say their intent is to harass (bigots), but it is equally likely that their intent is merely to expose (bigotry). Unless and until gay rights advocates start harassing Mormons in ways that violate their rights, the "target group" was, is, and will likely remain gays and their families. The website is doing a public service by exposing the LDS Church's bigotry on this particular issue and the enormous harm it has caused. The LDS Church--and all other organizations which supported Prop 8--richly deserves to have the spotlight shown on its own bigoted actions.

Why are you so intent on this issue? I feel like DisneyMan and I have explained the situation fairly well. Why is it so important for you to argue against what we have said?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Why are you so intent on this issue? I feel like DisneyMan and I have explained the situation fairly well. Why is it so important for you to argue against what we have said?

I'm not sure what to make of your questions.... I posted two replies in order to share my opinion, as everyone else on this thread has done. What's the problem?

It's not important for me to argue against what you have said. On the other hand, I am interested in this discussion, and in that regard I don't think I'm especially more interested in sharing my opinion than you are in sharing yours....

You say you and DisneyMan have explained the situation fairly well. Was there somewhere on this thread where you or DisneyMan demonstrated that the purpose of the mormonsfor8.com website was to harass people, rather than simply to demonstrate that the LDS Church (effectively) raised an enormous amount of money for the Prop 8 campaign? I realize some people at the start of the thread mistakenly thought it was a pro-Prop 8 website, but I'm raising a different question.

 

[Worshipper]

You say you and DisneyMan have explained the situation fairly well. Was there somewhere on this thread where you or DisneyMan demonstrated that the purpose of the mormonsfor8.com website was to harass people, rather than simply to demonstrate that the LDS Church (effectively) raised an enormous amount of money for the Prop 8 campaign?

My post right before your first post on this issue explained the situation, I think, fairly well.

I realize some people at the start of the thread mistakenly thought it was a pro-Prop 8 website, but I'm raising a different question.

I understand that. But this site isn't about just informing people that the LDS Church or its members raised an enormous amount of money for the campaign. It's about harassment. Not particularly aggressive or intrusive harassment, but harassment nevertheless.

If the authors didn't intend that, then they are either not Mormons or just unbelievably careless in their command of language.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

My post right before your first post on this issue explained the situation, I think, fairly well.

I understand that. But this site isn't about just informing people that the LDS Church or its members raised an enormous amount of money for the campaign. It's about harassment. Not particularly aggressive or intrusive harassment, but harassment nevertheless.

I fully understand that you are claiming that, but I have not seen any evidence of it. How, exactly, are people being harassed?

 

[Worshipper]

I fully understand that you are claiming that, but I have not seen any evidence of it. How, exactly, are people being harassed?

My point was that for you to see the evidence, you'd have to be thoroughly acculturated into Mormon culture. Without proper acculturation, you won't see the semiotic codes. If I pointed them out to you (as I have done already on this thread with others), you would say that you saw no evidence in the evidence I presented. You cannot understand the codes without being part of the culture that uses them.

Similarly, if I spoke to you in Chemehuevi, a language spoken by 3 people in the lower Colorado River valley, I could say very profound things in the language but you would look at what I said I and see meaninglessness. Without the proper acculturation, you can't interpret the semiotic codes.

Trust us. Those of us raised in the culture see the codes as clearly as we can see the sun and the moon. Within our culture, that's what this website means. You are not from our culture, I believe. You don't see that. I can't make you see that any more than I could explain something to you by using Chemehuevi. But it's still the case.

You could, however, if you wish, choose to prove to yourself that, regardless of whether you personally can understand the codes, a majority of Mormons do. Take a sample of lifelong Mormons raised in Mormon culture and show them the site and ask them. You'll see that most Mormons readily understand this site to be about harassment.

It's a language barrier that's between us here. DisneyMan and I speak the language. It's a native language to us. The site is written in that language, apparently for people who speak that language. You don't speak the language. We can't make you speak the language so that you can see what we see. But for those of us who do speak the language, the intent here is obvious.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Worshipper,

When I think of harassment, I think of getting phone calls at 2:00 a.m., a truck tailgating me all the way home from work, or people following me and yelling at me as I walk around in my neighborhood. I do not understand how any text on a website, no matter what it says in any code or language, can be considered "harassment", unless of course it is disseminating information beyond that which is a matter of public record, e.g. giving away peoples' home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information. Is personal information beyond the public record being disseminated by code?

 

[Worshipper]

Worshipper,

When I think of harassment, I think of getting phone calls at 2:00 a.m., a truck tailgating me all the way home from work, or people following me and yelling at me as I walk around in my neighborhood. I do not understand how any text on a website, no matter what it says in any code or language, can be considered "harassment", unless of course it is disseminating information beyond that which is a matter of public record, e.g. giving away peoples' home addresses, phone numbers, or other personal information. Is personal information beyond the public record being disseminated by code?

I can understand your confusion here. I felt the same way when I read DisneyMan call it harassment the first time. So I looked up harassment in the dictionary. I was wrong. DisneyMan was right. It's about harassment.

It turned out that harassment isn't traditionally as strong a word as I had thought.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can understand your confusion here. I felt the same way when I read DisneyMan call it harassment the first time. So I looked up harassment in the dictionary. I was wrong. DisneyMan was right. It's about harassment.

It turned out that harassment isn't traditionally as strong a word as I had thought.

I see, this is just semantics.

If we are going to use the word in its weakest sense, then we can also say the New York Times has been harassing the Bush administration, and McCain and Obama were harassing each other for months. We can say that the right to harass is precious to democracy and guaranteed by the Constitution, and that constructive harassment is important for progress.

To me, that sounds awkward. But however we define our terms, there is nevertheless a distinction between 1) expressing oneself in such a way that people can choose to ignore you (e.g. creating a website, or writing a letter to the newspaper) and 2) expressing oneself in such a way that you are forcing people to listen against their will (e.g. calling people at 2:00 a.m. or shouting at them with megaphones while they are at work or in their house). And of course there is a difference between 1) threatening people, and 2) not threatening anyone. The website in question is doing #1 in both cases (if you'll forgive the expression). I do not see an important difference between it and other forms of accepted public expression.

I think the website is about exposing bigotry...about 15 million dollars' worth.

 

[Neo-Logic]

I love this website. I love this proposition. I love this entire argument and debate. Not on any moral grounds or philosophical stance, but the sheer display of democracy at work. Every time I see Americans so passionate about a cause that they're willing to fight for it and voice their concerns, it makes me very proud. We're still one of the few countries on Earth that can have such divisive views on such dividing issues and still be united as Americans without blood spilling or coups.

I love to see Democracy in action! There is no democracy without dissent and damn it people, dissent away!

 

[Worshipper]

I do not see an important difference between it and other forms of accepted public expression.

I don't think either of us did, either. Perhaps you thought we were upset that these people were doing this? That we wanted to defend our fellow Mormons from harassment on this issue?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't think either of us did, either. Perhaps you thought we were upset that these people were doing this? That we wanted to defend our fellow Mormons from harassment on this issue?

It seems you wanted to defend your fellow Mormons from criticism on this issue. But the criticism is warranted.

 

[Worshipper]

It seems you wanted to defend your fellow Mormons from criticism on this issue. But the criticism is warranted.

No, I didn't. If you'll read the whole thread, you'll find my first post in it:

That is very interesting! Thank you for sharing this, DisneyMan!

Kind of troubling that almost 50% of the money for Prop 8 has come from a group that represents about 2% of the state population. Kudos to these people for exposing the oligarchy in action!

As for everyone else's confusion about what this website is about, perhaps it's only something that Mormons can readily see. You and I look at the website and it's obvious to us what they're doing — especially when you look at their blogroll! But perhaps it relies too much on in-group allusions and references for folks who aren't part of our subculture to catch — not obvious in-group references like PPIs and BYCs and that kind of thing, but still perhaps a certain tone that only communicates properly to people who are already used to a particular melody.

That ought to make it clear that I wasn't trying to defend my fellow Mormons from criticism.

It seemed to me, though, that you were trying to say this site was about nothing more than informing people. I disagree with that idea. It goes way beyond simply informing. It's about criticizing Mormons who supported Prop 8. I wasn't opposed to that criticism, but I think it would be wrong to say it wasn't criticism.

I think now that this whole confusion between you and us on this came about just because you felt harass was too strong a word, felt you needed to defend this site from people you wrongly felt were attacking it, and so were painting your view a little too lightly perhaps. I think that you, too, realize that this site isn't just about giving information but is in fact about criticizing people. In other words, I think we were never in disagreement, but that there was just a misunderstanding. Would you agree?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

No, I didn't. If you'll read the whole thread, you'll find my first post in it:

That ought to make it clear that I wasn't trying to defend my fellow Mormons from criticism.

My apologies, Worshipper, but I hadn't read the whole thread when I responded to DisneyMan's post about "harassment". Thank you for correcting me. I was simply mistaken about how you were using that word.

It seemed to me, though, that you were trying to say this site was about nothing more than informing people. I disagree with that idea. It goes way beyond simply informing. It's about criticizing Mormons who supported Prop 8. I wasn't opposed to that criticism, but I think it would be wrong to say it wasn't criticism.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you there.

I think now that this whole confusion between you and us on this came about just because you felt harass was too strong a word, felt you needed to defend this site from people you wrongly felt were attacking it, and so were painting your view a little too lightly perhaps. I think that you, too, realize that this site isn't just about giving information but is in fact about criticizing people. In other words, I think we were never in disagreement, but that there was just a misunderstanding. Would you agree?

Yes, I think you got it exactly right. The accusations that the site was "harassing" Mormons really threw me, but it was my own fault for not duly reading the entire thread, and you rightfully called me out on it.

But of course even if our disagreement had not been just a misunderstanding, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[lilithu]

Fwiw, I agree with Disney's interpretation. When the website says that they are "pro-information" in the same way that the Mormon church is "pro-marriage", they are clearly being sarcastic.

Having said that, I'm not entirely sure that it's wrong to have a site that lists who has funded a proposition. That's information that I would like to know for a number of issues. Tho I'm thinking more of corporations, rather than individuals.

I love this website. I love this proposition. I love this entire argument and debate. Not on any moral grounds or philosophical stance, but the sheer display of democracy at work. Every time I see Americans so passionate about a cause that they're willing to fight for it and voice their concerns, it makes me very proud. We're still one of the few countries on Earth that can have such divisive views on such dividing issues and still be united as Americans without blood spilling or coups.

I love to see Democracy in action! There is no democracy without dissent and damn it people, dissent away!

I had an interesting discussion with my housemate tonight. He was criticizing the entire prop 8 debate. (For the record, he is gay.) His argument? Cali already recognizes benefits for domestic partners even if they are not married, so this argument is more about the word "marriage." As such, this is an argument about respectability for middle-class gays and lesbians. ie - being sanctioned by society. He felt we should be paying much more attention to the fact that HIV/AIDS rates are skyrocketting again, particularly for low-income gay men.

I'm still in full support of marriage equality as a matter of fairness, but I do think he makes an important point. This wonderful democracy that we celebrate, where groups on both sides argue passionately and spend tons of money, still spends 99% of its time debating issues of concern to the middle-class (and higher). The lower classes, whether gay or straight, remain disempowered.

 

[gnomon]

His argument? Cali already recognizes benefits for domestic partners even if they are not married, so this argument is more about the word "marriage." As such, this is an argument about respectability for middle-class gays and lesbians. ie - being sanctioned by society. He felt we should be paying much more attention to the fact that HIV/AIDS rates are skyrocketting again, particularly for low-income gay men.

I'm still in full support of marriage equality as a matter of fairness, but I do think he makes an important point. This wonderful democracy that we celebrate, where groups on both sides argue passionately and spend tons of money, still spends 99% of its time debating issues of concern to the middle-class (and higher). The lower classes, whether gay or straight, remain disempowered.

Agree and disagree.

I too, get frustrated at the debate because I feel like the arguments for marriage equality are sound enough that reason would dictate support and we can move on to issues regarding drug policies, the prison industry and as you point out class issues.

However, I disagree now to the relevant importance. The Arkansas Act regarding adoption killed any notion that this is a semantics issue. I think the scope of issue has been broadened. I may be wrong but I believe every state with a DOMA on the ballot has passed it. I hope that the passage of the adoption measure in Arkansas does not spread to other states.

edit: Also, I do see how this issue, specifically Prop 8, in regards to media and national discussion is overriding everything else. There are forums I attend with more attention to this than Obama's victory. It may be the whole nature of the debate regarding marriage equality should evolve but to what I'm not sure.

 

[lilithu]

Agree and disagree.

I too, get frustrated at the debate because I feel like the arguments for marriage equality are sound enough that reason would dictate support and we can move on to issues regarding drug policies, the prison industry and as you point out class issues.

However, I disagree now to the relevant importance. The Arkansas Act regarding adoption killed any notion that this is a semantics issue. I think the scope of issue has been broadened. I may be wrong but I believe every state with a DOMA on the ballot has passed it. I hope that the passage of the adoption measure in Arkansas does not spread to other states.

I think that my housemate was referring specifically to Prop 8, and only because Cali already gives benefits for domestic partners. I don't think that he would minimize the significance of what happened in Arkansas. In fact, if anything, one could ask why so much more attention is being paid to Cali than to Arkansas.

Of course, I could answer that question too. The taking away of a right that had already been recognized is chilling.

 

[gnomon]

I think that my housemate was referring specifically to Prop 8, and only because Cali already gives benefits for domestic partners. I don't think that he would minimize the significance of what happened in Arkansas. In fact, if anything, one could ask why so much more attention is being paid to Cali than to Arkansas.

Of course, I could answer that question too. The taking away of a right that had already been recognized is chilling.

That's what gets me. And your answer is right. Also, I think that people (including me) forgot that Arkansas had already passed a DOMA. So the connection with the adoption amendment, scary enough alone, with the preexisting language forbidding gay marriage is not quite apparent. The two together really put a damper on the election.

That's depressing. I'm going to listen to the cuppycake song and go to bed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Having said that, I'm not entirely sure that it's wrong to have a site that lists who has funded a proposition. That's information that I would like to know for a number of issues. Tho I'm thinking more of corporations, rather than individuals.

To add to what you're saying, it seems unlikely that people will be tracked down and harassed at their homes based only on their name. The point was to show undisputably how much money was raised (effectively) by the LDS Church and showing all the individual contributions was just a means to that end. I don't think it was meant to target those individual people (Worshipper, DisneyMan, please correct me if I'm wrong).