Religious rejections of SSM

The place for religious discussions -- doctrinal or cultural, Mormon or otherwise.

Moderators: Lady Celtic, Eric's Moderator Brother, seespot, Sara without the H

User avatar
Eric's Fat Brother
Posts: 2964
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 03:21 pm
Location: Pleasant Grove, UT
Contact:

Postby Eric's Fat Brother » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 10:19 am

Karenins_SuperSon wrote:And, if I say what I said before, Jeff's gonna lock the thread. :(


I would hope that the desire to pointlessly repeat yourself in a medium where everything you've said before is instantly accessible to everyone else would be enough, but hey, whatever I can do to help. :-)
Jeff J. Snider
"I'm crazy but I get the job done."
***
My NEW weight-loss blog

User avatar
Karenins_SuperSon
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue 09 Aug, 2005 03:30 pm
Location: Not in Australia anymore. :(

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 10:55 am

Hey, you're just doing your part to help minimize the laziness in this country, starting with this Board.

I don't mind at all. I don't like repeating myself any more than people like hearing (or reading) me repeating myself.

And further, I don't like repeating myself any more than people like hearing (or reading) me repeating myself.
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

jds88
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Postby jds88 » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 11:45 am

So my questions are: Does anyone know if this is true? Is it known what the original phrasing was? And for people who oppose Prop 8 because of the phrasing, would this have influenced your vote? Would you have voted for the original phrasing, or for the current phrasing if you'd known ahead of time that it was deliberately messed with?


To be fair, when Prop 8 was first authored, the In Re Marriage case hadn't yet been handed down. Brown's changes merely reflected the new status quo once the state began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples and receiving revenue for those licenses.

That said: I don't think Brown personally was very big on Prop 8, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his office during the coming litigation.

--Jim

jds88
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Postby jds88 » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 01:11 pm

You guys have got to read (well, at least skim) this Amicus Brief to the California Supreme Court over whether or not Prop 8 should be repealed. If you're strapped for time, I particularly recommend the bottom of page 3 and pages 12-13.

--Jim

User avatar
Penelope
Posts: 684
Joined: Tue 06 Apr, 2004 03:25 pm
Location: Orem

Postby Penelope » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 01:21 pm

jds88 wrote:You guys have got to read (well, at least skim) this Amicus Brief to the California Supreme Court over whether or not Prop 8 should be repealed. If you're strapped for time, I particularly recommend the bottom of page 3 and pages 12-13.

--Jim


My brain hurts.
"When I grow up I want to have nose hairs just like you and Daddy!" Laura, age 3

User avatar
Karenins_SuperSon
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue 09 Aug, 2005 03:30 pm
Location: Not in Australia anymore. :(

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 02:27 pm

Holy crap, that's big pile of nuts all wrapped in a nice chocolately amicus.

Some gems:
I am an heiress to the Almighty Eternal Creator, and I am fully God and fully human.

I am a co-Creator of earth and human souls with the fully God nature of Messiah Jesus...

The Almighty Eternal Creator's estate was transferred to me by fully God Messiah Jesus via his human voice before His fully human crucifixion on the Cross.

My fully God nature is Messiah's sibling in the Holy Trinity's family. I am the third Person and youngest person in the Almighty Eternal Creator's family.
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

User avatar
Karenins_SuperSon
Posts: 1081
Joined: Tue 09 Aug, 2005 03:30 pm
Location: Not in Australia anymore. :(

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 02:33 pm

One more...because I can't resist, from pg. 35:
The theory of monkeys to human natural bodies is incorrect, because monkeys have long arms and long tails. Humans first changed to monkeys and then to bears. In order for species to evolve into human natural bodies, God changed the souls' creation formula from long arms and tails to shorter arms and tails, and He changed from monkey souls to bear souls before having souls evolve into human souls. Bears evolve into human natural bodies.
So, BEARS ARE THE MISSING LINK. Oddly, enough, they are also the greatest threat in America. Just ask Stephen Colbert.
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

User avatar
KareNin
Posts: 3562
Joined: Mon 19 Aug, 2002 02:22 pm
Location: On the Lower Rungs of the socio-economic ladder
Contact:

Postby KareNin » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 06:30 pm

Karenins_SuperSon wrote:One more...because I can't resist, from pg. 35:
The theory of monkeys to human natural bodies is incorrect, because monkeys have long arms and long tails. Humans first changed to monkeys and then to bears. In order for species to evolve into human natural bodies, God changed the souls' creation formula from long arms and tails to shorter arms and tails, and He changed from monkey souls to bear souls before having souls evolve into human souls. Bears evolve into human natural bodies.
So, BEARS ARE THE MISSING LINK. Oddly, enough, they are also the greatest threat in America. Just ask Stephen Colbert.
For goodness' sake, that certainly explains a lot.

I don't know why the major news outlets have been withholding this information from us.

Deeb, I think you should take it upon yourself to make sure Stephen and his staff are fully aware of this item. You know you want to...
Have a nice day, unless you already have other plans.

User avatar
Strude
Posts: 503
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 09:09 pm
Location: Sandy, UT.

Postby Strude » Fri 21 Nov, 2008 05:40 pm

And you wonder why people think Christians are nutjobs.

jds88
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Postby jds88 » Tue 25 Nov, 2008 01:30 pm

The California Fair Political Practices Commission has announced that it will investigate allegations that the Church under-reported its involvement on the Prop 8 effort.

The Church issued a response a couple of weeks ago when the complaint was made, which you can read in this article.

I've been trying to find a copy of the complaint itself, but the best I can find is a letter that the complainant sent to the attorneys general of California and Utah the same day the complaint was filed.

--Jim

User avatar
Lowdoggy Dogg
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu 21 Aug, 2003 08:08 am
Location: Gatortown, FL
Contact:

Postby Lowdoggy Dogg » Tue 25 Nov, 2008 02:19 pm

The complaint is interesting, in that it is fairly ignorant of how the Church is organized. Satellite Broadcasts would have been fairly inexpensive, and were really for members more than anything else.

I don't think this will amount to much.

~Zesdy~
Posts: 7816
Joined: Tue 10 Dec, 2002 05:42 am

Postby ~Zesdy~ » Wed 26 Nov, 2008 09:27 am

Post has been moved.

Somehow I posted in the wrong thread. Weird... since I had just watched Lowdog's funny video.

User avatar
Coolboyharrell
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue 05 Apr, 2005 02:35 am
Location: Fork. American Fork

Postby Coolboyharrell » Wed 03 Dec, 2008 12:31 am

Crazy times!
Two articles have been published acknowledging the imbalance of "blame" put onto the LDS church for its involvement in support of Prop 8. One in The LA Times and another in The Rolling Stone, of all things. The comments get a little angry (which is to say, incoherent).
If you call me cheap, I'll call you correct.
I'm now blogging, like a good little library worker

User avatar
Matt
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue 03 Dec, 2002 03:31 pm
Location: Provo, UT

Postby Matt » Wed 03 Dec, 2008 05:50 pm

I only read the LA times piece, but I don't see anything new there. They've been complaining since day one that "you're only attacking us because we're Mormons". The response now as then is that the Mormon church is being singled out because the Mormon church was the most high profile supporter of the measure and did more, in a practical sense, than any other organization to get the measure passed.

The protester could care less if they were protesting outside of temples or brothels. All that matters to them is that this organization took an aggressive public stance against them and to great effect. Prior to the involvement of the LDS church the measure was headed for a handy defeat.

A prominant gay activist said "When political attacks are launched from churches, political responses will be delivered to churches. If g**d***ed McDonald's had organized and paid for Prop 8, we'd be marching on g**d***ed McDonald's."

That said, the major push against the church has lightened somewhat. More and more protests are being directed at capital buildings and other government offices and calls for boycotts have subsided. These pieces are a little behind the times.
goto 10

User avatar
WiseNLucky
Posts: 2796
Joined: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:50 am
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Contact:

Postby WiseNLucky » Thu 04 Dec, 2008 08:52 am

Matt wrote:That said, the major push against the church has lightened somewhat. More and more protests are being directed at capital buildings and other government offices and calls for boycotts have subsided. These pieces are a little behind the times.


Also, more and more people with no love for the church are coming out in condemnation of the protestors' tactics. I'm sure they've begun to realize that the matter is not settled and they don't particularly want their actions of today to affect their opportunities for the future. Smart of them.
WiseNLucky

Horizontally gifted since . . . .

Ishmael
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri 04 Nov, 2005 10:23 am

Postby Ishmael » Fri 05 Dec, 2008 12:57 pm

WiseNLucky wrote:Also, more and more people with no love for the church are coming out in condemnation of the protestors' tactics. I'm sure they've begun to realize that the matter is not settled and they don't particularly want their actions of today to affect their opportunities for the future. Smart of them.


Here's another example:

[url=http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31661.html]Why boycotting Marriott makes no sense.
[/url]
Especially when you consider that Marriott did not support or donate to Prop 8 anyway.

jds88
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed 02 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
Location: Sandy, UT

Postby jds88 » Sat 31 Jan, 2009 02:00 pm

A really, really, really dead horse by now, but it's probably worth noting that the church has made its final disclosures on its Prop 8 activities, as it promised to do back in November.

Final price tag for our Prop 8 involvement: Somewhere around $190,000.

--Jim

User avatar
WiseNLucky
Posts: 2796
Joined: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:50 am
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Contact:

Postby WiseNLucky » Tue 24 Feb, 2009 05:17 pm

Anybody else watch the Oscars and notice the digs at the Church? One by name and the other only by indirect reference.
WiseNLucky



Horizontally gifted since . . . .

EricDSnider
Posts: 2166
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 03:13 pm
Location: Portland
Contact:

Postby EricDSnider » Tue 24 Feb, 2009 06:35 pm

I think "digs" is a stretch, but anyway, here's what was said:

Dustin Lance Black, screenwriter of "Milk":

This was not an easy film to make. First off, I have to thank Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg and all the real-life people who shared their stories with me. And, um, Gus Van Sant, Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, James Franco, and our entire cast, my producers, Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen, everyone at Groundswell and Focus, for taking on the challenge of telling this life-saving story. When I was 13 years old, my beautiful mother and my father moved me from a conservative Mormon home in San Antonio, Texas to California and I heard the story of Harvey Milk. And it gave me hope. It gave me the hope to live my life, it gave me the hope to one day live my life openly as who I am and that maybe even I could fall in love and one day get married. I want to thank my mom who has always loved me for who I am, even when there was pressure not to. But most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think he

User avatar
WiseNLucky
Posts: 2796
Joined: Thu 22 Sep, 2005 09:50 am
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Contact:

Postby WiseNLucky » Wed 25 Feb, 2009 03:55 pm

EricDSnider wrote:I think "digs" is a stretch, but anyway . . .


Thanks for the quotes and your opinion.

I didn't record the program and I was a little sensitive after the first comment, which I still see as a dig against the church. If he didn't intend it to be one, he needn't have mentioned the church at all.

For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight . . .

EricDSnider wrote:The "signs of hatred" refers to those crazy Kansas "God hates fags" pseudo-Christians, who were protesting outside the theater.


That type of protest is cruel and not helpful to the cause they espouse, in my opinion. I dislike seeing that sort of thing.

I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect and anticipate their great shame and the shame in their grandchildren
WiseNLucky



Horizontally gifted since . . . .


Return to “Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron