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

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

Postby EricDSnider » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 12:06 pm

~Zesdy~ wrote:The latest "Snide Remarks" cloumn is really funny, Eric. And it is pretty much equated, which I really love. There is only one point that I didn't find that so, however. In the column it was not mentioned how much was raised by opponents of Prop 8. I thought that amount was impressive as well and wondered why it didn't make it in there.


It didn't fit in the sentence where I mentioned the Yes on 8 donations, and it wasn't relevant anywhere else. But it was around the same amount, somewhere between $35 and $40 million. All combined, this issue raised far more money than any other ballot issue in America during this election, except for the presidential race.

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

Postby Matt » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 03:12 pm

I don't know. I was ambivalent at best before the vote. Were I a California resident, I would have voted in favor of the amendment but would not have contributed money or worked for the campaign. My attitude is much different now. It has become clear who the haters really are. This kind of behavior cannot and should not be condoned by anyone.
So does every peaceful protester and marcher with a positive message push you back in the other direction, or are you only swayed by poor behavior? Do the voices of prominant gay activists condemning these acts mitigate them at all or, again, do you only measure a people by the actions of the worst of them?

Are these people haters?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0V6zQFr-_s
goto 10

Sara without the H
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu 23 Jan, 2003 11:53 pm

Postby Sara without the H » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 03:42 pm

Coolboyharrell wrote on the Twilight thread that there are people considering boycotting the Twilight movie because of Prop 8 and because Stephenie is a Mormon. Someone left a comment on my apolitical food storage blog saying that he wouldn't read it anymore because of our church's stance on Prop 8. I assume that person started reading because he thought storing food was a good idea; seems kind of silly to boycott something that doesn't cost any money, but that's fine.

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

Postby Matt » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:06 pm

Yep. That is silly.

People view the Mormon church and its membership as monolithic. The Church's actions in California and the response by California members didn't do much to dispell that idea.
goto 10

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

Postby Penelope » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:16 pm

To boycott all companies or products run by or produced by Mormons would be a complicated undertaking.

I wonder if many people are seriously considering boycotting Twilight, or if the guy CoolBoy mentioned is just another internet nutter.

I'm not going to assume that mass boycotting of all products and services with LDS ties is happening until I read otherwise from a reliable source.

However, it is interesting to consider the things that could be boycotted if such a movement took place:

The Huntsman Cancer Center in SLC, UT
Huntsman Chemicals
Albertsons grocery stores (the President is LDS)
Rick (aka Ricky) Schroder
Knight Transportation (major trucking company--CEO is LDS)
Shannon Hale and her books
Nationwide Insurance (CEO is LDS)
Black and Decker products (CEO is LDS)
Central Pacific Bank (President is LDS)
La Quinta Inns (CEO is LDS)
1-800-CONTACTS (Pres. is LDS)
Lynda Carter (for being spokeswoman for 1-800-CONTACTS)
American Express (CFO is LDS)
fry sauce

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

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

Postby Matt » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:44 pm

To boycott all companies or products run by or produced by Mormons would be a complicated undertaking.
One of the other main drivers of the "yes" campaign, the AFA, has in the past proposed boycotts against companies with gay-friendly policies, such as extension of medical benefits to domestic partners. That failed just as spectacularly as any attempts to boycott all business with Mormon owners or management will.

As far as I know, there are no major organizations pushing for boycotts.

A lot of the organizing we're seeing right now is bottom-up. This is evident from situations like a protest with several thousand people with no stage or PA system setup. It's happening via Facebook and MySpace rather than through any of the major gay rights organizations who have largely been left to report on the protests rather than organize them.
Last edited by Matt on Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
goto 10

Sara without the H
Posts: 633
Joined: Thu 23 Jan, 2003 11:53 pm

Postby Sara without the H » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:48 pm

The Dreamworks CEO donated $100,000. I haven't heard of families boycotting Kung Fu Panda yet, but maybe that's coming.

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

Postby Matt » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 04:53 pm

Sara without the H wrote:The Dreamworks CEO donated $100,000. I haven't heard of families boycotting Kung Fu Panda yet, but maybe that's coming.
This has been discussed before, I think, but the motivations and, by extension, the level of outrage that can be expected, are not symetrical here.

These people believe their rights have been forcibly removed. The harm was immediate and great. On the other hand, had prop 8 not passed, those who supported prop 8 would see no immediate harm and it wouldn't be until/if some of the things they worried about (like forcing churches to marry gays) occured that we would expect to see any sort of vocal protests.

And, as I mentioned above, calls for boycotts against gay-friendly business are nothing new.
goto 10

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

Postby Penelope » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 05:04 pm

Matt wrote:
To boycott all companies or products run by or produced by Mormons would be a complicated undertaking.
One of the other main drivers of the "yes" campaign, the AFA, has in the past proposed boycotts against companies with gay-friendly policies, such as extension of medical benefits to domestic partners. That failed just as spectacularly as any attempts to boycott all business with Mormon owners or management will.

As far as I know, there are no major organizations pushing for boycotts.

A lot of the organizing we're seeing right now is bottom-up. This is evident from situations like a protest with several thousand people with no stage or PA system setup. It's happening via Facebook and MySpace rather than through any of the major gay rights organizations who have largely been left to report on the protests rather than organize them.


I think boycotts on either side are a colossal waste of time and energy. (says the woman who has been online all day instead of doing anything of value)
"When I grow up I want to have nose hairs just like you and Daddy!" Laura, age 3

User avatar
ImAdhis
Posts: 2968
Joined: Wed 15 Oct, 2003 02:51 pm
Location: Here and Now

Postby ImAdhis » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 05:57 pm

I boycotted Ricky Schroder a couple decades ago when I realized I was never going to get to ride his train through his living room.
www.NewMoneyMama.com

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

Postby ~Zesdy~ » Mon 17 Nov, 2008 07:04 pm

One person closer to the love of my life *crosses out Adhis from her list*

User avatar
Momma Snider
Posts: 9072
Joined: Wed 14 Aug, 2002 08:50 am

Postby Momma Snider » Tue 18 Nov, 2008 09:16 pm

Penelope wrote:I was highly entertained by today's Snide Remarks. It may have been Eric's most all-inclusive mockfest to date. I think he spared his Momma, though. He's such a softy.



He still managed to offend me, though. My best friend is a lesbian, and she's a great cook! How dare he!

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

Postby Penelope » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 02:37 am

Momma Snider wrote:
Penelope wrote:I was highly entertained by today's Snide Remarks. It may have been Eric's most all-inclusive mockfest to date. I think he spared his Momma, though. He's such a softy.



He still managed to offend me, though. My best friend is a lesbian, and she's a great cook! How dare he!


You should probably withhold his allowance until he apologizes.
"When I grow up I want to have nose hairs just like you and Daddy!" Laura, age 3

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

Postby Penelope » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 11:28 am

I received an e-mail from my sister-in-law who, along with her art-professor husband, has many friends involved in the arts.

She said the following:

"I spoke with Matt ***** two days ago. He is living in NYC and working as an actor. He told me of how LDS actors are being blacklisted in NYC. He went to a Broadway audition recently and they asked him, completely illegally, if he was Mormon (they deduced it from his resume that states he is a graduate of BYU). Matt said he was and then they asked him to leave. He went straight to the Actors Equity Association to file a complaint, but was met with a cold response and no help."
"When I grow up I want to have nose hairs just like you and Daddy!" Laura, age 3

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

Postby Matt » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 11:38 am

He should contact the ACLU. They live for this sort of stuff, assuming there isn't more to the story.
goto 10

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

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 12:40 pm

Man, that sucks when someone is discriminated against simply on the basis of something that appears unnecessary to rest of the decision/situation.
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

User avatar
hotel manager
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu 01 Feb, 2007 01:06 pm
Contact:

Postby hotel manager » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 06:04 pm

I'm your huckleberry...

treen
Posts: 233
Joined: Tue 13 Aug, 2002 04:15 pm
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Postby treen » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 08:46 pm

A few people have said (KSS, I'm looking at you in particular) that they oppose the phrasing of the Prop 8 marriage definition. This blog post by a Catholic talks about the religious freedom aspect of this whole situation, and one of the commenters contends that the California attorney general deliberately altered the original phrasing submitted to make it sound bad and influence the vote to oppose. (See the comment at 9:44 pm, towards the top.)

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?

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

Postby Karenins_SuperSon » Wed 19 Nov, 2008 08:58 pm

Original state wording: Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: The measure would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments. This is because there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state. (Initiative 07-0068.) (Full Text)

California Attorney General Jerry Brown revision: Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact to state and local governments.

No, it wouldn't have impacted my vote.

And, if I say what I said before, Jeff's gonna lock the thread. :(
Her lips were saying "no," but her eyes were saying, "read my lips."---Dr. Niles Crane

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

Postby Ishmael » Thu 20 Nov, 2008 10:13 am

Matt wrote:Yep. That is silly.

People view the Mormon church and its membership as monolithic. The Church's actions in California and the response by California members didn't do much to dispel that idea.


Andrew Sullivan is a big advocate for equal rights for gays, but he has always emphasized that the Church is not monolithic, that there are individual members on all sides of the issue. He also opposes current efforts to mount legal challenges to Prop 8 or the Church's tax-exempt status, saying basically that they lost a fair fight, and should regroup at the ballot box, not the courts.

Just wanted to point out that there are some clear and rational thinkers on that side, though they don't always make the news.


Return to “Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest