Here is a follow-up to my earlier post on this topic. The LDS Newsroom put up a second post regarding financial disclosures in connection with in-kind contributions to the Yes on 8 campaign by the LDS Church (as opposed to voluntary contributions by individual Mormons): "Media Reports on Proposition 8 Filing Uninformed." The post includes a table that lays out all reports by date and amount reported. Seems pretty straightforward. Hard to figure out what all the squawking is about.
As long as I'm on the topic, go read Get Religion's "Are you now or have you ever been a Prop 8 supporter?" Reading the post (by a journalist, not a Mormon) helps correct the shameless misuse of terminology by post-election commenters. It notes that "opponents of the measure were quite angry" ... not those who supported Prop 8. It reviews "targeted harassment" of some Prop 8 supporters who were publicly identified. It expresses surprise that the media isn't more interested in "blacklisting of Mormon, Evangelical, Catholic and other supporters of Prop. 8." It states that "some Prop. 8 donors have received death threats and envelopes containing white powder, and their businesses have been boycotted." It quotes the New York Times commentary that the use of disclosure laws to post identity information of contributors to Yes on 8 "may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote." You can venture your own opinion to what adjective best describes the anti-democratic values displayed by those (anonymously) posting the information, but isn't it fair to say we prefer democratic values?
While the story raises ethical questions about that particular use of publicly disclosed contribution data, the real focus of the post is why the media hasn't shown more interest in the story. And for those who read the comments at the GR post, the "Dave" who was very active in the comments was not me.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Erik, you really think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? You chose to be straight? You'd happily choose to be gay if you didn't think it was a sin? Really? Good to know.
I think it is not nice that if a member is gay, he or she is ostracized by the ward they are attending. My father is a member of the High Council, he is a much more powerful wizard than you are. My Daddy says it is perfectly okay for a member to be homosexual. I feel bad for all the gay people that the Mormon community spits on. Kind of how they probably feel bad for how they treated the black man back in the day. All those rude things Brigham Young would say, how "they were cursed with fat lips and big nose." Well I am glad I was not gay and did not suffer through the persecution that I am sure some members of this church go through. The ones that are waking up every morning wondering why they are different and everyone hates them, and how they think maybe they should just kill themselves. What a crazy thing to say no to prop 8, I say VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VOTE YES ON PROP 8 And don't be republican just because all the other Mormon's are, be a democrat and support the black president of the United States make a difference in life. say "YES WE CAN" WOO WOO, WOO WOO! And get up on the pulpit and scream out JESUS LOVES YOU! Not just or you or You BUT EVERYONE!
What is this, the bs blog?
"Last time I checked, homosexuality is ... a lifestyle choice."
Yeah, r-i-i-i-g-h-t. Just like heterosexuality is. Where on earth (or any other fantasy world) did you 'check', Eric? What makes you believe anyone's sexuality is a "choice"? And, if it is, that means you could "choose" to 'become' gay.
And what the heck is a "lifestyle"? Is there such a thing as "the heterosexual lifestyle"?
"Furthermore you bring into the equation the court ruling Loving v. Virginia. This case dealt specifically with interracial marriage. A totally different ballgame as race is an inherited characteristic and as of Feb 2009, sexual preference is directed by ones choices!"
Lissen, I'm gay. I did not choose to be gay; I just am. I'm 'sure' you 'choose' to whom you are attracted, but for the rest of the real world, one is atttracted to whom one is attracted to. One doesn't choose attraction - it comes naturally.
Sexual orientation is an inherent, innate and morally neutral characteristic. It is what we do with ouor sexuality - i.e. how we treat others - that carries moral values.
You are so misinformed you do serious damage to the collective Mormon 'thought'. Get a clue.
Fine I'll be more specific. To be homosexual as I see it is to have physical relations with someone of the same sex. I don't consider the attraction to or the feeling that someone of the same sex is beautiful to be homosexual. It is a function of our sense of beauty. To be a homosexual you have to have engaged in certain actions. Actions, all actions, are decision based.
I can see that you won't agree with me on this so I'll illustrate. First there is no such thing as "I just am" or "you just are" There are physiologic reasons that guide our behaviors, especially the primitive ones like sexuality and anger. Violence and aggression have long been attributed to hormonal variations registered in the central nervous system. Testosterone has been the bad guy hence the reason most medical criminologists say that the vast majority of violent crimes are commited by men. So if aggression is so controlled by these hormonal levels, than under the same argument put forth by the gay community, they should not be punished for their actions and there aggression should not be discouraged.
Now I realize that there are huge differences like agression negatively affects another individual and homosexuality on concensual, etc. But at the same time, if aggressive people just "are" than how can we justify not locking them up for good? The answer is that there is the belief that under 99% of circumstances we, our consious mind, has the ability to not act on our biochemical promptings. We are pushing for laws to govern your sexuality, we are only asking that you don't impose your sexuality on religion (marriage was formed as a religious rite, not a governmental institution that belongs to all regardless situation)
In addition it is clear that our biochemical mileu can actually change. When I was in med school, I had a colleague who was in a homosexual relationship for over 10 years. In her final year of school, she broke off her relationship with her partner, began dating a guy and eventually got married to him. In speaking to her afterward she noted that she always found members of the opposite sex attractive, but enjoyed the physical so much that she remained with her partner. I'm sure you now of others who were married with families and decided to pursue homosexual relationships. The point is, it can't be genetically hardwired and just change. More importantly, we are not low-level animals. We are not ruled by our instincts.
There is so much more that could be said. I am very much so informed. Having spent time with the researchers at UCLA, Roger Gorski and met with Evelyn Hooker and others.
Erik, your further 'specificity' didn't help...
"To be homosexual as I see it is to have physical relations with someone of the same sex."
If that is the way you "see" it, then you are, simply, wrong. It is not to have physical relations; it is to be attracted to someone of the same sex. I am gay whether or not I act on that attraction. It's the way God saw fit to make me.
"To be a homosexual you have to have engaged in certain actions."
Repeating a false claim doesn't add a modicum of truth to it. What you typed is merely your opinion.
"Actions, all actions, are decision based."
An attraction or an orientation is not an action. You. Are. Simply. Wrong.
"I can see that you won't agree with me on this so I'll illustrate...."
Your example did not illustrate a thing. It merely supported your position. You (again) repeat the "behaviors" trope. It was/is a lame attempt to find a 'cause' for homosexuality. Like anyone has spent a millisecond finding the 'cause' of heterosexuality. One either is or is not attracted to the opposite sex. Gay people simply are not. Get used to it. (And your comparison of sexuality to anger, violence, crime and aggression are superfluous and irrelevant attempts to somehow lilnk gay people to those traits. Your 'argument' does not wash.)
"Now I realize that there are huge differences like agression negatively affects another individual and homosexuality on concensual, etc."
If you realized it, why did you post such nonsense?
All your gobbledygook about not allowing people to 'act' on their "biochemical promptings" is a barely disguised roundabout way of saying that you believe homosexual are sinful. So what? Others don't believe they are. And we actually believe in freedom of religion. Why should we be forced to abide by the tenets of a religion to which we do not belong?
"We are pushing for laws to govern your sexuality"
Why? (Apart from your religious beliefs, that is.)
"we are only asking that you don't impose your sexuality on religion"
Such blatant blarney. My religion is perfectly fine with my homosexuality. I was married in my Church. No one is "imposing" their sexuality on your (or any) Church. The reverse cannot be said. You are observably trying to impose your religion on other people's sexuality.
"(marriage was formed as a religious rite"
This is an outright lie (aka the bearing of false witness). Ain't that a sin in your religion?
"not a governmental institution that belongs to all regardless situation)"
Except, of course, the government recognizes religious marriages. Well, some of them, anyway. We want that inequality redressed.
Your college friend sounds like she was bisexual all along. So what? She still got to marry the person she loved. The same cannot be said in the reverse. (Yes, I could give you several examples of seemingly heterosexual folk who later in life found the courage to be who they really were. Not that you'd put any weight in anecdotal examples, so I feel free to equally dismiss your anecdote.)
"More importantly, we are not low-level animals. We are not ruled by our instincts."
But you spent most of an entire post explaing how we are indeed ruled by our "biochemical promptings", our "hormonal variations", our "testosterone" levels. Which is it?
"I am very much so informed."
Sorry, it doesn't come across that way. Ms Hooker would weep at the amount of dis-information you attempt to spread.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.