Nov. 6 2008
Anonymous said:
"Stupid, stupid, stupid. You not only show your ignorance of America and Mormon history by placing quotes out of context, but you also misrepresent where money came from that went into the Prop. 8 campaign. The money came from LDS members and any money that came from the church would have come from tax-paying businesses owned by the church.
I am sure, however, that you really don't care about the truth."
-----------------------------------
POLICYWANKER Responds:
Dear Anonymous,
I believe I know your father, but the Anonymous clan is large.
Regarding my "ignorance" - on the contrary, placing quotes out of context is an established journalistic practice championed by the Right (please see: Republican political campaigns and any FOX News broadcast for the past 10 years).
The Mountain Meadows Massacre was ordered by LDS leaders. That, you cannot obfuscate.
Regarding Prop 8, the following was reported by The Wall Street Journal (10/22/08): "Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say."
They have since issued the following Correction: "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by supporters of a measure to ban gay marriage in California. This article about the measure incorrectly said the donations were from the church."
Likewise, I issue the same correction - with the following caveat: Mormons are still cult-ish Sick Fucks who want to earn their place at the Evangelical Table of Christian Hate. But, it will take more than Prop 8, considering even the Evangelicals think the Mormons are cult-ish Sick Fucks.
4 comments:
Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings.
Those who are trying to radically redefine California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.
When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.
Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This has already happened in Massachusetts (CatholicCharities and Lexington Public Schools), New Jersey (Methodist Church lost its tax exemption), etc. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.
Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over.
As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the culture’s acceptance of homosexuality.
When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.
The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.''
Wow. You claim Mormons are bigoted?
Dear bot:
It says "Leave a comment", not a friggin' Term Paper.
Where, of where, to begin with your windbaggy dissertation...?
Let's start with your hyperbolic statement that "anything is possible" if the one man/one woman definition is altered.
You are retarded. There is "no logical reason" other than the fact that NO ONE wants to marry several people at one time (oh, except the Sick Fuck Mormons) and NO ONE wants to marry a child bride (oh, that's right, the Sick Fuck Mormons do) and NO ONE wants to marry a Goat (not even the Sick Fuck Mormons).
You and the late British anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin can go fuck yourselves. His opinion is worthless in the light of fact: The polyandrous society of the hill people of Tibet has withstood centuries of outside influence. A woman is entitled to numerous husbands and things work just fine. Maybe they don't get to go to Christian heaven with you, bot, but I don't think they're losing any sleep over it.
Let's suffice it to say that social mores and Supreme Court rulings change over time. Equal rights in our society develop to include more and more of those who face "inequality".
It's called "evolution" - oh, that's right, you don't believe in evolution, nevermind.
And Dear Anonymous:
What? Still you fear identification?
A final word about the LDS:
They were the Scientologists of the 19th century.
Some weird charismatic has a vision... white salamanders, stone tablets, a studly angel whispering in his ear...
He gets people worked up with his excitement and his power to convince.
And there you have it - a new religion where the "losers" are now "winners" and circle the wagons folks, cuz our beliefs in prophecy-divining old men and our magic underwear will save us from the devil and all those "other people".
Believe what you want Anonymous, but expect resistance when you attempt to control "other people" by enforcing your bullshit on them.
Post a Comment