comment #1

Sabina E says ...

Where do we draw the line?

I fucking don't know. Maybe Hollywood should adopt the "DONT ASK, DONT TELL" policy?

comment #2

MilkMan says ...

All rhetoric and PR spin aside, Rich Raddon is a bigot, and worse, he's a member of the Mormon Church. The Mormon Church is so scummy that they have been baptizing victims of the Holocaust, essentially muddying the records of what religion they were. In life, they died because they were Jewish, but in death, they have been baptized, thus making them victims twice. Fuck Rich Raddon and fuck the creeps at the Mormon Church. They are a blight on this city. Why can't they just stay in Utah and Idaho and Wyoming and marry their daughters? I mean, it's okay to marry a 13 year old girl and get her pregnant, but two gay adults can't get married? But I'm sure Rich is a nice guy, right? Who gives a shit. He has evil in his soul.

comment #3

Sabina E says ...

MilkMan, I agree with you, but hear yourself speak. By speaking out against Mormons and slumping all Mormons together as the one same group is not any better than racist, right-wing white Christian evangelist assholes who attack Jews and Muslims.

Be careful with what you say. Don't be a bigot like Rich Raddon!

comment #4

K. Bowen says ...

Railing against bigotry and going after a person's religion in the same post. Oh, the dark humor.

comment #5

tommysunshine says ...

No Jeff, it's not bigotry. The people have spoken and they want children to be brought up by a mother and father. It's a question of endorsing the natural state of affairs, not discrimination. It's tragic that there are people growing up who can never talk about their mother, only about two fathers.

comment #6

Chicago48 says ...

This whole Prop 8 thing is disgusting IMO....the problem is if California voted to allow gay marriages it would move like wildfire into other states, and I for one, don't want it in Illinois. I think gays are over reacting to the whole marriage thing...if they want a civil union or just shack up, so be it....but to claim they are "discriminated" against because the ban went down is absurd. Discrimination is when you're black or Asian and walk into a bar and nobody serves you.
Or when you apply for work and because you are identified by your color or your natl origin you're not hired. The gay people that I see in Chicago are very well off....they own property, they own businesses, they have their own little niche, and they are prominent in companies....so what is their fu***ing problem?
Why do they want to ram their "rights" down other's throats? If the ban was voted down it was voted down, go away and march in your livingrooms, please.....and stop pushing the agenda onto the liberals because it's distracting....just like before next Presidential election if the gays pop up with all their demands, the country will go Republican.

comment #7

Al-Aurens says ...

An attack is only bigotry if it is directed against a trait that a person can't affect: race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Religion does not fall into such a category: an individual is free to evaluate the religion in question, and leave it if it doesn't fit with the rational world. Someone who fails to do so is rightly a target of ridicule.

I'm sick of hearing that gay people can be together, but have to call it something else. Black people used to have to use different restrooms; women couldn't vote. It had always been that way! Progress always happens, but it always takes much longer than it should because of people like tommysunshine and Chicago48.

comment #8

Chicago48 says ...

Ditto Tommysunshine. My god, people are afraid that homosexuality will be taught in the schools, that their churches will be sued -- and you know some extremist will sue the church -- if they don't marry them. That's what people are afraid of. The legal and educational components of passing a gay marriage law.
You allow gay marriage, you open up the church and other entities to be sued. Period.

comment #9

John Cocktosten says ...

I thought I'd look up the definition on dictionary.com, and here it is:
Bigotry
Big"ot*ry\, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.]

1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

and

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

It looks like the word can be applied to both sides.

comment #10

Sabina E says ...

Wow, I didn't know there are homophobic bigots visiting this blog.

I feel so dirty now.

comment #11

Mr. Muckle says ...

IMO, clamoring to get married is equivalent to suing the government in order to join the army. What are ya, starved for affliction? Marriage is the biggest phony romantic fantasy society has yet produced (not to discount patriotic nationalism or the various exclusivist religious hallucinations) and one would think a subgroup reputed to possess above average intelligence sees through it. Apart from certain legal aspects (another reliable source of misery) it's completely symbolic, i.e. essentially unreal. The underlying reality of relationship is only disguised and misrepresented by people waving that great big flag--WE'RE MARRIED!

Whatever desperation possesses people to give up so much (individual autonomy, integrity, wealth, power, peace of mind) in order to pursue the phantom happiness of that mirage called marriage, they ought to stop for a moment and think it through. This whole meaningless issue is a useless tempest in a teacup, a sound and a fury signifying nothing, an excuse for uppity fools to despise some other uppity fools.

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

DeafBrown: "By speaking out against Mormons and slumping all Mormons together as the one same group is not any better than racist, right-wing white Christian evangelist assholes who attack Jews and Muslims."

When Mormons get assaulted and tortured for their religion, then we'll talk.

Bowen: "Railing against bigotry and going after a person's religion in the same post."

Yes, respecting a religion which denied privileges to black people shows tolerance.

Chicago: Fixed. [the problem is if [Johnson] voted to allow [anti-housing discrimination] it would move like wildfire into other states, and I for one, don't want it in Illinois.]

"I think gays are over reacting to the whole marriage thing...if they want a civil union or just shack up, so be it....but to claim they are "discriminated" against because the ban went down is absurd. Discrimination is when you're black or Asian and walk into a bar and nobody serves you."

And gays are always 'served' by society, right?

"Or when you apply for work and because you are identified by your color or your natl origin you're not hired."

So what about if you enlist as an Arab interpreter in the Armed Forces, and are kicked out, because you're gay?

"The gay people that I see in Chicago are very well off....they own property, they own businesses, they have their own little niche, and they are prominent in companies....so what is their fu***ing problem? Why do they want to ram their "rights" down other's throats?"

Oh, and why did well-off white people have to guilt-trip us about institutionalized racism in the South?

Fixed again.

"If the [ban against investments in South Africa during the apartheid era] was voted down it was voted down, go away and march in your livingrooms, please"

comment #13

Devin Faraci says ...

I just wanted to point out that Chicago48 is ignorant and wrong in all of his facts.

comment #14

Monument says ...

"My god, people are afraid that homosexuality will be taught in the schools, that their churches will be sued -- and you know some extremist will sue the church -- if they don't marry them. That's what people are afraid of. The legal and educational components of passing a gay marriage law."

They are afraid because it's already happening. Churches are being sued for declining to host gay marriages, wedding photographers are being sued for declining to shoot gay marriages... and the lawsuits are succeeding.

Apparently it's unacceptable for conservative folks to impose their beliefs on anyone, but it's perfectly acceptable for a loud minority to impose their beliefs on anyone. This issue is not as black and white as the pro-gay marriage folks want you to believe. Jeff I disagree, there are "if's and's or but's." This is a complex issue, and there were a great many reasons for voting yes on Prop 8, regardless of one's personal feelings toward homosexuality.

comment #15

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

The blindness of the the tommysunshines and Chicago48s of his world is always breathtaking in otherwise intelligent people.

Let us see them make these cavalier statements after they witnessed what my wife once saw because civil unions are not the same thing as marriages: a woman laying on a hospital waiting room floor, sobbing because her loved one was dying several floors above her after a car accident and the hospital rules allowed no visitors to the ICU that were not immediate family members or could be vouched by one. Hours later my wife said she could still hear those groaning wails.

You don't vote on human rights, you pompous, black-hearted schmucks. You are the ones cramming your bigoted religious views down OUR throats. Go find a church that doesn't condone gay marriage, the idea of homosexuality or that Yellow Labs are the best family dogs ever, but its time to stop sticking your noses in places it does not belong, namely the business of consenting adults.

comment #16

Monument says ...

"Let us see them make these cavalier statements after they witnessed what my wife once saw because civil unions are not the same thing as marriages: a woman laying on a hospital waiting room floor, sobbing because her loved one was dying several floors above her after a car accident and the hospital rules allowed no visitors to the ICU that were not immediate family members or could be vouched by one."

Did that woman have a civil union, or are you just assuming? Would it have been any different for an unmarried heterosexual couple?

comment #17

D.Z. says ...

Monument: "Apparently it's unacceptable for conservative folks to impose their beliefs on anyone, but it's perfectly acceptable for a loud minority to impose their beliefs on anyone."

So conservatives aren't also a loud minority?

"This is a complex issue, and there were a great many reasons for voting yes on Prop 8, regardless of one's personal feelings toward homosexuality."

Though let's be honest here. Personal feelings about homosexuality are ultimately what caused people to vote that way.

comment #18

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

As to the Rich Raddon situation, I feel for the man's predicament but he really only has two choices here because Prop h8 is turning into a watershed for gays on a scale not seen since probably Stonewall (no doubt, fueled by Obama's win): he has to either resign his position with the LA Film Fest or leave the Mormon church.

Christine Vachon is right to caution against the Left becoming hypocrites (witch hunts), but that's not what is happening.

With campaign finance records, people are getting a rare opportunity to discover which one of those individuals, organizations or companies that might talk a good game about being tolerant actually didn't put their money where their mouth is.

There is also the fact that the organizers of Prop h8 themselves started this ball rolling by threatening to target any business that gave to the No on 8 side. Let this show businesses and corporations that they need to stay out of politics because either side can make it a losing proposition (something we should have taught FedEx and Sears back in 2001 over Bill Maher).

comment #19

youchild says ...

"When Mormons get assaulted and tortured for their religion, then we'll talk."

Um...yeah, they did get assaulted and tortured for their religion...that's how they ended up in Utah.

...which is one argument from the dissent WITHIN the Church. The Mormon Church should officially recognize that they suffered many of the same persecutions once upon a time in their history.

Don't tar them all with the same brush; many members did NOT obey the injunction to support Prop. 8. And no one should be forced to withdraw from the Church because they disagreed.

Otherwise, Catholicism would pretty much have no one left.

comment #20

SJRubinstein says ...

D.Z.: "When Mormons get assaulted and tortured for their religion, then we'll talk."

Not only was the founder of the Mormon church - Joseph Smith - murdered in a jail cell by a lynch mob, the Mormons remain the one religious group ever formally persecuted/outlawed by the United States government.

I am not in support of the wealthy of one state deciding the rights of another state - not really, in any case - but the Mormons have certainly taken their licks.

Most interestingly, when I went to the L.A. protest march on Saturday, there were members of the Knights of Columbus out protesting against the marchers. With all the Mormons in the news, it's interesting to remember that the Knights of Columbus used to MURDER Mormon missionaries in Central and South America, going after them like the Klan as the Catholic church didn't like the competition in converting the masses.

But, I guess situations like this make for some strange bedfellows.

Something similar happened not long ago in New York State when an illegal immigrant killed a white woman while drunk driving. The tiny town was in an uproar, money poured in to sway popular opinion from both sides and - only after the dust began to settle - did they notice that a lot of the anti-immigration lobbying money was coming from the Ku Klux Klan.

As a one-time Mormon myself, I'm certainly not equating the LDS church with the Klan (I believe they began letting blacks hold priesthoods around 1978, a little late, but the Vatican formally/finally admitted the Earth revolved around the sun around this time), but when their ideals and where they'll spend their money begin to line up, somebody needs to say something.

comment #21

Mjs says ...

Deafbrown

Speaking as a nearly lifelong-non mormon-Utahn, most mormons are the same when it comes to their beliefs. And they are full of hypocricy and hate.

Milkman

A lot of us don't want them in Utah, either.

comment #22

DarthCorleone says ...

It's tragic that there are people growing up who can never talk about their mother, only about two fathers.

tommysunshine>> Have you ever personally spoken to a child raised by a loving same-sex couple about his or her "tragedy?"

Didn't think so.

K. Bowen>> Read what Al-Aurens said and try processing the thought. Religious belief is a CHOICE. It's not bigotry to disagree with a religious belief, and it's not bigotry to want that belief kept out of public policy. I'll defend to my dying breath the right of any American to hold a religious belief, and that's why I'm not a bigot. However, I'll defend just as vehemently my right to not have that belief imposed upon all Americans.

Monument>> Cite specific sources for these lawsuits you describe please. Churches, wedding photographers, etc. I want names and court rulings. Waiting...

comment #23

D.Z. says ...

youchild+SJ: Fair enough.

comment #24

Doublenicklesonthedime says ...

Marriage is a contract. The job of the state is to see that contracts are enforced. If two consenting adults wish to enter into a marriage contract, then that is their right to do so. It is not the job of the state to say who can enter into this marriage contract based on sex any more than it is the job of the state to prevent adults from entering the marriage contract based on race. If a particular church does not wish to solemnize a marriage, it is their right to do so. In short, if you are opposed to gay marriage, then don't have one, so to speak.

comment #25

nemo says ...

"No Jeff, it's not bigotry. The people have spoken and they want children to be brought up by a mother and father. It's a question of endorsing the natural state of affairs, not discrimination. It's tragic that there are people growing up who can never talk about their mother, only about two fathers."

My mother went through 5 marriages, and and my brother and I got to live through the crash and burn failure of 3 of them while growing up. Being raised by 2 fathers who were reasonably stable and responsible people would have been a huge improvement.

Don't talk to me about the sanctity of opposite sex marriage. There's a word for people like Raddon, and that word is bigot.

comment #26

DarthCorleone says ...

Would it have been any different for an unmarried heterosexual couple?

That's the entire point. Whether they were in a civil union or not, in this case it took a marriage to guarantee this protection. Wow, Monument, you are the true bastion of human empathy and sensitivity. A "monument" to the feeling, if you will.

This is a complex issue, and there were a great many reasons for voting yes on Prop 8, regardless of one's personal feelings toward homosexuality.

Parse them for us please. You can exclude this legal action against churches and wedding photographers (to which I would be opposed and frankly find a dubious justification). You can also exclude this appalling thought that children might not be left with the ignorance that men never kiss other men and women never kiss other women, even though that's a reality of the world whether these couples are married or not. (Even if same-sex marriage came up incidentally in a public school as a point of fact, there's nothing to stop the bigots from preaching their intolerance at home and brainwashing their kids.)

So, yeah. A "great many" reasons. What are the others?

comment #27

MilkMan says ...

Working in the film industry, in the 21rst century, and being against the civil rights of gay people is like working at Motown in the 1960 and voting against the civil rights act. What you're basically saying is, Hey, do business with me, but I think you're basically sub-human and not worthy of the same rights as I am. And once again: for anyone, ANYONE, in the Mormon church to talk about the sanctity of marriage is laughable.

comment #28

Celebrity Werewolf Hunter says ...

I loathe the whole argument that only a man and a woman can bring up a child. I know an older lesbian couple raising 2 wonderfully well adjusted children who are near the top of their class in high school and junior high respectively. Another friend of mine about to complete her graduate degree in education from UCLA had a very, caring supportive gay father. On the other hand, a female friend of mine from a fundamentalist Evangelical household is a recovering drug addict and so is her sister. Her former boyfriend, the Pastor's son at her church, is also a recovering drug addict who has been in and out of rehab.

So please spare us all the argument laced with insinuation that only a man and woman can raise a healthy and well-adjusted child. I grant these are only a few instances but most children I've ever met with a gay parent(s) have been intelligent and thoughtful.

comment #29

eggman says ...

The hypocrisy throughout this thread is surreal. People "hating" mormon's because they assume we "hate" gays. As I understand the issue, California State Law already protects same sex domestic partners in every way they do "marriage", including what I guess has now become the most important right ever bestowed upon mankind, that holy grail of hospital visiting rights. I don't understand what additional "rights" they would have received, other than the label of marriage.

The mormon church supporting prop 8 was in defense of their freedom of religion and supporting their moral belief. Nothing more. It wasn't motivated by bigotry or hate, but moral beliefs and the fear that the denial of prop 8 would lead to legislation that would force them to compromise their moral beliefs. But I realize that in this relative amoral world in which we live, where humanism reigns supreme, the idea of moral truths can be quite baffling.

And why does everyone think that homosexual or lesbian partnerships are any more stable than marriages? I'd like to see the data on separation rates between married couples and homosexual and lesbian couples. I bet they're comparable.

comment #30

DarthCorleone says ...

eggman>> There's your problem. You don't understand the issue.

Try surfing over here...

http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus

Scroll down to the section entitled "Marriage vs. Domestic Partnership" in California. See any differences?

How would keeping the amendment off the state constitution have infringed upon Mormon freedom of religion? Please explain it to me. I honestly want to know.

Finally, who said that same-sex partnerships are any more stable than "traditional" marriages? I might have missed it, but I don't see that claim here. And if they are comparable as you admit, what's your point?

Sincerely,
The Evil Humanist Who Actually Does Have - can you believe it? - Morals!

comment #31

televisiontears says ...

Eggman, why does granting someone equal rights compromise your "moral beliefs"? Are your beliefs so weak and fragile that two people hoping to express undying love to each other threatens them?

You've just ironically stated exactly why you and your church have acted out of bigotry regarding this issue. You believe that two people seeking lasting love in a world in dire need of it is somehow immoral. You believe that your god gives you the moral high ground to cast judgment on people who only want to be recognized as capable of the same kind of love that you and I are. But you raise your voices (and $25 million) and say, "No. You're not the same as me. You're inferior, and do not deserve the same rights that I enjoy." It sickens me to no end. Perhaps most baffling, you believe that the rights of these people is somehow a threat to you. This is impossible to understand, and I'm not convinced you understand it yourself. How does two people pledging their love to each other threaten what you already have? I'm honestly asking the question, so please stand up for your moral beliefs and give an answer.

And to tommysunshine, who states that his thinly veiled excuse for hatred and bigotry is preservation of the family unit. Even this flat out states that gay people would be inherently worse parents than straight people. By this logic, maybe we should pass a law banning single parents, since one parent is clearly worse for a child than two.

I give up. I've tried over and over to give these people the benefit of the doubt, telling myself "Maybe they're not motivated by hate and fear. Maybe they do have valid points to make." You can't have a locical debate with these people. You can't fight hate with common sense and rationality. There will be no compromise. I give up.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

egg: "People "hating" mormon's because they assume we "hate" gays. As I understand the issue, California State Law already protects same sex domestic partners in every way they do "marriage", including what I guess has now become the most important right ever bestowed upon mankind, that holy grail of hospital visiting rights."

If you don't hate gays, then you have nothing to fear about them getting married, right?

"The mormon church supporting prop 8 was in defense of their freedom of religion and supporting their moral belief."

Again, if it was still black people being discriminated against by their church, would you still be calling it "freedom of religion"? That's a bs argument they also use to deny women birth control.

comment #33

MilkMan says ...

You're right televisiontears, you can't fight hate and bigotry with common sense and rationality. You can only fight it with an equal sense of hate and bigotry, and let history decide who was right. But it's funny how people who champion equal rights for all and are vehemently against those who would seek to suppress those rights and deemed bigots themselves. It's funny because it's the easiest, cheapest rhetorical device in the playbook. I'm sure there are a lot of things that go against The Mormon's "moral beliefs," the biggest one being that not everyone is a Mormon. And this is what this all boils down to. Anyone who has lived in Utah or Idaho or Wymoing will tell you that Mormons want nothing to do with anyone who is not a Mormon. They are a closed system, and that's fine with me, but when this group of inbred cultists, the scientologists of the 19th century, start telling the rest of us what is right and what is wrong, that's when it get's ridiculous. There have been a lot of things that the Mormon's have been against, black people in their universities being another thing against their "moral beliefs." Of course, when they figured out that it might be to their benefit to have a few black atheletes on their basketball and football teams, their "moral beliefs" got thrown out the window.

comment #34

DarthCorleone says ...

televisiontears & MilkMan>> Well said, guys. I've tried to engage in rational discourse with this particular group of Propostion 8 supporters on Hollywood Elsewhere over the past couple weeks, primarily because they earnestly claim they aren't bigoted, and thus I have faith that they might be open to logic. However, again and again they outright ignore direct questions about points that they raise, when I'm trying to give them an opportunity to convince me. (In one instance one of them grew tired of my attempt at civil discourse and took to insulting me.)

The concept that they could ever admit they might be wrong is off the table. I'm sure they'll abandon this thread just as the did the other ones out of a desire to keep their minds closed.

comment #35

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Nicely said, Milkman.

That is this Raddon contretemps in a nutshell. Bravo M-Man for such an apt analogy.

comment #36

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

(Previous post was in reference to his Motown in the 60's analogy, not the paragraph-break-less ramble above LOL)

comment #37

MilkMan says ...

The bottom line is this: what kind of person is against two people - human beings - entering into a contract of marriage? What difference does it make what other people do if it doesn't affect you? How does two women, or two men, getting married and raising a family affect you? That's what I need someone to explain to me? Unless of course, you yourself would like nothing more than to be in a committed relationship with someone of your own sex, but can't, because you're afraid, afraid of what your friends and family would think of you, or maybe you're just afraid of what YOU would think of you. So basically, what this boils down to is denying people a civil right because you have denied yourself that very same civil right, i.e., If I can't have that then no one can.

comment #38

televisiontears says ...

Milkman, your last post reminds me of Chicago48 rambling about not wanting gay people's hard, throbbing "rights" stuffed down his eager throat.

Trust me, Chicago48, you don't want those veiny "rights" shooting hot, creamy "civil liberties" all over your face. That just gets messy. And it can be a threat to your marriage.

comment #39

buster says ...

Speaking of Utah ...

this may be a tired argument ...the slippery slope ... but would the same people supporting gay marriage support polygamy? If not, why not? To paraphrase Milkman "The bottom line is this: what kind of person is against three or more people - human beings - entering into a contract of marriage? What difference does it make what other people do if it doesn't affect you?"

I have no issue with gay marriage, but I respect those who thoughtfully argue the inherent and fundamental difference between straight and gay couples. There is also a fundamental difference in arguing against a semantic change to rights a group already has and advocating that that group should not be able to live how it sees fit. Big difference. Seems that for many, including here, tolerance and freedom of thought are virtues only when convenient.

comment #40

DarthCorleone says ...

Buster>>

I have no issue with gay marriage, but I respect those who thoughtfully argue the inherent and fundamental difference between straight and gay couples.

I'd love to see examples of these "thoughtful" arguments that explain the harm caused by these "inherent" and "fundamental" differences, because - aside from gender - I don't see any difference at all. We're talking about a relationship and commitment between two people based on love. How is that different from a heterosexual couple?

As to your question, yes, the slippery slope is extremely tired. I haven't encountered a single person arguing "yes" on 8 who hasn't resorted to it, although they'll usually retreat to bestiality or pedophilia as the reasons we can't allow same-sex marriage, an especially insulting and degrading comparison as contrasted with a union between two consenting adults.

Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and answer your question, as I have before. I have zero problem with a trio (or more) of consenting adults entering into a committed, loving relationship that they call "marriage." If they have a church that sanctions it or if they enter into some sort of personal agreement outside of a church as a symbol of their commitment, they are welcome to it.

But from a government-sanctioned standpoint, I simply don't see it as logistically viable. How do we designate which spouse has the ultimate legal say over any given spouse in a medical emergency? How do the polygamists fill out a tax form? How do they make their insurance claims? It seems to me this would open the door to rampant exploitation of the system, and if we're going to keep "marriage" as a construct that our government attempts to oversee, then you're potentially opening a Pandora's box of immense proportions.

Add this to the fact that the cold reality of most instances of polygamy in our culture are not cases of consenting adults but are cases of horrible, sexist exploitation of minors in cultural sects, and I'm afraid government-endorsed polygamy is simply more trouble than it's worth.

However, just because I can't come up with a working polygamous model doesn't make me a hypocrite. The "leap" (and I don't think it's a leap) to same-sex marriage between two consenting adults does not involve any of these problems, so why not take it?

comment #41

Mjs says ...

Milkman's posts on this thread are a reminder of why I wish he had his own blog that I could read.

comment #42

DarthCorleone says ...

Surprise, surprise.

comment #43

Juno29 says ...

Do any of you even KNOW Rich Raddon? I for one really like the guy. He puts on a top quality festival every year and people have taken notice. He understands the film community, he knows how it works and he's a dynamic individual. I will say this - many of you have spoken out against his religious beliefs over the years and he hasn't said a word to you in his defense. Many of the industry's top producers and indie film insiders bash his religion regularly and he is still supportive. Whether or not you agree on his vote - fine. Just don't knock the guy down. Those of us who have worked with him, know him and see what he's all about know that he is a great guy and supports the gay community. His definition of marriage may be different but hell, who cares? I guess the litmus test of voting rights is going to start with us - folks, it won't be pretty when it's your turn.

comment #44

eggman says ...

I've waited to respond. Perhaps the topic has died out, but nonetheless, here is a response to my earlier post, which was admittedly made in a frustrated state.

For those interested, the Mormon church sent out an official press release some time ago. I encourage all of those willing to cast the church in a negative light to read the article to try to fully appreciate their stance, which is not motivated by hatred or bigotry, but rather a deep and genuine concern to protect the family, the cornerstone of society, as well as the potential threat of limiting their constitutional rights to the freedom of religion.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage

Particularly note many of the footnotes which draw upon social research conducted outside of the church. The article addresses the church's stance on the sanctity of marriage, potential societal and legal ramifications as well.

The fundamental difference of course will be that many people reading this site and these comments may not feel that homosexuality is "immoral", but rather a natural state of being and therefore that they shouldn't be deprived of those feelings. The issue then becomes a moot point and those that do not support gay marriage are reduced to bigots and haters. Hence the great divide. That divide is one that that is nigh impossible to bridge, or to reach common ground on. You either view homosexuality as immoral or you don't.

comment #45

DarthCorleone says ...

eggman>> Thank you for your civil response and the link. I read the press release in full.

Unfortunately, you are correct. I expect we will not be bridging this divide.

I do not agree with the conclusion that social sciences have demonstrated that children need to be raised in a household with parents of opposite genders. (Obviously, I will agree that two guardians are going to be better than one in situations that do not involve abuse by one of the two parents. I believe the more love that you give a child generally the better off that child will be.) In response to that claim, here are some links for you.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/12/health/webmd/main938234.shtml

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/514477

I apologize; there is a little overlap in data there. That's just a quick Google search. I'm not an expert on the studies. However, I'll repeat the question I posed above to someone else. Do you have any personal experience with people who were raised in a household centered around a same-sex parenting situation?

Also, is it not possible that any negative ramifications that might exist from being raised in a same-sex household (if they exist) are primarily derived from the discrimination visited upon them by our society - namely beliefs such as yours?

As for potential legal action against churches, as I said above, I would not be in favor of this. Churches should be allowed to marry whomever they like, as this seems perfectly within the bounds of separation of church and state. I can't imagine why a same-sex couple would want to hold their ceremony in a church that did not want them there in the first place. We are not seeking marriages in the churches of our choosing; we are seeking "marriages" as they are legally defined by government. There is a difference between the civil definition of the term and the religious definition of the term. I would point out once again that domestic partnerships/civil unions are not legally equivalent to marriage in this country as you initially claimed.

Additionally, assuming that you return to this thread, since I do have someone on your side of the issue willing to engage in this sort of substantive discussion, I want to ask you these commonly asked questions for which I have never found satisfactory answers from your side.

If homosexuality is *not* a natural state of being - as is the premise of your last paragraph - if it's purely a choice - then why would those seeking loving, same-sex relationships opt for it? Why not just take the path of least resistance - the path that does not involve discrimination and ostracization? Do you have any gay friends? Have you ever asked them questions like these?

That all said, if - as you readily admit - that the fundamental difference is simply one of morality based on religious belief, then why does that not end the debate in my favor? Should any law in this country be based on religious dogma? The vast majority of that press release uses Biblical support or interpretation of the church's teachings to bolster its argument. That is simply inappropriate and insufficient justification for any law in the United States Of America.

comment #46

eggman says ...

I actually do believe that many homosexuals are "naturally" homosexual. That their sexual attraction is not a choice, but a "natural" condition. Just as many married men may have a "natural" disposition toward infidelity and pornography. But hopefully they choose a pattern of behavior that protects their family.

The extension of this is then, that the gay individual correctly states that to be gay and mormon is to be celibate (of which, I'm sure, there are many), which I agree would be a horrible choice to make. But there is still a choice, as difficult as it may be.

Where this conversation usually ends up is that the gay individual furiously upset because the mormon belief system wouldn't allow them "happiness" by engaging in same sex intimacy. However, as the press release states, it doesn't matter if you're a single heterosexual or single homosexual, the policy is the same - any sexual activity outside of a traditional marriage is immoral.

So, that view certainly doesn't seem fair. And it certainly isn't "fair" if you view sexual intimacy with whomever you want as a "right". However, there are many conditions (mental, physical, conditional, geographical, or just plain bad luck) which would prevent individuals born on this earth from experiencing sexual intimacy as well. I have several friends within the church in their late 30's, early 40's, who are not married. Some of them have been abstained from sex their whole lives and may not ever marry and have a close intimate relationship with someone. Some have chosen to abandon that chastity and have sexual relationships outside of marriage. Is abstinence a difficult cross to bear? Of course. But a fundamental belief in most religions is a life after death. An eternal perspective on this life helps guide those decisions.

So, no, I don't believe homosexuality is a choice (I believe it can be), but I still believe there are fundamental laws of morality which we, mankind, are expected to live by. I believe that pornography and marital infidelity and deadbeat dads are far worse to society than a married gay couple. Far worse. And I wish there were stronger laws against and stronger societal reluctance to accept those behaviors.

Additionally, your point about laws - every law that exists is basically a referendum on morality, right? Laws basically define what is right and wrong, or what is moral and immoral. That is the nature of a law. It's much easier to define laws related to personal property and physical harm. It becomes much more nebulous when you are discussing potential harms against a society, so those issues (violence in the media, pornography on the internet) usually do not see effective legislation. Usually because this country, for better and worse, usually errs on protecting this behavior as a "right" of the individual.

A couple other points, I wouldn't say that morality is based upon religious belief. Without looking up any philosophers for some good quotes, I would say that it is a morality based upon an innate sense of right and wrong.

So, yes, I have a handful of close friends who are gay. A couple who have outed themselves to me. (I'm actually not a judgemental person at all).

It's been a long winded answer. I don't have any experience around children raised in a same sex household. I'm sure you will find studies on either side of the fence. And the church isn't trying to use their beliefs for justification of a law, only justification and explanation for their position on the proposition. And yes, I have friends who are gay and mormon and non-mormon. I honestly harbor them no ill-will or hate. But I still feel that same-sex marriage is not something I cannot endorse.

It's going to be irrelative. Unless there is a strong counter movement, I believe it's just a matter of time (5-10 years) before it is allowed.

I'll review those links you sent and try to some digging on my own. But the only way to begin to understand one another's position, if impossible to agree upon a common position, is civil discourse, not inflamed rhetoric.

comment #47

DarthCorleone says ...

Thank you for your explanation on choice and homosexuality. Not everyone on your side feels similarly, so I'm still looking for the answer to my specific question, but I appreciate your viewpoint, which is shared by a couple of the Mormon elders on an interesting link that I read adjacent to that press release you posted. (Another adjacent link gave me an answer to my question about recent lawsuits, some of which I found valid and some not.)

So, that view certainly doesn't seem fair. And it certainly isn't "fair" if you view sexual intimacy with whomever you want as a "right".

One of the things that most upsets me about this debate - and I'm not necessarily accusing you of this - is this fixation by your side with the sexual intimacy element. Just as it is true of any marriage, same-sex marriage is about much more than just the physical intimacy component. It's about commitment, love, and the feeling that the person with whom you are coupled is the correct personal fit for you. We are very much a country driven by the idea that the individual should be allowed a pursuit to happiness so as long as it does not infringe upon the happiness of others, and all these components of marriage fall under that umbrella in my mind. I think that's a much higher good than the good of allowing others to stick their noses in the personal business of others, because I don't see the virtue of the American's individual pursuit of happiness in that action.

Did you happen to watch that Keith Olbermann statement on the issue? If so, did his words not resonate with you at all?

Additionally, your point about laws - every law that exists is basically a referendum on morality, right?...

I wouldn't say that morality is based upon religious belief. ...I would say that it is a morality based upon an innate sense of right and wrong.

Yes, laws in general in any given society are based upon an agreed moral code, but you're getting into some extremely sticky territory here, and I don't know if we are on the same page with the point that I was trying to express.

This "innate sense" you describe is individually variable and far too amorphous to serve as a rule for all of society. My "innate sense" tells me that your "innate sense" in this particular case is unreasonable, as I expect yours does with regard to mine. Hence, we are at an impasse.

The problem therefore is that, yes, some morality is based on religious belief, and I can't see how you don't acknowledge that in this particular case your position on this issue is based on your religious teaching. Your using belief in eternal life as a justification for bearing the "cross" of sexual abstinence reinforces this, as does most of the reasoning in that press release, which I mentioned before.

Hence, in this particular case, I see a same-sex marriage ban as a codification of religious morality into law, and that violates my concept of the proper separation of church and state. The problem is not one of legislating morality. As you say, we legislate morality all the time. The problem is one of legislating morality based exclusively on religious belief.

I can make credible secular arguments that would support legislation attempting to limit marital infidelity, deadbeat dads, and pornography, even if I don't agree with all of them. I have yet to see a credible secular argument against same-sex marriage.

And the church isn't trying to use their beliefs for justification of a law, only justification and explanation for their position on the proposition.

Consequently, I don't really understand this statement. The church's position on the proposition is in fact their de facto justification for the law. What's the difference? If I manage to put legislation on the ballot that forbids Americans from eating bacon (or forbids them from working on the Sabbath, or forbids them from doing anything purely grounded in religious tradition and justification) and it becomes law, is that a fair law? What if someone else's religion decrees that he or she must eat bacon at every meal? Or what if that person simply wants some bacon and isn't beholden to any religion whatsoever?

Unless there is a strong counter movement, I believe it's just a matter of time (5-10 years) before it is allowed.

I hope you are correct; that certainly seems to be the societal trend, although I think prevailing public sentiment might make the debate last a little longer. The majority of states outright outlaw same-sex marriage, and many even outlaw civil partnerships. Most of those bans were instituted by votes that were not close at all.

But I still feel that same-sex marriage is not something I cannot endorse.

Oh, excellent! So we do agree. (Kidding. Just couldn't resist your typo. :- ) )

But the only way to begin to understand one another's position, if impossible to agree upon a common position, is civil discourse, not inflamed rhetoric.

I agree, and I appreciate your willingness to engage in this conversation in that manner. I admit that I have been guilty of inflamed rhetoric over the past couple weeks, but I've found it difficult not to become emotionally charged by what I view as a very hurtful abridgment of civil rights. I will endeavor to keep that counterproductive rhetoric in check so long as I am discussing the issue with those who keep things on this level that you are maintaining. If you would like to continue the conversation, I will check back in for your response.

comment #48

DarthCorleone says ...

I wouldn't say that morality is based upon religious belief. ...I would say that it is a morality based upon an innate sense of right and wrong.

Sorry - that part was supposed to be italicized.

comment #49

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability cluster