Associated Press -- A gay couple say they were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the Mormon church and later cited by police, claiming it stemmed from a kiss on the cheek.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said that the men became argumentative and refused to leave after being asked to stop their "inappropriate behavior." The men say they were targeted because they are gay.
--Read the rest--
so...
2 men were detained and handcuffed after being told that their kissing was inappropriate?
it doesn't sound like they were on private property, I might see this as unlawful detention.
I hope they sue; if the guards had not mentioned the kiss as inappropriate and only cited them for trespassing, they would have a fig leaf of law on their side.
as it is, they have NONE. Sue them on behalf of all the money the poured into overturning prop 8.
The Mormons are such pests.
Yeah, the Mormon Temple performs marriages where couples kiss. I don't hear about security throwing out wedding parties for inappropriate behavior. Such is life under a theocracy.
There are lots of Mormon churches adjacent to public property. Now it just takes some effort to organize kiss-ins.
So the christers chase the mormons from New York to Utah, with posters declaring that it is OK to kill them, and along this time period they tar and feather, rape , pillage, steal their property, etc. , etc., blah, blah,blah all because of the POLYGAMY issue THAT NORMAL PEOPLE can't understand. The republicans tell them that they can not join the US of A until they "fix" the problem--simple-Pres. Taylor tells everyone to stop (except for him). The Gays in the church is a big percentage--they go on missions, two-by-two and can't leave one another's sight for 2 years, and switch "companions" every so often.I'm not saying, but...........Anyway, it looks like their "Mossad" has some faces to step on with their "jack" boots. Just wait, pretty soon they will get a "vision" that the Gay issue will be OK, just like the "Blacks." In the meantime go kick the dust off your heals.
Well seeing that 99% of all Christians teach and believe as the bible says that man on man "shows of affection" are immoral, it is not unthinkable that people of faith would be offended by seeing such,,,, behavior,, on church property. Christians may not be able to control what people do "out in the world" but I would say that, on their own property, they would and should expect people to conform and respect their beliefs and values. But this is the crunch of the Loud and Proud out there. They want and demand respect from others but show no respect for others themselves.
Ha -brilliant! A national campaign of Kissing -great idea!
LOL!
"But this is the crunch of the Loud and Proud out there. They want and demand respect from others but show no respect for others themselves."
Post of the day..
It's enlightened. It is fair and it is tolerant.
So expect to be demonized for it..
Stuff like: "ZOMG11q!! You're a closet queer and why are you so fearful and why do you hate America so much you nazi bigot??!11! !!!1oneone!!1 Go back to hell, John McCain and stop posting your vile hate on hear!! OMG!! 1OMG!!! "
We still aren't sure what causes these nonsense posts. We suspect it may be an estrogen heavy diet, but there are other theories that range from stunted development to a horrible lawnmower accident when they were children.
Um, the gentlemen were on private property owned by the Church. Yup. The City of Salt Lake sold Main Street between North Temple and South Temple Street to the Church a number of years back. Oh yeah, it's true. The Mormons can dictate what is or is not appropriate behavior on their little slice of private kingdom. The Mormons also police that stretch of highway and the Momo Gestapo are ALWAYS on guard. A very public act of kiss-in dissidence is surely in order.
"So the christers chase the mormons from New York to Utah, with posters declaring that it is OK to kill them, and along this time period they tar and feather, rape , pillage, steal their property, etc. , etc., blah, blah,blah all because of the POLYGAMY issue THAT NORMAL PEOPLE can't understand."
Thanks the Catholics..
Scripturally, polygamy is prohibited for leaders of the church. (Generally elected offices) IOW, the "husband of one wife"
Naturally, the Catholics take this to mean that their priests can't be married AT ALL and must abstain from all sexual relations (Even though this position is explicitly refuted in scripture itself) and that everyone else must hold to the "husband of one wife" rule scripture (again, explicitly) laid out for Church Leaders only.
Now if you think that doesn't make allot of sense, believe me.. you're not alone.
Many of their rules and regulations are similarly skewed.
As evidenced by the MANY PROBLEMS the Catholics (and specifically the RCC) has suffered as of late it is fair to say their rules are somewhat counterproductive.. Regardless and somewhat inexplicably, they continue to stand by them four square.
Go fucking figure.
"Ha -brilliant! A national campaign of Kissing -great idea!"
Yes, by all means! Please do!
It will remind people that gays aren't merely effeminate men with shitty taste in clothing and strange hair styles. That they are actually quite arrogant and reduce their entire existence to the lowest common denominator - Where they put their dick - and that their respect for normal folks is virtually non-existent.
Please do.. That would be wonderful.
Feel free to engage in wanton faggotry whenever you see fit! Force people to view it in church and to explain it to their children! Make them watch it while eating dinner and, if possible, whenever it will cost them money to avoid it.. Like at a concert or sports event! Come out of the closet for once and just do it!
What are you, men or mice?
A National campaign of Kissing -really is a brilliant
idea -even JHoffa thinks so!
yarply- What percentage of Christians? 99%? You live in a bubble of self delusion to believe that most Christians believe your blind bigotry. And that doesn't even mention the other non-affiliated spiritual people who understand more about humanity than you.
In his own anti-social way that is
"You live in a bubble of self delusion to believe that most Christians believe your blind bigotry."
yarply is correct.
You are the one deluding yourself if you believe that Christians embrace this sort of un-scriptural activity.
Even the title of the article you are commenting on testifies that this is not the case.
And HEY! When are other behaviors going to be normalized by the ridiculous left? Pedophilia and bestiality can't be far behind! And why not alcoholism? I mean, at least there's a genetic link there. When will the behaviors of drunks be defended so stringently?
Remember YES you can!
Correction. My above statement should have said; Well seeing that 100% of all bible believing Christians,( instead of 99% of all Christians),, teach and believe as the bible says that man on man "shows of affection" are immoral.
Joe Friday say's; Just the facts ma'am.........
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Animals can't change their behavior and know not what is right or wrong. They live without sin, living in the Grace of God. Sinless.
People who deny the truth and look to the animal kingdom to explain their behavior state that they are animals. This is delusion.
This is especially true of those who follow the corrupt desire of the sinful nature and despise authority. Bold and arrogant,They aren't afraid to insult the [Lord's] glory.
Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
But these men blaspheme in matters they do not understand. They are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed, and like beasts they too will perish.They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you.
For speaking out arrogant words of vanity they entice by fleshly desires, by sensuality, those who barely escape from the ones who live in error,
They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity--for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.
Mormons ... they are simply a very bigoted, powerful, and self-righteous cult.
We should NEVER have admitted Utah to the Union. They still practice polygamy, or at least they don't prosecute it when it happens on "their" turf.
They are a treasonous Fifth Column in America, and should be treated as such.
Hoffa is his own Fifth Column. Even other bigots want no part of him.
MormonIsm is nothing more than a succesful cult filled with insane dillusional people who believe in fairy tales! Read about what Mormons believe and tell me that they are sane people. They lost all credibility when they lost thier sanity!
A cult becomes a religion when enough people start believing the BS!
C-U-L-T. That's the word for Mormons.
Love it how the other right-wing religious cultists hate the Mormons!
I'll tell you what the Mormon Church can kiss, MY ASS.
wassamatta them? They don't like Italians or something?
The temple block has been always been owned by the church, except for briefly being seized by the Federal government when the church was still practicing polygamy more than 100 years ago.
The temple bolk the symbolic and actual center of the address grid for the Salt Lake City. Even though SLC is now a comopolitan city that is mostly NOT mormon, the mormon influence is very strong.
Mormons are virulently anti-gay. God doesn't make "mistakes" such as men that are attracted to other men from their point of view. I was born into the church but I left a long time ago, and it wasn't just the gay that was my problem with the church, it was crazy, blind group think, the inability to accept outside viewponts, the unwillingness to accept that any of the church teachings were in the least bit uninformed, and the arrogance in which they assert their ignorance as the only true church of jesus christ.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
How does a kiss turn into a trespassing charge?
Is this the way the Mormon Church treats all people?
Charge them with a misdemeanor for an act of love?
Would they have kicked Jesus out and had Him arrested for kissing?
Oh, sorry...
... It seems they did.
"What so ever you do to the least, you have done to Me."
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/teresa94.html
.
"Charge them with a misdemeanor for an act of love?"
Gee, I dunno. How does fucking a dog on Someone Else's property get you arrested?
Same sort of perversion and ignorance at work.. Why expect a different response?
They were handcuffed by security guards? That sounds like unlawful restraint, battery maybe even kidnapping
Jhoffa seems proud of his ignorance -but I bet when he's using his real name he's a lot quieter - if he talked like this in real life, his friends and family would start thinking maybe fighting his own gayness -and they might be right.
Men who are so violently anti-gay are usually not sure about their own sexual preferences.
So look out Jhoffa -you're just making yourself look like you're in denial.
Anyone who believes in magic in the 21st century really needs to have their head examined.
May this be the kiss heard 'round the world!
The MORONS?
Those MORONS need to grow up and STOP PRETENDING to be
"holier than thou".
They obviously DON'T DESERVE to have "a plaza".
What MORONS need is a MASS LOBOTOMY RITUAL.
"Men who are so violently anti-gay are usually not sure about their own sexual preferences."
Yes, yes.. And people who claim to be afraid of spiders REALLY WISH TO BE BITTEN BY ONE. Don't want to grab the stove burner? Well, you obviously want to be burned! You're in denial.. blah, blah.. U R A stove-a-phobe! ZOMG! Stove bigots! AHHHHH! ZOMG!
Why do you idiots clog this place with your nonsense?
It's all you can do, toss absurd mis-characterizations and nonsensical, low brow attacks.
From the evidence presented, liberalism and/or faggotry must siphon off a tremendous number of brain cells..
REVOKE TAX FREE STATUS....
if they will use police to enforce their god damned mormon dogma.
Jhoffa_
I think you better stick to fucking your dog in your own yard until you get use to the fleas and ticks. Or wear a flea collar.
Hear, Hear -- the Mormons have done far more than enough to lose their tax-exempt status, but using the police to enforce THEIR religious doctrine --
THAT is blatant.
That is an utter subornation of the state to the ends of the "church".
I hope this generates a lawsuit.
Perhaps it's my age & experience . However, WHENEVER an individual is on a campaign of vengeance, hate, stereotyping & flat out Psychosis about a group of people, that individual has been in denial about their own preferences.
JAHOFFA...GET OUT OF THE CLOSET.
Had the misfortune of staying in Utah for 4 months once - It was the longest 10 years of my life. The only upside? Go shopping on Sunday, and many stores are deserted. The faithful are forbidden to shop on Sunday, at least officially.
Aside from skiing, the only thing Utah has to offer is the cult that runs the state. Fuck the Mormons, and every one of those inbred shitbrained fucktards that follows what their "prophet" says.
This is for our good buddy, Jhoffa.
Although in vain, I wish him the best with his new therapist.
August 1996
WASHINGTON -- Psychoanalytic theory holds that homophobia -- the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies. A study appearing in the August 1996 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA), provides new empirical evidence that is consistent with that theory.
Researchers at the University of Georgia conducted an experiment involving 35 homophobic men and 29 nonhomophobic men as measured by the Index of Homophobia scale. All the participants selected for the study described themselves as exclusively heterosexual both in terms of sexual arousal and experience.
Each participant was exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual and lesbian videotapes (but not necessarily in that order). Their degree of sexual arousal was measured by penile plethysmography, which precisely measures and records male tumescence.
Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'
Broken down further, the measurements showed that while 66% of the nonhomophobic group showed no significant tumescence while watching the male homosexual video, only 20% of the homophobic men showed little or no evidence of arousal. Similarly, while 24% of the nonhomophobic men showed definite tumescence while watching the homosexual video, 54% of the homophobic men did.
When asked to give their own subjective assessment of the degree to which they were aroused by watching each of the three videos, men in both groups gave answers that tracked fairly closely with the results of the objective physiological measurement, with one exception: the homophobic men significantly underestimated their degree of arousal by the male homosexual video.
Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'
Article: 'Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?' by Henry E. Adams, Ph.D., Lester W. Wright, Jr., Ph.D. and Bethany A. Lohr, University of Georgia, in Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Vol. 105, No. 3, pp 440-445.
(Full text available from the APA Public Affairs Office.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Psychological Association (APA), in Washington,DC, is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States and is the world's largest association of psychologists. APA's membership includes more than 142,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 49 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 58 state and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance psychology as a science, as a profession and as a means of promoting human welfare.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These plate-fondling weirdos need to grab a cup of coffee and a smoke and chill out.
As for the right wing troll, if you ignore him, he won't be able to masturbate at your response and will eventually go find his release somewhere else, like an airport restroom stall, the Appalachian Trail, or with one of his employees, just like his role models.
The Mormons still have a doctrine called "Law of Adoption", where any man can "adopt" a son, even though that son may be older than his father. Brigham Young adopted 38 men. Matt should have stated that Eric was his son and he was just administering a fatherly kiss.
How could anyone prevent two men from kissing? My husband and his brothers kiss cheeks and hug whenever they see each other. How could these cops have known it wasn't two brothers showing affection? And why is it ok for women, but not men to hug and show affection in public?
timmah, I got the same creeped-out feeling when we visited Utah on vacation. After 5 days, I was more than ready to get back to good old sin city - Las Vegas.
There is affection between family members of the same sex and then there is carnal kissing that a man and his wife partake of. No father and daughter or mother and son or siblings of the opposite or same sex would partake of such behavior unless they were trying to be perverse and commit incest. To suggest that these two men who were committing carnality on the Mormon cult's private property is equal to familial affection is still even more perverse. What sort of person would think of such a thing? It would be wrong for a man and his wife to behave this way on Mormon property or any church property. That's not that hard to understand. They should not have been arrested though, just asked to leave and behave like responsible adults. The gays have gotten the green light from the Supreme Court to have sex in the privacy of their homes. That's now their legal right. But that doesn't mean that they now can flounce on anyone's private property and parade what they do. Perhaps if gays like these two men showed more respect to people of faith even those in cults they would receive more respect in return, praise Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior.
@ Bonnie (Moar liek Bobby, amirite?) Buttfucker- Yet Another Raw Story Super Genius
"In 1993, behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles concluded that the usage of the term "as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve."
Again, if someone claims being exposed to bestiality or another immoral sexual act sickens them, then they secretly enjoy it. If they don't want to grab a hot stove burner, they secretly want to be burned. If they hate child rapists they secretly admire them.. Etc, etc, on and on..
The DSM has been gamed for years, and by various groups, and for various reasons. Sexual deviants have been trying to rationalize their perverse sexual antics for centuries, and with varying degrees of success.
The faggots have had a particularly poor showing in this regard according to many prominent mental health professionals..
Here is just one account:
Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of
Diagnosis. (1981) In Chapter 4, “Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association,” Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Here is another:
In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled, “Psychiatry is the
enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you.” Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the
conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.
How's that "gay pride" working out for you, Bobby? Proud of that, are you?
Hey, it's okay.. Those doctors were "Homophobic" They're all sick homophobes! Remember? LOL!
Actually, I could waste allot of time on this subject if I weren't busy this afternoon. What you don't know is allot. Many books have been dedicated to this subject, and by prominent professionals.
I also could ramble on and on about other problems with the DSM, like the lack of any single objective diagnostic test for classification, the politics that corrupt it (an example as seen above) or the other various biases which leave it far less than the simple cut & paste authority you seem to view it as.
"Everyone MUST give a standing ovation and MUST enthusiastically nod their approval when they are confronted with homosexuality or else they are homophobic and secretly faggots themselves. That's psychology!" Is an argument so absurd that it would embarrass a third grader. Only among the wacko left is such nonsense still taken seriously..
Intelligent people already know this. The wise perceive it. Only fools and the willfully obtuse still believe the DSM authoritatively defines their detractors as more perverse and ill than homosexuals themselves.
Sorry Bobby!
"will eventually go find his release somewhere else, like ... with one of his employees"
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I don't hire faggots.
Please make a note of it.
I really wish Raw Story would go back to moderating their posts. This past exchange is almost criminal in its stupidity.
If you take out the "gay" aspect, the story reads like this:
A couple is stopped by a security guard as they crossed a plaza owned by the LDS Church. The guard says move along. The couple becomes belligerent and refuses to leave. Security calls the cops. Since the couple is on secure, private property, and has refused to leave, they are charged with misdemeanor trespassing.
If the security guard was supposed to guard the plaza, he was just doing his job. Sure, the gay kiss might have drawn his attention. But the fact is, he was just guarding the plaza. He asks these guys to leave. They should have left before the cops showed up. This will go to court, get knocked down to criminal mischief or loitering (another crime they could have been charged with), and these two guys will pay a fine. But, this won't go any farther than that.
Not every ticket written to a gay couple is a reason for a new Stonewall, ladies. Pick your battles wisely.
Yo, Hoffa --
Blow it out your ... well, nose! The science is against you. More specifically, the peer-reviewed, mainstream, testable, observable, replicable science is against you.
Oh, and speaking of argumentum ad hominem -- yours were quite boring, Hire new writers. And always remember -- your homophobia is a mental illness. Please continue seeing your therapist about that.
Love --
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
jhoffa, I'm sure you don't hire gay people, I bet your Mommy doesn't let you out of the basement.
Lincolnparadox schreef:
"I really wish Raw Story would go back to moderating their posts. This past exchange is almost criminal in its stupidity."
Translation from Moronese into English: "Waa! Waa! The decent people are pointing out my cult's blatant hatred and stupidity, and they're standing up to us! Waa!"
Lincolnparadox schreef ook:
"If you take out the "gay" aspect, the story reads like this:
A couple is stopped by a security guard as they crossed a plaza owned by the LDS Church. The guard says move along. The couple becomes belligerent and refuses to leave. Security calls the cops. Since the couple is on secure, private property, and has refused to leave, they are charged with misdemeanor trespassing."
Now, why is it that republic*nts and christstains always have to lie to make their points?
You forgot to mention (without the "gay aspect," whatever that may mean to you), that the couple was singled out for kissing and then stopped by the security guard. And, as you already admitted, the couple was in the process of "cross{ing} the plaza" when they were stopped. If the guard had really wanted to keep the couple moving along, the guard would not have stopped them, as stopping the couple defeated the alleged excuse of "moving them along." This constitutes harassment by the security guard.
Of course, to protect your delicate gay-hating sensibilities, we won't mention that the security deliberately and wantonly selected this couple for harassment because they were two men. Oh, wait -- still nothing gay mentioned... unless, of course, you'd like to claim that two men walking together is now an act of overt homosexuality.
I just love it when the phobes' own crap gets shoved back into their own faces.
Love,
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
teslaguy
Happy birthday Nikola. If that fucking edison would not have fucked you over we'd have National Tesla Day.
R. Krueger, the article stated that one man kissed the other on the cheek - he didn't plant a big wet tongue on him, he just kissed him on the cheek. In that way, it could easily have been a kiss between brothers, not necessarily lovers, which was my point.
BTW, Jhoffa, you say you don't hire faggots - I suppose it's too hard to get them down to interview in your mom's basement!
Why did the mormon cross the road?
To get to the other wife......
Is there really any more idiotic belief system than the mormon belief system? Probably not. Then again, there is the catholic cult, and the southern baptist cult, and the lutheran cult, and the protestant cult............
As long as humans are other human's most important selective force (yes folks, that's evolutionary talk), manipulative power-seekers will be able to exploit the evolutionary anachronism called spiritual belief. They have figured out how to co-opt other people's need to fill their brains with something and they fill it with BS that they can milk for money and power.
Buh Bye
CB
As for JHoffa: It's fun to read the moronic rantings of people like yourself who, when they cannot make a coherent point, resort to name-calling and the like. Pathetic, really.
Oh, and btw, as a man who has been married for nearly 25 years, with two kids and a dog, I can safely say that two men kissing hasn't hurt my marriage. What does hurt married folk is the contention that our relationships are so weak that allowing gay men and women to marry would harm the institution of marriage. After all, if that was the case, the polygamist trash that make up the mormon cult would have destroyed marriage years ago. Thankfully, most of them are holed up in a small area of Utah and are not spread among us like invasive weeds.
Finally, there is no such word as "allot" as you write. Perhaps you meant to say that you are an idiot who cannot make two points without screwing up something. Then again, perhaps you wanted to tell us all that you are a fool. Well, we accept both premises; you are a fool and an idiot. Now go away so normal people can have an enlightened conversation.
cb
"Finally, there is no such word as "allot" as you write. "
You are correct.
Frankly, I don't pay as much attention as I probably should to my postings here.
They're gone in a day or so anyway. There is no preview button, and the place is infested with faggots and other defectives who will fight endlessly simply for the sake of it.
The longer the post, the less attention I typically pay.
I do appreciate the correction, however.
"The science is against you."
No Bobby, it is not. I am sorry to disappoint you.
As I said, the nature of the DSM and the history here is against you. You're just too stupid to realize it. It only files among left wing dreamers trying desperately to rationalize their perverse sexual escapades.
Saying it over and over won't make it so.
"The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC"
Correction: That should read "Liberal Cult of the Anus. Bobby Bitch, Rev."
Jhoffa_
"will eventually go find his release somewhere else, like ... with one of his employees"
I am sorry to disappoint you, but I don't hire faggots.
Please make a note of it.\
-------------------------------------------------
Jhoffa is pretending to be "straight." As if anyone cares what his/her sexuality is.
People like Jhoffa use derogatory language such as "faggots" to hide his/her own gay feelings. This happens all the time with prejudiced people. Ask any credible psychologist and they will confirm this.
People who are comfortable with themselves and their own sexuality don't resort to making derogatory comments about gay people.
The person wrote that they don't hire "faggots." How do you know that you don't? Do you ask everyone before you hire them what their sexual orientation is? If you do, that's against the law. You expect the person to tell you the truth and you believe them? Duh. Even a supposedly "straight" guy who is married to or living with a woman can really be gay, or bisexual. Your willful ignorance in this matter is astounding.
And why would you refuse to hire an entire group of people because of their sexual orientation? How intelligent is THAT? Because it might just make you have to deal with your own gay feelings which you're doing your best to deny/hide? Get some therapy. Some intense psychodynamic therapy.
As I said before, people who are comfortable with themselves and their own sexuality would never write the nonsense you have written about gay people.
Jhoffa had his mommy write: "No Bobby,"
I'm not your boyfriend, Hoffa.
Then Jhoffa's mommy wrote some more: "As I said, the nature of the DSM and the history here is against you."
Well, since you've provided no pathology (except your own), nothing of any scientific value, no cites for any history, and nothing even remotely civil.....
well, your saying it over and over won't make it so. LOL
But it does provide some light entertainment for a Sunday.
Do you have anything else? Perhaps something coherent and not based on your delusions? No? Well, then --
Happy FOAD --
Love,
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
Jhoffa_
We understand "allot"
It's like palin telling us that she stinks because of "officiate."
If you understand it-it's English.
"Well, since you've provided... nothing of any scientific value, no cites for any history..."
Uh, I believe I did.
It is really pointless though.. and I know that. I knew it going into it.
You are willfully blind, Bobby. Defending the orthodoxy of your anus cult is what matters to you. Repeating the same debunked nonsense.
You are fooling no one who doesn't wish to be fooled.
And frankly, you're starting to bore me.
You people are like Chatty Cathy dolls who can reach their own string. The inanity and the nonsense of your posts. I honestly wonder why you bother typing it.
"We understand "allot""
You certainly can't prove it by this thread.. Or anything you've posted here during my stay, let me tell you.
"The person wrote that they don't hire "faggots." How do you know that you don't?"
It is generally pretty obvious. Effeminate men. Their mannerisms. One thing about fags, they're simply dying to let an uncaring world know that they're, well.. fags. It's not hard to spot.
I don't hire anyone like that.
In fact, in my former line of work, I would make it a point to get rid of them whenever I could.
They're just inferior employees. I don't like them.
I live in a major city here in the States with a large gay population. I rarely see "effeminate" gay guys. It's very rare. It's an outdated stereotype that Jhoffa clings to like most of his prejudiced bile. JHoffa needs a "Service Pack" or an "Update" to update his outdated thinking.
It should be pointed out that there are effeminate "straight" guys. Based on Jhoffa's prejudice against gay people, he wouldn't hire the effeminate "straight" guy either because he would assume the guy is gay. Pathetic.
If one notices, he really likes the word "fag." It does something for him. It turns him on..
JHoffa scribbled: "Uh, I believe I did."
Your beliefs are irrelevant. All of them. The delusions too.
Now, did you know that same-sex couples were married in churches for centuries before your sick, depraved death cult co-opted marriage in the 11th century as a fund raiser?
(cf Boswell, John Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century
University Of Chicago Press: November, 2005
ISBN-13: 978-0226067117 AND
Boswell, John Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
Vintage: May, 1995
ISBN-13: 978-0679751649)
Did you also know that homosexuality occurs in every species in nature, and that this scientific fact has been observed and documented for over 100 years?
(cf Bagemihl, Bruce "Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and
Natural Diversity"
Stonewall Inn Editions (April 1, 2000)
ISBN: 031225377X AND
Karsch-Haack, Ferdinand "Liebe auf Sozialität? Eine begründete
Zurückweisung" 1905)
Did you even have a vague inkling that the word "homosexuality" was not even coined until 1869, by German/Hungarian sociologist and essayist Karl Maria Kertbeny, in his essay, "Das Gemeinschädliche des § 143 des preußischen Strafgesetzbuches vom 14. April 1851 und daher seine nothwqendige Tilgung als § 152 im Entwurfe eines Strafgesetzbuches für den Norddeutschen Bund"? Therefore, the words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" could not possibly have been written four to two millennia earlier in your cult's grimoire.
Did you ever learn that Freud, the inventor of modern psycholanalysis, did not consider sexual orientations other than heterosexuality an illness?
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.... " -- Sigmund Freud, 1935 [reprinted in the American Journal of Psychiatry, 1951, 107, 786].
And now to complete your re-introduction into reality this fine day -- the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM III in 1974. It was done because the lovely members of the APA -- learned psychiatrists one and all -- could not come up with a pathology. No pathology = no illness. (Bayer, R. (1987). Homosexuality and American psychiatry: The politics of diagnosis (2nd Ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.)
Well, now that your pea-brain has exploded all over your mommy's floor, I leave you to wallow, or whatever it is you do before you post. Do keep in mind that failure to address the factual information laid out before you (which you failed to do previously) will further reveal your embarrassing ignorance and general stupidity.
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
[...] in Salt Lake City agree wholeheartedly with the minority (quotes are from an AP article I found at The Raw Story). A gay couple say they were detained by security guards on a plaza owned by the Mormon church and [...]
Church spokeswoman Kim Farah said in a statement Friday that the men were “politely asked to stop engaging in inappropriate behavior — just as any other couple would have been.”
I have a problem with this statement. I have a problem with public relations sometimes and here is why. Kim basically sounds like did not want to piss off the gay community, but in doing so lumped a gay couple in the same category as a normal couple.
"just as any other couple would have been.” are you kidding me! So a normal man and wife is like any other gay couple. Please tell it like it is for crying out loud. Gays are not like any other couple, they are sodomites! and Gamorahites!
What I would have done is say this is private property and we reserve the right to choose whom may be on our property period. If we want to ask anyone to leave for any reason it is our right. These people were acting what we deemed inappropriate behavior, so they were asked to leave. The comment on the same as any couple is too much PR for me.
However, the LDS Church has a right to turn someone out if they are disruptive, etc or doing something deemed Un-Godly. What they were doing is un_Godly. A normal couple's kissing innocently on the cheek is not Un-Godly, but a gay couple it is, tell it like it is!
I understand what these guys want. They want respect, or at least tolerance, for the fact that they’re gay. And I support that. But those things cut both ways. Just as gays want to be respected or tolerated, so do Mormons.
I’m sure that most gays wouldn’t appreciate a Mormon walking in to a gay club and preaching about homosexuality being a sin. And Mormons don’t appreciate displays of homosexual affection on their property. So why not have a little mutual respect?
We need more live and let live. If you want to be gay, then be gay. But don’t go seeking trouble with people you know disapprove of your lifestyle. And the same goes for people who disapprove of homosexuality. Your disapproval does not imply any sort of requirement for others to live as you think they should.
The continuing public debate over same-gender marriage has prompted many questions from the news media, the general public and Church members in relation to the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the marriage issue specifically and on homosexuality in general.
The following interview was conducted with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy. These senior Church leaders responded to questions from two members of the Church’s Public Affairs staff. The transcript of the interview appears below in order to help clarify the Church’s stand on these important, complex and sensitive issues.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.”
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.
Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.
What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.
In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?
ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.
ELDER WICKMAN: One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.
ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?
ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’
Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.
ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.
The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?
ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.
ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.
It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.
ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.
We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well be to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?
I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean missionary service? Does it mean that someone can go to the temple, at least for those sacraments that don’t involve marriage? Does it really mean that someone with same-gender attraction so long as they’re faithful, has every opportunity to participate, to be called to service, to do all those kinds of things that anyone else can?
ELDER WICKMAN: I think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to elaborate on that.
ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”
To me that means that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop, where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the Church. Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or missionaries, or whatever the calling may be.
ELDER WICKMAN: Isn’t it really the significance of the Atonement in a person’s life? Doesn’t the Atonement really begin to mean something to a person when he or she is trying to face down the challenges of living, whether they be temptations or limitations? The willingness to turn to the Savior, the opportunity of going to sacrament service on a Sunday, and really participating in the ordinance of the sacrament… listening to the prayers, partaking of those sacred emblems. Those are opportunities that really help us to come within the ambit of the Savior’s Atonement. Viewed that way, then any opportunity to serve in the Church is a blessing. As has been mentioned, there is a relatively tiny handful of callings within the Church that require marriage.
ELDER OAKS: There is another point to add here, and this comes from a recent statement of the First Presidency, which is a wonderful description of our attitude in this matter: “We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.”
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What would you say to those members in society, members of the Church, who may look at same-gender attraction as different than other temptations, than any other struggle that people face? First of all, do you think it’s a fair assessment that some people have that feeling? What would you say to them?
ELDER OAKS: I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.
We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.
The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Both of you have mentioned the issue of compassion and this feeling about needing to be compassionate. Let’s fast-forward the scenario that we used earlier, and assume it’s a couple of years later. My conversations with my son, all our efforts to love our son and keep him in the Church have failed to address what he sees as the central issue — that he can’t help his feelings. He’s now told us that he’s moving out of the home. He plans to live with a gay friend. He’s adamant about it. What should be the proper response of a Latter-day Saint parent in that situation?
ELDER OAKS: It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”
My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth.
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to read the Book of Mormon is as a book of encounters between fathers and sons. Some of those encounters were very positive and reinforcing on the part of the father of a son. Some were occasions where a father had to tell his son or his sons that the path that they were following was incorrect before the Lord. With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’
ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.
I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”
There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.
ELDER WICKMAN: It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. It is a case by case determination. The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.
I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead both away from the Lord’s way.
ELDER OAKS: The First Presidency made a wonderful statement on this subject in a letter in 1991. Speaking of individuals and families that were struggling with this kind of problem, they said, “We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues.” Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues… even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is rejection of a child to some degree the natural reaction of some parents whenever their children fall short of expectations? Is it sometimes easier to ‘close the window’ on an issue than deal with it?
ELDER OAKS: We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all circumstances.
We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me he’s planning on going to Canada where same-gender marriage is allowed. He insists that he agrees that loving marriage relationships are important. He’s not promiscuous; he has one relationship. He and his partner intend to have that relationship for the rest of their lives. He cannot understand that a lifetime commitment can’t be accepted by the Church when society seems to be moving in that way. Again, if I am a Latter-day Saint father, what would I be expected to tell him?
ELDER WICKMAN: For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.
ELDER OAKS: Another way to say that same thing is that the Parliament in Canada and the Congress in Washington do not have the authority to revoke the commandments of God, or to modify or amend them in any way.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On some gay web sites there are those who argue that homosexual behavior is not specifically prohibited in the Bible, particularly in the New Testament. Some argue that Jesus Christ’s compassion and love for humanity embraces this kind of relationship. What is the Church’s teaching about that?
ELDER WICKMAN: For one thing, those who assert that need to read their Bible more carefully. But beyond that, it is comparing apples and oranges to refer to the love that the Savior expressed for all mankind, for every person, for every man and woman and child, with the doctrine related to marriage.
In fact, the Savior did make a declaration about marriage, albeit in a somewhat different context. Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”
We usually think of that expression in the context of two people, a man and a woman, being married and the inappropriateness of someone trying to separate them. I think it may have a broader meaning in a doctrinal sense. Marriage of a man and a woman is clear in Biblical teaching in the Old Testament as well as in the New [Testament] teaching. Anyone who seeks to put that notion asunder is likewise running counter to what Jesus Himself said. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between Jesus’ love and His definition of doctrine, and the definition of doctrine that has come from apostles and prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, both anciently and in modern times.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in Europe have legally sanctioned that kind of marriage? Why not just say, ‘We don’t agree with it doctrinally for our own people’ and leave it at that. Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment [in the United States], for example?
ELDER WICKMAN: We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.
Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.
ELDER OAKS: There’s another point that can be made on this. Let’s not forget that for thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the 1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several nations in Europe, for example, traditional marriage is so rapidly on the decline that it is no longer the norm. If marriage is evolving, ought we to resist those kind of social changes?
ELDER OAKS: That argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender marriage.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’
ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage.
As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations.
But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed.
ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard.
There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.
In addition, if people want to legalize a particular relationship, we need to be careful if that kind of relationship has been disapproved for millennia. Suddenly there’s a call to legalize it so they can feel better about themselves. That argument proves a little too much. Suppose a person is making a living in some illegal behavior, but feels uneasy about it. (He may be a professional thief or he may be selling a service that is illegal, or whatever it may be.) Do we go out and legalize his behavior because he’s being discriminated against in his occupational choices or because he doesn’t feel well about what he’s doing and he wants a ‘feel good’ example, or he wants his behavior legitimized in the eyes of society or his family? I think the answer is that we do not legalize behavior for those reasons unless they are very persuasive reasons brought forward to make a change in the current situation.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”
As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?
ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.
ELDER WICKMAN: Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.
The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.
Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement — that is, polygamy?
ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.
When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbad polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don’t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What about various types of support groups for those with same-gender affliction?
ELDER WICKMAN: I think we neither encourage nor discourage them, but much would depend on the nature of those groups. We certainly discourage people getting involved with any group or organization that foster living a homosexual lifestyle.
Ultimately, the wisest course for anybody who’s afflicted with same-gender attraction is to strive to extend one’s horizon beyond just one’s sexual orientation, one’s gender orientation, and to try to see the whole person. If I’m one that’s afflicted with same-gender attraction, I should strive to see myself in a much broader context… seeing myself as a child of God with whatever my talents may be, whether intellect, or music, or athletics, or somebody that has a compassion to help people, to see myself in a larger setting and thus to see my life in that setting.
The more a person can look beyond gender orientation, the happier and more fulfilling life is likely to be. The worst possible thing for any of us — no matter what our temptations, no matter what our mortal inclinations may be — is to become fixated with them, to dwell on them. When we do that, not only do we deny the other things that comprise us, but experience teaches that there will be an increased likelihood that eventually we will simply succumb to the inclination.
ELDER OAKS: The principle that Elder Wickman has talked about, in a nutshell, is that if you are trying to live with and maintain ascendancy over same-gender attractions, the best way to do that is to have groups that define their members in terms other than same-gender attractions.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If you had to describe this enormously complex question in a couple of basic principles, what would that be?
ELDER OAKS: God loves all of His children. He has provided a plan for His children to enjoy the choicest blessings that He has to offer in eternity. Those choicest blessings are associated with marriage between a man and a woman by appropriate priesthood authority to bring together a family unit for creation and happiness in this life and in the life to come.
We urge persons with same-gender attractions to control those and to refrain from acting upon them, which is a sin, just as we urge persons with heterosexual attractions to refrain from acting upon them until they have the opportunity for a marriage recognized by God as well as by the law of the land. That is the way to happiness and eternal life. God has given us no commandment that He will not give us the strength and power to observe. That is the Plan of Salvation for His children, and it is our duty to proclaim that plan, to teach its truth, and to praise God for the mission of His Son Jesus Christ. It is Christ’s atonement that makes it possible for us to be forgiven of our sins and His resurrection that gives us the assurance of immortality and the life to come. It is that life to come that orients our views in mortality and reinforces our determination to live the laws of God so that we can qualify for His blessings in immortality.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Thank you.
Rev. Bonnie--
I've been posting on Raw Story for three years now. I miss the good old days when comments discussed the articles and not the comments.
My point was that the law is on the side of the security guards. If the security guard had singled out the couple because they were interracial, or Eskimo, or whatever, that would be equally terrible. But the guard singled them out, asked them to desist and leave. These guys decided to "take a stand" on Church property. In Utah, call it loitering or trespassing, it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, you're getting a ticket.
If you want to fight for gay rights, try opening a dialogue with people. You spewing nonsense and poor rhetoric just makes you appear to be someone who hasn't looked at the issue from all angles.
LP
I don't have a dog in this fight, but when I was a young man, hitch hiking around the western states it was darned hard to get through a Mormon community without some cowboy hatted Deacon trying to give me a BJ. A fairly rare occurance in other communities. I think that a large percentage of Mormon men are latent. Maybe some of you gays should visit Utah and set them free from their closets. I think that any dogmatic cult with rigid sexual rules produces a great number of delusional, closeted, and perverse individuals. Look at the Roman Pedophile clergy for a good example.
Hell the Fundies too. look at the New Life leader Ted Haggard, shoots crank with, and exchanges sucks and f#cks with a gay prostitute, then goes home to kiss his wife and kids. Good thing he didn't have a moustache! Then it's off to give a lecture on sexual morality and collect enough money to pay the bills with enough left over for another whore. Whaaat a friend we have in Jeeezuz!
I've been posting on Raw Story for three years now. I miss the good old days when comments discussed the articles and not the comments.
------------------------------------------------------
I'm glad we're not in the so-called "good old days." I'm glad to see people discussing people's willful ignorance expressed in their comments as well, and not just the article. But I see you don't take your own advice (that's called hypocrisy), because you felt the need to comment on what Bonnie Bitch wrote.
It doesn't matter what site I go on, someone in their comments is usually spewing ignorance which needs to be addressed. There are so many ignorant people in our society and many say some of the stupidest and willfully ignorant statements in their comments. Such shit needs to be addressed otherwise it remains out there unchallenged and some damn fool will come along and assume the incorrect, prejudiced and ignorant statements are true. If you don't like reading the comments, no one is forcing you to do so.
Then you wrote this stuff:
"If you want to fight for gay rights, try opening a dialogue with people."
One cannot "dialogue" with closed minds. Period. It's the same as having a "dialogue" with a fundamentalist whether it be a christian or a Muslim. Ain't going to happen. Their "mind" is already made up and sealed shut.
"Your beliefs are irrelevant."
No, you need to re-read the post Bobby. The history and the very nature of the DSM itself are on my side. I am sorry you are disappointed.
"Now, did you know that same-sex couples were blach, blah.. "
The cult of the asshole is un-scriptural. Period. I don't care if they claim to have been "married" by pseudo "Christians" or not, Bobby.
"Did you also know that homosexuality occurs in every species in nature, and..."
Yes, allot of bad things happen in nature.. Should we look to the beasts of the earth for our moral lessons now?
"Did you even have a vague inkling that the word "homosexuality" was not even coined until 1869.. blah, barf, blah.. "
Don't care.
I prefer the term "faggot" Thank you.
"Did you ever learn that Freud, the inventor of modern psycholanalysis, did not consider sexual orientations other than heterosexuality an illness?"
Oh yes, Freud.. Refresh my memory. He was the Czech who wrote much about sex with his mother and scatology, then ended up fucking his daughter Anna..
What about that old freak?
"Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage..."
I'll say. The cult of some other guys asshole is a thoroughly destructive one. It is no wonder that enlightened men added it to the DSM to begin with.
"Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them..."
Jeffery Dahlmer & John Wayne Gacy come to mind.. Oh, sorry.. You were cut & pasting something stupid and boring the shit out of me again? What was it? I seem to have forgotten.
And who cares? Is there some point to this? Some guy was a faggot way back when and it's proof of what?
" It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and cruelty too.... " -- Sigmund Freud, 1935 "
Did he have any words of wisdom on fucking his daughter, per chance?
She never married you know. (You should see the pictures of them together.. CREEPY!)
"And now to complete your re-introduction into reality this fine day -- the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM III in 1974. It was done because the lovely members of the APA -- learned psychiatrists one and all -- could not come up with a pathology. No pathology = no illness."
Screaming faggots, faking APA credentials, crashing their convention, chasing them around and grabbing the microphone to threaten them and attempting a wholesale takeover of the APA PLAYED NO ROLE AT ALL, I'm sure..
You may also be interested to learn that you are stupid, and since no single objective diagnostic test for a mental illness exists in the field of psychiatry, the DSM refers to "disorders" and not "illnesses"
"Well, now that your pea-brain has exploded all over your mommy's floor"
You're boring me with your cut and paste nonsense.
Srsly.Boring.Me.
"The Left Rev. Bobbie Buttfucker, Church Of Some Other Guy's Asshole"
I fixed it for you.
"One cannot "dialogue" with closed minds."
Oh, you can say that again!
The orthodoxy of the strange anus based religion you people have developed is really quite tiring.
The BS responses.. The endless cries of: "No, you're GAY if you don't like being Gay!" "Nu-uh, you ARE" "No-U!" is so silly and wastes so many electrons..
I agree.. Closed minded people suck.
Hoffa, aren't you supposed to be resting peacefully beneath the goalposts at the Meadowlands?
I sure wish you were, or would just fake it and SHUT UP.
You are one vicious, obnoxious idiot -- I mean -- part of the Mormon-Republican mainstream.
"Hoffa, aren't you supposed to be resting peacefully beneath the goalposts at the Meadowlands? "
I am.. Just follow the phone line.
And please grow up.
Thank you.
That is all.
I just decided to see what the freakshow fools were writing since I'm sitting here writing an exam for my class. Normally I wouldn't waste time on these uncle dads and sister mothers but it is entertaining.
I'll make sure to let the students know where to look if they want to see the stinking rotten underbelly of America. It's really fun to talk about the sickness that spews forth from the gaping maws of the freepers and such. We can examine them analytically to identify patterns of behaviors and more.
Good people need to understand that these hideous imbeciles are reflecting a very basic and primitive human tendency to exclude others from their own social group in order to control resources and increase reproductive success in their own lineages. The vehemence with which they speak is testament to the fact that they speak from the amygdala rather than the neocortex (look it up righties).
These are humans who are scared that their own reproductive success will be a big fat zero and that realization can have lots of weird effects on behavior.
Keep in mind that most of those against abortion are post-reproductive or male (because they are still in the world where females are resources to be controlled). Similarly, many of those who rant against gays (and other groups) are practicing the same type of anachronistic resource control strategies used by most polygamous species (including humans - yes we are mammals first). Control of resources means higher reproductive success during human evoiution.
So, the best thing we can do is to accept that these people will never understand or care about others if that means that they perceive a cost to themselves, regardless of if it's real or not. And as the world changes around them, their hate and vehemence will increase until they die off. Think Battle of the Bulge in WWII - the German Army fought like cornered rats until they were thankfully destroyed. These are the cornered rats of our generation.
Oh, and btw, the nazis hated gays too.
'nuf said
cb
Roman Catholicism is not a "cult." Every aspect of the one, true catholic and apostolic faith, descended directly from Christ our Lord and Savior, is available to anyone with half a working brain. The same is true of the Protestant and evangelical faiths that are descended from Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Catholic Churches.
This is not true of the Mormon cult, which keeps most of its rituals and beliefs secret. Why? Why do they not want people to know what they really believe in? Why do they believe in science fictional-type things or believe that Satan is Jesus's brother? Why do the have rituals in their temples that no one who doesn't belong to the cult knows about? Just asking. Everything about our Lord Jesus Christ is in the Bible. That isn't true about Mormonism, is it?
Mormons are in for a LOT of grief, much of it deserved.
Boycott Marriott, boycott Utah, boycott Mormon-owned businesses, for starters.
Mormons think gays are their biggest PR problem. Wrong, it's ALL of us non-bigoted folks.
Jhoffa_ the "the Gospel expert" condemns what CONGENITAL MADE BY GOD INTERSEX people do for sex, but demands a free pass on ALL HIS YEARS OF FORNICATION, ADULTERY, WIFE-DUMPING, LIVING IN SIN WITH HIS SECOND UNLAWFULLY WEDDED 2ND WIFE, LACK OF CHILDREN (ON PURPOSE!), CRUDELY FOCUSES ON OTHER MEN'S A-HOLES AND EVEN ENCOURAGED OBAMA TO CHEAT ON MICHELLE WITH MEN JHOFFA_ DEEMS "PRETTIER THAN MICHELLE". Jhoffa_, you've condemned abortion, but you also condemn non-aborted fetuses that grow up not meeting your Aryan Playboy looksist standards! Should Michelle have have been aborted because she inherited African features?---and you condemn liberals for being racist stereotypers??!! And since childbirth often causes bladder and bowel tears that leak into women's birth canals, should such women be kicked out of their marriages for the same reasons you condemn gay sex? What you said about Michelle is unforgivable, and your hypocrisy about your own sexual sins is an abomination to the Christ you claim to follow. You never answer the moral conundrum of intersex people. Are you that biologically ignorant?!
Freddy Krueger, most of Christ's life was LEFT OUT of the Bible. For instance, excluded manuscripts indicted he had a wife and children. Also, he never condemned MATERNAL LIFE-SAVING Jerusalem's RU-486-like Queen Ann's Lace weed and abortions performed by midwives. Christianity has genocided probably a billion people since it got hijacked by early misogynist pedophile bishops.
Jhoffa_ has probably had anal sex with women, and even if he hasn't, the vagina has as many or worse germs, not to mention blood and human waste from CHILDBIRTH LACERATIONS. Jhoffa_ is also GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE POPULATION'S 10-20% intersex conditions which form in utero. Jhoffa_ is TOO SMALL MINDED AND BIGOTED TO CONSIDER THAT GOD MAKES INTERSEX PEOPLE TO COUNTER THE SEXUAL CORRUPTION AND OVERPOPULATION OF STRAIGHT PEOPLE.
Jhoffa_ DISHONESTLY ignores most gruesome murders being committed by straight men -- Ted Bundy, "honor" killers, the CHRISTIAN Crusades, the mostly Catholic Nazis, to name a few perps.
Jhoffa_ the RUDE, INFANTILE, "KNOW-IT-ALL" FAUX Christian "saint" has serious gender stereotype, appearance, and moral confusion issues. While he claims to belong to the cult of the bloody, diseased vagina "because of science" and "Scriptures", he hasn't justified his cult membership by producing any offspring! Why is that?--could such offspring inherit sex chromosome disorders that might be effecting him also? If he has XXY Klinefelter's Syndrome, then he might have a small dick--thus explaining his first AND ONLY BIBLICALLY RECOGNIZED MARRIAGE TO A PETITE ASIAN WOMAN! HOMELY bullies that continually attack women's looks invariably have small dicks also. Where did he meet her? Here in the U.S. or Is he an Asian sex tourist?? Why are they divorced? Did he beat her? Did she ditch him for a better looker after she got her citizenship? Maybe she wanted a real man who doesn't insult everyone about the bodies they inherited in the womb even though he claims to condemn abortion. Since homosexuality is caused by endocrine disrupters and/or multiple sperm fertilizations of one egg and/or opposite sex twin fusions DURING PREGNANCY, you'd think Jhoffa_ would support some abortions. Considering how frequent intersex conditions are, Jhoffa_ ought to medically prove "his" gender through chromosome testing. Perhaps, he should be following his own rules by practicing complete abstinence since he could be a shemale. Moreover, he's disobeying Christ's condemnation of divorce and remarriage by living in sin with one of Fred Phelp's daughters. He also mentioned dating lots of women, so I want to know why his fornication and adultery get a free pass?
Lincolnparadox schreef: "I've been posting on Raw Story for three years now. I miss the good old days when comments discussed the articles and not the comments."
Well, good for you. after you make a post discussing my comments! Now, what does your declaration of "squatter's rights" have to do with the article? And why shouldn't the blatant stupidity, obvious hypocrisy, and willful ignorance of certain posters be discussed?
"My point was that the law is on the side of the security guards. If the security guard had singled out the couple because they were interracial, or Eskimo, or whatever, that would be equally terrible. But the guard singled them out, asked them to desist and leave. These guys decided to "take a stand" on Church property. In Utah, call it loitering or trespassing, it doesn't matter if you're gay or straight, you're getting a ticket."
That's nice. Now, please feel free to reference any and/or all incidents of an opposite sex couple being singled out harassed for holding hands and kissing on the cheek. Go ahead. You claim the guards act in an egalitarian manner WRT to PDA. Here's your chance to prove it.
Also, I'm not familiar with downtown Salt Lake City. This plaza where the harassment incident occurred sounds, from the descriptions provided, as if it's an open-air "mall" of some sort, where the general public is normally allowed to pass by. My question is: who pays for the upkeep and maintenance of the plaza? Does the city provide street sweeping, or any cleaning service? Snow plowing? Does any tax money support this plaza in any way? If so, the Moron church wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, if they're accepting public money for the plaza. If not, then why do the vaunted security guards allow non-Morons on Moron property? If the plaza is indeed private Moron property, then why are non-Morons allowed on the premises? Either way, the blatant christstain hypocrisy is once again obvious.
"If you want to fight for gay rights, try opening a dialogue with people. You spewing nonsense and poor rhetoric just makes you appear to be someone who hasn't looked at the issue from all angles."
Well, Link, I've learned from experience that it is impossible to reason with closed minds. Some people, such as yourself, blithely and gleefully dismiss anything in discord with your worldview as "rhetoric" and "nonsense." Specifically with you, as with most christstains, anything that isn't "Fags are gonna roast in Hell" is somehow "pro-gay" and must be derided. And a man kissing another man on the cheek in a public area which the Moron cult selectively claims is private and allows non-Morons access thereto -- well, that just must be stopped. Just like all the opposite sex couples that have been harassed and detained for the exact same thing. You know -- those incidents which you are going to list in your next post, lest your "poor rhetoric" be revealed for the "spewed nonsense" that it is -
Awaiting your rational, reasoned responses --
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
Very. Old. Flame. War.
Sam said: "Do you ask everyone before you hire them what their sexual orientation is? If you do, that's against the law". (sam, just addressing that statement, not your entire post...)
Um, not so much. That's why all the "hooplah" for equal rights. My boss could walk into my office in the morning and directly ask me if I'm gay. If I said yes, he could fire me for no other reason than that - completely disregarding my work history. And it would stand up in court. Because there isn't a law that prevents it. That's why companies have an equal opportunity employer statement at the bottom of their ads to encourage people of all races, religions and/or SEXUAL ORIENTATION.... They have the right to specify who they want working for them to some degree. But it's mostly just a mission statement on their part when it comes to teh gays. The govt protects race and religious freedom specifically.
This whole private property argument gets me though ~
What about the black guy who decides he wants to sit down at a notoriously white public lunch counter and the owner says "I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone - get the fuck out you N word guy"? If his business is open the the public, the owner does not have that right under the law. If it was gay guys at the straight lunch counter, he could say get the fuck out and there's not much that could be done about it.
You're boss might have a thing agains mormons, glance over catching a look at his employee's "magic underwear" at the urinal and then walk into his office in the morning and ask - "Are you a Mormon"? If he got fired for it, the Mormon would probably go screaming to their closest ACLU office. "You can't force me not to wear my magic underwear"! Even though it is private property and they may have security guards patrolling the men's rooms. The gov't protects his wearing of the magic underwear not matter how bat-shit crazy the rest of us think their cult is. It's religious freedom. But a kiss on the cheek by 2 people of the same sex - holy crap, someone's got pay! What if our kids saw that! And if they didn't, let's be sure to point out how to specifically escillate hate against a group of people that would rather have nothing to do with the likes of you anyway...
Blah blah blah
Good Lord people - it's not like these guys were barebacking on the steps of the church or anything. It was a kiss on the cheek while taking a shortcut home. Go get your magical panties in a bunch over something else. What kind of freek (jhoffa) really gets so very outraged over such things? Go wrap yourself up in your sheet and leave the rest of us out of it.
"Grrrawrr! ARF! ARF! GRRRRRWR! Woof! Woof!" ~ Typical Mary Post.
"Being a christstain and a republicunt, Jhoffa will bibble back that his fornication and adultery get a free pass because he's a HETEROSEXUAL"
Who said any of that?
You are truly a silly, silly boy, Bobby.
Fornication, adultery & homosexual sex are all sins. None are the unforgivable sin.
I am not a republican..
You have all the processing power of a garden variety paint huffer.
Jhoffa schreef: "You are truly a silly, silly boy, Bobby."
Quit talking to your boyfriend, Ms. Hoffa.
"I am not a republican.."
Well, sweetie -- if it walks like a neo-con and talks like a neo-con and whines like a neo-con -- it must be you! LOL
"{I} have all the processing power of a garden variety paint huffer."
Don't be dispresepctful to your toys, Ms. Hoffa.
I was also only too glad to fix your comment to reflect truth and accuracy.
Now, will you be citing any factual sources to bolster your ASSertions? If you do, please refrain from bitching about cites and quotes right after you post your (faked-up) quotes and (non-existent) cites. LOL
Happy FOAD, christstain --
The Left Rev. Bonnie Bitch, ULC
jhefer:
"Fornication, adultery & homosexual sex are all sins. None are the unforgivable sin."
things are only sins if you believe in sky fairies and such. Now go take out the trash like your mommy told you.
you have all the processing power of a rock.
I believe you are not a republican. You have proved that you are too stupid to be a republican - and that is saying something.
So public displays of aggression are OK with the mormon wackos?
btw, I was raised a mormon and know first hand what a load of crap it is.
wow, holy rolling ignorance is strong in this jhoffa troll
he must get beat up a lot (which is probably the primary reason he has to be home-schooled)
what an ignorant little pansy.
if there was a god, people like jhoffa would not exist
jhoffa's existence is proof that there is no god
Is there anything more dangerous than a kiss? Just imagine if the 9/11 hijackers had kissed instead of driving their planes into buildings? We could have all been killed! It might have set off an epidemic of kissing world-wide. The very thought of such a horror makes me tremble with fear.
Of course all the people armed to the teeth are no danger at all but -KISSERS - think what kissers could do in a time of trouble. All the wasted hours kissing instead of killing. It is too horrible to envisage. It can't happen here. We are Americans!
"things are only sins if you believe in sky fairies and such."
Completely out of context.. Re-read the thread.
Stop wasting my time with nonsense.
kthx.
Sounds like they contrived a plan to fuck with some mormons by standing on their proerty and making out. It's pretty obvious they were baiting a response, what gay couple goes to the fucking Mormon temple to make out? I'd rather have sex in a morgue, and that's not something I'll do either. If they were cutting through the church property to save some time on their walk home from a concert, then why didn't they leave when asked. If they were cutting through to save time then how did they have enough time to kiss and get into it with a security guard and then police. Seems they weren't in too much of a hurry, eh? Chalk it up for another contrived bullshit phony-sympathy article for the ideological causes supported by raw story.
K3,
A, I don't know which is sillier
.
A, The various Religious Cult's Superstitions (sins)
.
or
.
b, This Closet Queens (Jhoffa, ET) that are preoccupied with their Hate, Judgments & lack of critical thinking in term of Life of Life's terms. And lack of brutal honesty with themselves.
.
It is a mystery
They're going to have to arrest a whole LOT of people kissing.
I want to see them arrest a heterosexual couple kissing. Do they do that?
I'd kiss a guy, just once, to be part of the protest.
MORMONS ARE BIGOTS.
We do not have to tolerate their intolerance and obstruction.
Let's use the laws of the land to screw with the Mormons mercilessly until they learn THEIR lesson -- to leave other people alone, as they would like to be left alone.
Mormons -- of all people -- look at the history -- ought to know how ugly bigotry is.
So why then do they practice it against others?
The Mormon church spent millions of dollars in their efforts to defeat prop 8 in California and now they are trying to take us on one at a time.
Enough is enough.
I hope the gay community in Utah and anywhere there is a Mormon Gulag will fight back. Its time to initiate actions against this fascist pseudo-religious org.
gather on public property adjacent to Mormon property and show affection for the one you love. Then take steps to challenge their tax-exempt status on the grounds of political machinations and scapegoating American citizens. That will surely get their attention.
The LDS church didn't spend "millions" of dollars supporting proposition 8. The church spent thousands creating a proposition 8 website but the "millions" of dollars were donated voluntarily by individual members of the church.
And enough with the name calling, it's ridiculous. I understand if you support gay marriage but you must admit the name calling is unintelligent. You're not going to change anybody's opinion with fists up and a foul mouth.
I think it's highly disingenuous to call those millions in donations "voluntary", when the church membership operates in an authoritarian cult-like atmosphere.
A serious case can be made for taking away their tax-exempt status. Would the IRS have the balls? I doubt it, but it should be done.
All LDS money is voluntarily donated. The fact that they recruited the funds specifically to fight the satanic prop 8 is even more damning and clearly illegal for a tax-exempt organization.
And I agree that name-calling is unacceptable. It is unforgivable to call the Mormon church a corporation which can only maintain itself through fascist tactics....unless it's true.
Then, it's the truth.
Yes, it IS the truth.
Mormons are hardly the only cultish-racketeers-operating-as-a-religion, but they're the archetype.
You've yet to sway my opinion, good luck convincing the majority of the U.S.
Rest assured I am not trying to sway your opinion. Each of us is responsible for his or her own response to his fellow man.
Either you understand the true universality of all of creation, or you live in a fractured hell.
HINT: You can leave your fractured hell at any time.
For all you haters in here, I am giving you a radio shout out. Mr. DJ, please spin up your most queeny copy of Elton John's "Can you feel the love tonight?......"
No really, this is ridiculous. The church has no business hand-cuffing people for kissing, It didn't say they were DEEP THROATING or tongue in mouth. Come on. Get real. Wake up and smell the nazism people...
I went to a protest rally in West Hollywood earlier this year and 5 CHURCH THUGS (who are these Tongan islander fanatics and who do they think they are?) roughed me up ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS while the police 50 yards away stood there and did nothing. Yeah, really makes me feel sad for the poor old Mormon Church. Yeah..
While we're at it let's talk about the "arrogance of others".... How about the arrogance of those few heterosexuals who actually believe that they themselves and their religion is in charge of the moral compass of the land... To them I would have to say, WAKE UP AND SMELL THE INTERNET. These kinds of attitudes of being able or desiring to control the lives and happiness of others come from a dying breed. Your time is up. Step off the stage and leave quietly. Hmm.. sounds like some rather tacky guys in dark suits mentioned in the article, doesn't it?