I was talking to Mormon apostle Dallin H. Oaks just the other day, and for some reason, we started talking about gay marriage. He was able to clear up a few things for me.
Dallin H. Oaks has elaborated on these ideas from time to time.
Good Reason
It's okay to be wrong. It's not okay to stay wrong.
© 2024 Good Reason
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
27 March 2011 at 2:48 am
"Religious liberty as we define it,"
Boy, ain't that the truth!
27 March 2011 at 6:26 am
Haha, awesome.
Kinda related – I'm somewhat bugged when people say that even the non-religious are trying to push our ideals/beliefs onto others. "You do it too, why can't we?"
Inherently I don't think trying to "push" a belief onto other people via public policy isn't necessarily a bad thing. I just think it needs to be evidence-based. And we saw this with Prop 8. They couldn't find any reasonable justification for it. And this is a good thing because, you know, we wouldn't want some crazy Islamic belief getting put into law by the socialist muslim anti-christ Obama!
27 March 2011 at 10:24 pm
And protesting/boycotting Apple to get that latest iPhone app about curing homosexuality removed was, of course, all about gays just letting religious people have the freedom of their own beliefs.
Right?
28 January 2015 at 8:35 pm
Dafuck you talkin' about?
29 January 2015 at 6:33 am
Apple could have ignored the boycott.. boycotting isn't force.. it's applying social pressure without government intervention. It's the way markets and society work to change things. You can boycott anything (except Obamacare) and that is your right to do so. Gays can boycott TLC, Oaks could boycott gay pride parades… all that is fine. It's when one group wants to 'force' others into following them – like only straight marriage is allowed because of LDS morality.. that we have a problem
27 March 2011 at 10:24 pm
subscription comment.
28 March 2011 at 1:35 am
Actually, I was pleased to see Apple take that app down in the interest of quashing misinformation, just as I would if there had been a 'vaccines cause autism' app.
No credible evidence suggests that homosexuality can be 'cured', or that being gay is a 'disease', so I don't see a compelling reason to defend the app.
Just a tip — you might not want to put too many eggs in that rhetorical basket.
28 March 2011 at 2:36 am
Honestly, I couldn't care less about that app or the philosophy behind it Daniel.
But it does pretty firmly demonstrate, that the gay movement is NOT just about live-and-let-live here. They are not coming from the standpoint of "we'll believe what we want, and you don't have to worry about your own beliefs being hounded out."
The gay movement's agenda is plain – they want all viewpoints other than theirs marginalized and hounded out of the public square entirely. And if they could criminalize Mormons not allowing gay marriages in their own temples – they'd do it in a heartbeat.
Which pretty much kills your cute little narrative here.
Let's not have any pretense here. You aren't just about getting gays their own rightful spot in the public sphere. The agenda goes quite beyond all that.
28 March 2011 at 2:54 am
Did someone in the gay movement leak the agenda to Seth? Dammit, people, we've got to tighten up security.
I'm skeptical that there's a powerful, monolithic, and well-organised 'gay agenda' like you're talking about. I also haven't seen any instances of the 'hounding' that you're mentioning, although I have seen one or two instances of people making hateful comments about gay people and then getting fired. This guy comes to mind. Not going to cry over him, though — he shouldn't have been working in education.
Got any good examples?
28 March 2011 at 3:14 am
I already gave you one.
Not to mention that charming list of donors that was circulating around about Mormon donors to Prop 8 in an attempt to intimidate voters.
That was a really ugly precedent to set. Hadn't been done in a campaign before, and I found it plenty disturbing, even if there were only a few incidents of harassment and intimidation that resulted from it.
Not to mention all the charming calls for religions to lose their tax exempt status that I've heard repeatedly over on the Huffington Post and other similar venues.
No, advocacy groups on the gay side aren't "attacking religion" at all. Elder Oaks is just being paranoid and it's all in his head.
Uh huh. Sure.
28 March 2011 at 3:22 am
The Prop 8 info was publicly available. If you don't think it should be, then by all means lobby to get the law changed. That might cause some other undesirable consequences, though.
What's wrong with religions losing tax exempt status? I've advocated for that here, independent of the gay issue.
Did you expect people to say and do hateful things and not have any consequences? That'd be about right. The only people who ought to have any consequences for their actions is those gay sinners, or some such nonsense.
28 March 2011 at 7:05 am
"The gay movement's agenda is plain – they want all viewpoints other than theirs marginalized and hounded out of the public square entirely. And if they could criminalize Mormons not allowing gay marriages in their own temples – they'd do it in a heartbeat."
Wait — which is it, marginalize and hound or criminalize? I didn't get the last memo.
28 March 2011 at 11:57 am
All three! We'll stop at nothing.
Seriously, WTF is the deal with this issue? Why does it drive otherwise intelligent people to typing strings of gibberish?
28 March 2011 at 12:59 pm
It doesn't matter that the info was publicly available Daniel. To have someone compile a LIST of donors and publish it on the web was unprecedented behavior. And deeply disturbing. Like some sort of unspoken rule of civility and conduct had been broken.
And regardless of whether there are other reasons on the tax exemption thing, the most common place I hear for calls to remove it is in forums where homosexuality is at issue.
I don't know why I have to repeat this Daniel, because I'm pretty sure that you already know my views here. I did not support Prop 8, nor did I agree with the LDS Church's stance on it.
I think that the LDS leadership made a tactical mistake in their approach to the issue. I personally think what they were really concerned about was the loss of the right to not accept gay marriage as a RELIGIOUS matter. They were worried that things were trending toward a United States where not accepting homosexuality in the ways that certain groups wanted it accepted would be penalized, and perhaps even forbidden.
I personally think this was the real concern they had.
But if that was the case, they should have made that clear and argued that case. The Prop 8 campaign just confused the issue.
Daniel, the point of your post here was to pooh-pooh the concerns of LDS leadership that society will start severely penalizing religious groups for not believing that gay sex is a correct practice, and not accommodating it in their theology and rituals.
I think there are plenty of societal trends right now which indicate otherwise. And I simply don't believe a good chunk of the gay advocacy movement when they claim that they aren't trying to force people to embrace homosexuality.
Yes, the gay movement is not monolithic in nature. But I don't see why that matters one bit.
Gay advocates were outraged by the "I'm Afraid" TV ads that aired in California during the Prop 8 issue. They called them alarmist, hysterical, and inaccurate. I tended to agree with them at the time. It did strike me as fear-mongering.
So why are elements of the homosexual advocacy movement out there apparently working now to make at least some of the ads' predictions a reality?
28 March 2011 at 1:30 pm
I think I understand your views. I remember one notable comment thread (yes, that one) where you seemed quite sensible in contrast to a more mainstream Mormon. But now you're promoting some of the most grotesque caricatures the right wing can throw up. What gives?
Let me try and talk you down. I think you're giving in to the hysteria. The only people talking about forcing the LDS Church to solemnise gay marriage is the anti-gay panic merchants. I think you're worried about something that doesn't exist.
You'd be doing me a big favour if you could show me an example of someone who says that, so I can see what they're saying and how much influence they have. I won't say no one is saying that, but I feel safe in saying they're on the margins.
28 March 2011 at 1:41 pm
I don't think anyone is saying it (other than the marginal people you mention possibly being out there).
I'm just saying the trends present right now are troubling.
The trend that I see out there seems to be indicating a willingness to make this a matter of state coercion or pressure.
And yes, the anti-gay movement is guilty of similar tendencies in different ways.
28 March 2011 at 2:07 pm
Okay, so you're talking about a 'trend' that may or may not exist. Arguably the greater danger is that the straight majority will curtail the rights of the gay minority, which — oh, look — they've already done. You're concerned that gay people and their friends are going to enact sweeping legal changes on religions, when in fact the reverse is already entrenched.
Seriously, LGB people are probably about 3% of the population. Now the other 97% is saying "We're being oppressed!" It's like the War on Christmas, but even more lopsided. Bit of perspective, please.
28 March 2011 at 2:17 pm
Contrasting this in percentages of gay vs. straight does not accurately convey the situation.
Sure, only 3% of the population actually is gay. But what percentage of the population is on which side of the "gay issue"?
Besides, most societal discrimination is actively pushed only by a small minority of the population, with the rest of society either being marginalized, or quietly going along with it.
This was even true for blacks in the deep south in the 1960s. Most southerners were decent enough and didn't feel much need to participate in the mean-spirited stuff going on (like slipping trash into a black man's sandwich at a diner). That was usually an angry minority, with the rest of society quietly going along with it, or not doing anything about it.
So the percentages don't really mean much here. Discrimination is usually something pushed by a minority that manages to seize a moment in history.
28 March 2011 at 5:03 pm
This is an old story. It's just the usual backlash seen when a privileged majority starts to lose its long-held privilege over a minority. Anti-gay religious conservatives are now taking their turn at yelling "They're going too far!" and "They're taking over!"
28 March 2011 at 7:14 pm
Kuri, I was actually pretty supportive of the gay side of Prop 8 prior to the election.
It was only after the backlash that I started to seriously sour on the movement.
And yes, I do think there's a lot of War-on-Christmas-style alarmism going on here.
But it doesn't help that several elements of the left wing are doing their best to provide ammo for the alarmism.
Stories like the one from the UK about the Christian couple who was barred from acting as foster parents simply because they (mildly) expressed disagreement with homosexuality in an interview doesn't help either. It's hard for people not to wonder where all of this is heading.
28 March 2011 at 8:17 pm
Oh, I agree the LDS church has some genuine things to be concerned about because of the gay rights movement, just like, say, Bob Jones University has had some genuine things to be concerned about as a result of the Civil Rights movement. I just don't see much reason for 1) exaggeration or 2) sympathy.
28 March 2011 at 8:49 pm
And while I have sympathy to the plight of gay Americans, I consider it an insult to the historically persecuted black community to assert that there is any significant parallel between their historic plight, and the plight of modern gays.
28 March 2011 at 9:34 pm
Black people should consider themselves fortunate to have you around to feel insulted on their behalf, Seth.
29 March 2011 at 5:01 am
I love you, man.
When the glorious dream becomes reality, and gay sex is federally mandated, you know where I'm heading? Straight for you, pal.
29 March 2011 at 6:24 am
Seth, it is very difficult for me [knowing what I know about you and your previous posts] to truly understand what you're trying to say. At one point in this conversation I thought you were anti-gay and then suddenly in another point you seem pro-gay.
29 March 2011 at 6:35 am
That's very nice of you Daniel.
But really, you don't have to go straight, just for little ole me. You should only go straight if you really want to.
Tony, that's me – man of mystery.
29 March 2011 at 7:43 am
No offense but I don't think you are a real man of mystery because the real man of mystery like to shag hot girls from the 70s before marriage 🙂 now that I got that awful joke out of the way, I might just go back to the original post by Daniel.
Freedom of speech is a two-way street. You can say what you want but other people can disagree with you. You can insult who you want but other people will insult you back. If you insult a minority group then expect that group [especially in the 21st century] to use the People's power to insult you back.
30 March 2011 at 5:21 am
Minor quibble: Apple can do whatever the fuck they want. Now if the App Store was owned and operated by some kind of public governmental agency then I think you would have a point.
31 March 2011 at 4:50 am
And regardless of whether there are other reasons on the tax exemption thing, the most common place I hear for calls to remove it is in forums where homosexuality is at issue.
Seriously? I take little to no interest in the gay movement but I, for the life of me, can't understand why religion is untaxed in the 21st century.
Do you, perhaps, spend a lot of time in gay-agenda-related forums? This might explain why you're not seeing the wider atheist/secular viewpoint.
31 March 2011 at 4:54 am
Not particularly.
Look at a blog like Main Street Plaza. That about represents the spread of issues I tend to deal with week to week – percentage wise.
2 April 2011 at 12:11 am
Seth – what about foster parents who believe that mormons worship the devil? Should that couple be barred from acting as foster parents? Why can't the state make decisions about whom they allow to be foster parents?
It's hard for me to understand how mormons, a minority, advocates taking rights away from other minorities. There was a time when mormons were routinely discriminated against, and in some places may still be.
The world isn't flat. You can argue the world is flat, but people have the right to disagree with you.
2 April 2011 at 12:31 am
I don't think that view alone should bar a couple from being foster parents. Maybe they shouldn't be for a Mormon kid, but otherwise, fine by me if they want to help out.
3 April 2011 at 2:47 pm
What's a Mormon kid?
Are we born with a specific religious leaning? Is it a part of our DNA?
7 April 2013 at 11:21 pm
I just love how the gay agenda is getting laws removed to their benefit … that is also opening the way for the polygamy groups. Besides the ex-mormon polygamy groups there are also Baptist and other denominational polygamy groups. The next 20 years will be very exciting!