The whole Mormon thing - prop 8 in CA

[CA_Scouter 11]

GW... are you quoting from 'The Little Red Book' ?

 

 

 

[Frank17 10]

Finally, Californians backing a non-nutty issue that makes sense to most of the other 49 states.

 

And BTW, I am a non-Mormon too. Why single them out as the only supporters of the ban?

[CalicoPenn 729]

Despite wanting to post this a number of times, I've never done so because I felt it was insulting to too many people.

 

Since it's now apparent that arguments like this aren't insulting anymore, as they're observational, I'm going to post it:

 

"I have never met an intelligent Christian"

 

While we're at it, I've never met a reasonable and non-prejudiced Southerner.

 

I've never met a good looking heterosexual male.

 

I've never met a person who drives a Honda Goldwing that wasn't a dweeb.

 

I've never met a sports fan that is mentally or emotionally stable.

 

I've never met an NRA member who wasn't compensating for size.

 

Taking tongue firmly out of cheek now, is it any wonder why most people find statements like the above to be nothing better than insults that deserve no recognition of needing to be taken seriously for discussion purposes?

 

Calico

[Narraticong 15]

Well, I guess it's a good thing I don't ride a motorcycle or like sports that much. I score pretty high on the other accounts.

 

But I am now reconsidering my NRA membership...

[Horizon 97]

Since a few have asked about why the Mormons are singled out by protestors:

 

They are not. The protests in LA went from LDS site to Catholic site. There were protests also at Saddleback church (mega church - Pastor is the author of A Purpose Driven Life) in Orange County as well (led by members of the Saddleback congregation).

 

What is more interesting is the conumdrum felt by some on the Left when they realize that the margin of difference appears to have come from black voters. Blacks voted for prop 8 by 70%, and Hispanics favored it as well. The minority (a questionable term in today's California) vote was a big part of the reason for prop 8's success in passing.

 

However, it WILL be knocked down over time. If you review the polling data, prop 8 was passed by people 50 and over. The younger voters voted against it.

[gpraceman2 10]

"HOWEVER I believe in separation of church and state"

 

So often this phrase is misapplied. First, there is no such phrase in the U.S. Constitution. Secondly, what the First Amendment does state is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The government should not meddle with religious freedom nor establish its own religion/church. Nowhere does it say that religion has no say or stake in politics.

 

"BUT I dont want religious folks telling me who to vote for."

 

Are churches (of any faith) prohibited from advocating/opposing political issues or candidates? Absolutely not! Organizations, as well as their members, are affected by these political issues and how candidates stand on the issues. They have a right to make a stand one way or the other, according to their beliefs. You, of course, can choose to listen or to ignore, as well as voice your own opinion.

 

Is a church supposed to keep it's mouth shut, just because some people don't want to hear from "religious folk"? Are we only to hear/see endorsements from non-religious groups? While we still have the freedom of religion, I think not.(This message has been edited by gpraceman2)

[Gold Winger 9]

"GW... are you quoting from 'The Little Red Book' ?"

 

Nope, that's actually was a misquote thanks to my aging memory. :-(

 

"I've never met a person who drives a Honda Goldwing that wasn't a dweeb."

 

We are kinda dweeby. Most of us don't see the need to adorn ourselves with the manufacturer's logo to the point that we even get "Gold Wing" tattoos. We wear helmets without grumbling and even wear protective jackets.

 

"I've never met a good looking heterosexual male."

 

Now that one I do find insulting! ;-)

 

"I've never met a sports fan that is mentally or emotionally stable."

 

Definately true. If you were stable, you'd be out doing something instead of sitting on your butt, yelling at a bunch of multi-millionares who don't even know you exist.

 

"I've never met an NRA member who wasn't compensating for size."

 

That explains all the tiny women in the NRA.

 

(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[Eagledad 2781]

>>We are kinda dweeby. Most of us don't see the need to adorn ourselfs with the manufacturer's logo to the point that we even get "Gold Wing" tattoos.

[Gold Winger 9]

It's mere coincidence that I ride a Gold Wing. My name is descriptive in that I've been to Znurfran and have been given golden wings on which I soar through the cosmos, dancing in the moonlight.(This message has been edited by Gold Winger)

[captainron14 11]

Horizon,

You are correct that recently the "Anti-8" crowd has started to broaden their targets of protest to include some of the other supporters of Prop 8.

However, at first, just as it was on this thread, the Mormon Church was singled out. Why?

The originator of this thread even seemed to have issues with the Mormons. What gives?

As I said before, if it were "the Jews or Muslums", you would never have this. Not PC.

The Anti-8 group is tolerant of your views just as long as they agree with them. If not, your the bad guy, and subject to the groups wrath.

They say they accept a democratic government, but their actions say otherwise.

Where were the riots and protests (as well as the news coverage) when the CA Courts struck down the last Defense of Marriage proposition? I don't recall hearing about any Catholics, Mormons or any other Social Conservatives protesting/rioting in San Francisco's Castro District or West Hollywood. Why not?

 

And your point about being knocked down over time, sadly may be true. Subgroups of the Anti-8 crowd are gaining acceptance, and soon "anything goes" will be acceptable (and legal). Here comes NAMBLA and God only know what else.

 

[GaHillBilly 10]

CalicoPenn wrote:

 

'Since it's now apparent that arguments like this aren't insulting anymore, as they're observational, I'm going to post it:

 

"I have never met an intelligent Christian"

 

While we're at it, I've never met a reasonable and non-prejudiced Southerner.

 

I've never met a good looking heterosexual male.

 

I've never met a person who drives a Honda Goldwing that wasn't a dweeb.

 

I've never met a sports fan that is mentally or emotionally stable.

 

I've never met an NRA member who wasn't compensating for size.'

 

CalicoPenn, it's obvious that you don't 'get it'.

 

My statements were primarily about language and reasoned discourse, not about homosexuality. The distinction I made between "argument" (you) and "observation" (me) is critical, and crucial to understanding what I was saying, but you seem unable to recognize that distinction. If you were willing to use them, any Webster's -- on or off-line -- will help.

 

Some of your statements could be observations; some are highly unlikely to be; some are purely emotive statements, which express only your own preferences.

 

Take your first statement, "I have never met an intelligent Christian". This might well be atrue observation. I've met quite a few Christians, including a few who are extraordinarily intelligent, but would immediately grant that the Christians I know are, as a whole, less educated and less intelligent than the average (based on my OBSERVATIONS) for their class / social situation. It might surprise you to know that such a result is actually consistent with Christian theology, which teaches that (roughly speaking), 'the more you've got it together, the less likely you are to become a Christian.". In fact, the first statement of the sort was made by Christ himself!

 

Unfortunately, most non-Christian self-identified intellectuals I've known attempt to reason -- quite irrationally -- like this:

A. I'm smarter than most Christians I know.

B. I'm not a Christian.

C. Therefore, my reasons for not being a Christian are better than their reasons for being a Christian.

 

This is, precisely and obviously, what has been traditionally called a non sequitur . . . but it's one I see almost daily. I rather imagine it was the 'argument' you had in mind behind the 'observation'! But I'm guessing now, so I'll return to my first response: your statement may well reflect a valid observation on your part. After all, statistically valid judgments about overall intelligences can be quickly made simply by observing the scope of a speaker's vocabulary!

 

Your second statement --"I've never met a reasonable and non-prejudiced Southerner."-- is not so simple. It sounds like it might be an observation, but it's really not. The problem is with the words "reasonable" and "non-prejudiced".

 

If they are taken absolutely, then the statement is an attempt to insult with a truism that sounds as if it is saying something, when in fact it is saying precisely nothing at all. Taken absolutely, the argument is this:

A. No man is absolutely reasonable and non-prejudiced.

B. Southerners are men (at least in the traditional sense, where "men" = "humanity').

C. Therefore no Southerners are reasonable and non-prejudiced.

 

Of course, under this interpretation of your statement, we can conclude that you, also, are neither reasonable nor unprejudiced.

 

But, you might plead that you didn't mean to be taken absolutely, but intended the words colloquially. This does us no better, because colloquially "reasonable" means "agrees with me", as in "But, honey, can't you be reasonable!". I'm not surprised to know that many Southerners -- and perhaps all that you have met -- disagree with you, but so what? Perhaps everyone you meet, except for a handful of idiots, disagrees with you. All this tells us precisely nothing, and reveals your statement to be something less than a definite, and thus meaningful observation.

 

I could go on, because your statements deteriorate from there.

 

I'll mostly refrain, except to speculate on which kind of "size" you had in mind. After all, in general American discourse, when one "compensates" for "size", this is almost always 'coded' psychobabble, unless a specific mechanical context is made explicit, as in, 'we need to design the truss compensate for the size of snow loads typical in this area". Since you did not specify a such a context, I can only wonder how you might have become so familiar with the "size" of multiple NRA members.

 

Perhaps, on reflection, you may wish to confess that that particular statement of yours was not, in fact, based on actual and trustworthy observation?

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[gpraceman2 10]

"And your point about being knocked down over time, sadly may be true. Subgroups of the Anti-8 crowd are gaining acceptance, and soon "anything goes" will be acceptable (and legal). Here comes NAMBLA and God only know what else."

 

In Colorado, we are already seeing what is next.

Gov. Bill Ritter (D) signed SB 200 into law. The legislation blurs the sexual lines by making all public accommodations, including locker rooms and restrooms, gender-free. In other words, anyoneregardless of their biological identitywill be welcome in the mens or ladies room, including cross-dressers, men who self-identify as women, women who self-identify as men, and people who havent made up their minds. To make matters worse, Colorado defines public accommodations as everything from malls, restaurants, and schools to small and even home businesses.

 

Do you not think that sexual predators will use this new law to their advantage? If churches don't comply with this law, I have no doubt that they will be sued for "discrimination". Our freedom of religion erodes even further... All so, some conflicted individuals will not feel bad about themselves when going to the bathroom. Where will the lunacy end?

 

BTW - Better keep a closer eye on your kids when they go to the bathroom, if you come to visit Colorado.

[Gold Winger 9]

Hey! Where was this law when I was 30 years younger. I would have loved to have used the ladies locker room in colleg. Of course, the men's locker room would have been empty so all the women would have gone there.

 

As silly as that law is, Gov. Bill Ritter is an Eagle Scout.

[gpraceman2 10]

"As silly as that law is, Gov. Bill Ritter is an Eagle Scout."

Which means he should know better! The law isn't silly, it is downright appalling.

 

Our politicians are so concerned about not being labeled "bigots" that they will go along with such idiotic laws. They cater to a tiny percentage of our population to the detriment of the majority.(This message has been edited by gpraceman2)

[packsaddle 753]

Calico, I'd say you've got it about right. Especially that part about compensation. The gun fanatics are currently making a run on 'assault' rifles, large mags, etc. At least one part of the economy is doing well.

 

Lisabob, it's not always all about you. That 'turgid' quip was aimed elsewhere.

 

GW, I'm guessing we're close to the same age bracket and I can tell you that at my college, women sometimes DID share the men's showers...with us in them too. It was gooooooood. I never heard a single complaint.