Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Pennsylvania’s anti-equal marriage rights law struck down; let the whining commence

330-Morality-Slavery-or-Homosexuality-Guess-which-one-the-bibles-ok-with-biblical-ethics-insanity-bigotryFinally, a break from work and a chance to kibbitz on the interwebs. Here in the US, we are celebrating Memorial Day, a day to remember those who have fallen in combat during our various wars. It’s also a time for celebrating the summer, even though it isn’t officially summer yet. Everyone wants to grill something outside, so the meat department is very busy.

Oy, I’m tired.

But that’s nothing new. We did have a great development here in PA when Judge John E. Jones III struck down the PA anti-marriage law, which said only certain people approved of by certain religions can enjoy the benefits of marriage. Judge Jones, you might remember, also was the judge for the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial which showed intelligent design to be the same as creationism much to the disappointment of those who were doing their best to sneak their religion into public schools. Judge Jones may be one of the few Republicans left who respects the rights of people and the existence of the US Constitution. They are still out there, those who favor the government to stay out people’s lives and to be fiscally responsible, but they are a vanishing breed. It may interest you to know that even Rick Santorum supported this judge’s confirmation. So much for claim of “activist liberal judge”. I wonder, does he do so now that Judge Jones dares to disagree with him and his desire to make the US a theocracy?

Of course, we do have the usual suspects throwing fits about this. Rep. Metcalfe, often a target of derision on this blog, has suffered quite a bit lately, with this and with the defeat of his attempts at requiring everyone to have “papers” to vote. We also have the Pennsylvania Family Institute (aka the Pennsylvania Family Council, and Independence Law Center, all the same organization) insisting that the sky is falling again. It’s always amusing when people who are so virulently anti-family, always have to add that to their official names of their organizations. It’s as if no one would realize that they cared about families at all if it wasn’t in their name. They may be interested in families but only those they approve of. One does wonder, do they approve of any family that doesn’t teach their particular religion? I do have reason to doubt that, with their carrying on about how marriage is *only* for a few.

Brandon McGinley, their “field director”, and he of claims that homosexuality can be “overcome” and that homosexuality is going to destroy any vision he has of appropriate “masculinity”, has an interesting op-ed in the local Sunday paper today. Unsurprisingly, it’s pretty much what you might expect from someone like Mr. McGinley. For a fun read about Mr. McGinley’s views, PA GLAAD has a great series of screen caps of Mr. McGinley’s tweets.

But enough of that, let’s take a look at the claims that Mr. McGinley makes. First, there is the claims of how dare anyone reject the “traditional” meaning of marriage and how marriage is somehow only a “unique” thing that only means man marries woman, they must have kids and nothing else. I guess that Mr. McGinley would be sure that my marriage of 22+ years isn’t a “real” marriage. But the state already disagrees with him and has for years. It’s a shock that he isn’t protesting my marriage, but that would be a bit of a problem since he also isn’t whining about divorces too, something else that his bible says is a “very bad thing”.

We get right into the claims of how this was an “activist” decision “unnecessarily broad in scope, faulty in reasoning and, to many, malicious in rhetoric”. Of course, there is nothing about this supposedly “faulty” reasoning, just vague claims of that. Silly of me to expect someone like Mr. McGinley to actually say how the reasoning if faulty. He also does skirt around the fact that more than half of Pennsylvanians approve of equal marriage laws and it was only our representatives that voted to have a law restricting marriage.

Then we get into the meat of the baseless accusations. Mr. McGinley is horrified by Judge Jones’ phrase “We are a better people than what these laws represent. And it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history”.  He is sure that anyone who uses such a phrase isn’t interested in “healthy public discourse”, aka allowing people like Mr. McGinley attempt to make homosexuality a thing to be hated, as he has admitted he wants to do. Mr. McGinley can continue to try spread his claims as much as he wants, but not with the tacit blessing of the government by its restriction of equal treatment under the law.

Mr. McGinley, it is *you* who isn’t being honest when you claim that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t want a healthy public discourse. It is you who try to claim that marriage is only one thing that you get to define by you and yours spending millions of dollars in order to take the freedom away from others. Marriage may have indeed had a historical definition of one man and one woman for *some* people. It has a historical definition of one man and many women for others. It usually meant that daughters were nothing more than chattel and to be given to anyone for a favorable political arrangement. Now, it also has the meaning of a relationship between consenting adults who can enjoy the same freedoms and protections of the law as you do. No one is asking for special rights, they are asking for equal rights. Rights are only “special” if they apply to only one group of people. Is that what you are asking for, Mr. McGinley, the rights that marriage bestows only for one man and one woman who have children? Tsk.

Mr.McGinley, I think you are mistaken when you say that an increasing amount of people don’t understand “why organizations such as the Pennsylvania Family Institute oppose the social experiment of same-sex marriage.” We do understand exactly why you oppose same-sex marriage. You want to claim that one version of one religion is some magical “truth”. We know that you want to pretend same sex marriage is a “social experiment” a phrase intended to degrade its legitimacy. The sky hasn’t fallen in all of the other states that have allowed people to have equal rights. I seem to recall that giving equal rights to people of different ancestry was also called a social experiment by people who vehemently opposed that. The same with allowing people of different ancestry to marry each other. Horrors if we allowed to people to marry who loved each other if they weren’t of the same “race”. Happily, that nonsense is also cast on the ash heap of history.

Mr. McGinley goes right for the “but but what if we allow more than two people to marry, won’t that be the end of civilization” argument. He claims that no one has answered his question, but we have. People can set up legal documents that mimic marriage amongst groups of many people. The skies haven’t opened up and no god has smote anyone for doing this. Indeed what harm will come from having the polyamorous married in groups? None that Mr. McGinley can offer, the same as he cannot offer any evidence of harm from marriages between two men or two women. He depends on fear of the unknown and fear of his god to make his case.

Indeed, Mr. McGinley, “Why expend energy fighting the inevitable? What impact will redefining marriage have on us? Why do we (him and his kind) care?” He does admit that “same sex marriage will not directly impact our individual marriages, that should be obvious enough”.   Hooray! someone who has admitted this, which is hilarious since this exact thing has been claimed by anti-marriage equality people for years. I guess it was just a lie on their parts. It’s always good to see such people finally retreat from such nonsense when reality has shown their claims to be false.

He claims that it’s not the concern for individuals we should be have but for the “common good”. Now, does he say what disallowing equal marriage rights does for the “common good”?   He does try, sure that his examples will “cut to the chase”.

What is his argument? Think, oh won’t you think of the children!

“It will be commonplace for two men or two women not only to care for children in their home but to be the legal parents of those children”

He grudgingly admits that in “most cases”, they will be loving parents and they will care for the children’s basic needs. Indeed, those children may even “romp around and smile and hug and do all of the things that children do.”

You can just hear the ominous music cue, can’t you?   But, Mr. McGinley warns, they will be deprived of having their “real” mom or dad.   Now, I recall with some clarity that I was considered to be a very odd bird in college because my parents weren’t divorced. Where is Mr. McGinley’s voice against allowing anyone to divorce? Per his argument, it is better to have a mom and a dad forced to live together no matter what, because the child will suffer according to him. Of course that may be a bit of a problem considering that evangelical Christians have some of the highest divorce rates in the US. Don’t want to offend your constituency, do you, Mr. McGinley?

Mr. McGinley seems to think that *only* biological parents are “good” parents. I guess you folks with adopted children are just not a “true family” per Mr. McGinley. I wonder, has he seen the stats for child abuse by biological parents? That, in one stroke, shows his claims to be lies. It’s hilarious to see Mr. McGinley insist on how dare the state ignore “biology” in favor of a construct of civilization. For a creationist, he certainly has become interested in biology when convenient.

Read this: “…the state will be not just permitting the manufacture but promoting the manufacture of children with the express intention of depriving them of their mother or their father.”   Manufacture? Again, nice words from someone who is also anti-choice. Nothing like devaluing children and families when it suits your purpose, is there Mr. McGinley?

He claims that his histrionics aren’t “some kind of a slippery slope argument. It’s precisely what the future holds”. He is right in that it is not a slippery slope argument which says that if one bad thing happens other worse things will automatically. Again, Mr.. McGinley, we do understand why people like you oppose same sex marriage. You are horrified that anyone is not like you. You want there to be a theocracy where your particular version of one religion is the law. You can’t stand the thought of happy families that you don’t control. We have seen the children of same sex couples advocating for their parents, they were some of the people who brought the case against Pennsylvania. Your attempts to claim to speak for them for their “own good” are simply more lies. They experienced none of the claims you have made, showing you to be a liar intent on causing fear to get obedience. For those children, having a family who loves them is certainly not “far too costly a price to pay”.

Mr. McGinley, you try to claim that the impact on Pennsylvania will be “gravely negative”. But that has not been shown to be the case at all. We’ve had plenty of families who don’t obey your nonsense for years and PA is just fine. Your lies do deserve to be cast on the ash heap of history with all of the others. The public debate has been had for years. Now, more than half of Pennsylvanians support same sex marriage. You can keep your beliefs but no one has to obey them except you. You’ve lost, just like those who supported segregation and miscegenation laws, and Pennsylvania is the better for it.

Advertisements

68 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – Pennsylvania’s anti-equal marriage rights law struck down; let the whining commence

      • Am waiting for information on how a gay couples wedding will destroy a heterosexual one.
        I also want to be advised on how what two consenting adults do behind closed doors becomes a legal issue except to the extent that the govt want tax dollars?

      • so am I. I currently have a Mormon, who came to argue that the SCOTUS decision about prayer at public meetings was okay. He claimed he is oh-so tolerant. I asked him what was tolerant about his church doing its best, including spending millions of dollars in one state alone, to keep the choice to marry only for a certain few that he agreed with. Of course, no answer from him or his church on this issue either.

      • Club:
        I am that Mormon. You must have disregarded my reply. Imagine that. The outrageous majority of Mormons believe that what you advocate for is morally wrong. As Mormons we exercise our equal right under the law to advocate against what we believe to be morally wrong. The LDS Church did not funnel millions as they politically advocated against a moral wrong. All donations came from individual members directly to the cause without the church intervening in any way other than making an appeal. Now, understanding that, would you deny our rights to do that?

      • Yep, you are “that Mormon”, the one who wants to make believe he is a “high priest”. I’m not quite sure what reply you are mentioning.

        It is indeed outrageous that the majority of Mormons have such hilarious beliefs and such pitiful ones that they try to force on others. Lots of people find things supposedly “morally wrong” based on their religious beliefs, and they do indeed do their best to influence politics to get their way. The LDS church did funnel their resources to the campaigns that were trying to restrict marriage equality. I have quoted your leadership in saying exactly that, Robin: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-weve-always-done-it-so-that-makes-it-always-okay/#comment-3397 and https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-weve-always-done-it-so-that-makes-it-always-okay/#comment-3372 . Therefore, your claims that “”all donations came from individual members directly to the cause without the church intervening” is a lie. I do love how now you do admit that the members of the church were told what to do in this “appeal” which was not just an innocent appeal at all. It was a command backed up by the Bible. I do enjoy when someone says that something is an “appeal” which would say that shucks, we can ignore the leadership when they invoke the bible as saying that something is “morally wrong”. That’s just great, Robin. Again, we can see how believers just pick and choose what they believe in.

        I think you certainly do have the rights to advocate what you want, Robin. That’s the right of individual to do so. The problem, it seems, is that you have no idea how equal rights work. It is not for the majority to decide who gets equal rights. The Bill of Rights was set up to protect the minority from the majority. I suggest that you read Judge Jones’ decision to become more familiar with how things work. The church did intervene materially and intentionally, trying to change political things when you claimed that they did not.

    • How lucidly stated. There is nothing quite as effective as the weaving of humor while persuading others of the absurdity of their position. However, in politics the technique is polarizing in its mocking tone. It’s so gay.

      • Nice quote from one who has claimed how tolerant he is. 🙂 In politics the technique works very well and has been used to great effect repeatedly. If you read speeches by Abraham Lincoln, he’s has some choice things to say about his opponents and their nonsense. To mock someone is to show how ridiculous they are and how their claims are lies. You make it even easier when you make false claims and then are unable to support them, while simultaneously insisting how wonderful and true your religion is.

        Again, Robin, show me why I should believe in your religion and not others. Tell me how you know your religion is true. Show me how you can heal people as a high priest as your religion claims you can do. Certainly, there are more than a few folks in VA hospitals who need help. It always seems that religions must make such lovely claims but when in that old Dodge, you can’t even get the engine to turn over. This is why I find you ridiculous, in addition to your continued baseless claims, that you and your religion are no more believable than Tom Cruise and his fellow Scientologists.

  1. ” Hooray! someone who has admitted this, which is hilarious since this exact thing has been claimed by anti-marriage equality people for years. I guess it was just a lie on their parts. ”

    Certainly not decades ago, just years. You had no advocates two decades ago in America. You must admit the the laws of equal marriage are but a shell of the social equality you want to see. I think that’s the basis of why you can’t seem to enjoy the victory. Do you understand yet that to gain social equality (currently the elephant in the room), the rhetoric needs to change initially? Do you understand that because of of your politics, you are as much an embarrassment to the Democratic Party as the Tea party in to the Republicans?

    • Ah, let me quote all of what I said:
      “Indeed, Mr. McGinley, “Why expend energy fighting the inevitable? What impact will redefining marriage have on us? Why do we (him and his kind) care?” He does admit that “same sex marriage will not directly impact our individual marriages, that should be obvious enough”. Hooray! someone who has admitted this, which is hilarious since this exact thing has been claimed by anti-marriage equality people for years. I guess it was just a lie on their parts. It’s always good to see such people finally retreat from such nonsense when reality has shown their claims to be false.”

      So, we have a Christian recanting the common Christian claim that gay marriage will somehow mysteriously damage the marriages of others. I do enjoy seeing someone admit that a common claim was simply nonsense. Robin, you want to claim that no one advocated allowing people to marry who they wished more than 2 decades ago: “Certainly not decades ago, just years. You had no advocates two decades ago in America” ? Hmmm, that would be circa 1994. So, would a case and decision back in 1993 count? http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/04/us/hawaii-judge-ends-gay-marriage-ban.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm Sure seems that there were folks advocating for equal treatment for marriage. Again, it seems that your claims depend on lies and/or ignorance.

      It’s so cute to see you again thinking that you can tell me that I “must” admit anything. Sorry, you are wrong again, Robin. The laws of equal marriage are not just a “shell” of the social equality I would like to see. It is a wonderful step toward the social equality I would like to see. It’s also great to see you make up nonsense that I “can’t seem to enjoy the victory”. How am I not enjoying the victory, Robin? Or is this just your hope that I am not so you can feel superior? I am thrilled that anti-equality twits have lost again and again and are using such pathetic arguments like those used by McGinley. I am very glad that people can share the same benefits I do.

      I know that to achieve social equality, one must stand against those who would deny it to others, like your church as done its best to do so. Judge Jones said it well here: “In future generations, the label “same sex marriage” will be abandoned, to be replaced simply by “marriage.” We are a better people than what these (anti-gay marriage) laws represent, and it is time to discard them into the ash heap of history.” Many stupid laws have been discarded into the ash heap of history. Laws saying that people of differing ancestry are to be treated differently, people of differing ancestry can’t marry each other, women are to be treated as property, etc, all ideas that were and are garbage.

      As always, you seem to have nothing but vague claims and nonsense. So, how does “rhetoric” need to change to “gain social equality”? Give me some concrete examples. Indeed, tell mw what you think “social equality” means so I can know what you are advocating. It’s also great to see you claim that I somehow embarrass something or someone but there is no evidence of this at all, only the baseless claims of a Mormon who has consistently failed in his nonsense. Please tell me just how my politics are “as much an embarrassment to the Democratic Party as the Tea party in to the Republicans.” Surely you have quotes and facts, Robin? I do expect to see evidence to support your claims, and not just your fantasies to make yourself feel better by what appears to be a rather ridiculous attempt to claim “but but you’re just as bad as them”. Well, if you believe so, show it.

      • “The laws of equal marriage are not just a “shell” of the social equality I would like to see. It is a wonderful step toward the social equality I would like to see.” and that I am in error, once again.

        Apparently, The speaker in the video was in error with me in his central point: that the particular bill is not a stepping stone toward anything except a national inclusion of same sex couples into marriage supported by civil law. He tacitly denied that the legislation was anything more, saying nothing else would change as a consequence.

        The politics of the gay lobby ensures social inequality. Sympathy goes out to them from many quarters promoting only a change in law. The lobby will continue to push perhaps to include the equal rights for the “queer” whom they embrace. Good luck with the stepping stone to social equality with that kind of push. It is the behavior of the oppressed that speaks to inclusions through social equality.

      • “and that I am in error, once again.” Glad to see you admit that. 🙂

        So, Robin, again tell me of how you know what social equality I want to see and how Judge Jones ruling is just a “shell”. It seems that you can’t and again we get lots of vague claims of how the sky will be falling “any time now” from theists like you.

        it’s hilarious that you want to claim that the politics of the “gay lobby” will ensure social inequality. How does it do that? Indeed, Robin, what are the politics of the “gay lobby”? If you can tell us that, perhaps you can tell us how the ensure what you claim. It’s great to see you making up “sympathy from many quarters”. What quarters are those? And only a change in the law? Nice sour grapes there, Robin. A change in the law is very important. And that’s not all that’s happened. There is also lots of public support, much to the horror of people like you and your religion.

        I’m quite happy to embrace homosexual folks. it is indeed the behavior of the oppresses that speaks volumes. I am glad that you do admit that some people are indeed oppressed by the actions of your church. Everyone who has been oppressed has stood up when told to sit down by someone who wants to control them. They have said “No more.” And they have indeed gotten laws changed and gained more and more rights. It’s great to see you try to convince people to not stand up and dare be “uppity”. I do recall your church felt much the same about allowing folks of African American origin to be “priests” in your church. It’ was hilarious to read that this “truth” changed when your church decided that it needed to convert people around the world. A bit of a bummer when those people you want to convert find out that they can’t be priests or have their very own planet to rule after they are dead. I guess your god mumbles about as much as the Catholic one does. But let’s go to your next hilarious request. “Please, make a case where social equality of any minority group came as a stepping stone from civil law.” That’s just great, Robin. I do wonder, can I predict that you’ll change your definition of civil law or perhaps you’ll decide that “stepping stone” means something else?

        And what speaker in what video?

      • Oh my, Robin. Let’s see, where has social equality of a minority group has come from civil law or to rephrase it in the context of what we’ve been discussing, where social equality for homosexuals has come from civil law cases or where social equality for African Americans has come from civil law cases or where social equality for women has come from civil law cases?

        Brown v. Board of Education
        Civil Rights Act of 1964
        Loving v. Virginia
        US Constitution – 14, 15 and 19th amendments

        As I was looking around for citations, I did come across that good ol’ Utah had a law against ‘whites’ marrying anyone they wanted that was repealed in 1963. Now, who lives in Utah in great numbers? Hmmm. However, in Utah, women did get the right to vote early but were disenfranchised because they voted in favor of polygamy.

        Now, are you trying to claim that one can’t legislate morality or acceptance? Perhaps not but one can legislate that people can’t be penalized for being a minority. when bigots aren’t supported by the gov’t anymore, it becomes much harder for them to refuse social inequality to others.

      • Yep, I certainly did show that your claim about legislation and social inequality was wrong. Yep, I cited a landmark case that that helped to improve the treatment of African Americans and I am definitely not a black “socializing” in America. So, please tell me how my not being a black person applies to me showing your claim to be wrong.

        And to refresh your memory. You said ““Please, make a case where social equality of any minority group came as a stepping stone from civil law.”

        I replied “Oh my, Robin. Let’s see, where has social equality of a minority group has come from civil law or to rephrase it in the context of what we’ve been discussing, where social equality for homosexuals has come from civil law cases or where social equality for African Americans has come from civil law cases or where social equality for women has come from civil law cases?
        Brown v. Board of Education
        Civil Rights Act of 1964
        Loving v. Virginia
        US Constitution – 14, 15 and 19th amendments

        As I was looking around for citations, I did come across that good ol’ Utah had a law against ‘whites’ marrying anyone they wanted that was repealed in 1963. Now, who lives in Utah in great numbers? Hmmm. However, in Utah, women did get the right to vote early but were disenfranchised because they voted in favor of polygamy.

        Now, are you trying to claim that one can’t legislate morality or acceptance? Perhaps not but one can legislate that people can’t be penalized for being a minority. when bigots aren’t supported by the gov’t anymore, it becomes much harder for them to refuse social inequality to others.”

  2. “The LDS church did funnel their resources to the campaigns that were trying to restrict marriage equality. I have quoted your leadership in saying exactly that, Robin: https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-weve-always-done-it-so-that-makes-it-always-okay/#comment-3397 and https://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-weve-always-done-it-so-that-makes-it-always-okay/#comment-3372 .”

    A suggestion: Don’t waste the ink. When citing references to validate your views, don’t point to your own writings if you wish to convince; cite a neutral source. Certainly you could have found unbiased sources not that the event is 4 years past. You could have easily pointed to the LA Times. But it wouldn’t have supported your claim of “Millions”. You would have revealed there were no direct contributions at all, just “in kind” contributions far less than you assert.

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/01/top-officials-w.html

      • Robin, when there a number of links in a comment it’ll automatically go to the moderation bin. It’s just the standard setting, same thing happens on my blog. I can assure you, Club is the least cowardly blogger i think i’ve come across. I’m sure, though, she has a life and will liberate your comment the moment she’s alerted it.

    • It’s so cute! Now, dear Robin, I pointed to my post that has the links in it to the sources, including the LDS itsellf, that shows that you are a liar. I know it’s so very hard for you to read my entire posts, so perhaps you didn’t notice that I posted facts. Now, go back and read the posts that you have evidently ignored. Again, congratulations for again showing that religion doesn’t make a person a decent human being.

    • Oh and thanks for the LA Times link that shows again that you were not telling the truth when claiming that the LDS church did nothing. Do you know what “in-kind” donations are? I do since I used to work for a non-profit. They are when a non-profit uses its money to give services and support to a project. For instance, the organization I used to work for gave out awards for construction. We got a brick company to give us engraved bricks as awards. They were considered a gift in kind. They did not cost the company nothing, they had worth. Just like how the LDS spent your money to pay staff members to work on the Prop 8 nonsense. Your church also invoked its religious beliefs as why every Mormon should donate as much as they could to this nonsense. Now, if your church said that God himself wants “The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal.” This was to be read at your sacrament meeting. Is it telling you that if you don’t, you risk your membership and god’s wrath? It does seems so. Would you lose your precious “high priesthood” if you said “No, I think this is wrong. And we shouldn’t be told that we should support such a thing.”? If you couldn’t stand up and say that, your claims about how the Church doesn’t tell you what to do politically is nonsense.

  3. She apparently has a life without technology.
    That “standard” setting discourages validating sources in conversation. Responsible, truthful blog owners disable that setting.

    Citing your own works as validation for your own “facts” concerning a 4 year old event is another tactic that allow invented facts to stand uninvestigated.

    If you assertion is valid, cite a neutral reference that is respected by all parties.

    • This is hilarious coming from someone who has blocked their supposed blog. 🙂

      No, dear, I didn’t cite my own posts. I copied links to my posts and said that the links were there that could be accessed for the original sources. Nice lies, Robin. They are as good as your other ones. Again, thank you so much for showing that religion doesn’t make a person a decent human being, but it sure can make someone less than honest. Again, I am still waiting for your evidence for your claims against me. Funny how you can’t provide it, isn’t it?

    • The article you cite at OZY does not vouch for your original premise that same-sex attraction is intolerable.

      Your source mentions Mitch Mayne as an openly gay LDS Leader. How can that premise stand in the face of the openly gay ward leader Mitch Mayne. an LDS ward is made up of 2,500 members who all approved of his leadership calling. The Bishop of the Ward could not have called Brother Mayne to leadership if the Church leadership in Salt Lake City did not approve it.

      Read the following for understanding.

      http://thestudentreview.org/viewpoint-exploring-the-mitch-mayne-controversy/

      • You should understand that opinions have changed everywhere in the last 4 years about same-sex attraction. 70% of America believes same-sex attrition is morally wrong. It would appear in spite of what others SAY about us, our behavior toward gays defies their logic. 🙂

      • Same sex “attrition”? I’m sure that people are indeed against same sex attrition. But same sex attraction? Hmmm, so where do you get your 70% number “70% of America believes same-sex attrition is morally wrong.”, Robin? And also define what “same sex attraction” is.

        Seems like the entire internet has no record of such a percentage as you claim. There are a couple of possible reports that mention “70%” in regards to the term “same sex”, but none of them are about “same sex attraction” and morality. Until you provide a citation, it does seem that you are intentionally lying.

        Now, we do have a 2013 poll from Pew Research that says that 37 percent of people in the US find homosexuality morally unacceptable. Here’s the link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/15/whats-morally-acceptable-it-depends-on-where-in-the-world-you-live/ Look at the table near the large numbers 4 and 5.

        Again, it seems reality trumps religion and the claims of theists.

      • In which post did I say same-sex attraction is intolerable. Perhaps you’ve confused me with someone else.

        As to Mitch Mayne, let me ask you this: would he still have been approved for the position had he still been in an openly gay relationship at the time of his appointment?

    • Just a reminder: you folks brought all of this Mormon stuff up on your atheist blog. Any time you want to speak to the redeeming value of atheism, take the reins.

      Don’t you think a “heretical cult” is a redundancy? Regardless, I’ll try to move beyond your error to another one. Would 40% of the registered voters in America vote for a cultist( MITT ROMNEY) to the President of the United States? Why is it the religious tolerance.com determine that by election time the MORMON fact was not a factor? When was the last time the leadership of any party selected an avowed atheist to run for President? (rhetorical: That would be NEVER)

      What Christian beliefs are Mormons heretic to? And of even greater importance please tell me what religious law with year establishes the LDS heresy?

      Ron, get ready to do some serious learning about Mormon Doctrine.

      • Would 40% of the registered voters in America vote for a cultist( MITT ROMNEY) to the President of the United States? Well, given that 40% of Americans still believes a fictional, Middle Eastern tribal god created the universe in six literal days—sure, why not?. But here’s the rub: if 40% (it was actually closer to 47%) voted for Romney, that means that 60% (actually 53%) didn’t. And I remember reading that one in 20 Republican voters sat out the election because they just weren’t that into Mitt. I guess he should have visited the Billy Graham Evangelical Association a little sooner than October 2012 to get that What is a cult? page removed. And as to what Mormon beliefs TrueChristians™ find heretical, go ask them—as a non-believer, your doctrinal disputes don’t concern me.

      • Here’s a link to a Brookings Institute study on Romney’s “religion problem” http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/15-romney-lds-chingos . It seems to indicate that there was more like 10% of Republicans who said that they would not vote for a Mormon, and it also shows that quite a few Republicans don’t think the LDS is part of Christianity, and white evangelical voters were even more sure of this. It also notes that more Mormons voted for Bush than Romney, which may speak to the fact that he wasn’t a terribly great candidate.

      • We brought up your religion to show how ridiculous it is and how intolerant it is when you have claimed otherwise in regards to the SCOTUS decision, etc. Nope, heretical cult isn’t a redundancy at all. One cult says that another is wrong, aka heretical. and yes, people will vote for people that they don’t agree with if they think they have enough in common. Where did “religious tolerance.com” determine that Mitt’s religion was not a factor? Citations are needed, Robin. not baseless claims.

        And yep, no leadership of any part has selected an atheist as presidential candidate as far as I now. The American Socialist Party may have but I have no idea. And this proves what, Robin?

        Ah, what Christian beliefs are Mormons heretic to? Hmmm, the Book of Mormon is claimed to be a new testament. The Christian bible says that there were no more to come and that if one added to the “bible”, one would suffer. The NT bible says that JC would return to the world during the generation that he supposedly was talking to; of course the OT bible says that the messiah will be a regular man who is Jewish and born of a young woman, not a virgin, and no “second coming” required. The BoM says he was wandering around in the US and didn’t do this, of course there is no evidence of these myths at all. I do love how you guys give me all of the ammunition I need because your sects hate each other so much. http://www.religionfacts.com/mormonism/comparison.htm http://carm.org/comparison-between-christian-doctrine-and-mormon-doctrine

      • Hmmm, I wonder if I could get away with the following. I’d like to make up a big sign of some of the other commandments and put it up with the first measly ten. They are all from this god, so no one should bitch when they are up. We can have the ones that say a rape victim must marry her rapist, and other similar ones.

  4. “Thanks, John. Alas, facts and the average theist don’t get along very well.”

    Average? a truth from my own experience of the average theist as well.

    Imagine that you would become a much better person just by virtue of being an engaged disciple of one exceptional assembly – just from that one fact alone. That’s me the past 45 years.

    • Past 45 years, huh? That would mean you were a part of the Mormon church when it was openly racist. Did you agree with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in that policy?

      • Look at my post on June 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm ( a mere five hours ago) with its link. As for 45 years ago, laws were first being legislated. The early 70’s began the movement. By your standards, everyone was racist then. Gays and lesbians only began crawling out from under the carpet in the ’70s, the comparatively few that there were.

      • “Gays and lesbians only began crawling out from under the carpet in the ’70’s”

        Really? Better tell Alexander the Great that… I’m sure he’ll be suitably amazed!

        But I wasn’t talking about gays, rather blacks. Don’t you want to talk about the Mormon Church’s open racism?

      • Or Oscar Wilde. Alan Turing. Hadrian. Aaron Copeland. And on and on.

        Robin, it does seem that you are willfully ignorant about many things. Your claims are false and demonstrably so. Now, if you can admit you are wrong, that is one thing, since simple ignorance can be forgiven and corrected. But if you rely on willful ignorance to support your religion and your claims, then that is ridiculous and sad. Many religions do exact this, because they have no facts to support them. Their believers make the mistake in blindly accepting anything told to them by someone who actually did something to earn their trust. That trust is badly abused.

        What does it say about something that claims to be a magical ‘truth’ but relies entirely on lies to keep that façade up?

        Oh, and I’ll be back to address other things you’ve written, Robin. Busy at work with the US Father’s Day holiday coming up. Thank you, John, and Ron for holding the fort until I get back.

      • ” Gays and lesbians only began crawling out from under the carpet in the ’70s, the comparatively few that there were.”

        Yay, tolerance. It’s great to see you so ignorant about history, Robin. And nice attempt at a strawman argument. No, no one said that everyone was racist “then”. If you want to claim so, then quote one of us. If you can’t, your claim is a lie. We are saying that the LDS was definitely racist then, claiming that people with dark skin weren’t worthy. Let’s see what Brigham Young said

        “”Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to. The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice, and God brings forth the results of the acts of his creatures to promote his kingdom and subserve his purposes in the salvation and exaltation of his children. If the Lord could have his own way, he would have all the human family to enter into his church and kingdom, receive the Holy Priesthood and come into the celestial kingdom of our Father and God, by the power of their own choice.” – http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/JournalOfDiscourses3/id/4487 There are more interesting quotes from Mormon leaders about how slavery is fine as long as the slaves really really want to stay with their masters. 🙂 Unsurpringly many religions change the “truths” that they claim their gods gave them when culture goes beyond them and their nonsense.

      • From the link within the article:

        Today, BCC has confirmed with Church Headquarters in SLC, who received confirmation from local leaders in the Bay Ward, that Brother Mayne was, in fact, sustained to a new calling. However, that calling is Executive Secretary. As any seasoned executive secretary knows (being one myself), the executive secretary is not a member of the Bishopric.

        There are certainly similarities (lots of extra Sunday meetings together, being the most obvious one), so it’s easy to see how, on the surface, one might make this mistake. However, the distinction between working with the Bishopric closely and serving in the Bishopric is a meaningful one, and one that deserves attention. Members of the Bishopric conduct temple recommend interviews; executive secretaries arrange for those interviews to take place. Members of the Bishopric extend, release from, and set people apart into, callings; executive secretaries send lots of text messages and emails, and make lots of phone calls. Members of the Bishopric are ordained High Priests; executive secretaries do paperwork for those who are about to be ordained High Priests. Most importantly, there is a significant difference in the way the body of the ward views members of the Bishopric, their ministry in the ward, and their conduct both inside and outside of religious settings.

        So his position was basically just a glorified errand boy. Glad we’ve cleared that up. Got any more rabbit holes you’d like to chase down?

        Head games, that’s all I get from you

    • Yep, I know it is a truth from you own experience from the average theist as well. Quoted verbatim “Average? a truth from my own experience of the average theist as well. ”

      Of course, I know you meant atheist. So, please do show where facts and the average atheist don’t get along very well. You wee, Robin, I don’t just take your baseless claims as the truth.

      I have no reason to think you are a much better person just by “virtue of being an engaged disciple of one exceptional assembly”. That is not a fact at all. That is your baseless claim, Robin. Every theist makes the same claim. And none of you can show that it is true. I know for a real fact that being an engaged disciple of one exceptional assembly doesn’t make anyone a better person. I expect that the vermin from the Westboro Baptist Church claim the same thing “a much better person just by virtue of being an engaged disciple of one exceptional assembly”. The Society of St. Pius X, Bill Donohue, Warren Jeffs, Osama Bin Laden, Ali Khamenie, all make the same claims as you do, Robin. Believing that one has some “truth” does describe you for the last 45 years as it does so many other theists.

      Now, at this point, I am wondering if you’ll offer a story on how “awful” you were before you became a Mormon. Many theists do the exact same thing, making up stories on how bad they were before they got their religion.

  5. Club says: “Oh and thanks for the LA Times link that shows again that you were not telling the truth when claiming that the LDS church did nothing. Do you know what “in-kind” donations are?”

    Yea, they amounted to $150K of plane tickets and the like…not direct donations. Where’s the tens of millions you said the Mormon Church donated?

    • Tens of millions, ah yes, where the LDS admits that it has told its membership to donate because they must do so per their god. This order comes from the leadership and was read at official meetings of the LDS. Again, Robin, no one is claiming that the donations were illegal. I am saying that the LDS contributed millions of dollars because it told its membership that they had no choice to donate if they “really” believed in the bible as the LDS leadership interprets it. It did this and also contributed directly money and “gifts in kind”, which also have value. You response reminds me of someone who wants to claim that something is “kinda sterile” and that big ol’ splotch of dirt doesn’t “really” matter.

      I have asked you if you believe as your leadership says, that equal marriage is against your god and that every Mormon must be against it. I haven’t had a moment to read all of your recent posts to see if you have answered. If not, here is one more opportunity on how someone who claims he is “tolerant” can say that someone else can’t have the same rights as he does.

      • Thanks for the continuing opportunity. I mean it. Most atheist and Protestant Christian who blog don’t have the courage for conversation about other people’s beliefs. I have learned about your short termed memory disorder and NOW attention deficit disorder (in not reading the most analytical comments). Please notice how tolerant I am with your limitations in needing to repeat as if not hearing the answer infinitely through the years.I mean you are haranguing about 4 years ago.Your long term memory is intact.

        Note if you will that the LDS have an article of faith advising us to keep the laws of the land.

        “If not, here is one more opportunity on how someone who claims he is “tolerant” can say that someone else can’t have the same rights as he does.”

        I encourage everyone of age to enjoy a heterosexual marriage and leave the decision to do otherwise to their peril with or without the law permitting them. It has little to do with God what people do; they figure it out themselves dynamically from experience. All an ignorant person needs is opportunity to speak or act….I was godless once and thought myself enlightened throwing off principle not to my liking. Over time the circumstances I had created and destroyed piled up; nobody alerted me to it….figured it out in all thru my stupidity.

        As for black racism and gay bigotry, the LDS didn’t start the fire; we’re putting it out.

      • Ah, so I am courageous rather than a coward as you said before? How things change. It’s so cute to see you of course make more false claims about myself having a short term memory disorder and attention deficit disorder. So, Robin, show me how you think those have manifested. Oh, such a *tolerant* Mormon you are. Shucks, I couldn’t imagine a better Mormon thanks to you. 🙂

        I do love how you are now whining about “4 years ago”. Yep, I’m am pointing out where you are lying and it doesn’t matter if what you are lying about is 4 years ago, 4 decades ago or 4 minutes ago. Yep, the LDS does have a wonderful “article of faith” saying ot keep the laws of the land. And I do love how your church said that slavery was just peachy keen as long as that was the law. Nope, no moral ideas about slavery, just saying that it’s okay whatever anyone says because it’s not your problem. We can see one of your apostles quotes just such a thing “We feel it to be our duty to define our position in relation to the subject of slavery. There are several in the Valley of the Salt Lake from the Southern States, who have their slaves with them. There is no law in Utah to authorize slavery, neither any to prohibit it. If the slave is disposed to leave his master, no power exists there, either legal or moral, that will prevent him. But if the slave chooses to remain with his master, none are allowed to interfere between the master and the slave. All the slaves that are there appear to be perfectly contented and satisfied.

        When a man in the Southern states embraces our faith, the Church says to him, if your slaves wish to remain with you, and to go with you, put them not away; but if they choose to leave you, or are not satisfied to remain with you, it is for you to sell them, or let them go free, as your own conscience may direct you. The Church, on this point, assumes not the responsibility to direct. The laws of the land recognize slavery, we do not wish to oppose the laws of the country. If there is sin in selling a slave, let the individual who sells him bear that sin, and not the Church.” Orson Hyde, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles 1851

        It’s great to see you being so jealous and selfish for yourself, Robin. Ah, always fine if you get your rights but screw everyone else. I’m quite happy to want the same rights for everyone who wants to get married. I’m sorry you can’t do that.

        And it’s even better to see someone like you insisting that you know what your god wants. Yep, so many theists say the exactly same thing when they want to pretend that they are right. People have figured out that marriage is just as fine for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. The sky hasn’t fallen like so many theists have claimed. We have indeed “figured it out” ourselves “dynamically from experience”. We’ve figured out religions lie.

        Then we get one more good ol’ theist lie about atheists. No, Robin, we aren’t just the rebels you wish we were. I have considered the ignorant laws that religions have and have very good reasons that those principles are pathetic. Just like I know that slavery is wrong and not someone else’s problem that I can ignore by hiding behind the laws of a country. I know enough not to follow something because someone else said it was a good idea and approved by some god. And Robin, everyone makes mistakes. It’s not because you have or don’t have some specific religion. From your postings here, you are still making mistakes, bearing false witness, lying, making baseless claims with nothing to support you, etc. Being a member of the LDS hasn’t helped you at all and seems to have aided you in excusing your actions.

        As I have shown in quotes, your claim that the “LDS didn’t start the fire: we’re putting it out.” is false. Your church hid from doing anything. Your church made excuses on why it did nothing. Your church was one of the last groups to realize that idiocy like the “curse of Ham” was nonsense. Some Mormons did support civil rights, as did some Christians, some Jews, some atheists, some Communists, etc. Religion doesn’t figure into it, it’s only if you are a empathic person.

      • Assuming you are addressing me, what do you want to know? Let me guess, you didn’t read the bit in the Boss’s office about me. What fear you might be talking about I have no idea. I’m guessing that you are still fantasizing about people being afraid of you and your imaginary friend.

  6. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – on the anonymous ad about the same sex marriage decision in the Harrisburg Patriot News | Club Schadenfreude

  7. Pingback: Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – part 2 of the Bill Keller saga, where excuses roam free | Club Schadenfreude

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s