At heart, I really am a little kid. I know this. I accept it. I embrace it most of the time.
…and right now I am pretty much jumping up and down and chanting “nah nah na nah nah!”
I love watching the homophobes at the Sutherland Institute twist in the wind. I really do. It is childish, but I enjoy it!
In my opinion the reality is that the LDS church slit their own wrists on prop 8, and the fallout is making things hell on earth for the faithful. I enjoy it. I am pretty sure that the long prop 8 fallout is what will finally push the LDS church to have to accept gay marriage. I wish I made popcorn…
I am considering starting a betting pool on when the prophetic “revelation” will come about announcing that god is now all good with “teh gays” in a “black priesthood” way. It is kinda fun watching the church sell off their so called morals. Just like getting statehood! And everything else. Gotta love the way they stand up for their beliefs.
I wonder what little bean counter in the office building downtown realized that missionary work was going to suffer with a youth population that sees gay marriage as perfectly acceptable. I wonder how many meetings they have held about what year they should change gods mind. I wonder how they take into account how easy to sway the sheep followers are. I wonder if they have graphed the income of the current followers vs the potential income of the people who aren’t homophobes and would join for the perceived family friendly atmosphere. Just how calculating are they?
I think the answer is: more than we could believe.
And way more than bigots like the Sutherland fools could know. A lot of the followers have bought the church stand hook, line and sinker. It is easy to swallow when you hate a particular group of people and someone tells you that hate is sanctioned by god.
And when the faith is run by businessmen, they change policy based on what makes money. And some of the believers aren’t going to like that…
Now the LDS royalty are saying maybe the same measure could work for the whole state. http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_13766464 Good stuff. Really good stuff.
I REALLY should have made popcorn.
#1 by GinnyRED57 - November 16th, 2009 at 07:48
Agreed, it’s just a matter of time until the seerin’ revelator hollers “I see it!” like that one guy in “How The West Was Won.”
#2 by Richard Warnick - November 16th, 2009 at 09:17
Jeff Reynolds, the Sutherland spokesman, was utterly blindsided by the Church’s announcement.
#3 by Richard Warnick - November 16th, 2009 at 09:22
Shane– It looks like the Utah Bloghive can’t generate a link to this post unless you give it a title.
#4 by James farmer - November 16th, 2009 at 10:11
I like how Jeff is referred to as a “conservative mouthpiece.” Spot on, to say the least. Now, the poor guy has become unglued at the hinge on his facebook page. Shoot, without the church, the Sutherland Institute may as well dry up and rot on the vine, right along with the eagle Forum, SI’s sister collection of wingnut screwballs! We can hope!
#5 by cav - November 16th, 2009 at 10:17
Shane, …’they’ are ‘us’, doncha know?
Some applause should be given their ‘flexability’. Might make the next revelation come a little easier off the tongue.
#6 by shane - November 16th, 2009 at 11:05
titles! next you will want spell check too. some people are so picky!
#7 by We wish - November 16th, 2009 at 11:10
One more step to getting a Mormon in the White House.
Remember Cui Bono, that would be Romney.
“If it happens in politics you can be sure it was planned”. FDR
“Never believe anything until it has been officially denied”. Otto von Bismarck.
#8 by We wish - November 16th, 2009 at 11:27
“The best way to control your opposition, is to lead it”.
Lenin.
They start within their own ranks and move outward.
3 guys above of completely differing politics all share one basic similarity. They left their politics behind them and looked to the results and what they meant.
The battle Royale is on, as the infiltration of progressive politics begins by elements of the secular religionists. As progressivism has a well defined orthodoxy and follows its “leaders” very closely, once compromised shall be easy to rule is the strategy.
The morphing of the two ends of the political spectrum has begun. The synthesis will very much surprise the ends of both groups. Classic.
#9 by mike - November 16th, 2009 at 12:29
Shane,
I’m glad to see you have such a clear understanding of how the youth and the general population see the issue of homosexual marriage. How many states where the issue of homosexual marriage has been put on a ballot has homosexual marriage been approved by the people? Maybe it’s not quite as powerful a movement as you suggest.
I did enjoy your musing where in you “ wonder what little bean counter in the office building downtown realized that missionary work was going to suffer with a youth population that sees gay marriage as perfectly acceptable.” For the good of the homosexual community let’s hope those bean counters didn’t pay any attention to how few people attended the recent gay rights protest. You know the one with the handcart where less than 25 people showed up.
One thing does seem clear about this issue when I hear statements like “(prop
is making things hell on earth for the faithful. I enjoy it.” It would appear that there are bigots on both sides of the issue.
#10 by shane - November 16th, 2009 at 13:31
Thanks for the input Mike….
The fact that even in the last presidential election with record youth voting was still hardly a drop in the percentage bucket is not the issue. Nor is it a question of how many people voted for ballots of issues of same sex marriage.
Let me illustrate the point a different way. There was never a serious movement to take away the greek pantheon of gods. Nobody ever put it up for vote or started a campaign against it. But nobody today believes in those gods. The just stopped mattering.
I am not suggesting there is a youth movement for gay marriage. I am simply pointing out that the younger population doesn’t see anything wrong with gay marriage. They won’t, as a rule, come out to campaign for it. But they won’t campaign against it either. And slowly, over the next 10-50 years, the issue will simply cease to be an issue. And the dinosaurs of a forgotten non-morality will pass away into the mists of time.
You, and other bigots like you, will just stop mattering. Much the same way we are ashamed of our racist old great aunt, but nobody really listens to her anyway, and arguing with her is too sad. You just don’t care anymore what she says.
And a final helpful remark. Bigot: expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance, ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a superstitious religious hypocrite)
The fact that I enjoy watching the karma wheel come back around to smack the “holy” in the ass isn’t bigoted You know, the holy who like to talk about how much they love their families and neighbors even though they have an epidemic of homeless gay youth they have kicked out of their loving homes and they spend money to take away neighbors rights? Is it kind? Nope! Mature? Not really. But bigoted? Learn to use a dictionary. Or at least don’t be so predictable in the sad little right-wing “I know you are but what am I!” way that the grownups are sick of.
Drop the date in your calendar. Come on back in a decade and tell me how the fight is going then, okay? See ya then.
#11 by mike - November 16th, 2009 at 14:14
A couple of points to consider.
First, do you think that as people get a little older they never change their mind on any subject? What you believe in your youth you may not necessarily hold to years later.
Second, “an epidemic of homeless gay youth they have kicked out of their loving homes”.
Really an epidemic? How many people do you know that actually fit that description and what percentage is that of the total population?
Third, “You, and other bigots like you.” Wow. Which of us do you think has shown more “prejudice and intolerance” towards another group of people? I haven’t even stated which side of the issue I stand on, much less my joy at seeing the other side suffer.
Finally, just as a little side note. When you state that “There was never a serious movement to take away the greek pantheon of gods.” That’s not completely true. The Romans overtook the greeks and adopted their gods and then there actual was a serious movement to take those gods away. It was called Christianity. Ever wonder why it’s called the Holy Roman Church? Right or wrong Christianity is what took the place of the Roman gods in the lives of the Roman people.
#12 by Richard Warnick - November 16th, 2009 at 14:30
There are some interesting graphs that illustrate how acceptance of same-sex marriage has grown with each new generation. It’s nice to know that Americans are still moving in the direction of supporting more freedom and equality.
#13 by shane - November 16th, 2009 at 18:57
In reverse order:
The Greek gods where pretty much irrelevant long before the Jewish off-shoot that co-opted Mithras took hold. Your history is as lacking as your english comprehension.
Third point: My apologies! I missed the part where you were one of the 25 marching at the handcart demonstration! How silly of me to assume from comments like yours that you defend the gay bashers. It is good to know you are in fact a supporter… (where is my eye roll icon? i swear i had it a moment ago…)
Second: 43% of Utah’s homeless youth identify themselves as GLBT. Nearly half of a particular community identifying themselves as members of a group that is at most 5-10% of the general population is pretty damn impressive. If you don’t like “epidemic” how about “embarrassing huge fricking number based on the self righteous pro-family swill that is generated by the local religion for their PR lies”? I was simply striving to be brief.
I believe Richard destroyed your first point. Perhaps you would like to redefine “math” or “graph” or “statistics” at this point?
#14 by Becky Stauffer - November 16th, 2009 at 22:16
I remember when the Mormon church granted the priesthood to black men. Many members just could not let go of their old beliefs of the cursed skin and some of that persists today despite the church’s best efforts to restate its own scriptures. I expect Mero, Ruzicka, and others will have a hard time letting go of their prejudices towards gays no matter what the church says. But that puts them in direct opposition with church leaders, and that has to really give them conflicted feelings. At some point they will have to either say the church is wrong or admit they themselves are wrong.
It’s not that I sympathize — I don’t. I’m just pointing out that I’ve seen it before, and those who don’t choose to get on the train are going to be left behind.
Oh, and just to add my opinion fwiw, this is to aid the Romney 2012 campaign.
#15 by brewski - November 16th, 2009 at 22:35
This is a serious question:
In all of 5,000 years of recorded human history, across all millenia, countries and cultures, has same sex marriage ever existed anywhere?
I think the answer to that is No. Which is a different answer than you get to the same question regarding inter-racial marriage, cultural diversity, polygamy and all kinds of other phenomena.
#16 by shane - November 16th, 2009 at 22:43
brewski:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
That thought is 100% wrong. In fact the page quoted goes on to mention several more.
…not that it matters. To say that we have never allowed a thing in the past in no way points to whether it is right or wrong to allow it now. Descriptive morality and normative morality are not the same thing.
#17 by Becky Stauffer - November 16th, 2009 at 23:12
Brewski,
It’s that same logic that compels certain religious groups to wear clothing styles of the 1800’s and to shun the use of electricity or powered machinery, phones, television, and basically anything new since their religious order was founded. It’s certainly one way of looking at things, but it doesn’t prove a thing to be right or wrong by any means.
#18 by cav - November 17th, 2009 at 10:26
I think it’s telling that as recently as the ’50s, teh gheiness, was listed in the DMS as a mental ilness. Now I imagine one standing at the temple podium of that bright shiney city, addressing the her assembled flock.
#19 by brewski - November 17th, 2009 at 10:38
I was hoping for a better reference than a Wikipedia quote which quotes a book from “Insomniac Press”, whatever the hell that is. Sort of analogous to quoting Fox News.
I certainly know that homsexuality has been around forever and was socially acceptable in many cultures. But what I have yet to be convinced of is that homosexual marriage ever had equal status in the eyes of the law. So in these vague references to the Greeks and Romans, did the statutes provide for full spousal recognition including legal claims such as inheritance, etc.?
I am not arguing that something is inheriently wrong just because it is new. But the comparison to other civil rights issues is flawed since there has been interracial marriage, female priests and lawmakers, polygamy and all sorts of other arrangements for thousands of years. So full legal recognition of homosexual marriage is not just another civil rights issue. Historically it is new, as far as I can tell.
#20 by shane - November 17th, 2009 at 11:18
I guess since it doesn’t matter a single damn bit in any way shape or form whether same sex marriage was never allowed, the predominant form of marriage or anywhere in between, I just don’t really care if you want a better reference.
The comparison has nothing to do with the newness or lack thereof of any type of marriage. Legal adult humans by definition have human rights. Unless there is some reason that being legally recognized as in a committed relationship should not be allowed all humans of legal adult standing (in which case we need to rethink a lot of marriages) the history of the matter is unimportant.
However since you seem unable to look things up on your own, “Insomniac Press” is a small Canadian press. Exactly how it relates to Fox News is unclear to me. Note also that the page in question quotes the a few law review journals, Random House, Oxford…. kinda like Fox.
So your point, which rests on a doubtful view of history, also doesn’t matter, because what is moral is not what is historical.
BTW, civil rights protect individuals from the government and have been noted by several philosophers of politics to be the protection the minority has from a tyranny of the majority. They ensure that anyone in any minority, be it racial, religious, cultural, etc. etc, can participate in society as a full member.
If you can explain exactly how seeing to it that a law that would allow a gay minority population to participate in the civil and legal benefits of marriage despite a larger majority population being against it is not a matter of civil rights based on that understanding, i will happily stop asking for rights for my fellow humans.
Same sex marriage is a matter of simple human rights, and further do to the nature of the much more populous religious opposition a matter of civil rights. There is simply no argument about the matter except by the same minded who can’t extend the human tribe to include everyone.
#21 by brewski - November 17th, 2009 at 13:51
Shane, I agree with a lot of what you say.
So, I gather from your logic, that as a matter of human rights, polygamy must also be made legal. You know, tyranny of the majority, anyone can participate as a full member of society, extending the human tribe to everyone, etc.
#22 by shane - November 17th, 2009 at 16:15
Actually, as soon as we have a good way to combat the obvious abuses where 45 year old men marry 14 year olds so everyone can get into heaven, polyandry and polygyny both have no real reason to be frowned on except the uptight prude point of view.
…now the fact that polygyny is pretty routinely combined with abuses of religion and typical male power, well that is a bit of a problem. But personally I would suggest we are better removing the religious/sexist/age issues than outlawing something that is (in theory) a choice for consenting adults.
I predict gay marriage comes first though.
#23 by brewski - November 17th, 2009 at 16:43
We have laws regarding rape, statutory rape, abuse of minors, etc. Of course those should be endforced.
But you stopped well short of saying that we need to grant full legal equal status to polygamous marriages as a matter of human rights, extending the human tribe, everyone is a full member of society, etc.
#24 by shane - November 17th, 2009 at 17:34
Perhaps that says as much about my own view of rights as anything. When I say there is no real reason to deny them, I very much do mean that they should be granted. I don’t understand the idea that we make laws to allow things. Laws should only restrict or prohibit (generally speaking) as opposed to allowing.
Sadly, while history does not have any relevance on what should be moral, it does tell us what we might expect if polygamy is legal, as it does have a history of abuse, and laws are all to often broken. Still, yes, I would say that polygamy is also a matter for consenting adults and no business of the “moral majority” so long as that is how it remains.
#25 by mike - November 17th, 2009 at 18:38
Hi Shane,
Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to your last post.
Again just a couple of comments.
First if “Greek (or Roman) gods where pretty much irrelevant long before the Jewish off-shoot that co-opted Mithras took hold” Why did Paul (you know, from the bible) chide the Romans for their belief in those gods? Perhaps Paul, the Roman citizen didn’t have your understanding of Roman culture and history.
Second, I have a far more important and sincere question for you. You stated that “43% of Utah’s homeless youth identify themselves as GLBT.” I really would like to know where you have gotten that statistic from. The homeless are an extremely difficult group to find demographics on and so I would like to know your source. Please don’t disappoint me with a Wikipedia source.
On a personal note, the reason I took so long to respond is I wanted to see if the epidemic of Mormon youth being kicked out of their homes is as epidemic as you claim. I have half a dozen friends who are openly gay Mormons and are active in the gay community. I talked to each one of them since the last time I posted and asked them if they knew any individuals who fit the description of what you are describing, youth being kicked out of their homes because they are gay. Of the six, none of them know a single person who was kicked out of their house as a teenager for being gay. Epidemic? The irony is two of the people I talked with, who are both in their thirties, are still living in their parent’s basements.
I found Richard’s graph extremely interesting. One thing it does imply about Utah is it’s going to be longer than a decade for the majority of Utahns to accept gay marriage as you suggested.
Now I have no doubt your going to respond with more personal attacks, (It would seem that you’re not as interested in a “Public Square for Loud Political Debate” as much as your want to blog in an echo chamber.) but please I would like to know where you got your static for the 43%
I’m done, enjoy the chamber
#26 by shane - November 17th, 2009 at 19:45
Well Mike, I call bullshit. The simple fact is that gay youth ending up homeless is something that has received a lot of attention over the last couple of years. If you can’t be bothered to do your own research, why should I do it for you?
I have noticed this is a pattern with conservative apologists though. Question the facts, then the source, then finally claim the source is simply wrong. Why don’t skip straight to the end game?
Funny thing is, in only 11 seconds I found a link to multiple studies by several groups. Summery:
But i guess that is a personal attack, isn’t it?
I am glad your done.
#27 by mike - November 17th, 2009 at 22:02
Shane,
I’m back. I’m sorry I just can’t help myself. It’s just so damn amusing to see you twist your words. Let’s take a look shall we ……
Originally you said “43% of Utah’s homeless youth identify themselves as GLBT” and seemed to imply that it was the Mormon’s who were to blame when you said “how about “embarrassing huge fricking number based on the self righteous pro-family swill that is generated by the local religion for their PR lies”
But the source you’re now using says “Nationwide, approximately 575,000 to 1.6 million youths are believed to be homeless or runaways. Of those, some 42 percent are believed to lesbian, gay or transgender.”
Do you see any problem with using the second quote as source for your first claim about Utah and the Mormons? Are the Mormons to be blamed for the National epidemic? Also when I see things like “approximately 575,000 to 1.6 million” that’s a pretty big gap to using as authoritative numbers. However it’s not nearly as humorous as “42 percent are believed” that doesn’t sound much like hard data.
Again where are you getting your data to state that “43% of Utah’s homeless youth identify themselves as GLBT”? Also to answer your question “If you can’t be bothered to do your own research, why should I do it for you? That’s simple, you made the 43% claim. Usually when someone makes an assertion the responsibility lies with them to cite their sources. I would have thought a really smart guy like you would have known that.
I’m really done this time unless you make it too entertaining to stay away
#28 by Cliff Lyon - November 18th, 2009 at 07:41
Mike,
Thanks for stopping by the “echo chamber.” If it makes you feel better to think that, be my guest.
I submit to you that there is no other Utah political blog with as much diversity of opinion coming from all sides. If there is, I would love to see it.
OneUtah is Authors include people like Paul Mero, Ken Bingham, Frank Stahali, Don Brown and other conservative LDS folks.
You too are welcome to become an author. You need only meet 2 very simple requirements and I’ll give you the keys.
NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN MODERATED ON THIS BLOG. And you won’t be either.
May I suggest, OneUtah IS more of a “public square” by FAR than anything remotely connected to the Church.
So take you time and look around. If and when you think you have the chutzpah, register, send me your credentials (cliff ‘at’ trunity.com), and I shall pass you the keys to post at will.
Until then, blow on Brother!
#29 by mike - November 18th, 2009 at 09:05
Cliff,
I apologize for my apparent miscommunication. I was not trying to imply that OneUtah as a whole is an “echo chamber”. I actually quite enjoy the site.
However I do have one criticism of your post to me. When you state that “other conservative LDS folks” and “OneUtah IS more of a ‘public square” by FAR than anything remotely connected to the Church.” I have to ask myself, who gives a shit? Why for so many people does every issue in Utah have to boil down to the Mormons and those who hate the Mormons; especially in Salt Lake City where a majority of the people are not Mormon? The rhetoric gets really old.
If people like Shane really want the church to become irrelevant STOP making them relevant in everything you do. I don’t care that you have conservative LDS folks writing for you, do you have anyone who couldn’t get a rat’s ass about the LDS Church writing for you?
Thanks again for the site, and I’m sorry Shane to have once again intruded upon your chamber.
#30 by shane - November 18th, 2009 at 22:31
Actually Mike, what i said was that the first thing i found on google, in less than 11 seconds, was that 42% nation wide identify as GLBT.
That is only to demonstrate that with little or no effort you could actually find the information yourself. Clearly I was wrong. And you can’t. I over estimated your capabilities. I apologize.
If you use the exact same search but (I will try to explain this as simply as possible) type the word “utah” in addition to the other terms, you can actually find results that reference Utah. Try it.
In that search you can find that in Utah the estimates are about the same.
You could also read why it is difficult to get harder numbers. Again I invite you to try it and maybe learn something.
If you really think that some sort of “ignoring them and they might go away” strategy is rational, you are the kind of person who also thinks that I want to make them irrelevant. Oh wait. You are.
At no point did i say i want that. Nor do I. What I want is for people, all people, to be treated as if they are human. One group that frequently prevents that from happening in this state is the LDS church. If I ignore reality will it go away?
Come on Mike, are you really that stupid?
#31 by shane - November 18th, 2009 at 22:33
My god i wonder how Cliff got that idea….
#32 by mike - November 18th, 2009 at 23:59
Oh good Shane you didn’t disappoint me.
Let’s start with the simple stuff. Okay. First when a person makes a claim it is their responsibility to back the claim up with their source/data. Didn’t they teach you that at Salt Lake Community College?
Also as I pointed out before, your source’s data seems really soft. Let me illustrate what I mean with a little analogy for you. If you were to go to a doctor for an illness and he prescribed a medication for your ailment but he said you should either take one pill or three pills he just wasn’t sure which amount, how much confidence are you going to have in that Doctor? Yet you are willing to give credence to your source who demonstrates the same kind of incompetence as the aforementioned doctor – its either 575,000 or three times that amount 1.6 million. Those numbers aren’t facts, they’re a wild ass guess.
This brings me to the second and far larger problem with your source. Your source uses the following phrases “believed to be homeless or runaways” and “believed to lesbian, gay or transgender.” That doesn’t sound very definitive does it? Those phrases also lead me to ask believed by whom? I would assume it’s believed by the ones who did the “study” and who is that? The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. You think there might be a bit of a bias or conflict of interest there?
I would have a lot more confidence in your numbers if they were backed up by some sort of academic research that, you know does real research with peer reviews and everything. There is a Professor out of California that has done some fascinating work on the subject of homelessness. Her name is Jennifer R Wolch if you’re actually interested in the topic rather than just your own dogma
I get such a kick out of your posts when you make statements like this “What I want is for people, all people, to be treated as if they are human.” Followed by statements like this “Come on Mike, are you really that stupid?” You really do crack me up.
This leads me to your final question “My god I wonder how Cliff got that idea” I’m going to let you connect the dots on who I believe wants to blog in an echo chamber Okay? It’s a little nuanced but try to stay with me. First I stated “It would seem that you’re not as interested in a “Public Square for Loud Political Debate” as much as you want to blog in an echo chamber.” Please notice I wasn’t criticizing all of OneUtah, but wait there is more, later I said “sorry Shane to have once again intruded upon your chamber.” Got it?
Keep up the good comedy, God or gods know we need it.