Susan's Place Logo

News:

Visit our Discord server  and Wiki

Main Menu

Gay marriage fight, `kiss-ins’ smack Mormon image

Started by Julie Marie, August 17, 2009, 10:21:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Julie Marie

The Mormon church's vigorous, well-heeled support for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California last year, has turned the Utah-based faith into a lightning rod for gay rights activism, including a nationwide "kiss-in" Saturday.

"I encourage them to promote the values they believe in and to defend their religious principles in advertisements, but civil rights have nothing to do with religious principles," Atali Staffler, a Brigham Young University graduate student from Geneva, Switzerland, said.  The 31-year-old, who was raised Mormon but is not active in the church, said the church shouldn't be involved in Prop. 8.

Church insiders say Prop. 8 has bred dissent among members and left families divided. Some members have quit or stopped attending services, while others have appealed to leadership to stay out of the same-sex marriage fight.

Church representatives don't discuss public relations strategies or challenges publicly, but at a semiannual conference in April, church President Thomas S. Monson seemed to be clearly feeling a post-Prop. 8 sting.

In an era of "shifting moral footings," Monson said, "those who attempt to safeguard those footings are often ridiculed, picketed and persecuted."

That argument doesn't wash for Linda Stay, whose ancestors were early Mormon converts. Stay said she was doubly transformed by Prop. 8. She and her husband, Steve, finally quit the church - along with 18 other family members and a few close friends - and became gay right activists.


As society realizes equality should be for all, gay marriage gets more support.  Could equality for trans people be far behind?

Julie


See full story
When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself.
  •  

gennee

A great question, Julie Marie. It's amazing that this has divided families. To me it's more of a groupof people (us) having the same rights as everyone else. I maintain that the institutional church perpetrated much of the heartache on transgender people by their indifference, transphobia and bigotry. Now it's a chance for the church to do the right thing.

Gennee
Be who you are.
Make a difference by being a difference.   :)

Blog: www.difecta.blogspot.com
  •  

gothique11

I think they should stay out of it. But, yeah, religion does divide families sometimes. Half of my family is Mormon and I'm considered "dead" to them and they don't talk to me.

The church is against homosexuality and being transsexual.

Edit: Or should I say the "act of" 'cause recently I've noticed in the last few years they've softened it to say that you can be (born) gay, you just can't act on it 'cause it's a sin. Same with being trans. *shrugs* sounds just like re-wording it to make things sound softer. That's like saying you can be left handed, but you just can't use your left hand. I don't know, the logic seems flawed. I guess it's the LDS version of being PC. o_0

I know that they fought against same-sex marriage here in Canada, but thankfully same-sex-marriage passed here.

The (mormon, aka Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, aka LDS) church also strongly fought against the Equal Rights Amendment in the late '70s and '80s. The ERA was about women being treated equally, in a nut shell. Although it wasn't the only player, it did have an involvement.

The church has a long history of being involved in political battles.


Edit:
When I say stay out of it I mean the church as an identity, although under freedom of speech members have a right to voice their opinions. Technically an organization has that right, too. My personal opinion is that the organization itself shouldn't be fronting it -- but that's just me.

Although, I guess there's a line somewhere already 'cause I'm pretty sure a neo-nazi organization would have legal ramifications if they were pushing a political agenda. Then, again, I guess it depends on the country. Here the local nazi's have public rallies (and on the other side of the street, the anti-nazi's protesting the nazi rally). The police, city, and government let them do it, but I guess there are some guidelines as to how far they can go in what they say -- 'cause one of the leaders ended up in jail for hate speech, but they can still do rallies and be very public -- they just can't go over some kinda invisible lines in what they preach.

Where is that line when an organization goes too far... I guess it's all in the wording. You can't say that being homosexual is wrong, but you can say that having same-sex/homosexual sex is sinful. 'Cause, you can't say a person born a certain way is wrong, but what they do is sinful (I guess)? Like the nazi's can't say jews are evil, but they can say being jewish is sinful. o_0 -- urm, or something like that. One is attacking someone's identity (who they are) and the other is attacking what they are doing.

Not that either is right, but it seems to be the loophole used. It can be tricky at times to balance freedom of speech and exchange of ideas, and crossing the line into something that purposefully hurts (or maybe attacks) an individual or group of people. And how hurt is defined is another ball of yarn. How much hurt is too much.

ah, it's really late, I think I'm starting to ramble on with tired speak that might not make complete sense.  o_0
  •  

Julie Marie

Well, if a church, or any religious organization, gets involved in politics, campaigning, passing laws, they should lose their tax exempt status.  Period.

Julie
When you judge others, you do not define them, you define yourself.
  •  

Just Kate

I think 'marriage' should no longer be recognized by the government.  Leave it for the religious.  Give everyone governmental recognized unions.

Simple, but I feel the most effective.
Ill no longer be defined by my condition. From now on, I'm just, Kate.

http://autumnrain80.blogspot.com
  •  

aisha

Quote from: gothique11 on August 26, 2009, 04:33:02 AM
Edit: Or should I say the "act of" 'cause recently I've noticed in the last few years they've softened it to say that you can be (born) gay, you just can't act on it 'cause it's a sin. Same with being trans. *shrugs* sounds just like re-wording it to make things sound softer. That's like saying you can be left handed, but you just can't use your left hand. I don't know, the logic seems flawed. I guess it's the LDS version of being PC. o_0

thats good! so thats mean as long ur not acting then you can BE gay and/or transexual, its saying just be yourself, and you'll be fine.
  •