roughstonerolling.com Blog

30 responses so far ↓

• 1 queuno // Nov 22, 2008 at 10:17 pm

  I tend to agree with you.

  I’ve long thought this will result in a change in wording in certain language in the Church, which plainly articulates a (re)definition of “husband” and “wife” and “legally wed”, so that the definition is the Church’s and not society’s.

• 2 Ray // Nov 22, 2008 at 11:10 pm

  Amazing – and amazingly unsurprising. The worst part of this is that there is a large percentage of the gay community that feels the exact same way about these actions as you do. Just as in most cases, it is the extreme, fringe elements that push the legal envelope – leaving the moderate middle dealing with the aftermath.

• 3 Nick Literski // Nov 23, 2008 at 12:57 am

  You’re so right, Ray. I consider myself a fairly politically-active gay man, and though I have long deplored the bigotry evidenced by eHarmony’s operation, I wouldn’t dream of suing to force them to provide their services to same-sex couples. There’s a common sense principle here. I may advocate for laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but that doesn’t mean I would want to associate with bigots, or pay bigots for their services. If a person is so filled with hate that they will use the name of deity as a crutch to refuse to photograph my wedding, why would I want to force them? I’m betting the resulting photos would be pretty poorly done! Likewise, even if I was “on the market,” would I really want to trust eHarmony—a company run by conservative christians who openly deplore gays and lesbians—to help me find a “compatible partner?” No!

  That said, I hasten to point out that this eHarmony lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality, and the original post above is yet another example of Proposition 8 supporters trying to misuse cases under discrimination laws as supposed “results of gay marriage.”

• 4 Stephen M (Ethesis) // Nov 23, 2008 at 3:15 am

  eHarmony’s expressed express goal is to connect people who will get married.

  Interesting stuff though.

• 5 Karron // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:46 am

  I am so sick of all of this nonsense. Look, the voters voted, get over it and move on. Prop 8 passed, and if the shoe were on the other foot, people, those that voted for it wouldn’t be whining and moaning, and then setting out to prove how compassionate they are by tearing up gay clubs and abusing them because they lost.

  I think the whole eHarmony dating thing is stupid and a real rip off. Gay or not, get a life and find a partner the old fashioned way, meet, greet, date, fall in love . . . to pay MONEY to meet someone, is no less than a scam. They don’t promise a relationship, just that they will set you up to meet. Only desperate people would reduce a relationship to something they pay for.

  I understand your frustration Dave. By benefit of making themselves victims, they whine themselves into court and win against the bad people who won’t give them what they want. Talk about legal extortion.

  I personally don’t give a running flip what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. But if heterosexual people displayed their sexual orientation as blatantly as homosexuals we would be called all sorts of names. But it is OK for them to flaunt their weird clothes, and make out in front of kids and anyone watching. Obscenity laws are not for them, after all, they are victims.

  I am tired of their constant whining. Get over yourself already. You chose the lifestyle you live, you chose to have a same sex relationship, you chose to come out of the closet or ghetto, or where ever you were hiding. Deal with it and stop playing the poor little victim.

  The people voted, get over it. People will never be comfortable with having your sexuality forced on them.

  Isn’t there supposed to be a separation between church and state? Now you want to force us to accept you. WE are to be punished and you are using the state and the courts to do it. How is that right?

  It is useless, David, to argue with a liberal. Because they don’t deal with logic, they deal with hysteria and victimization and that is all the know how to speak.

  Some people out there really need to grow up.

• 6 David // Nov 23, 2008 at 6:20 am

  Nick,

  You bring up an excellent point. It isn’t as if McKinley really wanted eHarmony to help him with his love life; he just wanted them to be taught a lesson, hurt them.

  And while this lawsuit has nothing to do with marriage equality, it has everything to do with the exponentially growing trend of lawsuits, boycotts and conniption fits on behalf of compulsory gay recognition– including the Prop 8 fallout–often targeting benign businesses. eHarmony hasn’t demonstrated any overt bigotry as far as I’ve heard– and the press would shout it on the rooftops if it did. It matches men and women– that’s all it does. The founder, Neil Clark Warren, has devoted his life in helping marriages and relationships. Perhaps his beliefs preclude same-sex marriage. Well, it’s his company, he can specialize in whatever he wants. Now I don’t know McKinley’s story, but I feel pretty comfortable believing he probably hasn’t done nearly as much good for his fellowman– his recent behavior is indicative of that.

  There’s a family-owned restaurant here in L.A., El Coyote, that’s been around for over 70 years. Because of her religious convictions, the owner’s wife donated $100 to Prop 8. Now forces of the opposition are harassing them and trying to instigate a boycott of their establishment–trying to drive them out of business.

  This isn’t justice– it’s vengeance, it’s bullying, it’s wholesale bigotry– and it’s growing like fungus.

• 7 David // Nov 23, 2008 at 6:28 am

  Karron,

  I understand your disdain for matchmaker services (Yenta, Yenta…), but the type of business it is is not really the point. To me, it’s the same thing as if the Playboy Club was taken to court for not hiring any male bunny servers– it’s not what they do–get over it!

• 8 Nick Literski // Nov 23, 2008 at 5:00 pm

  There’s a family-owned restaurant here in L.A., El Coyote, that’s been around for over 70 years. Because of her religious convictions, the owner’s wife donated $100 to Prop 8. Now forces of the opposition are harassing them and trying to instigate a boycott of their establishment–trying to drive them out of business.

  David, may I suggest you look at the El Coyote situation a little differently? Suppose you, and members of your ward, made up a substantial portion of the customer base for a local grocery store, and enjoyed a good relationship with the owners. Suppose, however, that you were surprised to learn that the grocery store’s owners donated to support the work of an anti-LDS ministry. How would you feel about that? Wouldn’t you feel a bit betrayed? Wouldn’t you think twice about spending your money there, after learning that your spending was ultimately going to support something that fought directly against a hugely important part of your life? How would you feel, to know that your spending was being turned against you? If you’re an honest person, I’m confident that you would seriously consider taking your business elsewhere. No rational person wants to spend their money at business that uses that money to fight against them.

  That’s what happened at El Coyote. Marjorie, the owner in question, thought that her many gay and lesbian customers shouldn’t be conerned that their spending was going toward an anti-gay initiative, because her church leaders urged the donation. She thought that her religious motivation absolved her from any and all accountability toward her customers, and her customers disagreed.

  Now, the business is facing the consequences that naturally flow from supporting a cause that directly fights against the interests of its customer base. This is very different from the discrimination lawsuits described above.

• 9 cheryl // Nov 23, 2008 at 10:40 pm

  No, this is like somebody going into a Vegetarian Restaurant and demaning that they serve meat. Or a men’s clothing store (suits?) and demanding a bra. Seriously, it’s that stupid. This is America, and we have a capitalist system. If one company doesn’t cater to my specific needs, I find one that does. If nobody does, I start my own! Entrepreneur-ism is not dead.
  Seriously, this just makes me tired because it should be so logical!

  And Nick, I doubt LDS people would react in the way you claim they would. Chances are, they would still go to that restaurant and kindly seek out why the owner did what they did, because that’s what good LDS people do. We love those who hate us. Even when they burn our Temples, threaten our jobs, vadalize our homes, scream hate in our faces, and sue religious companies for made-up discrimination.
  Gosh darn it, we still love ‘em! You may not believe me, but it’s true.

• 10 Nick Literski // Nov 24, 2008 at 12:21 am

  Sorry, Cheryl, but my 26 years of activity in the LDS church would not suggest your Pollyana description.

• 11 cheryl // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:20 am

  Ah, then you are the exception, or else you dwell on the few.

  Example:
  LDS friend in CA has a Baptist minister move in next door. He proceeds to pass out anti-Mormon literature in the neighborhood, even while knowing my friend and her family are LDS. How does my friend react? They become his friend. They bake him bread. They take his garbage can to the curb. They speak politely and kindly. They never talk about the anti-Mormon stuff.

  If you have encountered hatred amongst the LDS population, then I am sorry for it. But my friend is the rule and the majority: You dealt with the exception and the minority. That doesn’t mean your experiences should be ruled out as fiction –I’m sure it was very real –but you can’t claim all 13 million members of the LDS Church would have acted the same or have been TOLD to act that way. I’m betting if you tried hard enough, you’d see that not all LDS people are as rotten as you want them to be (or else why would you hang out in the Bloggernacle for all these years?)

• 12 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:39 am

  Nick

  Obviously you have a problem distinguishing facts.
  Prop 8 was NOT “Anti-gay”, it was ANTI GAY-MARRIAGE.

  When gays and lesbians spend MONEY in a restaurant, THEIR spending goes towards FOOD and SERVICE. PERIOD. What Marjorie in turn uses the profits generated by her business on is HER spending.

  AND only an IDIOT would suggest that the sum total of the whopping $100 she donated was the direct result of ONLY her “MANY” gay and lesbian clients.

  CUSTOMER rights in any establishment are these-to be treated fairly and with respect, charged the same price and service given to everyone else, and to get fair value for their money. PERIOD. Customer rights do NOT include-being able to determine WHAT the owners do, or support, or invest in, worship, believe in, or participate in OUTSIDE of their establishment.

  But let me ask it this way, since you believe that what gays and lesbians are doing to heterosexually owned businesses is FAIR and RIGHT and CORRECT-would you have ANY problem with it being done in reverse? Do you believe it would be FAIR and RIGHT and CORRECT for the heterosexual community to protest in front of any businesses owned by gays or lesbians and encourage other heterosexuals to boycott those businesses?

  If gays want to play “fair is fair” then they had better hope that their own very small minority group CAN and WILL be able to support them financially if they keep this up. Because if they really and truly want to be treated the way they are currently treating others, they just might get what they want.

  Be careful what you wish for.

• 13 Nick Literski // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:57 am

  Cheryl, your defense is endearing, but misdirected. You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I think “all LDS people are rotten,” when I never said such a thing. In fact, I have many LDS friends, who I greatly admire.

  If you will go back and actually read the comment you initially replied to, you’ll find that I made no accusations against the character of LDS people. Rather, I asked David to consider whether he, as an LDS member, would spend his money at a business which directly contributed to anti-LDS ministries. His refusal to do such a thing is not, by any means, a fault. Rather, it’s a common-sense reaction to the conduct of a business. In a similar way, I know many LDS in Utah who refuse to subscribe to the Salt Lake Tribune, because they perceive it as an “anti-LDS” newspaper.

  I’m delighted to hear that your friend behaves so positively toward a minister who disagrees with her religious convictions. Hers is a wonderful example of how we should all behave. On the other hand, I doubt that your friend would pay for the printing of that minister’s anti-LDS tracts, and nobody in their right mind would fault your friend for such a refusal.

• 14 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:04 am

  Nick
  Oh the irony in what you said to David-or better-what you did NOT say-

  “Suppose, however, that you were surprised to learn that the grocery store’s owners donated to support the work of an anti-LDS ministry. How would you feel about that? Wouldn’t you feel a bit betrayed? Wouldn’t you think twice about spending your money there, after learning that your spending was ultimately going to support something that fought directly against a hugely important part of your life? How would you feel, to know that your spending was being turned against you? If you’re an honest person, I’m confident that you would seriously consider taking your business elsewhere. No rational person wants to spend their money at business that uses that money to fight against them.”

  You’re right. BUT that is NOT the same thing as SEEKING REVENGE is it? Do you really need someone to point out the difference between “taking your business elsewhere” (rational) and organizing hatefilled demonstrations, creating websites, and writing articles in a CONSCIOUS effort to destroy someone’s business AND force 89 families to lose their incomes? (irrational)

  I think it is the gay community that needs to look at the El Coyote situation a little more CLEARLY.

  There is every chance that the “Christian” community will continue to be Christlike and turn the other cheek over and over and over.

  There is a chance that “Christians” will surge out to support businesses like El Coyote-using the “revenge based demonstrations” of the gays to point out businesses that could use their support right now. In fact, I think I’ll do just that for my internet based shopping this Christmas. I’ll seek out boycotted companies and give them MY money this year.

  But…there’s one more outcome here and it’s UGLY. There’s a chance that the “not so Christian” Christians will get fed up, get sick and tired of being attacked and boycotted and being accused for something they are NOT doing (yet) and stop turning the other cheek. There’s a chance that they will get pissed enough to FIGHT BACK. And if they do-then the gloves of political correctness will come off and they’ll show the world what REAL bigotry is like-what REAL persecution is like.

  And those who really DO love ALL people and believe in God will quietly pack their bags and get the hell out of Dodge so both sides can battle it out in the streets.

• 15 cheryl // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:43 am

  Nick-
  I guess my mistake was how I have perceived your presence throughout the bloggernacle. I have come to know that your presence usually means “the Mormons don’t know what they are talking about”. I may not be involved directly in many conversations, but I read a lot of them –and have for almost 3 years now. So, my apologies for taking my knowledge of you from elsewhere and applying it here.

  And xoxoxoxo has a point: The restaurant is merely an establishment for eating. Not marriage.

  Please tell me you would have all of the Yes on Prop 8 people conduct the exact same logic and leave the CTA? I mean, they did donate over a million dollars to NO on 8, even though Education has nothing to do with Prop 8 (well, at least that’s what the No on 8 people have been claiming). The restaurant owner donating 100 bucks doesn’t affect any eating establishment and shows NO DISCRIMINATION whatsoever when it comes to the business. However, the CTA donating UNION DUES from people who did not pay their dues to go towards a Non-Educational political campaign have a reason to be ticked off. So when you say that the owner of the restaurant shouldn’t be surprised at the backlash? That doesn’t make any sense. None.

• 16 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:46 am

  We’re not faulting ANYONE, gay or straight, who have simply decided not to support businesses like El Coyote due to the owner’s support for Prop 8. THAT is indeed, a common sense thing to do if they feel so inclined. THAT would be (as you put it) a “natural consequence that flows” from feeling adverse to supporting a particular business.

  We’re FAULTING those who are actively and vengefully ATTACKING her business and others like them. That is NOT a logical consequence that flows from ANYTHING except HATRED.

  “She thought that her religious motivation absolved her from any and all accountability toward her customers, and her customers disagreed.”

  Here’s the part where your argument isn’t screwed on straight. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, has ANY accountability to a CUSTOMER for ANYTHING beyond the expected transaction of goods and services. PERIOD.

  It is ONE THING to avoid supporting a business because of something the owners do that you do not believe in. It an entirely different thing to try to CLOSE a business because of something the owners do that you do not believe in.

  BUT again, if it is indeed completely rational and acceptable; if customers DO have the RIGHT and the responsibility to SHUT DOWN a company or business if they don’t “like” or “approve of” how the owners behave or act -then there won’t be a whisper of complaint from you or the gay community when heterosexuals demonstrate against and boycott every single business or company that supported same-sex marriage OR is owned by a homosexual or lesbian.

  Because that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

• 17 Karron // Nov 24, 2008 at 5:05 am

  All I can say xoxoxo and Cheryl is brava for taking on Nick and his misguided beliefs.

  xoxoxo said: BUT again, if it is indeed completely rational and acceptable; if customers DO have the RIGHT and the responsibility to SHUT DOWN a company or business if they don’t “like” or “approve of” how the owners behave or act -then there won’t be a whisper of complaint from you or the gay community when heterosexuals demonstrate against and boycott every single business or company that supported same-sex marriage OR is owned by a homosexual or lesbian.

  Exactly right. If the shoe was on the other foot, the entire gay community would be hysterical about it. Whine whine whine . . . but then, they are victims and should have special rights.

  Sorry, it annoys me when people refuse to see the truth that is right before their eyes. They are acting like petulant children who need a time out and a nap.

• 18 Nick Literski // Nov 24, 2008 at 5:49 am

  Wow…so much SHOUTING. I can just feel all that christlike love.

  organizing hatefilled demonstrations, creating websites, and writing articles

  Here’s the problem, xoxoxoxoxo. From the start, LDS supporters of Proposition 8 were told to indicate their ward and stake on donation forms, so the LDS church could “get credit” for those donations. Subsequently, LDS actually boasted that they were providing the bulk of the cash and volunteer labor in support of Proposition 8, until someone pointed out the flip side of that boast—that voters may not like to see a particular religious group having such a disproportionate influence on public policy. Once that came out in the newspapers, etc., the same LDS who had been boasting of their support suddenly began to cry “religious bigotry!” Suddenly, anyone who pointed out the same data that LDS had boasted over was “hatefilled.” Then, once the LDS church received attention in proportion to their level of support for Proposition 8, LDS leaders acted as if they were shocked that anyone would “single out” the LDS church. Not only that, but LDS members actually began to pretend they were shocked that their donations were a matter of public record, despite clearly stated election laws in California, requiring public reporting of all political donations of $100 or more.

  The simple fact is that LDS members, which make up 2% of the California electorate, provided between 50% and 80% (depending on which sources you read) of the cash behind the “Yes on 8″ effort. Apparently, they expected gays and lesbians to fall down on their knees, blessing their names and thanking them for their accomplishment.

  CONSCIOUS effort to destroy someone’s business AND force 89 families to lose their incomes?

  Please….you’re getting more than a little hyperbolic here, xoxoxoxo. Apparently you didn’t notice the truly CONSCIOUS effort of LDS members to destroy over 18,000 marriages AND force thousands of American citizens to subject their families to the demands of LDS doctrine. In fact, you’ll quite predictably deny any such thing took place, despite your insistance that “the gays are out to get you.”

  Please tell me you would have all of the Yes on Prop 8 people conduct the exact same logic and leave the CTA?

  Absolutely! If you are part of an organization which uses your money for political causes that you oppose, I certainly do encourage you to “vote with your feet” and get out of that organization!

  The restaurant owner donating 100 bucks doesn’t affect any eating establishment and shows NO DISCRIMINATION whatsoever when it comes to the business.

  So in your mind, gays and lesbians should just shut up and be happy that El Coyote stoops to accept their money and serve them food, ignoring the fact that profits from that restaurant went to support an anti-gay initiative? That kind of thinking is either consciously insincere, or hopelessly naive.

  We’re FAULTING those who are actively and vengefully ATTACKING her business and others like them.

  Ahhh….so it’s okay for one gay man to refuse to eat at El Coyote, but it’s “ATTACKING” and “HATEFUL” for him to encourage others who oppose Marjorie’s political agenda to avoid subsidizing her donations? I hate to tell you this, but it’s becoming quite apparent that you only see “attack” and “hate” when it disagrees with your particular views.

  NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, has ANY accountability to a CUSTOMER for ANYTHING beyond the expected transaction of goods and services. PERIOD.

  The vast majority of corporations in the United States would disagree completely with your statement. Business owners with any common sense have been wise enough to know that when they spend their income to fight against the interests of their customers, those customers will leave. Fortunately, many businesses didn’t mind if bigots quit patronizing their businesses, so they donated to the “No on 8″ campaign in spite of letters from LDS organizers of the “Yes on 8″ campaign, which demanded donations, threatening to “out” those businesses as gay-friendly if they refused to donate to the “Yes on 8″ campaign. Of course, I’m betting that when LDS people did THAT, to SUPPORT Proposition 8, it wasn’t “hateful” or an “attack,” but rather an act of “christlike love.”

  It an entirely different thing to try to CLOSE a business because of something the owners do that you do not believe in.

  It happens all the time. Think back a few years, when it came out that certain large corporations had actually given support to and/or financially benefitted from the Nazi party during World War II. Those companies were doing some mighty fast damage control, because they had done things that their customers “didn’t believe in,” and they knew that customers could refuse to support them.

  then there won’t be a whisper of complaint from you or the gay community when heterosexuals demonstrate against and boycott every single business or company that supported same-sex marriage OR is owned by a homosexual or lesbian.

  Good luck with that, since the vast majority of heterosexuals aren’t anti-gay bigots. Even so, those heterosexuals (not to mention closeted homosexuals) who do hate gays are entirely within their rights to organize boycotts. Focus on the Family has already done that toward several large corporations, just because they provided domestic patner benefits to their employees! Most people ridicule them for it, but they’re absolutely entitled to do it.

  And don’t worry, you’ll get your chance to demonstrate when the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8—-only then, since it’s your side doing the protesting, you’ll see them as heroes defending liberty and justice for all!

• 19 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 5:56 am

  Karron,

  It helps me to remember that some people really cannot see the truth-they are “ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth” .

  Those who have lost the ability to have the spirit’s influence are those I pray for the most. I cannot imagine living my life without its influence and peace. To only feel despair and anger and consider myself to be a victim of anyone or anything around me-has got to be the worst sense of isolation and loneliness imaginable.

  So even though it’s often VERY hard for me to get past the Varuca Sault from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory behavior (”Dahdee…I want a marriage Dahdee…and I want it NOW!) I continue to try to see past the behavior to the child and understand how they got to be that way.

  I guess I feel that my often earnest desire to slap the child upside the head is just as disappointing to my Father as the behavior of the child I want to slap.

• 20 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 6:10 am

  Karron,

  Apparently while I was replying to your post, Nick was in the midst of a full blown temper tantrum that included smacking his head on the floor hard enough to hallucinate “facts” that aren’t true . (see above)

  He’s got a huge timeout coming from Dad someday so I’ll leave it in His capable hands.

• 21 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 6:30 am

  Hey David,

  Since you live in California, a couple of questions…
  Were you told to note your ward and stake on your donation slip so the “Church” could get “credit” for it? LOL

  Or was it to prove for TAX/LEGAL purposes that the money came from specific people living in specific locations and NOT from “the Church” ?

  Also, could you explain to me how the $$ was used to FORCE or CONVINCE or COMPEL people who do NOT belong to the Church, and probably don’t even like us, to “agree with LDS Doctrine” and vote Yes??
  Did we pay more than 4 million people for their votes? Did the signs posted everywhere emit some kind of narcotic drug that stole their ability to make up their own minds? Maybe Nick just thinks that all those other California residents are so stupid and naive that they let a Church THEY DO NOT BELONG to tell them how to vote.

  I’ll be on the phone calling my doctor because apparently at some point I became convinced that gays are out to get ME (rather than the owner of El Coyote) which I might think was an irrational and insane suggestion if it had come from someone who isn’t as emotionally stable, rational, and fair minded as Nick.

• 22 Nick Literski // Nov 24, 2008 at 6:57 pm

  LOL….Gotta love it when self-righteous folks don’t actually read carefully enough to comprehend, and then go off on a wild rant against things that were never said!

  Enjoy yourselves, ladies. Someday, you’ll figure out that not all truth comes from 50 East North Temple Street, and there can actually be a valid viewpoint that doesn’t match your own. Until then, adieu!

• 23 David // Nov 24, 2008 at 7:08 pm

  xoxoxoxo,

  Since you live in California, a couple of questions…
  Were you told to note your ward and stake on your donation slip so the “Church” could get “credit” for it? LOL

  Or was it to prove for TAX/LEGAL purposes that the money came from specific people living in specific locations and NOT from “the Church” ?

  I think we were told to list our ward and stake so 1) The LDS membership would be credited by the “Yes on 8″ folks for its contribution, 2) The ward and stake would be noted by SL for its participation, 3) The stake could see who in its flock participated and 4) The government could get a clean audit of where it all came from. These are my assumptions.

  As for why everyone voted the way they did, I’m pretty sure it’s because that’s how they felt about marriage. Any “Yes on 8″ ads they saw only reinforced how they felt, and may have prompted them to actually get out and vote on it. What the gay community doesn’t want to accept is this IS how the majority of California feels about marriage. And in their unacceptance, they have to find bogeymen to take the blame for it.

  Nick,

  I can’t honestly say if I would go to the anti-LDS-donating establishment or not. A lot of it depends on what it is they’re selling. If it’s an incredibly great taco or the most convenient place with my blood type, I’d have to pause on it. But, would I protest, vandalize, run boycott campaigns? Doubtful. Remember, the Mormon Church already has a number of “anti” campaigns against them– small potatoes, admittedly– but the Church doesn’t pay them a lot of attention (I was going to refer to a rodent’s behind, but then thought that would be crude).

• 24 cheryl // Nov 24, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  xoxoxoxo and Karron-
  As much as I appreciate your PoV and your agreeance with my stance (and David’s, of course), I do think we should be careful about how we label people, and maybe use a different mentality than “us versus them.” I may not agree with SSM or many of Nick’s assertions, but we need to remember that not all gay people feel the same way Nick does. I know many gay people who are actually active members of the LDS church and…gasp! they aren’t suicidal.

  My MIL is also a huge supporter of gay rights, a member of PFLAG, and my SIL marched in some of the protests during the Prop 8 backlash. So, I really do see both sides. It doesn’t change my opinion, but I can still assume some compassion.

  As much as I disagree with Nick (and almost everything he says), he does have a point: We can’t get so blinded by anger ourselves as to go off on tangents and angrily accuse of each other (I’m talking blog commenters) of things we shouldn’t assume. Because, dang it, I don’t want to be wrong! I said most LDS folks are reasonable and kind –and hope that we can stay that way.

  If this sounds rude, my apologies. I just wanted to clear the air before more people get angry, that’s all.

  P.S. Nick, leaving the CTA is akin to career/job suicide. Stopping to eat at a restaurant would cause no such devestation.

• 25 xoxoxoxo // Nov 24, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  Cheryl,

  No offense taken. I should have been more clear that I also don’t think all gays (or mormons or any specific group of people) believe or think or feel the same way. I’ve seen LDS members and heterosexuals of every shape, size, race and age behave in the exact same manner and my initial response to them is exactly the same- same vivid picture in my head and a strong desire to smack them as well. (Note-But because I believe it is possible for human beings to feel strong desires or compulsions and not act upon them-I have never actually smacked the person. )

  In other words, my feelings and reactions towards BEHAVIOR is equal towards all people, because it is entirely possible to deeply love someone and still find their actions annoying and offensive. (Mother of 6 here…I deal with it 24/7)

  This means that if David were picketing and protesting with hostility against a business for no other reason than because they voted NO on 8 and contributed money towards that end, I’d have the exact same desire towards him (sorry Nick, you are not right about that) and I’d want to offer MY support for that business in the exact same way.

• 26 xoxoxoxo // Nov 25, 2008 at 12:16 am

  Saw this link today-thought it was pretty cool.

  http://abovethehate.com/

• 27 David // Nov 25, 2008 at 12:29 am

  Awesome link, thanks skippy. I’m surprised I hadn’t come across it before. I signed up as Steve Young, how about you?

  Thank you, Cheryl, for clarifying our focus. It’s so easy to feed the rage and start blasting away at everything, isn’t it? Leave all that for those who don’t get it.

• 28 Karron // Nov 25, 2008 at 1:46 am

  Interesting tantrum by whatshisname. I don’t do tantrums, they bore me. I only have three kids, but like xoxoxo, I understand all about behavior being annoying.

  Why is some people jump to the conclusion if you don’t agree with them, you hate them? So drama trauma to me.

  My husband’s best friend was gay, and he was a wonderful man. He died of AIDS and it tore our family up. One of my oldest friends is a lesbian, I love her very much, even if I disagree with her lifestyle. So just because I don’t agree with certain things doesn’t mean I can’t see the value in the human being and have compassion for them.

  So, accusing people who think differently of hating homosexuals just because we voted for Prop 8 is really immature and shows where the hatred really lies.

  Sometimes, it is just impossible to have a conversation, or even a debate, with someone so emotional and angry about being told no. Kinda like getting a two year old to be logical when he throws a fit because he can’t have another cookie right before dinner.

  Whatever, like I said, I don’t do tantrums, far too boring.

• 29 Nick Literski // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:15 am

  Why is some people jump to the conclusion if you don’t agree with them, you hate them? So drama trauma to me.

  Karron, you have a point here, but I’m afraid it’s almost a universal human condition. Both sides of the Prop 8 debate have felt that the other side was “hateful” toward them. Both sides would deny such an accusation. Both sides are able to point to specific behaviors by the other side, to back up their conclusion that the other “hates” them.

• 30 David // Nov 26, 2008 at 12:47 am

  Perhaps, Nick. I mean, I’ve already pointed out a number times in this blog how some members get overzealous with actions such as taking their kids out of school to protest the CTA (stupid, misguided move) and preaching Prop 8 in their testimonies (inappropriate; bordering on sacrilege).

  But seriously, as far as demonstrative hatred, you can’t compare the “Yes on 8″ folks with the unruly mobs hanging on the temple gates, vandals spray painting on the chapels, the witch hunts of contributors and boycotts of businesses. How can you, in good conscience, defend such actions– or claim they pale in comparison to Prop 8 supporters? Even members of the gay community are saying it’s going too far.

  Repeating the question already asked, how do you feel the gay community would respond if supporters of the proposition pulled stunts like that on the gay community?

  We’re at an impasse on definition: You say Prop 8 is hatred against gays, we say it’s the protection of traditional marriage. I believe you said you are/were a member of the LDS Church? Then you are fully aware of how sacred the institution of marriage is to us– and if you understand the Gospel, you should understand why we’re defending it. If you don’t– or if your position is still that it’s an excuse to carry out an anti-gay campaign, and nothing we say is going to change that– then I guess we’re done. Like I said, impasse.

You must log in to post a comment.