Tidal Wave Building Against Mormon Church After Prop 8 Passes

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,408
57
91
Originally posted by: Duwelon

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

Really? Divorce rate is near 50% and they have dating Reality shows on Television where they marry and divorce each and every season - most of them wildy popular in the "Bible Belt" regions.

"Sanctity of Marriage" is a cop-out, pure and simple. Marriage is not revered by much of anyone anymore, if even if it was, legalization of same-sex unions is a much, much lower "threat" than many other things.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Originally posted by: TallBill
Originally posted by: ericlp

When we vote in an atheist president then maybe we will be truly free from the bullshit. In the mean time, chances of that happening are probably zero. Maybe in the next 2-300 years or so who knows.

It'll happen someday. Religion is a bust in europe, and shrinking here in the States.




Not likely.

Text
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: Duwelon

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

Really? Divorce rate is near 50% and they have dating Reality shows on Television where they marry and divorce each and every season - most of them wildy popular in the "Bible Belt" regions.

"Sanctity of Marriage" is a cop-out, pure and simple. Marriage is not revered by much of anyone anymore, if even if it was, legalization of same-sex unions is a much, much lower "threat" than many other things.

Perhaps they can pass a ban on divorces next time around. Until death do you part and all that...
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
as much as I like to blame Mormons, though, I've been harboring some racism and resentment since Tuesday -- it's kind of a kick in the nuts when 70% of gays vote for the first black president and 70% of blacks vote to take away gay rights.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
as much as I like to blame Mormons, though, I've been harboring some racism and resentment since Tuesday -- it's kind of a kick in the nuts when 70% of gays vote for the first black president and 70% of blacks vote to take away gay rights.

I'm hearing a lot of the same things around here.

In a couple conversations with gay black men they explained that fundamentally the blacks don't consider the struggle of the gays for rights comparable with their own in any way and most bristle at the comparison. The cultural/religious aspects of that community also work against us in the voting booths.

Many people seem to feel betrayed that they wholeheartedly backed Obama and the Democrats and got stabbed in the back for their trouble.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: loki8481
as much as I like to blame Mormons, though, I've been harboring some racism and resentment since Tuesday -- it's kind of a kick in the nuts when 70% of gays vote for the first black president and 70% of blacks vote to take away gay rights.

I'm hearing a lot of the same things around here.

In a couple conversations with gay black men they explained that fundamentally the blacks don't consider the struggle of the gays for rights comparable with their own in any way and most bristle at the comparison. The cultural/religious aspects of that community also work against us in the voting booths.

Many people seem to feel betrayed that they wholeheartedly backed Obama and the Democrats and got stabbed in the back for their trouble.

Well the two struggles really aren't comparable. Some people had about 3 centuries of codified enslavement, rape, and murder to deal with followed by another century of some pretty awful shit as well. This is not to say that gays aren't a minority that is the target of significant discrimination, but lets be realistic here.

You would think that blacks would be particularly attentive to the 'separate but equal' argument, but people are rarely that ideologically consistent unfortunately.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,235
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.

except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.

Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.

in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

I guess your getting your data on what's revered from the divorce rate, right. You God Damned hypocrites can't stay married yourselves but you don't want that pleasure for gays. Asshole.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: loki8481
as much as I like to blame Mormons, though, I've been harboring some racism and resentment since Tuesday -- it's kind of a kick in the nuts when 70% of gays vote for the first black president and 70% of blacks vote to take away gay rights.

I'm hearing a lot of the same things around here.

In a couple conversations with gay black men they explained that fundamentally the blacks don't consider the struggle of the gays for rights comparable with their own in any way and most bristle at the comparison. The cultural/religious aspects of that community also work against us in the voting booths.

Many people seem to feel betrayed that they wholeheartedly backed Obama and the Democrats and got stabbed in the back for their trouble.

Well the two struggles really aren't comparable. Some people had about 3 centuries of codified enslavement, rape, and murder to deal with followed by another century of some pretty awful shit as well. This is not to say that gays aren't a minority that is the target of significant discrimination, but lets be realistic here.

You would think that blacks would be particularly attentive to the 'separate but equal' argument, but people are rarely that ideologically consistent unfortunately.

Gays have been persecuted for much longer courtesy of Christianity, though in different ways. What the black community is doing is worse than not being attentive to the "separate but equal" argument, they are actively endorsing the "separate and unequal" argument and helping to codify it.

There are some signifigant feelings of resentment that stem from the feeling that the blacks helped themselves advance at our expense, which would seem at odds with the spirit of the civil rights movement.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: between
Originally posted by: Duwelon
As someone posted earlier, this is simply California's far-left liberalism that imposes it's will on America at large coming back to bite them in the way of Karma. The truth is California is a breeding ground for liberal agendas and anti-conservative policies so if a group wants to stop something, it makes sense to stop it in California first if possible.

except they haven't stopped gay marriage, have they. at best, they have maybe delayed it by 4 years in California. And they only did that by the skin of their teeth and they had to spend a ton of money to do it.

Meanwhile, voters in Connecticut declined to support a ban on gay marriage, and gays will soon (within weeks) be able to marry there.

in actively opposing gay marriage, mormons just get themselves written into the history books as mean spirited assholes. :disgust:

The thing is that the gay community are the a-holes here. They want the same rights they have now, but they want me to tell them their lifestyle is sanctioned as OK in Marriage, which is probably THE number 1 most revered institution for all major religions.

I guess your getting your data on what's revered from the divorce rate, right. You God Damned hypocrites can't stay married yourselves but you don't want that pleasure for gays. Asshole.

Go figure, the hypocrite can't be bothered cleaning up his own house first before focusing on everyone's elses.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?
 

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
1
71
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?

I guess its ok when it works in your favor, but not when it's against.

BTW, I have yet to see anything showing the LDS church contributing anything monitarily. Looks like to me they are just the scapegoats because the "accepting and tolerent" people against prop. 8 are too afraid to go after the real "problem", the voters. Dont like they law, start a petition to grant a new amendment repealing this one.

 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?

Yes, it is. Not taxing them = them saving $. How is that not a benefit? How is that not forcing the American taxpayers to fiscally support churches in this country?

And yes, I would expand the ban on political activism to include ballot initiatives.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: uli2000
I guess its ok when it works in your favor, but not when it's against.

BTW, I have yet to see anything showing the LDS church contributing anything monitarily. Looks like to me they are just the scapegoats because the "accepting and tolerent" people against prop. 8 are too afraid to go after the real "problem", the voters. Dont like they law, start a petition to grant a new amendment repealing this one.
Close enough.

Gay marriage is once again banned in California after the nation's most hotly contested citizen referendum ended in victory for Proposition 8 supporters, backed by major fundraising and grass-roots organizing by members of the LDS Church.
Elder L. Whitney Clayton, a member of the church's Presidency of the Seventy who helped lead the church's support for Proposition 8, told reporters during a press conference Wednesday that he doesn't have a total for how much money was donated by Latter-day Saints. He did say it was "considerable and generous" and that church leaders are "grateful for the sacrifice" made by members who participated in the campaign.

He said the church, as an institution, did not contribute directly but did pay for hotel and travel expenses for him and other leaders who participated in the effort

Church funds spent in support of the initiative. Hmmmm.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: uli2000
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?

I guess its ok when it works in your favor, but not when it's against.

BTW, I have yet to see anything showing the LDS church contributing anything monitarily. Looks like to me they are just the scapegoats because the "accepting and tolerent" people against prop. 8 are too afraid to go after the real "problem", the voters. Dont like they law, start a petition to grant a new amendment repealing this one.

It strongly encouraged its membership to organize and provide funding promoting its passage. There is a big list of signifigant contributors floating around out there showing who gave what. There are a hell of a lot of entries for Utah which nobody should of course find the least bit suspicious....
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
Calling for a boycott of Utah is ridiculous. "A church that has its headquarters in Utah is discriminating against gays... therefore, we should discriminate against... THE WHOLE STATE OF UTAH. Yesssss"
 

uli2000

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2006
1,257
1
71
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?

Yes, it is. Not taxing them = them saving $. How is that not a benefit? How is that not forcing the American taxpayers to fiscally support churches in this country?

And yes, I would expand the ban on political activism to include ballot initiatives.

Which you realize, churches used that "saved" money to help out in communities and around the world. For instance, the evil LDS church is paying 3 billion of its own money renovating downtown Salt Lake City. No government funds, tax breaks, or anything of the like, just doing it to help the community. How many food banks, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and charitable organizations do you want to shut down by taxing churches?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: shrumpage
but it wasn't the church itself donating, it was individual members.

To do so directly could have threatened their non-profit status.

So instead they "encourage" their membership to support the passage.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Let me get this straight, not only would remove all tax-exempt status, you would then remove their free speech?

Would this apply to all current 501(c)3, or just ones that are religious in nature?

No, they can certainly say what they want, I will not suppress them, but no longer will the American taxpayers have to support them financially if they do.

Wow, NOT taxing some one is supporting them? That is a huge leap in logic.

501(c)3 are allowed to weigh in on issues, not politicians or parties, how do you think the 60's civil rights movement would have turned out if you had your way over churches?

Yes, it is. Not taxing them = them saving $. How is that not a benefit? How is that not forcing the American taxpayers to fiscally support churches in this country?

And yes, I would expand the ban on political activism to include ballot initiatives.

Salvation Army Food Bank, Thrift Store, and Church are all at the same address. The public road that they are on is in terrible shape.

According to you, it would be illegal for anyone at that org to approach city management about getting the road fix, even if other people and businesses in the neighborhood do the same. And if the issue became an election bond issue - they would have to remain doubly silent.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: shrumpage
but it wasn't the church itself donating, it was individual members.

To do so directly could have threatened their non-profit status.

So instead they "encourage" their membership to support the passage.

No, they could have donated a limited amounted, and still remain tax exempt. Its about 15% of a working budget over a two year period, for the LDS church that could have been a huge sum of money.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: shrumpage
but it wasn't the church itself donating, it was individual members.

To do so directly could have threatened their non-profit status.

So instead they "encourage" their membership to support the passage.

No, they could have donated a limited amounted, and still remain tax exempt. Its about 15% of a working budget over a two year period, for the LDS church that could have been a huge sum of money.

As I recall there is a $1M cap on political lobbying (which this would include) as a 501(c)(3)

The simple way around that is to strongly encourage individual members to donate and organize.
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
As far as tax exemption goes, I agree that churches shouldn't be entirely tax exempt. They're basically like any other business -- people give them money for "services." However, many churches are involved in humanitarian work or community improvement. Is it possible to separate these activities from religious activities?
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Arent you that mortage troll in OT? LOL.

Once you figure out how to spell bigot, i'd be interested in hearing why I would be called one.

Oh the irony!

Anywho, the whole premise of an amendment that bans any rights of any group is idiotic. Everyone likes to espouse the freedoms we have in America as long as they are not given to groups like them:

Gay marriage? Never!!!
Atheist or Muslim president? How dare you disgrace the foundations of this Christian nation!

People are inherently sectual (sic) and believe that they are somehow superior to others when in fact, it is this very clickish mentality that enables ruthless dictators to come to power and holds back the advancement of mankind as a whole.