[resplin]

Calling people bigots does nothing to promote civil discourse about important issues such as homosexual marriage.

The standard was drafted in 1984, long before efforts to redefine marriage. It isn't very fair of you to project your 21st century politics back on the creators of a 30 year old standard.

You apply the label of bigotry to exclude from the conversation those who differ in opinion from you. That isn't how democracies are designed to function. Nor does it recognize the complexity of the issue. Religious people can desire a standard of public morality without espousing hatred for those who don't share that standard. Calling that bigotry makes it harder to identify true prejudice.

[wpietri]

Aw, that's precious. Defending the Mormons against charges of bigotry by saying it's the gay rights people who were trying to redefine marriage. coughpolygamycough And you're talking as if marriage hasn't been under rolling redefinition since Gutenberg. Women owning property, being allowed to have a profession, and having the right to vote changed marriage way more than allowing two women to get hitched and have babies.

Also, I don't think the campaign against gay marriage can be anything but bigotry. It's exactly analogous to the campaign against interracial marriage: Religious actors try to use the power of the state to stop people from doing something they think is icky. And they're doing it on the basic of intrinsic characteristics, and with absolutely zero demonstration of harm to anybody. Irrational devotion to prejudice against a group is precisely bigotry.

[resplin]

You citing a number of examples of marriage evolving and being redefined only serves to clarify how the process is continuing today and how people of all backgrounds have an interest in those issues.

Your demeaning tone and labels doesn't serve your supposedly tolerant position. I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency. But I also believe that there is a standard for morality that should be honored in order to promote the greatest mutual happiness.

Advocating a standard of public morality in marriage is the same as in drug control, pornography, hate speech, or any other area. We might have different opinions on what standard will bring the most happiness. We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences.

We are a bit off topic here, so I'll stop derailing the conversation.

[wpietri]

I believe everybody should be treated with respect and decency. Just as long as they are behaving respectfully and decently, and perhaps a little past. But you know what? Trying to keep loving couples from getting married and having kids is not even vaguely respectful.

The whole, "I'm going do what I can to keep you from having your civil rights, but don't be mean to me" thing is dumbfounding to me. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from having your fee-fees hurt.

Suppose I got a referendum passed that banned the Mormon Church: meetings are forbidden, Mormon marriages are nullified, and the feds start tearing down the churches. Can you honestly say that the appropriate response is a quiet, "Oh, pardon me, perhaps you could reconsider?"

[rmc]

We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences.

Nope. I do not respect a believe that my love life, and my relationships are some how inferior and "not as good" as different sex relationships. My humanity is not up for debate.

[jivatmanx]

Black people didn't have full rights in the Mormon church until 1978. In 1984 it was presumably still a controversial decision.

[dorian-graph]

What exactly do you mean by 'rights' and what were they lacking?

[jivatmanx]

Primarily, accepting blacks into the priesthood. Prior to 1978 they were banned.

[gergles]

It's important to note that "the priesthood" in the Mormon faith is every adult male[1]; so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_(LDS_Church)

[rmc]

The Mormon faith was founded in 1830s New York (shortly after slavery was abolished in that state), long before efforts to redefine racial relations and blacks as humans. It isn't very fair of you to project your 19th century politics back on the creators of a <200 year old religion.

[dorian-graph]

> so by not permitting Blacks into the priesthood, they were basically not permitted in the church at all.

That is a wild and incorrect jump to make. Why do Mormons go to church? What are you referencing the physical buildings used or something else?

The thing is, often people will say that Mormons are racist towards blacks until 1978 and if you ask why they usually don't know. Sometimes, they'll reference the Priesthood and if you ask what that is, they usually don't know.

From your comment, unless your answers to my questions indicate otherwise, I would say you do not understand. There is so much that people do not understand in regards to this topic yet they feel valid to proclaim others as being racist.

[rmc]

Well, can you explain it then?

It seems like they had an explicit "Black people cannot get this thing, and white people can". Which sounds racist.

[rmc]

But they are bigots.

Listen, I'm sorry that their feelings are hurt when I point out that their mantain a policy of bigotry against LGB people, but tough. That's how democracy works. You have the right to say what you want, but not the right to say what you want without people pointing it out.

Y'know what hurts me more? The fact that I can't get married.

Marriage has been redefined many times since 1984. In my country (Ireland), divorce was impossible/illegal. Times change, adapt.