Pharyngula

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 22, 2009 9:15 AM

Oooh! Like Islam, right? :)

Posted by: mattincinci | December 22, 2009 9:26 AM

wow.,
well..how many ways can you spell crazy, krazy hmm?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 22, 2009 9:28 AM

Dammit, Rev. BDC...

Good thing the Hampton Inn was available.

Thanks for making everyone in my office pop up from their cubicles like prairie dogs because you made me guffaw so friggin loudly.

Posted by: Cappy | December 22, 2009 9:35 AM

God, save us from your followers.

Posted by: Mr T | December 22, 2009 9:36 AM

Rammel's speech on "The Battle to Save the Constitution" is only 7-8pm? You'd think it'd take more than an hour to talk about something of such vast significance. I suppose there are only so many permutations of "goddidit" and "the U.S. is will be a Christian Mormon Nation".

Afterward, there will be punch and pie, a circle jerk, and ritual sacrifice of GOATS ON FIRE!

Posted by: Pinkydead | December 22, 2009 9:39 AM

I had a conversation with two Mormon elders during the summer - neither of them looked more than 15 years old.

Posted by: Zabinatrix | December 22, 2009 9:43 AM

It feels to me like Mormons always correspond well to the very stereotyped image one might have of American religious conservatives. Here is the whole "My religion is the right one so it should rule to country" theocracy wish that we often expect in those people, and then there's the whole deal with the book of Mormon...

To me it just feels like some American Christians were very, very uncomfortable with the fact that their holy texts comes from some foreign country far away, filled with people of a different color and everything. How could red-blooded Americans like something so dogdangit foreign? So the clever Joseph Smith comes up with the idea to "find" some holy texts in New York.

Brilliant solution. Suddenly there are Real American holy books, and Real American (and white!) prophets. Awesome, finally something for the patriotic believer!

... At least that's the feeling I get when Mormons come to speak to me about their beliefs - it just feels like they are struggling to conform to a negative stereotype about xenophobic Americans.

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | December 22, 2009 9:46 AM

Every religion needs a bunch of prophecies, best that there are lots of them and they are all over the map in terms of likelihood. That way when one of them does occur the believers can say, "It was foretold!"

Posted by: hyperdeath | December 22, 2009 9:47 AM

They don't seem to understand that having the country taken over by a freakish cult with dreams of theocracy would be a way to destroy the constitution.

No, no, no...

The Constitution only counts when the matter involves something that the religious right doesn't like. Using the constitution to defend liberty, free speech and religion freedom... well... that's just Communism.

Posted by: Whore of All the Earth | December 22, 2009 9:48 AM

Oh, those crazy Mormons take all their prophecies very seriously. I got so many emails from my mother during last year's election. "If you vote for Obama, America won't be God's favorite anymore!" Along with testimonies: "Come back to the One True Church! It's the Only Way to Happiness!" And my mother is so intelligent. It just astounds me that she can believe so much baloney.

Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | December 22, 2009 9:49 AM

See, and the problem with atheists, and the UU's for that matter, is that we don't have any good prophecies. Prophecies are what separate the "real" from the "made up" religions.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkL6rop7ope6a9ysVWsdSU1FNTAQmmW9gw | December 22, 2009 9:52 AM

I guess the mormons will have to prove their case to the Democrats as the Republicans rejected them last year for not being TRUE Christians.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 22, 2009 10:01 AM

Three reasons while America will never convert en mass to the Mormon faith:

1. Mormon proselytes use bicycles to get from door to door. This screams of liberalism and ecowarmista hegemonic concern. Fuck that bullshit.

2. Mormons actually enforce caffeine/alcohol proscriptions. Non-mormons could easily retake control of the federal government by skipping a night* of drinking and then rising early (aided by consumption of coffee), and giving wedgies to the sleepy elders.

3. The ritual undergarment might work in the dry mountain air surrounding SLC and Provo, but in most parts of the inhabited US, summers are hot and humid. No one wants another layer of underclothing. Further, the Jesus Jammies interfere with the hottest summer fashions.

*Just one night. C'mon. Its for freedom!

Posted by: Red John | December 22, 2009 10:07 AM

I was raised Mormon, but even back before I became a godless heathen I though this was weird. Brigham Young said that the country would call on the Mormon 'elders' to save the Constitution. I don't know what reality he lived in, but I don't think that will ever happen: "Oh crap, the country's in trouble. What will we do? Oh, I know, call the Mormons."

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 10:23 AM

They don't seem to understand that having the country taken over by a freakish cult with dreams of theocracy would be a way to destroy the constitution.

You say that like it is a bad thing. They understand alright. They just don't care. When god is on your side, anything seems normal. Destroying a country, no big deal.

The fundies dream and hope is much bigger. God is going to destroy the entire planet and 6.7 billion people any minute.

The Mormons all know about those prophecies about taking over the USA. They are all waiting.

For a preview of what a LDS theocracy would look like check out Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, Texas, or Utah. The last two states are held in check by the power of the federal government and they still oppress nonmembers, known as "gentiles" in Utah and by a variety of terms in Texas.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:41 AM

As a Mormon who has researched the "White Horse" prophecy, I call on fellow Mormons to reject this rumor and nonsense and stop promoting it. If you're in Eastern Idaho, do not attend Rammell's meeting, as you'll be playing into a psychological trap.

I can predict what will happen in the meeting. Rammell will tell everyone that Joseph Smith said that the "elders of Israel" (namely , the Mormon Elders) will have to rush in and save the Constitution. He'll look into their eyes and tell them that they are individually "called" to "save" the Constitution, simply because they were baptized Mormon and were ordained to the priesthood. LDS members will leave the meeting feeling better than everyone else - more special - more patriotic, just because they showed up and are breathing air! Baloney!

Mormons generally do not believe that THEY have a monopoly on patriotism or constitutional loyalty. We "the people" save the Constitution by exercising our franchise (right to vote) for men and women who believe in and claim allegiance to the Constitution and its principles.

Rammell is completely loony. Your average LDS member hasn't ever read the Constitution and doesn't know Constitutional issues. So, in that vein, how could THEY alone be the standard bearers? How could THEY alone rush in to save anything "Constitutional?" Rubbish!

If the Constitution hangs by a thread and someone is going to save it, then those good men and women will come from varied religious or non-religious backgrounds who have studied the Constitution and will uphold it defiantly.

Rammell is no different than an Evangelical Christian extremist who holds the Bible in one hand and proclaims divine sovereignty above everyone else, and that he "alone" possess some innate character or calling that no one else can obtain, simply because the words are coming out of his mouth. Bull!

Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims or Mormons are all qualified to "save" the Constitution if it needs saving.

If you're not a Mormon, know that millions of Mormons do NOT believe the "White Horse" prophecy and it is not a part of Mormon canonical doctrine.

Please make the distinction between a Mormon zealot who is a loon (Rammell), and between patriotic Mormons who love the country and who save it by laboring for it like good citizens.

Posted by: Rey Fox | December 22, 2009 10:45 AM

"There is too many fucking prophecies"

I wholeheartedly agree. Every wannabe dictator claims to have some damn prophesy or other and it's also a super-tired fictional trope. I say we declare a worldwide moratorium on prophesies for, oh, at least twenty years or so.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 22, 2009 10:50 AM

Oooh! Like Islam, right? :)

Huh? Islam utterly lacks any prophecies about saving the godless Constitution...

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 22, 2009 10:52 AM

I mean about "taking over" in a more general way. ;)

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:59 AM

Raven:

The LDS leadership has no interest in taking over the country. The most fundamental principle in Mormonism is inherent personal liberty or what is called "moral agency" - that everyone has the freedom to choose.

The Mormon Church is about "saving souls" who want to be saved. Salvation through coercion is not salvation, and therfore, a powerful militant LDS theocracy wouldn't do the LDS Church any eternal good and would be contrary to its fundamental axioms and principles.

If you ever talk to a Mormon who believes in this nonsense, ask them why anyone would attend a Rammell meeting or any other meeting when the "prophecy" alledgedly says that the "U.S Government" will "call upon" the Mormon Elders for assistance.

As you can see, the only way Mormon Elders could "rush to save it" is when the U.S Government invites them.

Nevertheless, the "prophecy" has been researched and no canonical document has ever been found and it is not part of the Mormon scriptures.

The only good that the myth can do is teach all people to read the Constitution. But we don't need a myth to encourage that.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 22, 2009 11:04 AM

I mean about "taking over" in a more general way. ;)

How many crazed Muslims are there in the USA, and how many crazed Mormons? How many of each are there in the USA in positions of power?

Then come all the other differences. The Mormons have a hierarchy that culminates in the President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator™. In Sunni Islam, there's not even such a thing as priesthood, let alone a central authority.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | December 22, 2009 11:06 AM

Crazed? Not many of either, though any number is too many I suppose.

I guess I was a bit too subtle.

As others have pointed out, these guys are not "typical" Mormons.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 22, 2009 11:11 AM

Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense. - James

You're wrong: your bigotry is indeed offensive.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 11:17 AM

Yes, and I choose to vote against gay marriage in my State. No offense.

It was a deep and nasty slap in the face. Epecially given "previous" views on mormon marriage. Quite insulting.

You also tramped all over the constitution to do it. Which is why I chose to point it out in this thread.

Posted by: David Marjanović | December 22, 2009 11:17 AM

You choose to vote for a law respecting an establishment of religion in your big-S state?

Notice something?

Posted by: truthspeaker | December 22, 2009 11:19 AM

So children of Mormon parents can freely choose to leave the church, with no social repercussions?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 11:21 AM

PZ Meyers wrote:

who?

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 11:23 AM

I am actually going to feel a little sorry for James. He sounds like a minor foot soldier in the church. without a clue about half the stuff thats gone on.

He doesn't probably realise the slapdown he's about to get either.

Sigh...and now i have to go...and miss all the popcorn.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 11:26 AM

The relationships (homosexual and heterosexual)

are not equivalent

. If they are not equivalent then a single institution will not suffice.

In what way (other than the fact they aren't given the same rights at the moment).

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 11:30 AM

So James will be able to tell us exactly why a marriage has to be only one man and one woman then.

Especially since the world hasn't ended when same sex marriage (and "shock" adoption) have been allowed elsewhere.

and does that mean that your leaders' marriages to multiple wives were invalid then?

Or is this a special american marriage...where certain people "just shouldn't mix"...(but they are allowed to use the same bathroom so its not bigotry...hehe).

Posted by: co | December 22, 2009 11:33 AM

they no longer hold a homogeneous world view.

Er.... Please explain.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 22, 2009 11:37 AM

Oooo... prophecy's such fun... Let me try...

(Eyes closed, fingers wiggling dramatically)...

Oooohhh.... Wooooo.... Ooooooo... I'm getting somethin' right noooooow from the beyooooond...

... Specifically from Rammel's ex-lover 'Fluffy' in dog heaven:

(Eyes open dramatically...)

Rowlf! In a time of great economic upheaval... Growwwwl... Unscrupulous, power hungry asshats will attempt to capitalize on anxiety by stirring discontent and wedging their way beyond their pathetic little inbred enclaves of browbeaten and bribed followers, slaves, and retainers into positions of ever greater power... Grrr.... And Rammel will still be indescribably awful in bed... Bark!

(/Hey, listen, there's no need to thank me... Me 'n my seer stones are just the humble conduit here...)

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 11:41 AM

James,

The parents certainly have the right to say, "while living in my home, these are the rules..."

So parents should have control over what their kids think so long as the kids live with them? That's pretty damn evil.

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 11:45 AM

@James

"The relationships (homosexual and heterosexual) are not equivalent."

Any more unsubstantiated claims you wish to make?

Marriage is a secular, social contract which has nothing to do with yours or any church. Your personal or group definition is immaterial. The constitution guarantees equal protection under the law to all people. Even blacks and gays. There is no one "real" definition of marriage. It, like all social concepts, has evolved drastically over time, and will continue to do so. You may live in reality or not, it's your choice, but you haven't the right to force your beliefs on me. Not any more - that's why I left your church to get away from bigotry and ridiculous magical thinking like this.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 11:48 AM

James,

Every Church member knows that if he/she doesn't try to live up to Church laws, that the member can either lose his/her membership or Church standing.

It's that simple. No coercion. Either choose to obey or not. If a member chooses to not live by the standards of the gospel, then THAT member has made his/her choice.

The very real threat of ostracism not just from family, but from the community as a whole is a form of coercion. This is particularly severe in Utah where the LDS church controls much of economic scene.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 11:49 AM

Answer this James

The relationships (homosexual and heterosexual) are not equivalent. If they are not equivalent then a single institution will not suffice.

How?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 11:52 AM

JC:

You wrote:
"Your church is full of hypocrisy, not least of which is it's fight to keep gay people as second-class citizens. Taking away others' rights is always wrong and always offensive. You're forcing your religious beliefs onto secular society, which not only is unconstitutional, but a clear violation of your own professed beliefs (article of faith 11 for example)."

Yes, we understand that this is your view of what it means to be a citizen. But Mormons didn't take away your "declared" rights.

Citizens across the nation have chosen to not legalize gay marriage.

It is not a religious belief that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. This is a matter of natural identity.

You say that if homosexual women and men don't have access to "heterosexual marriage" then they are 2nd class citizens.

I say that marriage is not for homosexual relationships because they are not equivalent to heterosexual relationships.

If men are not equivalent to women to be mothers and wives and women are not equivalent to be fathers and husbands, then why should U.S. citizens vote to legalize gay marriage? (Notice the absence of a religious argument.)

Why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is contrary to human gender? Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Why should rational Americans be asked to vote to create a new kind of marriage for adults whose attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 11:59 AM

James,

If men are not equivalent to women to be mothers and wives and women are not equivalent to be fathers and husbands, then why should U.S. citizens vote to legalize gay marriage? (Notice the absence of a religious argument.)

You're conflating husband with father and wife with mother. One does not have to be a husband or wife to be a father or mother, conversely one does not have to be a mother or father to be a wife or husband. Your strict, gendered definitions of these two roles demonstrate a deep lack of cross-cultural knowledge and a misunderstanding of how cultures construct relationships. Your ideas about marital relationships come from your religion. They have nothing to do with the secular, legal construct called marriage.

Posted by: co | December 22, 2009 12:00 PM

If men are not equivalent to women to be mothers and wives and women are not equivalent to be fathers and husbands, then why should U.S. citizens vote to legalize gay marriage? (Notice the absence of a religious argument.)

You're conflating presence/absence of uteruses and penises with equivalency? The question I would like answered (as would everyone else, I think) is: Why?

Should a man who is shorter than his potential wife be barred from marrying her, because they aren't "equivalent"?

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 12:02 PM

The amount of controlling behaviour, lying, brainwashing, emotional manipulation, guilt, censorship of outside ideas, and fear that goes on inside the church and in most Mormon homes is really just astounding. The problem with James' claims is that he's stuck in the same paradigm and doesn't see that he's been brainwashed out of reality too. There absolutely is coercion in keeping people in the church and submissive and unquestioning - do this or you'll go to hell/outer-darkness/telestial kingdom for ever, be separated from your family and friends for ever, blah blah blah. There is no real choice in that kind of black/white good/evil world-view. If you don't give 10% of your income you can't get to heaven. It doesn't get more obviously more coercive than that.

The social consequences when a person leaves the church are usually very extreme, resulting in ostracism, extreme judgementalism, and constant recrimination. Especially those who leave because they're gay and/or atheists, one can expect to never have their right to believe differently respected (as Raven pointed out), to be expected to conform if ever they're allowed to visit their family (as James so ironically pointed out), and to effectively have it made impossible to have relationships with anyone still in the church because of how those who leave are daemonised. It's commonly taught that those who leave are led away by the devil, were offended, or sinned. Those are the only reasons Mormons are given for leaving the church. Mormonism is a cult, even more so that most Christian churches, as evidenced by not only its extreme beliefs, but the censorship of information, repression of history, and treatment of those who leave.

Believe me, I've lived it, and so have most of my friends.

@James

You can quote all the scriptures and teachings of the prophets you like, but it doesn't erase the reality of what Mormonism (and religion in general) is. A coercive, manipulative scheme to control and get money from the gullible and ignorant and the bigoted.

Posted by: Red John | December 22, 2009 12:09 PM

James:

What do you have to say about this?

Speaking of this prophecy, Elder Ezra Taft Benson said: "I have heard our present Prophet leader [President David O. McKay] say we are very near to that time. It is my solemn conviction we are near the time which the Prophet saw. What are we going to do about it? Will we, as Latter-day Saints, favored of the Lord, 'arise and shine forth,' as the Lord has commanded, 'that thy light may be a standard for the nations' (D&C 115:5)?"

It seems clear that while you consider this to be from 'noncanonical' sources, your church and its leaders do not.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 12:11 PM

James, our visiting mormon, made a point @39 about "moral agency" and claimed that the LDS Church is not about coercion. If I may quote ex-mormon Stray Mutt, "Pray, pay, obey – that’s the way. Don’t stray from the straight and narrow path, don’t let go of the iron rod, follow the prophet. OK, but then what? A spiritual life is far more than not committing any fouls."

I've been told by mormons trying to get me to join the church about "free agency" and "moral agency." So I looked into how this actually works. It's a scam. The words are repeated, but are honored only in the breach. Here are a few more comments from ex-mormons and mormons who know whereof they speak:

     ...the D&C [Doctrine & Covenants] teaches that the glory of god is in Intelligence, or in other words, light and truth. JS [Joseph Smith] taught that obedience is the first law of heaven. TBM's see no paradox there, assuming that the only way to Intelligence is obedience - even if it's blind. - butch cassidy
     I remember as a youth being encouraged to learn and explore. I remember being encouraged to develop talents and was given opportunities to share those talents. There is still some of that in the church, but the focus is different. The Glory of God is no longer intelligence, but compliance.
     In a real sense, the organization no longer exists for the members, but the members now exist for the organization. Blind obedience to leaders (disciplitis) has replaced personal growth as the hallmark of a good Mormon. Isn't it wonderful. Isn't it marvelous. - activejackmormon

And here is what a church leader says about questioning the leadership, or exercising one's moral right to criticize:

"It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B

Up-thread someone asked about info on the Mountain Meadow Massacre. Here is an online source:Mountain Meadow Massacre: The Untold Story

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 12:14 PM

@James

Your antiquated, narrow ideas about gender roles are absurdly ridiculous. You've created a false dichotomy which has everything to do with the discriminatory and made-up beliefs of your religion, and nothing to do with reality.

What about trans-people? What about "effiminate" men and "masculine" women, what about intersexed people? What about cultures who define gender roles completely different from yours?

Are you so ignorant of history and sociology that you don't realise that your religion's gender roles are a product of thousands of years of competing ideas in western culture? Do you realise that the "institution of marriage" as it exists today is less than a century old?

With each reply you reveal more of your ignorance, stupidity and bigotry.

You make claims, but have nothing to back them up with. No statistics, no science, nothing. Just your claims which are not only laughable, but have been thoroughly discredited by modern genetics, psychology, psychiatry, sociology, - you know, science and reality.

Posted by: Red John | December 22, 2009 12:19 PM

...effectively have it made impossible to have relationships with anyone still in the church because of how those who leave are daemonised. It's commonly taught that those who leave are led away by the devil, were offended, or sinned. Those are the only reasons Mormons are given for leaving the church.

This has been my experience exactly.

Posted by: beelzebuddha | December 22, 2009 12:22 PM

Makes you wonder what the mormons would have done if Mitt Romney won the 2008 Presidential election... bet they were having mormgasms over that, eh? I guess they still have 2012 to stroke themselves over...

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 12:23 PM

Lynna:

This is not complicated at all. When a person joins the Mormon Church, they make a covenant with God to strive to keep his commandments which can be summed up in "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself."

It is no secret that Mormon religious observances are not for the faint of heart: tithing, no premarital sex, no alcohol, marriage is strongly encouraged, and family life is strongly advocated, Church and community service, etc.

Now, what if a person joins the Church but doesn't want to "live up" to those promises or covenants?

Here's what they do:

1. They don't go to Church.
2. They don't do the commandments anymore.

How does the Church respond?

1. Local members visit the member to see if they can encourage the member to live up to those promises or simply be a friend.

2. In some cases, if the member has openly committed sins or committed crimes, their Church membership could be annulled (excommunicated.)

That's it.

The LDS Church is not a democracy. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 apostles are serious about their charge of maintaining correct doctrine, practice and policy in the Church. As well they should be.

If a member doesn't like those doctrines, practices, and policies, then they can either remain silent in the Church, or leave the Church.

However, there is no "right" within the Church for the Church member to begin teaching their OWN version of Church doctrine WITHIN the Church.

Outside the Church, they can teach their own views to their heart's content.

Posted by: SteveM | December 22, 2009 12:27 PM

Why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is contrary to human gender?

It is not the role of government to legislate what is or isn't "contrary" to human gender.

Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Why should rational Americans be asked to vote to create a new kind of marriage for adults whose attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

Because it is not a new kind of marriage. It is exactly the same kind, just where any two legal adults can enter into it. Marriage is a binding contract between two people, protected by the governement that imposes certain responsibilities and provides certain privileges to those entering into it. None of those responsibilities nor privileges really depend on the genders of the married, so it is unreasonable and irrational (and unconstitutional) to restrict that contract to only heterosexual pairs of individuals. The sex of the individuals entering into a contract should be irrelevant.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 22, 2009 12:29 PM

Homosexual attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.
Why should any rational citizen vote to institutionalize an attraction that is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

Awww. What a cute little ignorant hate-monger.

Posted by: dali_70 | December 22, 2009 12:31 PM

Morons is a more fitting title.

Posted by: v.rosenzweig | December 22, 2009 12:34 PM

No two relationships are equivalent, because no two relationships involve the same people.

That said, I have relationships with people of both sexes, and the differences aren't much to do with gender. They are also much smaller than the differences between my heterosexual relationship and some other heterosexual relationships I've seen. I'm not talking about abusive situations, here: I'm talking about things like the difference between a couple in which both partners work for money and one that includes a stay-at-home parent. Or gender roles that say that all decisions on a given topic will be made by one person, whether that's "he's in charge of the money" or "she decides how to decorate the house." Then throw in personality differences: I'm happy to stay home most evenings with someone I love. A marriage in which a typical Friday evening is a game of Scrabble and a pizza is different from one in which it involves dinner out and a trip to a club, movie, or play.

None of those differences is a good reason for an outsider to tell some couples they can't be married.

Posted by: librarygeek | December 22, 2009 12:34 PM

James,

Why should any rational citizen vote to institutionalize an attraction that is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

then I suppose men and women who are unable to have children should be barred from marriage as well? The ability to make a secular contract is not predicated by the ability to bear children.
You can define things however you like within your church. It is not right for you to impose those beliefs upon secular laws. The reason the US does not practice a simple majority-controls-all democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Do you think that racial equality would have been achieved had we waited for all of the good (bigoted) men and women to vote for equality. Do you really think that the majority likes to give up any superiority?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 12:38 PM

Raven:

In the LDS Church, prophecy becomes canon when it is approved unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

This law was instituted in 1832 in Doctrine and Covenants 107.

So, authorities of the Church can conjecture all they please, but until it is accepted unanimously by those two governing bodies, it is not scripture and it is not canon.

Mormonism as a religious philosophy, does not teach or believe in INFALLIBLE prophets like Christians believe in an INFALLIBLE Bible.

The two references you gave are up for debate which tells you that because there is ambiguity they are not sources of doctrine.

Therefore, there is no LDS Church conspiracy to take over the government. The LDS Church would never want such a responsibility.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 12:43 PM

Same sex attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

Do you want to know what is not natural about me, the titanium plate and seven screws that is in my right wrist as of the result of being hit by a van. My attraction to other women is as natural as any attraction that you have for anyone. You and your church do not get to dictate this for me. The only way to get me to act against my nature is for your church to set up their beloved theocracy.

And one more thing, you do not win any points by comparing homosexuality to murder. Fuck you, you fascist creep.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 12:50 PM

PZ:

This is not my impression of how nature works. Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Every entity does, so this is not a fallacious statement.

Same sex attraction is a condition that is contrary or in disagreement with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

The problem comes when gender is made to be abstract or so vague that it can include anything or nothing.

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 12:53 PM

@James

Like most Mormons, you conflate sex and gender and gender expression and sexual orientation. They're completely different things.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 12:56 PM

...contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender...

James has his mormon duckspeak nailed.

Posted by: co | December 22, 2009 12:59 PM

This is not my impression of how nature works. Human gender has a purpose and an identity. Every entity does, so this is not a fallacious statement.

Oh noes! What *is* your impression of "how nature works"?

The problem comes when gender is made to be abstract or so vague that it can include anything or nothing.

Bingo.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 1:03 PM

James,

contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

You keep saying this. What is the natural purpose of human gender? Also, what is gender?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 1:07 PM

PZ:

There is a distinction between a "natural" feeling and whether that "feeling" is consistent with the biological identity and sex of a particular gender.

All feelings are "natural" in that such originate in the human body.

However, whether those "feelings" are consistent with the purpose and identity of the entity is a different matter altogether.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 1:09 PM

And James started out talking about those "other" Mormons that were loons.

hilarious

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 1:12 PM

However, whether those "feelings" are consistent with the purpose and identity of the entity is a different matter altogether.

What purpose would that be?

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 22, 2009 1:16 PM

However, whether those "feelings" are consistent with the purpose and identity of the entity is a different matter altogether. - James

Teach us, O supreme master, ye who know the purpose and identity of every entity. Whence cometh this great wisdom? Is the purpose and identity of each entity tattooed on the back of its neck, perhaps?

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 1:18 PM

James, you are trying to answer my questions, not PZ's questions. There is not need to address him.

So feeling are "nateral" and are alright until the point where it goes against how your church defines gender. I feel sorry for all of the people who, for what ever reason, are not physically able to carry out procreation. Those people have no true meaning in life.

James, I am grateful I was never raised under the restrictive regime of your church. I would not have a purpose except to be servile to some man that I am not attracted towards. And I admire the personal strength of people like Lynna, Red John, Pixelfish and the other former mormons who post here. I do not know if I am as strong as they are.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlw4oH0l6k2YD0NCQUeu7nC2owgujUl77U | December 22, 2009 1:33 PM

James: Your arguments - fallacious and contrary to what is known of reality - were used to justify miscegenation laws. It wasn't that long ago; I remember them, and as kid I found them unpersuasive and stupid. Right and wrong is not determined by what kind of sex makes you feel yucky, and reality especially is not.

You are a bigot and can't even consider the possibility that you are, because the brainwashing of your church prevents you from doing so. If you want to be free, you have to decide that you want to know the truth - not be right. You have to want to do the right thing, not be righteous. And unfortunately for you sociable types, you have to give up family and friends. You will get new ones, but it will take a long time.

Kermit

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 1:41 PM

The purpose of the Church is to teach true doctrine and provide the authorized sacraments which represents the covenants people make with God.

Funny how that doctrine based on "Truth" can be changed at any time by revelation.

Doesn't sound much like truth. Sounds more like convenience.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 1:43 PM

But we must distinguish between "guide" and "rule." Mormons affirm U.S. Constitutional rule through elective government.

Your church dropped polygamy as a condition of joining the federal government. Will one of your elders have a divine revelation if LGBT marriage becomes legal?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 1:46 PM

Rev:

You wrote:
"Funny how that doctrine based on "Truth" can be changed at any time by revelation. "

Practices can be changed in the LDS faith (such as polygamy).

However, apart from these practices, Mormonism is consistent in its revealed doctrines.

If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

Posted by: Anri | December 22, 2009 1:48 PM

James sez

If a majority of people could be influenced to obey laws, love other people and serve them, I would argue that such influence is a good thing.

Yep. And how does the track record of authritative religion stack up against secular democracies in this regard?

But we must distinguish between "guide" and "rule." Mormons affirm U.S. Constitutional rule through elective government.

I get that they do, I was asking why. Either rule of people by the church is a good thing, and should presumably be extended, or it is not, and should presumably be reduced.

The purpose of the Church is to teach true doctrine and provide the authorized sacraments which represents the covenants people make with God.

And this true doctrine teaches that authority to rule people comes from people, right? Because that's what the Constitution says.
Most Christians I have encountered seem to believe that humans shoud obey the dictates of non-human agency: god.

Covenants teach a person how to have a voluntary lasting relationship with God for this life and the next.

I am assuming you have evidence for both of these positions - that the religious live better than the non-religious, and that there is an afterlife... right?

There is no predestination or involuntary will in Mormonism

Interesting.
So, if I understand you correctly, god does not know the future, according to your doctrine?

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 1:52 PM

James wrote

It is not a religious belief that a homosexual relationship is different than a heterosexual relationship. This is a matter of natural identity.

This idea of "Natural Identity" is the latest iteration of the pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-scientific approach to stripping gays of their rights and of the respect due to them as human beings.

James is repeating the lies of Robert P. George and of the Sutherland Institute (among others). George has degrees in law and theology from Harvard; a doctorate in philosophy of law from Oxford; a Supreme Court fellowship; and the endowed chair at Princeton that Woodrow Wilson once held... and he still thinks (or fails to think) along some pretty odd lines:

Unloving sex between married partners does not perform the same multilevel function, he argues, nor does oral or anal sex — even between loving spouses....Last spring, he joined a group of undergraduates in their call for a new university Center for Chastity and Abstinence. (He suggested they might have better luck with the name “Center for Love and Fidelity.”)

George advised former President Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Republicans currently working on Health Care Reform. The guy is an endless source of justification for intolerance towards gays, on the issue of abortions, etc. -- and all of his justifications are nicely wrapped in the pseudo-science of "Natural Identity."

The National Organization for Marriage, the advocacy group fighting same-sex marriage in Albany and Trenton, Maine and California, has made him its chairman. Before the 2004 election, he helped a coalition of Christian conservative groups write their proposed amendment to the federal Constitution defining marriage as heterosexual. More than any other scholar, George has staked his reputation on the claim that same-sex marriage violates not only tradition but also human reason.

Robert P. George in an interview at the Witherspoon Institute:

Their goal was to win official approbation for sodomy and other forms of sexual conduct that historically have been condemned as immoral and discouraged or even banned as a matter of law and public policy. ...So, it is not really about benefits. It is about sex. The idea that is antithetical to those who are seeking to redefine marriage is that there is something uniquely good and morally upright about the chaste sexual union of husband and wife—something that is absent in sodomitical acts and in other forms sexual behavior that have been traditionally—and in my view correctly—regarded as intrinsically non-marital and, as such, immoral.

Some of the material quoted above was previously posted on the endless thread. (See comments from about 860 to 866).

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 1:56 PM

If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

Mary Baker Eddy's cult has always been more consistent than Joseph Smith's cult, and in terms of raw bullshit, Eddy shoveled a smaller pile.

James, why do you hate gay people?

Posted by: ankhank | December 22, 2009 1:57 PM

Perhaps this is what was prophecied by Kurt Gödel?:
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

Heinlein had it the other way 'round, the Mormons were supposed to help save the US after the Christian fundamentalist coup in 2012:
http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/h/robert-heinlein/revolt-in-2100.htm

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 1:58 PM

Practices can be changed in the LDS faith (such as polygamy).
However, apart from these practices, Mormonism is consistent in its revealed doctrines.
If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

Tell me how you separate practices and doctrine when it is practiced by the church and the leaders who have the direct line to god on these things?

Remember the pre 1978 and African Americans?

And Mormons are just as loony-toons as any other religion (and arguably more). Based on irrational behavior and beliefs.

Tell us about your boy Smith and him being a known criminal fraud? He just carried his skills at defrauding people into creating this cult you belong to.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:02 PM

Typed that out rather quickly. Obligatory typos included.

You are welcome.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 2:02 PM

Janine:

You wrote
"I feel sorry for all of the people who, for what ever reason, are not physically able to carry out procreation. Those people have no true meaning in life."

The people you're referring to are heterosexual couples, who, because of disability cannot have children naturally.

Homosexual couples by nature are naturally incapable of passing on their genetic code with one another. This is a clear message "from nature" concerning the necessity of homosexual couples within the human species.

The human species does not need homosexual couples. This reality is beyond sentimental feelings. It is a cold hard fact of reality.

Now, if the species does not need homosexual couples, why do children, adults or governments need homosexual couples?

The hard truth is, we don't.

But, we understand that you WANT a government contract to recognize your "togetherness" IN THE SAME WAY that we recognize the natural togetherness of heterosexual couples, natural construct that the is NECESSARY to the species.

Since homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not equivalently necessary to the species, their "unions" cannot be designated with the same legal construct or social construct.

When homosexual unions are not necessary to the species, either for adults, children or governments, why should rational thinking Americans vote to institutionalize an attraction that is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

Posted by: co | December 22, 2009 2:06 PM

Homosexual couples by nature are naturally incapable of passing on their genetic code with one another. This is a clear message "from nature" concerning the necessity of homosexual couples within the human species.

And blue eyes were a point mutation about 10k years ago. Obviously, blue-eyed people are against nature.
Man couldn't fly until about 100 years ago. Obviously, airplanes are an abomination.
The effects of plagues are massively amplified by the conditions of cities. This is a clear message that humans were never meant to socialize.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 2:07 PM

The problem comes when gender is made to be abstract or so vague that it can include anything or nothing.

You mean like all those people born with both private parts. Damn them for being so inconsiderate and vague eh James...

Oh by the way, how many creatures was it that showed homosexuality in the wild again? I forget how HUGE the number really was...

James, you want to know how coersive your religion is. Talk to people that have tried to leave it. You will be suitably sickened im sure. The internet is full of horror stories from the castoffs of your mormonism. They are really easy to find.

In America the majority should never tell the minority what rights they can have. You should know that, yet you chose to ignore it. You didn't block our rights. You plain and simply took them away because you were bigger than us. Like the bullies that you are.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:11 PM

Why USA's is different? Enlighten me.

Because it specifically is not a religious doctrine. Not more more complicated than that.

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 2:11 PM

The hard truth is that homosexual attraction is not necessary within the human species - it serves no purpose.

OMFG go read some goddamned SCIENCE and stop parroting the bullshit your church teaches you. It's false.

While it's true we don't yet know exactly why homosexuality happens (in thousands of species, including humans), there are some really good theories and research being done which show not only very strong genetic/pre-birth determination of sexual orientation, but the fact that a trait exists which would seem to decrease fertility but hasn't yet been bred out (of thousands of species) points to rather firm evidence that it not only probably serves some purpose, but doesn't have a strong effect on the fecundity of the human species.

Homosexuality is natural, and is completely morally-neutral. Discriminating against those who are gay is morally wrong for exactly the same reason it is wrong to discriminate against women, Blacks, the handicapped, Jews, Irish, Italians, Japanese, atheists, Mormons or any other group which has been historically discriminated against in this country.

The compelling argument has already been given, over and over, you're just ignoring it because you have nothing to argue against it. You keep parroting the exact same thing over and over and over, despite the fact that it's been rejected as fallacious and unsupported and unsupportable.

You've picked the wrong bunch of non-believers to debate with.

If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

Ridiculous - they're all equally inconsistent and based on the ridiculous ideas of people who ignore reality. In your case, your religion is based on a hybrid of the superstitions of bronze-aged goat-herders, and the insane rantings of a philandering con-man and his brainwashed followers. The only way Mormonism is consistent in in its crazy.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | December 22, 2009 2:11 PM

If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

The argument here seems to be that James's shit doesn't stink because everyone else's does.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:12 PM

ok, Multitaking is a failure for me today.

Doctrine should be document in my #153

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 2:14 PM

The human species does not need homosexual couples. This reality is beyond sentimental feelings. It is a cold hard fact of reality.

How about taking in the unwanted children from your crappy, broken and abusive hetero marriages?

Remember also that the human species does not need YOU. It will continue, a little better probably if you ceased to exist. Something to bear in mind.

Posted by: KOPD | December 22, 2009 2:15 PM

The human species doesn't need the wacky superstitions and prejudices of Bronze Age goat herders.

That is the hard truth.

Posted by: DJSutton | December 22, 2009 2:19 PM

I don't understand what is meant by "not necessary to the species". Certainly marriage itself is not necessary. We can certainly get by without any marriage contracts at all, or even monogamous pairings. Something not being necessary does not in any way imply that is inappropriate. It's not necessary to have freedoms or rights at all. However, legal protections are useful, and help us live in a happier, healthier society. Furthermore, bans on homosexual marriage (you'd think) clearly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The whole "not necessary" thing strikes me as complete non sequitur (along with pretty much every other argument James has used).

(Just to be clear here, I'm not advocating abolishing marriage like sometimes gets suggested.)

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 22, 2009 2:21 PM

James...Still with the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever. You are not much of a reader, I guess.

However, I think that your original goal of asserting that not all Mormons are as batshit insane as Rex Rammell has been undermined by your own comments on this thread. If this is the best rhetoric Mormon's have to offer, yawn...are there any scientologists who would like to doff a foil hat and weigh in on the grim situation facing the Microdons of the Omega-8 system?

A funny story that I think you will appreciate...one saturday afternoon, my wife's uncle was rotating the tires on his car in his driveway, when two Moromon missionaries approached with literature. He offered to listen to their (do you call it testimony or something?), if only they could lend a hand with the tire rotation. They agreed, and soon their white shirts were smudged with grease as they finished rotating the tires, changed the oil, and flushed and refilled the radiator, all the while doing their proselytic best. When they were finished, uncle (let's call hom Chronos?) offered the missionaries a beer, then a soda, then a cup of water, thanked them for the literature and assured them that he would read it carefully.

Now if there were only something useful we could find for you to do around here...

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 2:21 PM

The Human race doesn't need people with blond hair or black skin or short people.

Amen, brother. Short people got no reason to live.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 2:23 PM

By the way RevDumbChimp, did you know that credible archeological evidence or the Book of Mormon was recently found in the Southern Arabia?

That sounds very interesting. I hope you will tell us all about it when you get bored of telling us why you hate gay people.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 2:26 PM

Anti:

You wrote:
"James...Still with the naturalistic fallacy. Whatever. You are not much of a reader, I guess."

Look, I know that you'd love to argue that my argument is an "is-ought" problem but you've failed to incorporate that genders are entities with identities and purpose.

We're not taking about abstractions - we're talking about measurable entities, albeit complex.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 22, 2009 2:27 PM

Remember also that the human species does not need YOU. It will continue, a little better probably if you ceased to exist. Something to bear in mind.

Oh no... See, 'James' is capable of squirting, presumably... even willing, presumably, to squirt sperm into vaginas... This makes him rare and essential... and... umm...

See, that's what he's for. That's his purpose. And without him doing that... Umm...

Yeah... And, okay... I guess you do have a point, there, actually...

I mean, seein' as we're not exactly hard up for sperm, after all. Nor men averse to placing it in such locations...

And let's face it, from his performance here, we've no particular reason to assume his contribution is going to be particularly top shelf material, either, for that matter...

'Kay. So you've a point. 'James' is superfluous, after all...

And so, his having failed to justify his existence, the 'hard truth' is we should probably put together a nice little ballot measure on James...

(/Vote no on James. Seriously: what the fuck is that loser for, anyway?)

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 2:29 PM

James, please be explain to us what a man is supposed to be and what a woman is supposed to be. Do not hide behind duckspeak terms like human gender. Explain to me how I am supposed to live my life according to the dictates of your non democratic church.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:30 PM

In 1836, Joseph Smith became the first white leader of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood (Elijah Abel). This was 25+ years before the civil war.

He also appointed him to be a member of one of the Church's governing bodies called the "Seventy." Between 1830 and 1948, six black men were ordained in the LDS Church during those pre-Emancipation Proclamation years.

In 1848, Brigham Young instituted a practice of delaying some black men to the priesthood.

Elijah Abel continued to serve in the Quorum of Seventy until his death in 1878. Elijah Abel's sons and grandsons were ordained to the priesthood up through 1931.

Then what happened? How did it become institutionalized by the very people who have the direct line to god? Would it have anything to do with 2 Nephi 5:21-23, 2 Nephi 30:6 and 3 Nephi 2:15?

By the way RevDumbChimp, did you know that credible archeological evidence or the Book of Mormon was recently found in the Southern Arabia?

Oh this should be good. Please point it out to us

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 2:34 PM

The human species does not need homosexual couples. This reality is beyond sentimental feelings. It is a cold hard fact of reality.

The human species would certainly be better off without you and your merry band of religiwhackos. That is a cold hard fact of reality. You happily follow the ravings of a third rate nutcase who couldn't get one woman, so all of a sudden he popped up with a convenient polygamy based belief. Uh huh. And don't attempt to school me, you nasty homophobe - my husband grew up mormon and many of my relatives by marriage are still deluded. Although, I'm happy to say, more than a few have seen the light over the years and left that foul institution.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:39 PM

What about this quote from your cult Leader during the early 70s??

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

-Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 22, 2009 2:40 PM

By the way RevDumbChimp, did you know that credible archeological evidence or the Book of Mormon was recently found in the Southern Arabia?

Ummm... vague descriptive coincidence does not equal evidence, you fruitbat...

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 22, 2009 2:42 PM

How can there possibly be credible evidence for the Book of Mormon.. in Saudi Arabia? Its a book that details Jesus visitting Merika, because Jesus HAS to visit Merika or it isn't special. Saudia Arabia sounds like a bad place to go to study the past of the continental USA.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:44 PM

I believe James may be talking about this. It's hard to find information about it from a site that doesn't have "mormon" or "lds" or "byu" in the domain name.

hahahaha.

Oh wait he's serious.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 2:46 PM

SO I'm going to take a guess, if James thinks this "find" [snicker] in Saudi Arabia is some sort of evidence than I'm wagering that James might also subscribe to the Native American DNA silliness I've seen put forth by other Mormon "scholars".

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 2:50 PM

re: "regular Mormons" - When I was a kid in Utah, and Bill Clinton was voted into office, a tonne of my neighbours started getting into militias and whatnot. My best friend's dad was in a group that met once a month and the password was "Ruby Ridge". (Google that if you don't know what it refers to, and you'll have an idea about the paranoid nutbaggery that was going on.) I remember going over to people's houses to babysit their kids and finding and reading a copy of Bo Gritz's manifesto on the "Hanging By A Thread" prophecy. People made up crazy theories about Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton. She was pretty much the anti-Christ as far as folks seemed to be concerned. Anyway, the atmosphere was downright paranoid, and everybody kept freaking out about the Constitution.

Enter Bush.

Suddenly all those folks freaking out about Constitutional rights? Nowhere to be found. I kept asking my family and older acquaintances if they thought Bush should be running roughshod with his free-speech zones and his signing statements that undermine the other branches of the government and the oh-so-wonderful Patriot Act. I asked if they'd like a Democrat president to have these exact powers. (Of course not, but Bush was called of God, doncha know.)

Anyway, all of these people....regular Mormons. Not crazies off in compounds, but living in the suburbs of Orem, Utah, and regularly attending church.

...

re: Gay Marriage and civil rights - Let's not forget that the LDS church, while pretending to allow people to vote their conscience, has a history of hamstringing the votes on civil rights. The Prop 8 stuff gives me flashbacks to my childhood, when I was reading Fencin' With Benson (the collection of Pulitzer Prize winning cartoons by Steve Benson, the now-apostate grandson of Ezra T. Benson, late prophet of the LDS church). Anyway, I come across a cartoon involving the ERA and Mormons. I ask my parents to explain it, and they explain that the ERA was designed to give special rights to minorities, and that the church had to organise to oppose it. For years I had no idea what the ERA actually was, but I figured it must be no good, because the LDS church opposed it. They'd gotten groups of Relief Society women together to go pose on the steps of their state capitals whenever the votes were coming up, much in the same way that they got call centers together to drum up support on Prop 8. They misrepresented their interference then, and they misrepresented it now.

(Incidentally, when I finally looked up the ERA--which has still never passed to this day--the Amendment consisted of three sentences, two regarding implementation of the first, which merely stated that you couldn't abridge rights on the basis of gender or race. Nothing about minority rights or granting anything to any one group but not others.)

...

One of James' statements above needs to be clarified. When the question of mind control was first addressed, and the LDS church was called out as a strictly hierarchical controlling church, he popped out this bit about Bishops:

In the LDS Church, every congregation is led by a lay pastor called a Bishop who has been chosen out of the congregation to lead the group for 5-8 years.

The way James phrases this makes it seems as if the congregation chooses the bishops, and that the church is a bottom-up organisation instead of a top-down one. In reality, the bishop is chosen by the stake president, who is chosen by the district president (I forget the exact title) who is chosen by a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, who are chosen by the Council of the Twelve.

It is true that from the stake presidency down, the church operates with lay clergy who are unpaid. (I do not know if the district level guys are paid or not, but I'm fairly certain the two Quorums of the Seventy get stipends, and I'm damn certain that the Council of the Twelve is taken care of by the church.)

In fact, the church does their best to make sure almost every member has a calling (a position of some responsibility) inside the church. This can be as minor as calling somebody to lock up the meeting house after church activities, or teaching primary lessons to children, or being an activity co-ordinator. Furthermore, every member gets assigned somebody else to "teach" during the month. Nevermind that you are ALL teaching from the same correlated lesson plan that was developed in SLC--the real point is that you are developing a sunk cost in terms of time, effort, and friendships. Because of how much time you have to spend preparing for your calling during the week, you may find that your entire social network is dependent on the LDS church if you live in Utah, and even outside of Utah. You are discouraged from saying no to a calling. (After all, Heavenly Father wouldn't test you beyond your abilities, goes the reasoning.)

What is taught in church is not left up to the individual bishops or the lay clergy, but sent down from Salt Lake City via the Correlation Program. This is how they make sure that all messages are consistent with what the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency want. Occasionally, letters are issued to every church and bishops MUST read them to their congregations. These are the letters that dictated the votes on the ERA and Prop 8, although sometimes they can be soul-crushingly mundane. (When I was a kid, the church presidency issued a letter telling people not to bake treats to share at church. I was crushed, as I was about to enter the Young Women's auxiliary program, which was known for its treat-making enthusiasm.)

Anyway, the statement that the LDS church is a hierarchical and controlling institution is perfectly accurate in all respects.

There is no pervasive mind control practice in the LDS Church doctrine.

I think it would be more accurate if we talked about the systemic indoctrination that goes on in the church as a system, rather than an overt practice. When framed as a practise, most people tend to think of things like the Manchurian Candidate, and many Mormons, filled with cog dis, will reject these claims straight out.

However, I outlined above how the Mormon church decides what information is going to be disseminated to church members. The Correlation Program makes sure that every branch and ward in the world, everywhere, are on the same page. While this makes sense on an institutional level, it does little to address individual spirituality, and indeed, spontaneous displays of worship that do not jibe with SLC's vision, are dictated to. (Another one of those little letters from the Presidency ordered the cessation of the practise of "Temple/Tunnel Singing" wherein teens and young adults would gather at the Marriot Center tunnel or the gates of the temple and sing hymns. This spontaneous practise was squelched after a few years, for reasons I was never sure about.) Individual questioning and individual interpretation of the doctrine as it applies in one's own life is not really encouraged. Your bishop or seminary teacher or gospel doctrine leader will over-ride you and explain where you have gone wrong. If you share your non-approved ideas, you can find yourself being restricted from callings, taking the sacrament, or going to the temple.

Every active Mormon attends three hours of church meetings every Sunday. Two auxiliary meetings, and eighty minutes for sacrament meeting, where the bishopric and pre-determined members of the congregation share gospel lessons with intermediate hymns being sung. The sacrament (bread and water, not wine and wafers) is passed, and once a month, the podium will be opened for fast-and-testimony meeting. (Once a month fasts are accompanied by a period of donating the money you would have spent on food to the church.) It's hard not to note that high-social-pressure situation of being expected to bear your testimony in combination with 24 hours of no food can create in people the physiological and mental sensations that people are speaking with "the spirit".

During the week, the family is encouraged to participate in activities the church deems appropriate. Monday is Family Home Evening, wherein the family unit prepares a lesson and activity about the church and its doctrine.

On Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, you may find yourself meeting for an auxiliary meeting if you are a teenager. Adults have a once-a-month meeting in their appropriate auxiliary: Priesthood activity for men and Relief Society for women. Small children had an auxiliary meeting when I was VERY small--Primary used to be on Wednesdays--but about the time I was three, they switched out that program.

Friday night is supposed to be date-night for the Mormon couple.

And once a month, if you are an "endowed" adult, you should attend the temple and do ordinance work. Teens will on a quarterly basis go and participate in baptisms for the dead, a proxy ordinance which can be fulfilled before full temple initiation. I don't know much about the adult ordinances, since I left before getting endowed, but from what I've read, there's a ritual where you change into white clothes with aprons and funny hats/veils, and chant as you watch either a movie or a play. (The play dates from before we had recordable media.) You've been given a special name and password and signs to show that you are one of the faithful. (This is the root of the deep and abiding irony of the Book of Mormon's consistent railing against "secret combinations".) The repetition of phrases sure doesn't sound like brainwashing, does it? (She said sarcastically.) The special name isn't designed to make you feel extra warm and fuzzy. And the funny clothes certainly weren't going to erode any sense of self or personality upon repeated visits. Nope, not at all.

As for baptisms for the dead, you stand in as a proxy for those who have already died. You are dunked repeated in a pool, and because they have a lot of names to go through, you are given hardly any time to catch your breath between dunkings. The physical act of getting baptised for an entire European village from the time of Martin Luther will take your breath away--literally. If you are light-headed and breathless, that can be explain as the Holy Ghost and those ancestors approving your actions.

Let's not forget seminary class. Of course, I belong to a spoiled generation in the heart of Utah who actually had released-time seminary. So I got to go to a building just off my high school campus and be taught on a daily basis about the scriptures. (I totally ruled in scripture chases, having been a voracious reader since I was about three years of age.) However, many Mormon students don't have the same facilities or the release-time from school, so the prevailing form of seminary classes is early morning seminary class. Whee for sleep dep. Again we find that doctrine may be taught under circumstances where the body and mind may not be performing at 100%.

The active LDS person has the church woven through-out their daily and weekly life. The church makes decisions about what they can wear and when they can wear it. The church makes decisions about what they can eat and when they should fast. (You ARE allowed exemptions for medical reasons--they're not completely insane.) The church makes decisions about what sort of media is appropriate to consume. (Nevermind that scripture about how it is a poor servant who requires guidance in all things.) The church takes ten percent of your money. (You volunteer it in theory, but you can't attend the temple if you don't pay a full tithe and in a close-knit community, it becomes obvious who falls into the faithful and non-faithful categories.) The church will also demand a few hours several days a week for further meetings and preparation for your Sunday duties. The church teaches your children on a near daily basis from the time they turn 15 and enter seminary. This is the system by which they control your behaviour and thoughts. Yes, it's theoretically voluntary, but if you live in most of Utah, and parts of Idaho or Arizona, you may find that your social capital and job opportunities will depend on how well you fit into this system. And while James notes that people who choose to join the church are voluntarily taking this on, he conveniently ignores the people who were born into this system who are ground under its wheels: the spiritual non-conformists, gays, many women, and prior to 1978, those of other races. I DID NOT have a choice about entering this system, and to this day I am working on rooting out much of the psychological damage it did to me in terms of abiding by the authority of men, expectations for marriage and relationships, and my own self-worth as a creative woman. (And I'm one of the less-damaged as far as I can tell.)

This system encourages little individuality. This system teaches you to obey authority, even when it's making irrational demands. This system demands loyalty to the system over one's personal problems. And as far as their vaunted claims about being about family, this system does not hesitate to exclude or run rough-shod over family members who view things differently. It's a recipe-driven life, spirituality by rote, and ultimately unfulfilling for many people.

Sorry this is so long, but the system is so pervasive at every level of the devout Mormon's life, it's hard to describe the full extent of it. It's not just one "brainwashing practice" -- it's an entire culture, and as such, it's practically invisible to the people who live and breathe it. A total case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 22, 2009 2:51 PM

Look, I know that you'd love to argue that my argument is an "is-ought" problem but you've failed to incorporate that genders are entities with identities and purpose.

Isn't your argument "Genders have natural identities and purposes. The purpose of gender is procreation. Therefore, we ought not sanction marriage between two people of the same gender because they cannot procreate."

This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.

Am I misunderstanding you here?

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | December 22, 2009 2:53 PM

Good bet. When James said it was "consistent," he didn't say "with reality."

...

Except for the fraud about knowing Egyptian and getting totally exposed over the fact he made the whole thing up when the Egyptian language was finally worked out...

(/From the Yes campaign: 'Vote Yes on James... 'Cos let's face it, he does bring the laughs...')

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 2:54 PM

RevDumbChimp:

I would say that the quote was an expression of a personal opinion of one of many of the Mormon authorities out there in the 70s and is not "Mormon doctrine."

It is meaningless, especially in light of what Joseph Smith did in 1836, by being the first white Christian leader to ordain a black man into an all white Church in 1836, 25+ years before Lincoln freed the salves.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 2:55 PM

James sounds like Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute:

As drafted by the Sutherland Institute, the natural family resolution reads,
     Whereas, the natural family is the fundamental unit of society and is entitled to protection in Utah by local and state governments; and...
     We envision a local culture that upholds the marriage of a woman to a man, and a man to a woman, as ordained of God. This culture affirms marriage as the best path to health, security, fulfillment, and joy. It casts the home built on marriage as the source of true political sovereignty and ordered liberty. ... It celebrates the marital sexual union as the unique source of new human life....
     We envision young women growing into wives, homemakers, and mothers; and we see young men growing into husbands, home-builders, and fathers. ... And we look to local government that holds the protection of the natural family to be their first responsibility.
[and from a different text by Paul Mero] The arguments in favor of gay rights and gay marriage are as vacuous today as they were during the 1969 riots at the Stonewall Bar in New York City. Even their best minds still cannot explain how gay sex or gay marriage, or anything beyond gay fashion sense, benefits society.

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 2:57 PM

Statements about "natural purpose" are not secular: they are teleological, based on the idea that there is a "right" way to behave, and a "wrong" way to behave, as dictated by nature -- and people might choose the wrong way. But you can't work morality into nature. Someone who chooses to diet so strictly that they end up starving themselves to death has not gone against the "natural purpose" of the stomach, and thus sinned. They made a choice which had physical consequences they didn't want.

When you conflate teleology with human concepts of right and wrong, you can end up with people claiming that all diets, or any diet, is going against the "natural purpose" of the stomach. There are no ways to limit what nature "intends." A secular science would only describe what will happen. It doesn't deal with what's supposed to happen, as planned by nature, evolution, or god of choice.

There are no negative consequences to gay marriage. And, if you are going to argue that marriage provides benefits to society, then gay marriage provides the same benefits.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 2:58 PM

Celtic:

I am sure you wish it were crappola but it isn't.

Credible evidence now exists that supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon as true history, in part.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 3:01 PM

Richard:

I find your personal criticisms meaningless but your lack of coherent argumentation to refute my assertions and arguments very meaningful.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:05 PM

You complain that Richard isn't addressing your fallacious arguments, even while you pointedly ignore the people who are.

Were you always a dishonest shit, James, or did Mormonism make you that way?

Try #195.

Posted by: blf | December 22, 2009 3:07 PM

Credible evidence now exists that supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon as true history, in part.

And this “credible evidence” is what?

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 22, 2009 3:08 PM

Nature discriminates against homosexual couples in that they cannot pass on their genetic code together.

They can't? Well... not with each other, but if they felt so compelled, they could just have sex with a willing female to "pass on their seed"... the sperm doesn't dry up and disappear because you're attracted to men...

So what the fuck does that have to do with affording gays the right to marry, exactly?

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 3:09 PM

James #205 wrote:

Credible evidence now exists that supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon as true history, in part.

Before we get into specific details on this, could you please clarify what you mean by your statement:

Do you mean that there is credible evidence which is convincing to objective historians and archeologists, and this will pass rigorous peer review to be included in neutral, secular sources?

Or do you mean that, if you are already Mormon, and looking for some small sign that your religious history is true in fact (and not just 'true for you'), this will suffice as good enough for the purpose?

Those are different standards, you know.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 3:12 PM

I find your personal criticisms meaningless but your lack of coherent argumentation to refute my assertions and arguments very meaningful.

Personal criticisms? Basic history on Joseph Smith and eqyptian writings. Unless you're on about something else. Your being incredibly vague is very telling when it comes to your criticism of me.

Also since I have made several points that others have made your argument fails on both logic and comprehension. As you have been quite happy to argue with them. Or, as a 2nd class citizen in your eyes, not being natural and all...is this my being told to be quiet and sent to the back of the bus?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 3:13 PM

Sastra:

You've made a categorical error. Teleological- "is-ought" philosophies or arguments have to do with whether a particular "behavior" is morally right based on whether it is naturally right to do so.

My argument is altogether different. You begin by identifying what homosexuality is. It is a kind of attraction. In the case of males, it is an attraction for members of one's own sex.

Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male? The answer is no.

No teleological argumentation employed or needed.

Homosexual attraction IS by nature and by identity, inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

Why should Americans vote to institutionalize "feelings" that are incompatible with and inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender and which are not necessary for the human species?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:16 PM

Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male?

There is no natural purpose of a human male. I'm sure you can't explain what you mean by identity either.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:17 PM

... thank you, James for proving conclusively that while not all Mormons believe in Mormon dominionism via prophecy, they DO all believe in using the state to dictate their loony beliefs to others.

You really aren't any different from Rammell, you just don't appear to realize it.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:18 PM

Also, James, why do you hate gay people so much?

Did you always hate gay people, or did Mormonism make you that way?

Posted by: Zabinatrix | December 22, 2009 3:20 PM

James said:

Now, if the species does not need homosexual couples, why do children, adults or governments need homosexual couples?

The hard truth is, we don't.

But, we understand that you WANT a government contract to recognize your "togetherness" IN THE SAME WAY that we recognize the natural togetherness of heterosexual couples, natural construct that the is NECESSARY to the species.

Now, James, I realize that every single one of your points have been addressed several times, since you just ignore every valid argument and keep re-iterating the exact same points... But I wanted to take a small stab at this anyway.

You must live in a very sad world indeed if only those things that are strictly necessary should be allowed to exist.

As a rationalist I know that we have a long and beautiful life on this earth, and I suspect that we have no afterlife to look forward to, so I think that we should make the most of the life that we know that we have. Part of that is finding enjoyment in the many wonderful things in life, and one of the most wonderful of those is love.

Now, love is not something that requires marriage. People have loved each other in all times and all cultures, with or without social contracts. But in our particular, modern culture we have decided that the deepest and most meaningful relationships are best if they are formalized.

That is what marriage is about, essentially. People are fully able to have kids, raise kids, live together and have fulfilled lives without marriage. But we have decided, as a culture, that marriage is still something to strive for. Not out of necessity for the species or the country, but just as a celebration of one of the most wonderful things in the world.

This celebration is, for practically everyone, seen as a bond between two adults who love each other. It's not a contract to procreate, it's not a contract to have straight sex, it's not a contract to live together - it is a bond of deep and mature love.

As we well know, not all marriages turn out to be that deep and mature love that we should be, but that doesn't change the fact that society sees marriage as a bond of love between two adults.

That is where the bigotry comes in. The people opposed to gay marriage are often people who think that the love (not the "usefulness" of a relationship) between two people is less beautiful, less valuable if they are of the same gender. And even if they aren't bigots, this is still what it amounts to.

Because the "usefulness" or "necessity" of straight marriage, or the historical reasons for it, really don't play into it much. What really matters is how people feel about it in the here and now, and people seem to generally think that marriage is about love and commitment, nothing else. So every law that says that gay relationships aren't the same as straight relationships is a law that tells people that gay people don't love the same way (or as much) as straight people do.

Who are you, James, to tell people what worth their love has? I have felt the same love for a man that I've felt for a woman, and there aren't any qualitative differences that I can see.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 22, 2009 3:21 PM

Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male? The answer is no.

No teleological argumentation employed or needed.

you idiot, every time you use the word "purpose" when describing nature, you're using a teleological argument. things in nature don't have purposes. they have uses.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:23 PM

Now, the question is whether homosexual attraction is consistent with the natural purpose and identity of a human male?

what about a female?

if a population of cockroaches has no males, females will become parthenogenic.

is that natural, or not?

in hymenopterans, (bees and wasps), many species have most individuals forgo reproduction altogether, to contribute to the queen's reproductive success instead.

Is that not natural?

hmm, maybe you've just never bothered to think about how it might maintain itself in populations beyond the simplistic "males that boff each other can't make babies - and they make me sick because I was told it's wrong"

why not expand your mind a bit?

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-06/960498851.Ev.r.html

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 3:24 PM

James is now running in circles. This is fun. See James, See James run. Run James run.

James, why do you own a computer when they are clearly unnatural devices? Man wasn't meant to send messages at the speed of light.

and anyway, who says we aren't necessary for the species. I can think of quite a few uses for gender mixed humans within society. I can name at least 2 reasons why DNA would be more successfully passed on within a group containing gays.

ah, but James is still looking down his nose at me. I'm not natural, and the fact that i'm half female (no its not just about sex, anything can be switched) means I have lower status in his cult.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 3:25 PM

More writing from LDS past leaders supporting the church's racism. This letter from LDS First Presidency including George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr. and David O. McKay in 1947 responding to criticism.

Dear Brother Nelson:

As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:

We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.

We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay

The First Presidency

the reply

The attitude of the Church in regard to the Negro makes me very sad. I do not believe God is a racist.

And the First Presidency's response to the reply

We feel very sure that you are aware of the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. Under these circumstances we may not permit ourselves to be too much impressed by the reasonings of men, however well founded they may seem to be. We should like to say this to you in all sincerity, that you are too fine a man to permit yourself to be led off from the principles of the Gospel by worldly learning.

You have too much of a potentiality for doing good and we therefore prayerfully hope that you can re-orient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed Word of God.

Yep the Church of LDS has not been racist at all.

Open your eyes James.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:27 PM

I find most anti-mormons rely on archeological date from the late 70s for their "iron clad" evidences against the Book of Mormon.

There must be a massive scientific conspiracy silencing the truth about the Book of Mormon. If you've had evidence for decades that demonstrates its empirical validity, then the whole world should have acknowledged it by now. After all, we hear about the discovery of various proteins and genes all the time, and they are reported in mainstream news. There must be active suppression of the Book of Mormon, by scientists, journalists, and politicians. I'm sure you'll overcome that conspiracy of censorship real soon now.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:28 PM

Your lack of knowledge concerning recent archeological data about MesoAmerica or the evidences in that region are evident.

"Your lack of faith disturbs me."

-DV

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:30 PM

Look, I know and you know that same sex attraction neither has a ulitarian purpose or a neccesary use within the human species.

Utilitarian? Fucking feels good, and a healthy sex life contributes to happiness.

Necessary? Nothing is necessary. Heterosexual marriage is not necessary.

Did you look up kin selection yet?

Are you going to explain why you hate gay people, or do you think it should go without saying?

Posted by: blf | December 22, 2009 3:31 PM

raven@218 commented “The South Arabian stuff is just grasping at straws and doesn't even really hint at it.”

It sounds like you have some idea what he's going on about. Could you elucidate? James has, sofar, completely ignored the requests from different people saying, basically, WTF? I'm aware ldsers tend to think their holy book is factually and/or historically accurate, and have in the past offered amusingly spurious archaeological evidence as evidence, but it's usually been in Mesoamerica. That there supposedly evidence from what I assume is the southern Arabian Peninsula is a new one on me.

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 3:31 PM

The antidepressant Prozac (and similar drugs) has the highest number of prescriptions in Utah, per capita, of any state in the USA: ...

James, the meat robot is just going to repeat himself ad infinitum, not having any thoughts of his own.

Boring, and I'm out.

But being a meat robot isn't all that it is claimed to be. Utah is the leading per capita consumer of antidepressants. And even in that state, Mormons are only 65% of the population.

Every form of refuge has its price. I'd rather be an autonomous functioning normal human, but that is just me.

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 3:32 PM

James #219:

No, your argument is not 'altogether different' -- you're still working morality into nature by introducing the concept of "purpose.

Is homosexual attraction consistent with the purpose and identity of the human male? The answer is yes, it is. The male sex organ was shaped by natural evolution to provide pleasure, and to enhance emotional bonds with a partner. It works with men as partner, or woman as partner, and in both cases the human male is still human, and still male.

That is how the question is answered if one does not invoke teleology, and tries to deal only with a secular understanding of "purpose and identity."

You're not really talking about what identifies a "man." You're trying to sneak in what makes a "real man."

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 3:33 PM

Nature discriminates against homosexual couples in that they cannot pass on their genetic code together.

Wrong. LGBT people always have been in a position to help the group they are in to survive, be it farming, hunting, gathering and child care. While they may not pass on their genes, they help their relatives to do so.

Also, sexulity is not either/or. Gay men and lesbian women have had offspring period.

Homosexual men are not equivalent to women to be wives and mothers, lesbian women are not equivalent to men to be husbands and fathers.

Except for the actual acts of giving birth and breast feeding, what is it the a man can do that a woman cannot and vice versa? Or are you going to ignore all of the gay and lesbian couples who have successfully raised children?

In-equivalence and inequality are already built into the nature of homosexual attraction and unions.

Humans have over come much more worrisome burdens then this.

Seeing this in-equivalency in nature, why should Americans vote to institutionalize attraction that is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender?

Explain what you think what the genders should act like? The statement of human gender is meaningless until you fill in what you mean. No one should agree with anything you have said until you spell this out.

(I already know what you think men and women should be. I want you to say it.)

We understand that you WANT gay marriage, but see no compelling reason to create a social construct that is unnecessary for children, adults or governments.

Rights are not given to people, they are taken. So what if you do not approve, your approval it not needed. It is my right because I claim and you cannot give a coherent reason why I should deny myself.

James, I am not sorry that the existence of people like me causes you discomfort. But any one who claims that what I do is morally wrong, like murder, deserves nothing but scorn. What I am harms no one. What you wants harms multitudes.

Fuck you, James, you fascist creep.

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:35 PM

I'd rather be an autonomous functioning normal human, but that is just me.

not so fast, kimosabe :)

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 3:36 PM

Credible evidence now exists that supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon as true history, in part.

No... it doesn't...

I love the way you cleverly used James' whole range of evidence against him there Celtic.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 3:38 PM

This isn't an example of the Church's institutional racism,

Except it is. No blacks could be ordained. The church leaders said this to be the commandment of God. These are the people who should receive divine revelation. That is about as institutionalized as it gets. No?

Is god a racist or is the Mormon church full of shit?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 22, 2009 3:39 PM

Jadehawk:

There is no such neccessary nomenclature or restriction when using the term "purpose."

Entities indeed have purposes and uses.

Look, I know and you know that same sex attraction neither has a ulitarian purpose or a neccesary use within the human species.

and you clearly don't understand that nothing in biology has a purpose. that's teleological thinking. not my fault you're too blind to realize your religious biases, and that they don't reflect the real world at all.
there is no purpose in heterosexual relationships either. that's because "purpose" is not present in nature. it's as simple as that.

not too mention that your claim that only that which is natural and "purposeful" should be practiced is contrary to your very own religion's claim that abstinence from sex is a good thing. now THAT is unnatural and has no natural "purpose", as you have used the word in this thread.

if you want to insist that gays shouldn't marry because it's "unnatural", you're going to have to say that no one should marry, because monogamy and abstinence are even less natural than homosexuality. and religious worship is the least natural thing of all. are you going to argue against that, too?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:41 PM

No valid or compelling arguments have been made to refute or address how same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender.

Denial: Not just a river in Egypt.

James has his head firmly wedged. He is unable to see anything but the interior of his colon.

done.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 22, 2009 3:43 PM

"We understand that you WANT gay marriage, but see no compelling reason to create a social construct that is unnecessary for children, adults or governments."
That's fantastic for you and all, but the only reason that creating this social construct is remotely difficult is because you've parked your ass, sitting on its stupid book, in the way. Get out of it and I will gladly do all the work without any interference from you, and almost without taxing existing social structures. Quickly changing one definition in a book is almost effortless, so even if you /didn't/ see a reason

And you know what? There is a reason. Not only does the government have a vested interest in allowing long term couples to have some special benefits to encourage that state, but the government has a vested interest in DECREASING population growth, because we're already taxing our water supplies. Therefore, Homosexual Marriage stands at 2-0, and Heterosexual Marriage stands at 1-1. Well, guess that means that Homosexual marriage wins, and heterosexual marriage is abolished with a new thing to take its place.

Wait, what do you mean that would an inhuman denial of rights?

Posted by: Ichthyic | December 22, 2009 3:43 PM

as to teleology...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 22, 2009 3:45 PM

I love the way you cleverly used James' whole range of evidence against him there Celtic.

Seemed like argument from personal assertion was the only one he might listen to... ;^)

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 22, 2009 3:46 PM

Instead, opposing bloggers have attempted to deconstruct the words "purpose", "identity", "attraction" and "gender".

Deconstruction detaches meanings from realities. We can clearly see why someone of the same sex attraction type would want to detach these meanings: to create new ones which are consistent with a particular view of same sex attraction.

surprise, surprise, another godbot who doesn't understand how language works.

Just because you think the words mean what you think they mean doesn't actually make it so. there is no "natural gender"; there is a natural sex, but gender is a social construct. that's a fact, whether you like it or not.

"purpose" is also a human construct. it doesn't exist in nature. in nature, things are used for anything and everything they can be used for, but they do no have a pre-determined purpose. that's teleology, and doesn't actually exist in nature.

I don't even know WTF you think the words "identity" and "attraction" mean, that you believe the people here have been using them wrong

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 3:47 PM

For James, the real lives of real LGBT people is not proof enough. James is content to tell us all that our lives have no purpose and meaning. At the risk of pulling a Godwin, just how far is this from being life unworthy of life?

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 3:48 PM

However, homosexual men cannot argue that they are equivalent to women to be wives and husbands, and lesbian women cannot argue that they are equivalent to men to be husbands and fathers

We've already have and were doing a pretty good job of it too. Gosh you're so fucking insipid.

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 3:50 PM

I love how James is switching to using nature as an authority even though that should undermine his earlier arguments about choice. He's also got this species-ego thing going on, wherein everything is all about the species, and the purpose of procreating THAT species.

...

@RevBigDumbChimp: Sorry, I should have been more clear when constructing my post. I wasn't meaning to say that all your prior examples of church doctrine weren't. The "this" in:

This isn't an example of the Church's institutional racism...

...was meant to refer to Benson's prologue to The Black Hammer, which was written before he became President of the church, and which is not part of official church teachings. ie. This example I am about to provide is the private views of a man who later rose to power inside the church. Hope that clarifies, and sorry for any confusion. I'm not trying to argue against any of your prior points, which are all accurate AFAIK.

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 3:52 PM

James #253 wrote:

No valid or compelling arguments have been made to refute or address how same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender. Instead, opposing bloggers have attempted to deconstruct the words "purpose", "identity", "attraction" and "gender".

This is not a diversion; this is the main crux of the argument. You are using a specifically religious, teleological understanding of "the natural purpose of the male" and pretending that you are saying nothing more controversial than "men have testes and sperm which can result in offspring."

But you can't get from "men can procreate with women" to "men are naturally sexually attracted to women" to "men who are not sexually attracted to women are going against the natural way the male gender is identified." There are huge, unwarranted leaps in there: they do not naturally follow. Men are also naturally sexually attracted to men. Men are also naturally indifferent to sex, interested in families, not interested in families, and every other permutation found in nature. And we identify all of them as "men."

We're not contorting anything in order to get round the obvious. You're contorting the obvious existence of natural human variety in order to select one particular preference as not just "natural," but the best. The end purpose.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkL6rop7ope6a9ysVWsdSU1FNTAQmmW9gw | December 22, 2009 3:52 PM

(sigh)

James, I've heard the same kind of bigoted crap from Jews, Muslims and loads of different flavored Christian sects. Just change a few code words and it could come from any theocratic zealot.

What it comes down to is that theocratic believers all want their beliefs & only their beliefs to be law. Reality has no place in their systems.

Basically James, you & your ilk are fascist fucktards at best.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 3:53 PM

How do you decide which divine revelation is actually divine revelation and which is someone being wrong?

Too easy. When they're saying something that James wants to hear, it's divine revelation.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 3:55 PM

@RevBigDumbChimp: Sorry, I should have been more clear when constructing my post. I wasn't meaning to say that all your prior examples of church doctrine weren't. The "this" in:

ooops, my bad.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 3:58 PM

Too easy. When they're saying something that James wants to hear, it's divine revelation.

"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 3:58 PM

Jade:

You wrote:
"if you want to insist that gays shouldn't marry because it's "unnatural", you're going to have to say that no one should marry."

I am not insisting that gays and lesbians should do this or that.

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it. There is no scientific basis for it. And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

In the beginning of this argument I said I would continue to vote against gay marriage and persuade others to vote against it because it is not necessary for children, adults, or government.

Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.

As an American citizen, I don't see any reason to indulge homosexual men or women further in this pursuit.

However, I do strongly favor protections for homosexual men and women concerning access to housing, benefits, and employment.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 4:00 PM

Please address the evidence that Lynna and Chimpy has given you. And do not fucking say; But the United States was also racist.

Fucking weasel.

Besides, you'd expect God's people to figure out ten years sooner than everyone else, not ten years later.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 4:01 PM

Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.

Fascist?

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 4:04 PM

MAJeff, I was just going to say; Fuck but that dumbfuck is dumb.

James, have you heard of pink triangles? Have you heard of black triangles? Look both of them up and learn what fascist did with gays and lesbians.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 4:07 PM

Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it. There is no scientific basis for it. And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

In the beginning of this argument I said I would continue to vote against gay marriage and persuade others to vote against it because it is not necessary for children, adults, or government.

GET IT IN YOUR FUCKING HEAD! There is no purpose to either heterosexual or homosexual union in nature. You don't need either for the "naturalistic processes." Furthermore you are committing a naturalistic fallacy. (which is interesting since your religion isn't need for the survival of the species either. See what I did there.)Heterosexual marriage is also not necessary for children, adults, or the government. (does that make it wrong?). And gender is a cultural construct.

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

We have. You're ignoring them.

Posted by: Flex | December 22, 2009 4:10 PM

James @285,

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

What would be a compelling or valid reason?

I asked this question before, but maybe it was lost in the chaff.

If your answer is that there isn't one, and couldn't ever be one, then you had better examine your prejudices more closely.

Posted by: KOPD | December 22, 2009 4:11 PM

What exactly is the "natural purpose and identity of human male gender" and how do you know?

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 22, 2009 4:12 PM

I am not insisting that gays and lesbians should do this or that.

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

do you even uderstand the words you're using?

voting on constitutional rights of others IS insisting on others "doing this or that"

Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it.

the right to marry whom you want has been declared a constitutional right by the U.s. supreme court. your voting against it is unconstitutional. that's all the social necessity that is required, and it's the same "social necessity" that ended anti-miscegenation laws, which were argued with the same idiotic arguments of "unnaturalness".

There is no scientific basis for it.

there is no scientific basis for monogamy and heterosexual marriage either

And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

there is no such thing as "natural purpose and identity of human gender". human gender is a social construct, human identity is a matter of individuals, not biology, and natural things don't have purpose. just because your religion tells you otherwise doesn't actually make it so.

Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 22, 2009 4:13 PM

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

OK... simple question: What are the compelling reasons for Americans to institutionalize infertile different-sex couples?

Posted by: blf | December 22, 2009 4:13 PM

I googled it and found something about a word on an inscription that might be the same as a word in the BofM but probably isn't.

Ah. The old linguistics game. The ldsers keep trying this one, without success (albeit the southern Arabian angle is a new one to me). The words used were either known to Smith from other sources, are incorrectly translated, are used in an impossible context, or so on. Exactly zlitch evidence that Smith didn't make it up.

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 4:18 PM

It's hard to believe that a just and righteous god would be a decade behind the civil rights curve, even if you want to use some weaselly argument about the nation not being prepared to accept a greater law yet. Why did it take the LDS church until 1978 to give blacks the priesthood? Why not declare it when the nation desegregated? And knowing that, why should I think they are any more accurate as to any theoretical god's demands re: glbt rights?

James sez:

I am saying that as an American citizen, gays and lesbians have presented no compelling or valid reasons why Americans should institutionalize same sex attraction.

If by institutionalise you mean,t hey are treating gay folks as equal members of the society which said gay folks ALREADY contribute to.

Gays and lesbians WANT gay marriage but there is no social necessity for it.

No? When studies show that partners in healthy communicating marriages live longer healthier lives? When it provides gay people with a legally recognised support structure? When gay folks prove more than willing to adopt children nobody else will take on?

If we grant marriage as a legal construct, then we have to grant it to all people equally.

If we grant marriage as a religious construct, then why can't religions (like the UUs) that allow gay marriage be allowed to perform it?

There is no scientific basis for it.

There's no scientific basis for hetero marriage either. You can produce offspring just fine outside of it. In fact, men could produce more offspring outside of marriage if they didn't have pesky laws about child-support.

And, it is not consistent with the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

Natural purpose again? Man, you are really really stuck on this species propagation thing, aren't you?

And what weird cocktail of human traits do you actually guarantee by having exactly one woman and one man in the unit raising children? I can guarantee that the only thing I could provide a female child that a man can't provide is empathy about the period--and it's not like there's a shortage of that empathy to go around.

In the beginning of this argument I said I would continue to vote against gay marriage and persuade others to vote against it because it is not necessary for children, adults, or government.

Neither is hetero-marriage. AGAIN.

However, we have granted a legal set of rights to a class of citizens and it is appropriate and humane to give those rights to gay couples as well.

Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud. The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.

Did you pay attention in high school history class? Or to quote Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Look up the word "fascist" and learn how to use it properly.

Also, what hoax? Gay people exist. Treating them like human beings with dignity and lives and goals and aspirations is not a hoax.

As an American citizen, I don't see any reason to indulge homosexual men or women further in this pursuit.

However, I do strongly favor protections for homosexual men and women concerning access to housing, benefits, and employment.

Wow, gracious of you. Did you want a cookie for stretching your empathy so far?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 4:21 PM

Pygmy Loris:

You wrote:
"Experts in Middle Eastern and North American archaeology and biological anthropologists and geneticists have conclusively shown the Book of Mormon to be a complete fabrication."

You just made that up.

You can't list a single expert in any of those fields who have "CONCLUSIVELY" (based on their research and evidence" shown that the Book of Mormon is a complete fabrication.

And here's how we can test it:

Name the conclusive evidence that conclusively shows the Book of Mormon to be a completely fabrication in each of those areas.

The Book of Mormon certainly has its critics but there are not experts that have conclusively demonstrated its fabrication.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 4:23 PM

Furthermore, the fascist lobby to make gay marriage EQUIVALENT to the societal value of heterosexual marriage is a fraud.

The fascist lobby? You really are a nutter, James.

Thank you for reminding everyone that Mormons are still bad people.

The great homosexual hoax is now being perpetrated against children.

How? By informing them of the empirical fact that gay and bi orientations are natural, observable in nature, and driven in part by our genetics?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 4:25 PM

Jade/Pixel:

What is the purpose of sexual attraction in human males?

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 4:26 PM

You can't list a single expert in any of those fields who have "CONCLUSIVELY" (based on their research and evidence" shown that the Book of Mormon The Wheels Of Time is a complete fabrication.

Posted by: v.rosenzweig | December 22, 2009 4:27 PM

Here's an interesting phrasing: James keeps boasting that Young was the "first white leader of an all-white church" to ordain a black man. That strongly suggests that he is aware of Christian churches that were not racially segregated, and that had ordained black people as ministers earlier.

It seems likely that "earlier" was many centuries earlier, in fact. I'm not an expert on church history, but the Assyrian Catholic church, the Nestorians among Genghis Khan's followers, and Indian, Chinese, and Japanese people converted by Jesuits might be places to look. (No, you don't get to move the goalposts and add "American" now.)

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 4:29 PM

Uh oh, it'll be a flogging for me.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 4:30 PM

Strange Gods, that was just a little odd.

'giggle'

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 4:31 PM

James #311 wrote:

What is the purpose of sexual attraction in human males?

Whose purpose?

In most cases, to find a sexual partner -- or, perhaps, in some cases, for its own sake, or to act as something to resist.

It evolved due to selection for various reasons -- procreation is one reason. But it's not the only one. If it was, there wouldn't be attraction between people who can't procreate.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 22, 2009 4:33 PM

What is the purpose of sexual attraction in human males?

none. for the xth time, there is no purpose in nature.

OTOH, sex is used in many different ways by different animals, including humans: pleasure, reproduction, social bonding, conflict resolution, establishing hierarchies, etc. and most of it doesn't happen within marriage, either. matter of fact, marriage is irrelevant to sex.

what is your point again?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 4:35 PM

James, when a lesbian and a gay man independently and simultaneously think "that's the stupidest thing I've read in the last ten minutes," you should probably take this as a sign from God.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 4:37 PM

It evolved due to selection for various reasons -- procreation is one reason. But it's not the only one. If it was, there wouldn't be attraction between people who can't procreate.

Nah, that doesn't follow.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 4:39 PM

What is the purpose of sexual attraction in human males?

You've yet to establish purpose in any meaningful way.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 4:40 PM

There is no "conclusive" evidence about the mythological creation of the Korean civilization being wrong. There are a lot evidence to show that it's not right, but by James standard these are not conclusive. So by James logic I am a bear.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 22, 2009 4:41 PM

"What is the purpose of attraction in males"

None. There's no 'naturalistic purpose' in anything. But guys feeling it want sex with whoever they find attractive.

Posted by: sparky-ca | December 22, 2009 4:41 PM

@Jadehawk

noooo, women are brood mares and domestic servants. We aren't supposed to get pleasure from sex.

/snark off

Posted by: greenishblue | December 22, 2009 4:42 PM

Wow. I just dug through this entire thread in one sitting. For anyone else joining late, here's a summary:

James: "[Unsubstantiated claim], [unsubstantiated claim], [naturalistic fallacy], and also [unsubstantiated claim]. Therefore, [unwarranted conclusion]."

Everyone else: "Please substantiate your claim. Also, you committed the naturalistic fallacy."

James: "Look, it's very simple: [Repeated unsubstantiated claim], [repeated unwarranted conclusion], due to [another naturalistic fallacy]

Repeat

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 22, 2009 4:42 PM

We just want to serve a man...'snicker'

Sure, I'll take a Snickers.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 4:43 PM

Thanks blf!

James,

Ask any North American archaeologist about the claims of the book of mormon. They will tell you the claims are false. My expertise lies more in the origin and distribution of modern human populations. Linguistic, archaeological, and genetic, and morphological evidence indicates that modern Native Americans are descended from the people who lived in northeastern Asia approximately 20,000-15,000 years ago. However, modern Inuit have their origin in Asia much more recently, circa 5,000-7,000 years ago. It is the falsehood that Native Americans are descended from the Hebrews that underlies the entire Book of Mormon.

Posted by: blf | December 22, 2009 4:44 PM

[Teh Gayz a]re obviously predators bent on enticing children into the *ominous voice*HOMOSEXUAL LIFESTYLE*

Do the kids taste better that way? Any recipe hints? (Seems like a lot of work for a bit of fresh meat.)

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 4:47 PM

Richard Eis, a man maintaining a perfect green lawn shows that he is a responsible family man, either a damn good future husband or a damn good father.

I'd like to see a pansy like you put that kind of effort on humble plants.

'snort'

My garden would be a wild place with butterflies, ponds, gravel and foreign plants. Chaotic but with a light touch of control. I can think of nothing more tortured or less interesting than a perfect lawn.

and lets face it, going up and down your lawn on a rideable mower is no ones idea of a hunky hunter gatherer type. It shows only that he is boring and likes dull routine.

Hey, we should do a survey on lawn maintenance based on church attendance. I bet theres a correlation.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 22, 2009 4:49 PM

Do the kids taste better that way? Any recipe hints? (Seems like a lot of work for a bit of fresh meat.)

Depends on the age. I prefer fetus sliced very thin and raw, like sashimi. After they pop out, they've got bones and stuff, so you need to start looking at roasting. They get stringier as they age, so longer cooking times become necessary. Once they're eight or so, they're no longer worth eating. Then we turn them over to the Catholic priests.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 4:50 PM

Lee your photos are amazing.

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 4:51 PM

@Richard Eis:

My garden would be a wild place with butterflies, ponds, gravel and foreign plants. Chaotic but with a light touch of control. I can think of nothing more tortured or less interesting than a perfect lawn.

Good point. Incidentally, monocultures like lawns are more prone to disease and rot. (And thus, we wrap around to why I fled Utah as soon as I could.)

(I like your vision of a garden.)

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 4:51 PM

@ Rev. BigDumbChimp

They can make mistakes and still be chosen by God. Why? Because human beings are fallible.

Thank you for that admission.

How do you decide which divine revelation is actually divine revelation and which is someone being wrong?

Is that a crack I see?

You have pointed out THE most fatal flaw of Mormonism/Mormon reasoning:

1) Past prophets are fallible. Not everything they said is of God.
2) They were wrong on blacks/polygamy (sorta).
3) But they're right NOW on gays (and women). We promise. Believe us.
4) We know it's true because we had a psychosomatic reaction when praying/our entire lives will be a lie if it's wrong. (a testimony)

Of course conveniently ignoring the FACT that the now false doctrines of yesterday were touted as true with exactly the same vocabulary as the doctrines against gay and female equality are touted today (and all current doctrines).

This is the fact that Mormons ignore, push away, and try their hardest never to think about their entire lives because it would unravel everything they believe.

James, your testimony is built upon very sandy ground. The foundation is not really there. Your faith in your apostles and prophets and bishops is totally unfounded. No matter what you've felt, what spiritual experiences you've had, it has been proven that those things do not indicate what is real and what is not, what is true and what is not, what is good and what is not. The same basis of faith you give for why homosexuality is wrong is the same basis that was given about the Adam-God doctrine, about polygamy, about blacks and the priesthood, about every discarded and conveniently ignored doctrine of Mormonism. The same testimony that lets you "know" that the church leaders are right on homosexuality is the same one that told your parents and grandparents that they were right on race. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

I'm sorry you've wasted a significant part of your life believing and defending such idiocy and bigotry. It's turned your brain to mush so that you cannot reason, cannot think, cannot argue, cannot view reality.

But if it makes you feel better, most of the world is in the same situation. Blinded and enslaved to religion.

Enjoy.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 4:55 PM

I can think of nothing more tortured or less interesting than a perfect lawn.

An imperfect lawn, however, can be a fascinating little ecosystem in 2 1/2 dimensions. I enjoy watching the chickweed, clover, and crabgrass battle it out with the turfgrass, each gaining a small advantage in different weather conditions. I am a student of the cunning ways of dandelions, and the occasional total surprise of fruiting fungus or doughty colonizer or nice-try oak seedling brings a half-smile of delight just before I pulverize it with the mower (a plug-in electric mulching model). When you dig it up to plant a shrubbery, you can find the worms and slugs and grubs and centipedes underneath.

All that when there isn't a foot and a half of snow on top, of course.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 4:56 PM

You have pointed out THE most fatal flaw of Mormonism/Mormon reasoning:

1) Past prophets are fallible. Not everything they said is of God.
2) They were wrong on blacks/polygamy (sorta).
3) But they're right NOW on gays (and women). We promise. Believe us.
4) We know it's true because we had a psychosomatic reaction when praying/our entire lives will be a lie if it's wrong. (a testimony)

Of course conveniently ignoring the FACT that the now false doctrines of yesterday were touted as true with exactly the same vocabulary as the doctrines against gay and female equality are touted today (and all current doctrines).

This is the fact that Mormons ignore, push away, and try their hardest never to think about their entire lives because it would unravel everything they believe.

The very point I was going for and the very reaction I knew that James would have.

Posted by: waitsian | December 22, 2009 4:59 PM

It's absolutely believed. Growing up as a mormon this pathetic notion was constantly taught. I have no doubt, however, that this candidate is going to be contacted by the LDS leaders telling him to shut the fuck up... or as mormons would say: "Shut the fetch up"

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 5:02 PM

James @350,

What specific facts presented in the Book of Mormon have been corroborated by articles published in peer-reviewed journals. You're making a very specific claim, but have offered no evidence to back it up.

Show us 1) the relevant passages of the Book of Mormon and 2) the peer-reviewed publications of archaeologists that support the aforementioned passages of the Book of Mormon.

That is all.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 5:03 PM

Pixel:

You wrote:
"Biologically, sexual attraction in members of a species serves as a mechanism to propagate the species."

This is an accurate enough evolutionary description of the purpose of sexual attraction in the human male.

Obviously, in human males, where sexual attraction is for the same sex, we can identify an obvious contradiction (inconsistency) between the identity of a human male (formed to pass on genetic code to a human female) and the sexual attraction that the human male feels.

Homosexual men have feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 5:04 PM

blf, it can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gojoseon#Founding_legend
Also different folks have different variations of the story depending on region and religions of course.

But you see calling myself a bear would be false. I have to gain muscle first then get alittle fur and beard going on...

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 5:07 PM

James @265

Lynna: In the LDS Church, Mormon authorities can be wrong. They can make mistakes and still be chosen by God. Why? Because human beings are fallible.
You haven't address how Joseph Smith was the first white leader of an all white Church to ordain a black man to the priesthood in 1836.

Here's some more information on this lone black man. Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder on March 3, 1836, and he moved up to become a member of the Seventy on April 4, 1841. Abel served a mission in Canada.

Per Jame's explanation above, we must assume that the Mormon authorities were wrong in this case. They were fallible. They made a mistake. Because the veritable mountain of evidence of racism, of church doctrine and church authorities banding together to keep blacks out of the priesthood is irrefutable. Based on their interpretations of the bible, and on their statements, Elijah Abel has to be put in the "fallible men make mistakes" column.

There are thousands of instances of General Authorities and Presidents of the church reiterating why blacks can't be equal to whites in the mormon world. There are millions of mormons who, up to 1978, conformed to this doctrine and helped to maintain it. And you hold up Abel as the exception -- and nowhere do we find a canonical writing proclaiming Abel to be the black equal of any white priest. Hmm.

To add to the infamy already heaped up in the racism category, here is a story related to Native Americans, and their dark skin:

At the request of the Prophet and under the supervision of the Bishop, many families including ours were asked to take an Indian (Lamanite) student into our home, treat them as our own, take care of physical and monetary needs, but most of all teach them the Gospel. We were told that because the Indians had anciently rebelled against the truth and had not accepted the Gospel during Book of Mormon times, God had placed a two-fold curse upon them. First, they had been cut off from the presence of the Lord and had thus died spiritually, and second, they had become a dark, loathsome and filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (I Nephi 12:23) We were told that it was up to us to help remove the curse from our Indian daughter, Alberta, and that by our willingness to take her into our home, and teach her the Gospel of Jesus Christ she would become white and delightsome (BOM 2 Nephi 30:6).
     Since it's beginning the Mormon Church has taught that a dark skin is a sign of God's displeasure. Alberta was a beautiful dark-skinned Navajo Indian child. She was shy, small-in-stature, and 12 years old when she came to live with us. She had beautiful long black silky hair. Alberta very seldom made eye-to-eye contact, (a Navajo tradition)...
     Here is a [deranged] quote from President Spencer W. Kimball on the program: "I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today...they are fast becoming white and delightsome people...For years they have been growing delightsome, as they were promised...The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogan's on the reservation. Truly the scales of darkness are falling from their eyes, and they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. ...These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated." (Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, pp. 22-23)

Posted by: Anri | December 22, 2009 5:10 PM

James sez (and keep saying):

No valid or compelling arguments have been made to refute or address how same sex attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender.

And maybe that's so (I don't think so, but I'll concede the point to make a different one.).

Yet, waaaay back up at #124, I posted:

Also, you are misunderstanding the naturalistic fallacy. Even if humans 'by nature' are set up to pair-bond for life (and I'd be very curious to see your peer-reviewed papers that suggest that to be the case, across the board.), it doesn't matter. We call ourselves civilized, and that means that we have the option to live as we wish, rather than as we evolved to do so.

Which is an argument that slavishly obeying 'nature's law' runs contrary to the entire point of civilization.

James either didn't see this bit (which seems odd, as he later quoted some of the post...), or utterly ignored it.

I apologize, James, if I'm asking questions that are too difficult for you.

...

Well, not really.

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 5:13 PM

Homosexual men have feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.

You still need to explain why something that happens to be a majority in the animal kingdom should determine man-made laws about property rights and legal status.

Also, you need to realise that gender has no purpose. It simply "is". There are still plants (and probably animals) that are asexual. So what.

You also need to tell me who a person with both gentals would be allowed to marry. since this is actually quite a common occurence in our species.

Posted by: SteveM | December 22, 2009 5:13 PM

Obviously, in human males, where sexual attraction is for the same sex, we can identify an obvious contradiction (inconsistency) between the identity of a human male (formed to pass on genetic code to a human female) and the sexual attraction that the human male feels.

And how exactly is this relevant to the issue of marriage and denying it to homosexual couples? Like trying to argue that the only people that should have a driver's license are those who need it to get to their place of employment.

Posted by: Sili, The Unknown Virgin | December 22, 2009 5:14 PM

Naturally there is a Zion in Utah. Just saying.

That explains a lot.

Am I bad for being annoyed there wasn't more Mormontological progroms?

Posted by: Richard Eis | December 22, 2009 5:17 PM

-You also need to tell me who a person with both "gentals" would be allowed to marry. since this is actually quite a common "occurence" in our species.-

Genitals and occurrence.

I'm going to sleep now, i clearly need it...but its been fun.

Posted by: sparky-ca | December 22, 2009 5:21 PM

@jcfitzner

Just repeat the lie often enough until it becomes the truth.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 5:26 PM

Human gender has a purpose and an identity.

1. what exactly is this purpose?
2. what exactly is this "identity"?
3. what is your evidence for each and all of the above? how do you know this?

human gender isn't nearly as clear-cut as religious nitwits want to make it, nor is human attraction.

for instance, among my social acquaintances there is a bit of an odd couple. they were married heterosexually, and remained that way --- a perfectly ordinary married couple --- for some years.

then one of them transitioned gender. they remained married; the non-transitioning partner (who to this day considers themself purely heterosexual) came to realize that they were married for more than merely sex, that their partner was still the same person they had wanted to spend a lifetime with, and that there were more reasons left to remain in the partnership than this one seemingly obvious reason which had disappeared from the picture. they are, now, in a same-sex marriage which is technically illegal in their locality --- yet they've done nothing which, in my eyes, deserves criticism.

James --- what (if any) is the mormon church's official position on partnerships such as theirs? what is the mormon church's official opinion on what the non-transitioning partner in such a marriage ought to do about it, if anything at all? and most importantly of all, why?

i don't think it's too much to ask for an official church position on marriages of this kind. there are far more of them than the one i'm familiar with, and as gender transitioning is still increasing in frequency, the situation will tend to become more common for a while yet. this should remain so at least until the generations already old enough to have married die off, under the assumption that transfolk will eventually tend to transition before full adulthood. we're not nearly there yet, though.

(ten bucks says jamy boy will flatly ignore this post entirely. or if not, the bigoted liar will choose to ignore all but the insults i've leveled against him --- even if that means having to ignore this paragraph's insults.)

Posted by: blf | December 22, 2009 5:28 PM

Gyeong Hwa Pak, thanks & cheers!

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 5:33 PM

We've already debunked all your arguments here. Do you no read our post.

Mormons do not read, see, or hear ANY compelling arguments why they should vote for gay marriage.

Clearly. You don't even bother reading the evidence that we've presented for you.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | December 22, 2009 5:37 PM

James: "Apart from the recent popular belief that gay couples should be married like heterosexual couples, does this idea or desire have its necessity in science, biology or sociology?"

We are starting to accumulate conclusive evidence that James is just quite stupid.

There is no evidence in science, biology or sociology that marriage, of any type, is a necessity. None at all. Societies have survived for 40,000 years without marriage -- some have reared children via brother-sister pairs, some have used sister or brother clusters, some have even raised a portion of their children in "gay unions"!

By your logic, we should rescind marriage altogether as unnecessary. As well as contracts, churches, governments, corporations, property rights, cities...

All that is necessary is the band and a band house.

Posted by: Knockgoats | December 22, 2009 5:39 PM

James, if you can spare time from your naturalistic fallacies, how about some genuine references to the research you claim supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Hmm?

Posted by: Flex | December 22, 2009 5:41 PM

James, surprisingly still here, @363 opined,

Homosexual men have feel (sic) a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.

I've put in bold the part you don't appear to understand.

There is ample evidence that homosexual men don't feel a condition that is contrary to the natural identity and purpose of their gender.

Regardless of how you want to define 'natural', 'identity', 'purpose', and 'gender'.

However, as the only evidence you appear to accept is propaganda distributed by your church, I doubt you will ever understand this.

Further, this sham concern for the feelings of homosexual men doesn't fool us. Even if they do feel 'contrary' to their 'natural identity and purpose' why not let them?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 22, 2009 5:43 PM

And sociology is not on your side.

James,

This sociologist has asked you to read the research about same-sex couples raising children. This sociologist knows you are completely full of shit.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 5:50 PM

As for James, well, we tried. He's a ridiculously porphrytic granitoid. His brain is lithified, with bits of hard mormonism scattered throughout.

As for James' claims about proof from mesoamerica, and other rabbit-hole-like dives into the void of mormon apologetics. I refer anyone interested to "Mormon Apologetics: A Guide for the Perplexed" by Bob McCue (2006).

One of the many oddities of the mesoamerican theory, sometimes called Limited Geographical Theory, is that it places wars described in the Book of Mormon in an area that is so small that it has yet to be found:

Aside from contradicting nearly two centuries of Mormon prophetic statements, these theories would have us accept that the Book of Mormon events were played out in area of Central America that is small enough that it has not yet been discovered, and yet large and populous enough for battles that killed millions of people to have been fought there, and unusual in that it was the most scientifically and culturally advanced place in the Americas for most of about 1,000 years. And then, God moved the gold plates that told the history of this people to New York where Joseph Smith could find them without telling Joseph about on this, leaving him to believe that the epic described in the Book of Mormon was played out across the length and breadth of America and that all Amerindians as well as Polynesians were the literal descendents of the people the Book of Mormon says immigrated to the Americas from Jerusalem.

Here's one of many Sources (Scroll down to bob mccue, February 19, 2006)

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 5:53 PM

"I wish I would have been born into a Mormon family or one with another one of those more obviously wrong religions." (Emo Phillips)

Poor James. He is sadly outnumbered, and he is engaged in losing arguments on not one, but two fronts ("is there a secular argument against gay marriage?" and "is there good evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.) Plus, he is on Pharyngula.

It is the holiday season, and we ought to be charitable. Thus, poor James should be treated gently. Please take the dismembered parts and place them carefully in their proper boxes, being sure that no blood drips unnecessarily. There is no need to make a mess. James will have to put himself back together again, later, because even Mormons need to eat and function in their daily lives.

Can you see where REALITY is pointing us?

Yes; it's pointing towards our side, because your arguments don't work. They're weak religious apologetics dressed up to look like secular ones -- and we see right through them.

I'd say you have spunk to try them out here, but it will probably be misinterpreted.

Maybe not.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 5:55 PM

The basic purpose of the male gender in the human species is specific and identifiable.

good! then you can specifically identify it for us. with evidence, of course.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 5:56 PM

Science!

The science demonstrates that there is a genetic component to homosexuality. Do you understand this, James?

That means you are discriminating invidiously against people, deciding that they cannot marry those they love, and hurting them because of their very identity which is beyond their control.

This is unjust, and evil.

The rest of the world is acknowledging this. Mormons will be remembered as those who despised gay people the most vehemently, with the most consistent hatred.

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 5:57 PM

James is a hateful little monster, isn't he.

He is serving a purpose. Most people have only a vague understanding of Mormonism or meat robots produced by cult brainwashing.

Anyone who reads this threat now knows more than they ever wanted to.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | December 22, 2009 5:58 PM

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 5:56 PM

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!

Posted by: sparky-ca | December 22, 2009 5:59 PM

Does anyone else think James might be on a Mission trip and is dangerously low on his recruitment numbers so is trolling the interwebs looking for suckers?

Posted by: KOPD | December 22, 2009 6:00 PM

The basic purpose of the male gender in the human species is specific and identifiable.

Then specifically identify it and explain how you were able to identify it.

Posted by: Gyeong Hwa Pak, Das unzufriedene Pikachu | December 22, 2009 6:01 PM

Insipid troll is insipid.

There is no male gender role. Nature shows that none biological parents can equally assist with reproduction of a species. Who do you think takes cares of ant larvae? It ain’t the queen its the infertile worker ants.

And again. Naturalistic fallacy. Heterosexual union isn't needed either. Yet you can't seem to see where your logic fails. Would your rather we abandon marriage all together and have one massive orgy. An orgy would be very better since it provides a large gene pool for humans anyway.

There is no need to treat homosexuality. Homosexual folks are productive members of society. The only thing abnormal about them is your cultural bias. There are culture who would disagree this "male purpose" of yours.

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 6:04 PM

Mormons do not read, see, or hear ANY compelling arguments why they should vote for gay marriage.

That's because when they see the compelling argument, they do what I did and leave the soul-sucking, hateful institution they've been propping up, and become Mormon-no-more. :)

One reason I left was because if I had kids while still inside the church, they'd go on the rolls automatically. And I didn't want my kids being exposed to the poor role models the church provides in terms of human equality. I wanted my kids to respect other cultures and genders. I wanted my kids to be able to think critically.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 6:05 PM

did you know that that many diseases or abnormalities are caused by genetic components?

did you know that many cases of criminal insanity are caused by religious extremism?

(seriously, let's list a few things that are caused by genetic components. and let's start with biologic sex. whoops, guess we gotta get rid of those sex chromosomes!)

Posted by: Sastra | December 22, 2009 6:10 PM

James #394 wrote:

The basic purpose of the male gender in the human species is specific and identifiable.

No, it's not: you're confusing "male gender" with "sperm." You're also using the sloppy phrase "basic purpose" to mean all sorts of different things, sliding from one connotation to the next. That is why you are being asked for specific and identifiable definitions.

Sperm fertilizes egg in human procreation. Yes. And? You simply can't extrapolate from that to get to "natural purposes" for men, or the "real" meaning of marriage.

People have purposes, or goals. Ironically, your argument that gay couples have to "prove" their right to marry to the government gives the State power over the rights of the individual -- a position which, as a Mormon, you are probably opposed to, politically. Rethink this.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 6:11 PM

James, the homophobic twit:

* Men cannot be wives or mothers. * Women cannot be husbands or fathers.

Children need a mom and dad and nature agrees.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Men are capable of great nurturing, women are capable of great strength (oh, here's news - they have brains too!) and children need loving, intelligent parents.

You're hung up on roles of a traditional nature, nothing more. Extended families with capable adults filling all manner of obligations are great environments for kids. What they don't need are rigid, bigoted twits like yourself, who have heads stuffed with utter nonsense and talk out their asses.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | December 22, 2009 6:17 PM

Jadehawk:

your [=James's] reading comprehension sucks. that's not the purpose of sexual attraction, it's its source and one of its primary use.

I see no reason to presuppose the problem is with his reading comprehension rather than with his honesty.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 6:23 PM

Homophobic Twit:

And did you know that that many diseases or abnormalities are caused by genetic components?

Ya don't say. I have freckles and red hair. Many times throughout history, people such as yourself have considered those things abnormal a/o evil. Obviously, those people were wrong. You're wrong right now, but don't have the brains to realize it. Pity.

Posted by: Flex | December 22, 2009 6:33 PM

James @400,

Children need a mom and dad and nature agrees.

Oh, and cut the 'it's for the children' crap.

You keep saying that homosexuality is wrong because they can't have children.

Then you can't say that homosexuality is wrong because their children aren't raised properly.

By your own argument, they don't have any.

Contradiction.

Choose one.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 6:35 PM

Flex:

You wrote:
"Children need a mom and dad and nature agrees.
So now divorce is illegal and widows and widowers with children must instantly remarry?"

No, just not gay marriage, where government forces children to be raised without a mother or a dad on purpose. I vote no.

Sastra:

You wrote:
"Poor James. He is sadly outnumbered, and he is engaged in losing arguments on not one, but two fronts ("is there a secular argument against gay marriage?" and "is there good evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.) Plus, he is on Pharyngula. "

I don't mind being outnumbered.

I don't think anyone has been able to argue that homosexual attraction is consistent with male human gender or that its necessary to the species.
That is the task. Homosexual attraction by nature an attraction to one's own sex. Get it? It's an abnormality according to the two human genders. All of the bloggers here have yet to interact with this reality.

Presently, there are no compelling arguments for gay marriage that I can't refute.

As for the Book of Mormon, there is compelling evidence that DIRECTLY supports the narrative of the Book of Mormon and indicates that Nephi was a real person in 600 BC. Unless of course, you're claiming that Joseph Smith was also a time traveler.

But, as I am outnumbered, and you are all very entrenched in your biases and false views of Mormonism, mostly based on flawed anti-Mormon arguments, what's the point?

I find that most freethinkers claim that they believe only in science and reason but when confronted with Book of Mormon evidence, quickly retreat from this hard core position and form extreme positions so that their cognizant dissonance doesn't drive them batty.

And, it is the holidays and I have plenty more to do today, as I sit in my home office.

Anyway, it's time to get ready for the bowl game.

It's been fun!

Now, just imagine a million citizens asking you,

"Why should we make gay marriage legal when homosexual attraction is inconsistent with the natural purpose and identity of gender?"

What evidence or proof will you propose in the national debate, next time around?

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 6:37 PM

His last 10 posts are all exactly the same. This is getting very boring.

Posted by: davem | December 22, 2009 6:38 PM

Well, it's bedtime this side of the pond, so this is my last effort. It's been revealing.

As a long time family genealogist, I find the LDS family history archives to be of tremendous value, and think it's great that they are openly accessible to non-believers like me. ...while thinking that the church members must be nuts believing that baptism of the dead stuff.

Thanks to pixelfish, I now find that some poor sod gets nearly drowned to achieve that - I was thinking that all they did was add the stuff to a computer file.. Thanks pixelfish, for all the fish...sort of.

And thanks to James the bigot, who has revealed all I now need to know of the LDS's other activities.

Anyone who hears that tale of Joseph Smith and the 'lost book' of Mormon, and doesn't immediately spot a scam has to be blind to evidence, and tremendously gullible to boot. You won't get through to him; he is blind to stuff that is self-evident to anyone outside his sect.

Posted by: CunningLingus | December 22, 2009 6:41 PM

Occasionally I tend to feel i've lost out on some of the experiences Pixel, Kenbo and others have experienced on their own road to rationality. I've always been an atheist, in so much as having had the good fortune of being brought up without the need for religion from my parents.

Sometimes I feel a little awestruck by how level headed and moral most ex-believers seem to be, and reading this thread today has further reinforced my awe. I can only imagine the guilt, the heartache, and the pain of leaving any institution one is brought up in from birth.

Then along comes James, and i thank my lucky fucking stars i've never been that closed minded, that retarded, and that obnoxious, and especially not a stumpy fucktard mormon !

Posted by: Craig | December 22, 2009 6:44 PM

@Janine

LOL. Good question. It's a myth. God said so. Women don't have sexualities. Nor indeed real free-will. They're pleasure machines for men.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 6:46 PM

Janine, She Wolf OM:

Please, explain to us what female sexuality is. Or does it not matter?

Apparently not. James seems to be entirely phallus-focused. Women are nothing but mobile uteri in James' little tiny world, they certainly don't enjoy sex, especially not any perverted (read: non-procreative) kind! Snort.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 6:48 PM

If scientists find a universal reparative therapy for same-sex attraction, should homosexuals 1) receive it

He's talking about forcing gay people to undergo abusive brainwashing, and he's accusing gay people of being fascists.

No, just not gay marriage, where government forces children to be raised without a mother or a dad on purpose. I vote no.

There are kids being raised by gay couples who'd be living in orphanages with zero parents otherwise, James. Why do you hate the children of gay couples?

Posted by: pixelfish | December 22, 2009 6:50 PM

@CunningLingus: It works both ways. Sometimes I feel like I've lost out on some of the experiences of growing up in a culture that supports rationality. (My parents were kinda sciencey for Mormons, but they had tremendous cog dis about it. One of my favourite buildings on WhyBeYou campus is the Widstoe science building and I have a lot of fond memories there, but I also can recall my dad dissing Sagan when he died. It's weird how they could be so into science, and so irrational about their own beliefs.)

Still, that which doesn't kill ya, makes you stranger. :)

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 6:56 PM

Presently, there are no compelling arguments for gay marriage that I can't refute.

okay, add "refute".

i'm making a list of words james uses without understanding what they mean.

(no, it doesn't look anything like a dictionary at all. dictionaries have definitions in them.)

Posted by: SteveM | December 22, 2009 6:58 PM

I don't think anyone has been able to argue that homosexual attraction is consistent with male human gender or that its necessary to the species. That is the task.

No, the task is for you to demonstrate how that is in any way relevant to the issue of marriage. It makes absolutely zero difference whether homosexuality is "necessary" to the species or not. If the state is to sanction a legal contract, it has to do so irrespective of the sexes of the people entering into that contract. Demonstrate the compelling reason why homosexual couples should be excluded from marriage.

Presently, there are no compelling arguments for gay marriage that I can't refute.

So far, you haven't refuted anybody's arguments. You have only repeatedly made these baseless assertions as if they were universal truths. You have made no compelling arguments at all. Repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it so.

Posted by: Anri | December 22, 2009 7:02 PM

...he still never answered my question, why 'nature' is always inherently better.

In fact, he never even got near it.

I honestly have to wonder if it's that he didn't understand the point I was making, or just had no refutation at all for it.

The World May Never Know....

(Ask Mr. Owl!)

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | December 22, 2009 7:12 PM

There's a church whose founder, Joseph Smith, needed 44 wives (several already married to other men), two of them 14 when Joe decided he needed a new bed warmer. After Joe was killed, his bestest buddy, Brigham Young, needed to marry 55 women to prove his masculinity. And the church run by these two men claims it's in favor of "traditional" marriage.

Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom | December 22, 2009 7:20 PM

I get it.

James thinks he's shot the arguments down because Gays aren't people, therefore the many arguments he's not addressed haven't actually been made.

Posted by: SteveM | December 22, 2009 7:25 PM

No, just not gay marriage, where government forces children to be raised without a mother or a dad on purpose. I vote no.

Therefore you must also be against single parent adoption, and for removing children from single parent households.

Posted by: natural cynic | December 22, 2009 7:30 PM

James: Anyway, it's time to get ready for the bowl game

Go Beavers, Stomp Bring Your Underwear

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 7:32 PM

The science demonstrates that there is a genetic component to homosexuality.

? I don't think this has been demonstrated.

Posted by: Stu D. | December 22, 2009 7:38 PM

James:


You're a fun one. Let's take a look at some of the things you said and have some more fun:

If you'd like to name a more consistent faith, be my guest.

Yeah, the Mormons are so very consistent, especially about that tricky First Vision thing. It was two personages who forgave Joseph Smith of his sins . . . no wait, it was two personages and a host of angels who forgave Joseph of his sins and told him that Jesus is the son of god . . . no wait, it was two personages who forgave Joseph of his sins and told him that the churches are corrupt . . . no wait, it was two personages, one of whom said, "This is my beloved son, hear him" and told Joseph that the churches are corrupt . . . yeah, that's it.


But you want consistency, okay:

The Mormon Church is about "saving souls" who want to be saved. Salvation through coercion is not salvation, and therfore, a powerful militant LDS theocracy wouldn't do the LDS Church any eternal good and would be contrary to its fundamental axioms and principles.

Then why did your founder talk about saving the Constitution? Also, why was it canonical for a long while (up until the practice was exposed to the public) for Mormons to swear in their temple oaths that they would avenge the death of Joseph Smith by bringing down the government/country that killed him? And why was it canonical to teach that African-Americans were unworthy in the pre-existence and therefore cursed all their days with dark skin and eternal servitude and strife in this life (in fact, there is still canonical scripture stating that dark skin is a curse for "iniquity" (Alma 3:6)) up until this practice was darkly (get it?) frowned upon by the general public in 1978?


The only thing the Mormons are consistent on is their flip-flopping on issues that are absolutely god's will up until they become unfavorable in the eyes of the public.


And hey, speaking of, you might want to read this MormonTimes article in which the author says:

How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.

(The author, by the way, is Orson Scott Card. Isn't he a sweetie? It's okay, though, he was only following in the footsteps of the Oath of Vengeance dudes.)

Mormonism as a religious philosophy, does not teach or believe in INFALLIBLE prophets like Christians believe in an INFALLIBLE Bible.

Don't Mormons believe in an infallible bible?


"Well, it's either true or false. If it's false, we're engaged in a great fraud. If it's true, it's the most important thing in the world. Now, that's the whole picture. It is either right or wrong, true or false, fraudulent or true. And that's exactly where we stand, with a conviction in our hearts that it is true: that Joseph went into the [Sacred] Grove; that he saw the Father and the Son; that he talked with them; that Moroni came; that the Book of Mormon was translated from the plates; that the priesthood was restored by those who held it anciently. That's our claim. That's where we stand, and that's where we fall, if we fall. But we don't. We just stand secure in that faith." -- Gordon B. Hinckley, as quoted here.


So the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's account of the First Vision (which account? The one the church canonized, or the one he first recorded?), are totally infallible, or so the Mormons believe. And the Mormons believe in the Bible too, buddypal, "as long as it is translated correctly" (that's one of your Articles of Faith! Aren't you supposed to memorize those in primary?). Both are fallible, but at least the Bible has some actual history thrown into the mix. The Book of Mormon is just complete fantasy, and bad fantasy at that (I believe Mark Twain called it "chloroform in print" -- very apt).


So you Mormons continue to scream that you're Christians, NO YOU GUYS SERIOUSLY WE'RE CHRISTIANS, and yet when it's convenient, you disparage the Bible that your own founders believed in. Choice!

The human species does not need homosexual couples. This reality is beyond sentimental feelings. It is a cold hard fact of reality.

Then why does your god continue to create them? Why do they continue to crop up?


Did you know that as recently as this past summer, scientists stated that homosexual behavior is widespread in animals (not just human animals, mind you) -- and not only that, but that it might be an evolutionary response to perpetuating the species? While all the heterosexual couples are procreating, homosexual couples are seeking to adopt the unwanted and orphaned children left behind by said heterosexual couples. The Laysan albatross population was floundering thanks to a shortage of males -- until females started creating pair-bonds and raising chicks. Black swans are known to engage in homosexual pair-bond/chick-raising as well. In fact, they engage in a form of surrogate parenting! Two male black swans will pair off, a female will mate with one or both of them, and after she lays the eggs, she leaves the nest to the two males, who then raise the chicks themselves.


So tell me again about your reality.

While they traveled they chronicled their journey. They described geographical features, cultural features, and specific flora and fauna specific to that area and that particular century.

You are so full of shit, your eyes must be brown enough to shame dark chocolate. Educate yourself before you make a bigger ass of yourself than you already have -- if that's even possible.

Posted by: Miki Z | December 22, 2009 7:47 PM

What a discussion to wake up to. James, even as a Mormon you are not making a good argument.

Here's the Mormon argument:
1) Each person on earth has an immortal soul which was theirs before they were born.
2) The purpose of birth is
a) To give the soul a body of flesh and bone, which cannot otherwise be obtained.
b) To enable the person to prove themselves worthy of the responsibilities and powers that God has promised them.
3) Souls have a gender, male or female, even before birth.
4) The gender of the body will match the gender of the soul, because God does not make mistakes.

Can you cite doctrine which says that the purpose of being male is to be a husband and father? And, please, "canonical" doctrine only.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the position that the Church expects you to hold, but you're espousing all kinds of doctrinal fallacies to defend it, which is misrepresenting the Church.

Flex@422: As a child, my mother died and yes, there was intense and persistent pressure for my father to remarry as soon as possible. If not, he would be removed from his leadership positions in the church, because those are reserved to married men.

Posted by: DLC | December 22, 2009 8:00 PM

My first look into the Mormon Church was in Arthur Conan Doyle's A Study In Scarlet.
There's a section in there where some of the early doings of the LDS are detailed. If you don't want to believe they can be as bad as the fiction depicted you can look it up. They were as bad as depicted by Doyle. It could even be one of the exit routes from Religiosity. And to think Conan Doyle was duped by the Cottingly Faeries hoax.

Posted by: Stu D. | December 22, 2009 8:15 PM

@SteveM

Repeating the same assertion over and over does not make it so.

Unfortunately, Mormons are taught that you can gain a belief in something by repeating it often. You can't blame James for that, his social development is stunted by his religion.

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Many are missing the salient point.

1. Mormons can believe whatever fruitbat crazy nonsense they want. Free country. They aren't alone, the scientologists believe in Xenu the Galactic overlord, the Moonies JC the second as a Korean excon etc..

The salient point. Not belief but forcing others to follow their beliefs.

2. That doesn't give them the right to force us to believe their fruitbat crazy nonsense. To impose their beliefs on us.

But they do it anyway if they can get away with it. Thanks to most of the courts and laws, in this case, they can impose the tyranny of the majority on a small minority.

I doubt many people who learn the truth about this nasty mind control cult of fascists is going to want to join it. And turn into James, the meat robot.

According to the stats I posted above, Utah is #1 in prozac consumption. Something wrong about a religion that requires constant psychiatric support.

Posted by: Miki Z | December 22, 2009 8:27 PM

There's plural marriage after death, it was removed from Church doctrine as something to be practiced on earth, but not from the doctrine about the afterlife. The doctrine itself has internal consistency, but only if you accept the basic assumptions does it make any sense in a larger (e.g. reality-based) context.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkL6rop7ope6a9ysVWsdSU1FNTAQmmW9gw | December 22, 2009 8:54 PM

James is a lost cause, all he can do is regurgitate dogma. All religious dogmatics are equally blind.

Reality has no impact on such people.

Say, Gyeong Hwa Pak - is Yongarry part of the Korean creation story? I'd like an intelligent discussion to start here.

Posted by: Stu D. | December 22, 2009 9:11 PM

@frog: Isn't that the defining characteristic of religion? That if it rhymes, it must be true?

Bingo.

That, and megalomaniacs who decide one day that they're some sort of divine prophet/savior of the world and use manipulation to garner a following of dupes.

Posted by: chosha | December 22, 2009 9:33 PM

James wrote:
"Because your local leaders didn't follow the handbook of instructions that clearly states that non canonical beliefs and views should not be taught in Church meetings."

And when the church presidency had the bishops of CA teach their wards to support a political campaign with their time and money, was that canon they were sharing? Or were they in fact teaching in opposition to their canon (D&C134:9) which reads: 'We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied'?

What really floors me James is that you are arguing the official view and completely ignoring reality, despite the fact that you are not talking to non-members with no direct knowledge of these things, but to members and ex-members who have lived and are living this reality. Stop expecting people to swallow that warm and fuzzy official take on things - by their fruits we already know them.

Actually I'd like to comment on one offical view that was quoted above - one that sounds like 'support your leaders' but is actually campaign for compliance over truth and respect for individuals - Dallin H Oaks saying that no member has the right to criticise a church leader, even if the criticism is true.

Now put yourself in the place of a child being sexually abused by their bishop. Put yourself in the place of that child's parents when they find out. What does it sound like Elder Oaks is advising them to do?

When my friend told her stake president that her husband had started beating her as early as their honeymoon and was still doing so, his reply was that her duty was to obey her husband. She stayed in that abusive marriage two more years, based on his advice as a leader 'called of god', before she finally escaped for the sake of her kids. Another friend left her husband after many years of similar abuse - her bishop advised her to reconcile with her husband, not after his repentance and changed behaviour (which never came), but before he had even admitted he was beating her. When you add to this the fact that the catalyst for her finally finding the strength to leave was that he raped her daughter (a teenager he had raised since she was a young child and to whom he was the only father she'd even known) you begin to see how heinous that advice was.

How do you think those women felt when they listened to Elder Oaks' teachings? I think these people feel like their painful realities are being ignored for the sake of appearances. I think they feel alienated and insignificant in the face of the church's goal to keep the church members obedient to their leaders.

As for the original point of the post - I'm guessing that Rex Rammell is going to try to argue that the Constitution is hanging by a thread because it is threatened by same-sex marriage. This would be the climate in which to do so. I personally feel that the Constitution is far more threatened by the LDS church's attempts (with the help of its members) to take away the religious freedom of others by legislating their religious beliefs into civil law.

Posted by: chosha | December 22, 2009 9:52 PM

Miki Z wrote:
"There's plural marriage after death, it was removed from Church doctrine as something to be practiced on earth, but not from the doctrine about the afterlife."

Actually, I have a friend who divorced his wife, but never got a temple divorce because he didn't want to break the seal to his kids. He then married again in the temple. Though legally married to only one women, he is (in the eyes of the church) currently married to two living women for 'time and all eternity'. Notice, not just for the afterlife, but 'time' (mortality) as well.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 9:56 PM

Chosha:

You wrote:
"Dallin H Oaks saying that no member has the right to criticise a church leader, even if the criticism is true.

Now put yourself in the place of a child being sexually abused by their bishop. Put yourself in the place of that child's parents when they find out. What does it sound like Elder Oaks is advising them to do? "

This is fallcious. Elder Oaks' direction was concerning the duties and responsibilities WITHIN A CALLING in the Church, not concerning crimes that a person had committed.

And for the record, your lost the gay marriage vote in California because the gay lobby did not convince enough people that gay marriage should be legal. Your lobby failed in California, Arizona, Florida, and recently in Maine.

You've got the national media to help you. Your arguments aren't working.

How could they? It is self -evident that Homosexual attraction is contrary to the natural purpose and identity of human gender.

Claiming that the Mormons are to blame is to ignore the reality of your cause and your platforms. So be it... blame away. That won't work either but who cares.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:00 PM

Plummer:

As American citizens, we all had our say whether gay marriage is legal. Your lobby lost in California, Arizona, Florida and recently in Maine.

We the people say no to legalized gay marriage, but don't let that stop you from being attracted to your own sex.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | December 22, 2009 10:06 PM

The American citizenry is now clued into these fallacious rantings using hate speech and the next election will be a love-fest where heterosexuals hold homosexual feet to the fire about their "views" and their "claims."

A love-fest of fire? The "hate-speech" projection? Homosexual feet? Ranting?

It all pours out -- you can't help it can you, dear boy?

Now, return to watching young men grapple with each other, pile up on each other, and pat each others' buttocks. Go enjoy watching your Tigers penetrate the other teen-age boys, deeply into their backfield, over and over again.

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 10:08 PM

We the people say no to legalized gay marriage, but don't let that stop you from being attracted to your own sex.

And here is the translation from Smug Asshole to English.

You fucking faggots can remain second class citizen. Be grateful for the air the we blown to you.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:11 PM

Chosha:

You wrote:
"We just don't think you should be allowed to legislate those beliefs to the detriment of the rights and religious freedom of other citizens. As a Christian, you shouldn't even want to."

Oh don't worry, voting against gay marriage doesn't harm the human species. Homosexual marriage is not necessary for the human species.

Posted by: chosha | December 22, 2009 10:16 PM

James
"This is fallcious. Elder Oaks' direction was concerning the duties and responsibilities WITHIN A CALLING in the Church, not concerning crimes that a person had committed."

Did you read the rest of the post, where I wrote about those advised by their leaders WITHIN THEIR CALLING?

And Elder Oaks did not qualify his remarks the way you have.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 10:17 PM

Homosexual marriage is not necessary for the human species.

nor is mormonism. hey, let's outlaw that too!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 22, 2009 10:18 PM

Christ on a crutch! James is still here? I walked away from this six hours ago. Get a job, sir!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 10:19 PM

chosha referred to other citizens, not "the human species" you doofus. Or I guess you're probably just a troll.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 22, 2009 10:20 PM

James,

You don't seem to get the point of marriage being a right. No citizen has the authority to dictate the rights of a minority. The debate is about equal protection under the law (you know, from the 14th amendment to the US Constitution). How you or any other citizen feels is irrelevant. A majority of voters in Mississippi wanted to deny African-Americans the right to vote for decades. Those same bigots didn't get to vote on whether or not African-Americans could vote. The Supreme Court answered all of the same arguments you put forward in Loving v. Virginia.

Your opinion should be irrelevant. The tyranny of the majority should never be able to dictate the rights of the minority. You allies in the gay marriage debate, the Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, would outlaw your religion if they could. As far as they're concerned you're worse than a Muslim because your church purports to be a denomination of Christianity while turning the core ideas of the religion on their heads. Aren't you glad that the minority (Mormons in this case) have the full protection of the first amendment and fourteenth amendment?

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 10:20 PM

James the evil LDS kook:

As American citizens, we all had our say whether gay marriage is legal. Your lobby lost in California, Arizona, Florida and recently in Maine.

Win some, lose some.

We Americans managed to free your slaves, promote nonwhites to free and equal status under the law to whites, promote the majority of the population that are women to free and equal status to men under the law. All of which the LDS opposed at one time.

While doing all that we have kept the religious fanatics from taking power and destroying the USA. You and your cult have no power to tell me what to think, do, or believe.

Given Joseph Smith's mostly wrong track record, I doubt that Rammel and his co-religionists ever will. I don't think I'm going to be voting for any Mormons. Why would I vote for a member of a religious group who claims it is their sacred task to take over my country?

We win many, lose a few.

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:21 PM

Janine:

You wrote:
"You *** faggots can remain second class citizen. Be grateful for the air the we blown to you."

No Janine, it's not the citizenry that has made homosexual relationships inferior to heterosexual relationships as it relates to its value to the human species, NATURE has made homosexual couples naturally incapable of passing on their genetic code together. NATURE has determined that reality.

We're not going to pretend that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual relationships. They are not the same and they are not equivalent.

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | December 22, 2009 10:23 PM

Once again, I will reiterate that James initial mission was to inform us all that most Mormons were nowhere NEAR as microcephalitic as Rex Rammell. Mission accomplished! Your bike is on the porch! You may leave your literature on the mat and depart!

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:26 PM

Chosha:

You wrote:
"Neither is heterosexual marriage. "

No, you're wrong. Heterosexual marriage is necessary for the long term foundation of civilized societies.

Homosexual unions are not necessary but heterosexual unions are.

Raven:

You wrote:
"You and your cult have no power to tell me what to think, do, or believe."

Yeah, but we can lobby against gay marriage.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | December 22, 2009 10:27 PM

Homosexual unions are not necessary for the human species.

I know and you know that same sex attraction neither has a ulitarian purpose or a neccesary use within the human species.

The family in recorded history is an economic unit. The word "economy" comes from the Greek for "household" the basic unit of production in ancient Greece. As a social construction, it serves purposes of increased ability to survive through improved food production and manufacture of useful products (tools, clothing, etc). The genders of the members of a household and their sexual relationships have no effect on the family as an economic unit.

Social behaviors give primates (including humans, we are primates, James) survival advantages. Economic relationships certainly have served that purpose, although at times some economic relationships have included coercive practices (slavery comes to mind, and Walmart).

Marriage affords very tangible legal and economic benefits, regardless of the "genders" of its participants. According to one of my college anthropology professors, in Nigeria a single woman who has a business to run can hire a "wife" to perform the tasks a wife in a marriage typically does. Looking at marriage as only a matter of sex and reproduction remains very limited and arguments excluding all other functions of the institution evade examination of everything else that a couple does aside from procreation.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 10:28 PM

Yeah, but we can lobby against gay marriage.

If your church is pushing and organizing it, at the risk of your 5013c status.

Posted by: Kel, OM | December 22, 2009 10:30 PM

All this talk about Mormons makes me want to get drunk and watch Orgazmo. What a movie!

Posted by: Janine, She Wolf Of Pharyngula, OM | December 22, 2009 10:31 PM

Hey, asshole, if you are going to quote me, quote everything. And fuck you very much! With a splintery broomstick! Sideways!

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 10:34 PM

James beter figure out whether things that are natural and right are supposed to be good for the species or for--what was it?--yeah, the long term foundation of civilized societies. Because I could imagine some situations where those interests might conflict.

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 10:38 PM

James has shown he is a meat robot with fascist tendencies. No big deal, we see Moslem and Xian extremists all the time, might as well toss a Mormon extremist in the pot as well. Religious fanatics are all about the same.

Rumor has it that the LDS church has a hard time keeping members these days and they are voting with their feet. Not everyone wants to be right wing extremist, follow whatever hate scripts the Geriatracy dreams up, or live in an ugly theocratic dictatorship. My attempts with google to get some numbers were unsucessful. The LDS church hides those numbers and no one really believes them anyway.

I'm not aware of any mind control cult that has lasted too long in modern times in a democratic society. Without the power of the gun, noose, and stake, they really can't do that much damage.

At 6 million in a country of 310 million, they have a long way to go. If history is any indication, before long they should start to shake themselves to pieces. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic.

Posted by: DJSutton | December 22, 2009 10:39 PM

It occurs to me that football actually does cause harm, in the form of injuries and such, and maybe some riots, so you could even argue that it actually worse for society than homosexual marriage.

Anyway, this seems relevant here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: raven | December 22, 2009 10:44 PM

Odd fact. There is an army base right above Salt Lake City. It is there just in case the Mormons try to secede and set up their own country. Again. They went there originally to set up their own country called Deseret or Zion or some such.

It is Fort Douglas and the guns of the base point down into SLC.

I don't think too many people trust the Mormons very much. After reading about their "prophecies" about ruling the USA, why should we?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 22, 2009 10:44 PM

Gays and lesbians are not 2nd classes citizens because they can't marry like heterosexuals. By nature, their union is not equivalent to heterosexual unions.

Bak! Polly wanna cracker?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:45 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes:

Sarcasm aside, your last post made me laugh out loud. Point taken.

Look, I am presenting a "secular" argument against gay marriage. With many homosexuals, if a person is anti-gay marriage then you believe they MUST be homophobic, gay hater etc.

This isn't the case with me. While I am very emphatic about the argument I am making, I an not unreasonable about the civil rights that all citizens have.

Gay marriage is a new social construct and a new social experiment that is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage. Sorry, but I am not going to bend from that position.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 22, 2009 10:49 PM

I am presenting a "secular" argument against gay marriage.

I guess I missed that part where you, like, presented an argument. You just keep typing the same assertions over and over.

It's not working.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 10:50 PM

Homophobic Twit:

Many homosexuals get confused over what is "biological" and what is an entity's natural function, purpose, or use.

Hahahahaha. Oh, you couldn't be more wrong, bigotbuns. Ya see, we aren't little religioparrots running on petrified brains. We are autonomous individuals, who don't allow a cult to define our function, purpose or use.

Your particular cult has only one way to keep it going, breeding. Breed, breed, breed. You little idjits have that so pounded into you, you forget the rest of us haven't signed our lives over to a whacko cult.

Posted by: Jordan Licht | December 22, 2009 10:53 PM

James, even assuming that same-sex marriage is inherently inferior to different-sex marriage, how do you get that gay marriage should be illegal? Even if people in a non female-male relationship can't fulfil their "natural roles" due to whatever reason, why does that mean that they should be denied the legal benefits of government-sponsored marriage?

Posted by: Miki Z | December 22, 2009 10:54 PM

Here is the entirety of a secular argument against gay marriage:
[begin argument]
Men and women have inherently different legal rights. Marriage rights arise from the differences between the legal rights of men and the legal rights of women.

Ergo, two men cannot get married to each other, because their legal rights are the same, so they do not mesh. Similarly, two women cannot get married to each other, because their legal rights are the same, so they do not mesh.
[end argument]

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 10:56 PM

Homosexual attraction is biologically inconsistent with the biological identity of a human male.

whenever jamey doesn't understand something, he just keeps mindlessly repeating it over and over. i wonder what he thinks this will accomplish?

Posted by: James | December 22, 2009 10:57 PM

Steve:

You wrote:
"If a given behavior has no utilitarian purpose, is not necessary, according to James, it is therefore unnatural. If it is unnatural it is wrong. "

This argument is not about acting on homosexual feelings, the argument strikes at the heart of the homosexual identity.

Homosexual ATTRACTION is not consistent with the biological purpose and identity of human male gender.

Attraction to one's own sex is a contradiction of function, purpose and identity of the largest proportions.

Posted by: nomen-nescio.myopenid.com | December 22, 2009 11:04 PM

Attraction to one's own sex is a contradiction of function, purpose and identity of the largest proportions.

no it isn't.

it just plain isn't. it isn't, because identity doesn't work that way.

now prove me wrong. you could start by explaining what you think "identity" means.

Posted by: Miki Z | December 22, 2009 11:06 PM

Even the Mormon church doesn't agree with James on that, though. They recently supported gay rights legislation in Utah (once their religious exemption was in it) and do not discipline members for "Homosexual ATTRACTION", only for homosexual acts.

"In drafting these ordinances, the city has granted common-sense rights that should be available to everyone, while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations," (Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as reported by CBS news one month ago).

The idea that religious organizations' rights include dictating legislative policy is something else, but James, you might want to discuss your unhealthy obsession with your Bishop and ask what the current doctrinal position is.

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 22, 2009 11:11 PM

Homophobic Twit:

Look, I am presenting a "secular" argument against gay marriage.

You have done no such thing. All you've done is parrot the party line of your cult. You've made one fallacious "argument" after another. Person after person has shown you how you are wrong.

I an not unreasonable about the civil rights that all citizens have.

I have news for you - you are very unreasonable.

Gay marriage is a new social construct and a new social experiment

The fuck it is. You are so full of shit. Marriage is marriage. Marriage confers specific legal benefits, it isn't magic fairy dust that gets sprinkled over your hearts. One gay couple I know, they've been living together 40 years. Recently, they married. Another couple I know, living together for close to 20 years. I'll be attending their wedding next year. There's not one damn "new social construct" thing there. Just people who love one another, and have built a life together.

that is not equivalent to heterosexual marriage.

Oh yes it is, it's equivalent in every way. You're one of the fucked up bigots that would tell me my marriage is worthless because I never wanted to breed and didn't. You just don't want any marriage which doesn't follow your happy little pattern to be considered actual marriage. Tough shit, you nasty, evil-minded bigot. It's not up to you.

Sorry, but I am not going to bend from that position.

This is news? We've all seen which way you tend to bend, bigot boy, with all that focus on phalluses.

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | December 22, 2009 11:13 PM

Homosexual ATTRACTION is not consistent with the biological purpose and identity of human male gender.

Wow, it's a game of "let's chase the goal-posts!" By side-stepping the questions of behavior you can duck my questions entirely. Nice dancing.

OK, so could you explain, James, why this argument pertains only to humans? How is the "biological purpose and identity of human male gender" different from the biological purpose and identity of bonobo male gender?

Ever hear of Bonobos? The norm for them is bisexuality. Penis fencing and vaginal rubbing are common. We can't interview the Bonobos but we can infer that there's an attraction there.

What's going to happen now? Will you lead the great Mormon Bonobo hunt to rid the world of these unwholesome creatures?

(Don't worry folks, I'm pretty sure the Bonobos are safe. James can't tell Arabia from Meso America so I doubt he could track down a lame duck in a shallow pond at the zoo).

Posted by: Steven Dunlap | December 22, 2009 11:18 PM

Also, a quick thank you to Janine and Lynna for the books/link about the Mormon Meadow Mountain Massacre. Interesting reading.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 11:27 PM

With many homosexuals, if a person is anti-gay marriage then you believe they MUST be homophobic, gay hater etc.

This isn't the case with me.

James, you do hate gay people. You are a textbook example of a homophobe.

If you did not hate gay people, then you would not be trying to harm them. You do not try to destroy people's families unless you hate them.

We can only judge you by your behaviors, by which you declare unequivocally that you despise gay people and want them to suffer.

It is possible that you have a desire to stop hating gay people, and start living your life as a better and more decent person. But that must involve ceasing to do harm to gay people. I doubt that you want to find some semblance of human decency so badly that you are willing to work to change your prejudices.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ | December 22, 2009 11:29 PM

Well, here's the rational secular argument against gay marriage:

That made me grin.

Posted by: articulett | December 22, 2009 11:41 PM

Given overpopulation, I think civilized societies ought to encourage pair bonds between those who are unlikely to reproduce and discourage pair bonds between religotards who plan to beget a quiverfull.

Does anyone other than James want more people like James in society? Does anyone other than James think he's made a valid point here? Does anyone other than James thinks he's illustrated the notion that not all Mormons are like Rex Rammell?

I find people like James far more detrimental to civilized society than homosexuals; People like James are too likely to breed and thus far more likely to pass on their stupidity. Where can I vote to have their rights taken away?

Mormonism is not natural or necessary by James own arguments. Moreover, James illustrates the harm that can be done to children brainwashed into the religion.

On the positive side, I do enjoy the way the nutters always drop by to provide an illustration of the point PZ was making. This thread has provided me with hours of amusement. I have special admiration for the honesty, wit, and wisdom of the former Mormons.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 11:49 PM

Rumor has it that the LDS church has a hard time keeping members these days and they are voting with their feet. Not everyone wants to be right wing extremist, follow whatever hate scripts the Geriatracy dreams up, or live in an ugly theocratic dictatorship. My attempts with google to get some numbers were unsucessful. The LDS church hides those numbers and no one really believes them anyway. Raven @518

Raven, I think I can help with the numbers. They're hard to come by, but not impossible. Let's start with a pro LDS blog, which despite a tendency to inflate numbers has to report a decline: The blogger compares church growth from this last decade, the 2000's to the 1990's. [kudos to an ex-mo who uses the handle "bender" for this info] clear growth is way down. http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2009/12/end-of-era-church-in-2000s-and-beyond.html

In the 1990's 803 new stakes were created In the 2000's 323 new stakes were created In the 1990's 8,488 new congregations were created In the 2000's 2,650 new congregations were created In the 1990's the # of missionaries increased by 19,000 In the 2000's the # of missionaries decreased by 5,000

And here is some information from insiders, information that shows declining activity

Any Mormon who comes to church regularly can’t help but notice that most members are invisible. This became painfully obvious to me a few weeks after I had been called to be the ward membership clerk. One day while sitting in the clerk’s office, I decided to find out what percentage of the ward was active. I counted the names listed in the ward directory of people that I knew, or at least had seen in church. I then counted all the families, and divided those that showed up at church, at least once in a while, by the total number of families listed. Hmmm… so many people I had never met—not even once. I had attended the same ward for thirteen years, so I felt qualified to conclude that slightly over sixty percent of the ward members are ghosts, which means they are people I would never see. I later made the mistake of referring to these ghosts as the ‘hard-core inactive.’ This label didn’t go over well with some members of the ward family who, I guessed, were more in touch with the spirit than I was. So I was corrected, and told that we’ve been asked to refer to the lost sheep as the ‘not presently participating.’ Sorry, my mistake for venturing outside of the Mormon lexicon....The legion of inactive Mormons is eight million strong, and is composed of the indifferent, the enlightened, the hostile, the lazy, the disillusioned, and the offended.

1) I was an Elders' Quorum clerk in Spain and our activity rate was less than ten percent of the people on our list. That was in Madrid, the biggest city. 2) I went to Portugal for a vacation in the countryside and the branch presidency (the mishies) told me their activity rate was less than three percent. There were ten people that sunday: me, the mishies, the village idiot and a family of British tourists. That was in the rural heartland. 3) A friend went on a mission in Brazil and saw a ward with a million inhabitants, two-thousand baptized members still known to be living in the area, less than ten of them known to be active in any ward. Less than half a percent! He saw four more such wards on his mission, none had an activity rate of more than two percent.      Thirty percent? Maybe in a state bordering Utah, but nowhere else I'd think.

Posted by: Lowell | December 22, 2009 11:50 PM

Does anyone other than James want more people like James in society? Does anyone other than James think he's made a valid point here? Does anyone other than James thinks he's illustrated the notion that not all Mormons are like Rex Rammell?

No. I read the whole thread, and he's singlehandedly made me think even less of Mormons and Mormonism than I did before. He doesn't even respond to counterarguments (and by "respond," I don't mean just repeating the same evidence-free assertions over and over and over).

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 22, 2009 11:56 PM

Raven, here are some more reality checks about the LDS Church and it's "growing by leaps and bounds" lies.

Mormon myth: The belief that the church is the fastest-growing faith in the world doesn't hold upThe Salt Lake City Tribune/July 26, 2005, By Peggy Fletcher Stack
     The claim that Mormonism is the fastest-growing faith in the world has been repeated so routinely by sociologists, anthropologists, journalists and proud Latter-day Saints as to be perceived as unassailable fact.
     The trouble is, it isn't true...
     And most telling, the number of Latter-day Saints who are considered active churchgoers is only about a third of the total, or 4 million in the pews every Sunday, researchers say....
     Russia provides a dramatic example of different religious growth rates. After more than 15 years of proselyting there, LDS membership has risen to 17,000. During the same period, Jehovah's Witnesses membership has increased to more than 140,000, with some 300,000 individuals attending conferences.
     Graphing activity: When the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey in 2001, it discovered that about the same number of people said they had joined the LDS Church as said they had left it. The CUNY survey reported the church's net growth was zero percent. By contrast, the study showed both Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists with an increase of 11 percent.

Posted by: James | December 23, 2009 12:05 AM

PZ:

You wrote:
"Unfortunately for our little mormon bigot, humans are much more complex and have many other functions than simplistic reproduction. I've never lived my life as if my sole purpose were to find a pair of functioning ovaries that I could shower with semen, but apparently that is the LDS ideal. And they accuse scientists of being naive reductionists!"

Now watch closely gay advocates....

Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

Explain the evolutionary purpose of same sex attraction.

Explain the necessary utility of homosexual attraction within the human species.

Will these questions drive you to madness too? Will you make personal attacks rather then long lists of answers?

BYU 44, Oregon 20

Posted by: adamisafool | December 23, 2009 12:08 AM

Lks lk yr wbst s ndr ttck frm sprntrl frcs…

http://dyn.pltc.cm/mmbrs/frms/thrd.cfm?ctd=2&sbctd=7&thrdd=3449994

y rlly nd t dd cmmnt mdrtn t yr blsphmy…

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | December 23, 2009 12:15 AM

Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

Explain the evolutionary purpose of same sex attraction.

Explain the necessary utility of homosexual attraction within the human species.

Will these questions drive you to madness too? Will you make personal attacks rather then long lists of answers?

You have had every single one of these questions addressed and answered. Parroting the same crap will not get you the answers you want.

Posted by: Lowell | December 23, 2009 12:16 AM

Why do the Mormon troll's posts fixate so consistently on male gender/sex/genitalia?

James: Is there something you'd like to tell us?

Posted by: plumberbob | December 23, 2009 12:19 AM

@ James,

Those strange feelings that you have periodically must be pretty frightening. It's a very lonely experience that there's nobody that you can share those intrusive thoughts with. All of your life you've probably had friends and relations who seemed to think just as they were trained to think. Now you have nobody that you can trust to share those scary feelings with. You know that everybody that you might talk to would get points for squeeling to the bishop about you.

You could get some real friends, but only out in the less judgemental wings of society.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | December 23, 2009 12:21 AM

James homophobic bigot for Mormon Jesus&trade wrote:

Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

Please define the terms 'natural', 'purpose', 'identity' and 'gender', citing objective sources for your definitions.

Posted by: Sven DiMilo | December 23, 2009 12:22 AM

please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

As explained ad nauseum, this question makes no sense. And the way you keep repeating it verbatim, especially with the weird undefined word "identity" in there, is creepy.
Presumably, your point, if any, is something like: biologically, there are males because there is sexual reproduction. OK.

Explain the evolutionary purpose of same sex attraction.

Yeah, we Mr. biologists don't really talk about the evolutionary "purpose" of stuff, but I think I know what you think you mean here too. The genetic basis, much less the adaptive significance, if any, of homosexuality is/are far from clear. So what? It doesn't matter for your "natural" criterion because not everything that's natural is biological and not everything that's biological is genetic and not everything that's genetic is evolutionarily adaptive.

Explain the necessary utility of homosexual attraction within the human species.

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean, "necessary utility"? It's just such a weird mantra to keep repeating.

but enough of James

Posted by: James | December 23, 2009 12:25 AM

Articulett:

If the internet is the death knell for Mormonism with all of its "true answers" about the "Mormon cult" then why has the pace of building chapels and Temples remained steady or increased since the early 1990s when anti-mormonism made its leap onto the digital page?

Why has Mormonism increased significantly in the United States in the last 20 years?

The LDS Church continues to baptize 250,000+ converts a year, just like it has for the last 10-15 years. It adds a new congregation about every day of the year, and builds a brand new chapel about every day of the year.

Since Pres Obama took office until the next election in 2012, there will be over one million new Mormons in added in the world, over 1000+ congregations and 1000+ new LDS Churches built.

Shrinking we are not.

Posted by: Pygmy Loris | December 23, 2009 12:31 AM

James,

Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

WHAT ABOUT WOMEN!!!!!
Women are sexual animals, you fuckwit. Every argument you have made specifically cites "human male gender." What about lesbians? bisexuals?

Joseph Fucking Smith, you're a dense little bigot. Every point you have made has been refuted, repeatedly. You ignore others' points and think your circular repetitions are somehow answers to their points.

Address my points about the Constitution made way back in comment #498.

Posted by: Josh, Official SpokesGay | December 23, 2009 12:33 AM

Shrinking we are not.

Mmm, yet stupid you are!

Posted by: Anri | December 23, 2009 12:39 AM

Last try, James, then I'm done.

Now watch closely gay advocates....

AKA Equal Rights Activists, but that sounds too positive, so let's move along.

Mr. Biologist, please explain how homosexual attraction is consistent with the the natural purpose and identity of human male gender.

Mr. James, please explain why civilized people must be limited by biological imperatives.

Explain the evolutionary purpose of same sex attraction.

Explain why humans must always remain slaves to their evolved behaviours.

Explain the necessary utility of homosexual attraction within the human species.

Explain why anything humans do must be 'necessary' to be acceptable. Be certain to include music, art, and fine dining in your discussion.

Will these questions drive you to madness too?

Will these questions drive you to ignore them just as you ignored the questions I asked about your view of god too?

Will you make personal attacks rather then long lists of answers?

Will you be personally evasive rather than giving your own long lists of answers?

What do you say, folks, who'll give me odds?
I'll check in tomorrow to take a lil' look see.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | December 23, 2009 12:43 AM

@576 James says the internet is not a death knell for mormonism, and he goes on to claim that the mormonism is growing. It's true that the LDS Church is fond of announcing new temples, etc. However, it is not true that they can fill these buildings. And certainly, the information available on the internet is filling the sails of those who want to leave the church. Here's a post from Simon in Oz (dated February 18, 2008, and titled "Apostasy hits Australia and New Zealand":

I know there are several on the board that think the LDS Church is coated in Teflon® and will continue to roll on largely unaffected by the Internet…but I cannot agree with that view from my perspective down here in Australia. Besides, I love it when facts get in the way of a good story.
     The LDS church in Australia and New Zealand has made an excellent start at entering a phase of apostasy unprecedented in this part of the world. The church Downunder has always grown at respectable rates since the 60s.
     The following facts were taken from www.cumorah.com, a website run by TBMs.
     There are currently around 285 LDS congregations (wards and branches) in Australia. When I left the church 10 years ago the church was consistently adding around 10 congregations per year. During ALL of the last 8 years the church has added just THREE congregations. That is at least 77 congregations short of where they expected to be back in 1998 if growth had remained constant.
     It is worse in New Zealand. There are around 200 congregations in NZ. Back in the late 1990s the church was consistently adding around 8 units a year. In the last 8 years, the church has not added a single unit on balance. In fact it has lost 16 units, or 2 per year......
     The problem is retention of not only recent converts but people who have grown up in the church. People who have left recently have said that there is a big push to retain members and reach out to the less active.
     There is no doubt in my mind that the single most potent factor contributing to this apostasy is widespread access to the Internet. The abrupt stop in church growth comes immediately after the exponential rise in Internet access in Australia and NZ households.
     The Internet Apostasy is happening Downunder.