Wake up call to the progressives

[boxy]

I thought I already created a thread in general/off-topic for conspiracy theories...

The purpose of my doing so was to stop conspiranut fodder like this bleeding into the more credible political threads.



*damn* I really hoped it would work.

And we thought you would keep your insane, anti-Semitic rants confined to it as well... but life is full of disappointments.

[mellie]

I thought I already created a thread in general/off-topic for conspiracy theories...

The purpose of my doing so was to stop conspiranut fodder like this bleeding into the more credible political threads.



*damn* I really hoped it would work.

And we thought you would keep your insane, anti-Semitic rants confined to it as well... but life is full of disappointments.

You are a complete fuckwit Boxy.

[AiA in Atlanta]

It's all looking like Conspiranut fodder to me AiA.

Have you seen this well-regarded film? If not, then why comment?

[mellie]

It's all looking like Conspiranut fodder to me AiA.

Have you seen this well-regarded film? If not, then why comment?

Well regarded AiA?

Subjective!

What the film is about...

8: The Mormon Proposition is an American documentary that examines The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and its support of California Proposition 8, stating that the church has been actively involved in the denial of LGBT human rights. The film was written by Reed Cowan, directed by Cowan and Steven Greenstreet, and narrated by Dustin Lance Black. It was released on June 18, 2010 by Red Flag Releasing (RFR).

Re- Californian Proposition 8.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints response
When The Washington Post requested comment, the LDS Church forwarded its official statement that said in part, "We have not seen '8: The Mormon Proposition.' However, judging from the trailer and background material online, it appears that accuracy and truth are rare commodities in this film. Although we have given many interviews on this topic, we had no desire to participate in something so obviously biased."[4] "Clearly, anyone looking for balance and thoughtful discussion of a serious topic will need to look elsewhere," said Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the LDS Church, in a statement quoted by the Los Angeles Times

- Wikipedia


Something I will never understand.....

Why is it so important to gays that religious groups embrace their sexuality this and bless their 'unity' it in their churches?

Why must churches conform and reform , this and change their church's values, tradition, laws to be more inclusive of Gays, when it's clear, the same respect isn't being extended to their church when it comes to being allowed to practice their own faith however they see fit?

If I were gay, I wouldn't inflict my sexuality on a church and expect the church to change to suit myself.


What right do these people have in condemning faith groups simply because they wish to uphold their own churches values?

We each have our values and beliefs.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

[AiA in Atlanta]

You have missed the point Mel. Both of these religious organizations have deep, deep pockets and used their money to create a faux popular "movement" against same-sex marriage.

[mantra]

If I were gay, I wouldn't inflict my sexuality on a church and expect the church to change to suit myself.

This is why the Catholic church is losing so many members - they are exclusive.



This is disappointing. Of course an employer has the right to discriminate - but not when they demand govt. funding to make a profit for their organisations. The Catholic church alongside other religious organisations also run their many businesses tax free. They could at least put a little back.

PRIME Minister Julia Gillard has assured religious groups they will have the ''freedom'' under a new rights bill to discriminate against homosexuals and others they deem sinners, according to the head of the Australian Christian Lobby.

Under current law, faith-based organisations, including schools and hospitals, can refuse to hire those they view as sinners if they consider it ''is necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion''.

Ms Gillard has met Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace several times, and he says she assured him ''she has no intention of restricting freedom of religion'' when it comes to religious groups' legal rights to discriminate in hiring and firing.

The Prime Minister said through a spokesman: "We don't comment on discussions with stakeholders.''

Discrimination by religious organisations affects thousands of Australians. The faiths are big employers, and the Catholic Church in particular is one of Australia's largest private employers.

They rely on government funding but because of their religious status are allowed to vet the sexual practices of potential employees in ways that would be illegal for non-religious organisations.

Labor often claims to represent progressive values and is led by an atheist, but the government has gone out of its way to placate religious organisations on this issue.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... z2I55FgtvI

[mellie]

You have missed the point Mel. Both of these religious organizations have deep, deep pockets and used their money to create a faux popular "movement" against same-sex marriage.

That aside, it comes down to whether or not the church, which is an institution in it's own right should be legally required (under anti-discrimination laws) to discard their own values and sanction unities between members of the same sex, when doing so is against their own church's beliefs, laws.

This is just the 'populist' far-left yet again chipping away at tradition, barking reform and change.
It doesn't matter what kind of change, because any change is as good as a holiday and is deemed a win as far as these flippant regressive tards are concerned.
Pretty soon,(If they get their way here in Australia) the institution which was once 'marriage' will be nothing more than the act of denying marriage of its sacred character.

I am not a religious person, and am neither married or baptised, though I have to say I don't approve of same-sex marriage, and I never will ...primarily because it undermines the sacred nature of the marital institution itself, church aside.

I don't believe same-sex couples should be raising children, as it's my belief that wherever possible, a child has a biological right to both a mother(female) and a father (male).

Whilst they are busy jumping up and down demanding gay rights, what about the rights of others, the right to the peaceful worship of ones own faith, and the biological right to having both a mum and a dad?

Why is it only their rights which seem to matter?

[Rorschach]

It's all looking like Conspiranut fodder to me AiA.

Have you seen this well-regarded film? If not, then why comment?

Well regarded by whom?
If it truly was well regarded then surely we'd all know about it.

[mellie]

Factual errors of the film, The Mormon proposition.

The narrator claims that Latter-day Saints believe God was once a human being and that after he died he "became a god where he began marrying spirit wives and having spirit offspring" and that "we, too, can become gods on our own planets, filled with our own spirit wives and children." In reality, they believe that marriage must be performed on Earth, not after death, and that women will be resurrected as well as men (hence no "spirit wives").

The film mentions that gay children "can't have children biologically". Nothing biological stops a homosexual from reproducing.

Fred Karger states that Latter-day Saints "didn't allow blacks in the Church until 1978." Although blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood or enter temples between 1852 and 1978, they have been welcome as baptized and participating members since the Church's formation in 1830.

The film states "There was a meeting held by Church President Gordon Hinckley at his estate in Hawaii where one of the Catholic cardinals came out." President Hinckley never owned an estate in Hawaii or anywhere else.

(Taken from IMD )

[Outlaw Yogi]

The protest against gay marriage isn't "strongly backed" by the Catholic Church. It is completely engineered by the Catholic Church and its allies and made to look like it is a grassroots movement.

The Catholic Church did the same thing in California but in cahoots with the Mormon Church: the two churches engineered a "movement" against gay marriage in that state that had the appearance of broad popular support but in fact was not.

But don't take my word for it. See the movie:



Only a fool would take what is happening in France at face value. You are not a fool IQ so what is driving you? Are you a conservative Catholic?

I doubt too many people admit to being Catholic these days because they're ashamed of the Church's filthy secrets, but that doesn't mean they weren't indoctrinated by the RCC and follow their beliefs devotedly and that includes their hatred of gays.

Probably so ... but then I've done a shipload regarding the history of religion, and from what I can work out, Catholocism may be just a reproduction of Hinuism painted with a Jewish theme, but was founded mostly/mainly by gays/homosexual bishops.