PDA

View Full Version : Johnny Weir v. former Olympic Gymnast, Peter Vidmar



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

heckles
05-11-2011, 06:28 AM
Someone who posted in the comments section of the article made a great point:

"'The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality'
Undeviating? Oh really? 100 years ago the 'Church' said a man could have as many wives as he wanted and that was perfectly moral. Why is it that the Church of Mormon can change its definition of marriage but the rest of society cannot?

The LDS church has changed many beliefs and deleted unpopular texts, but not on the righteousness of polygyny. Doctrine and Covenants 132, the scripture Joseph Smith wrote, still tells women they will be killed by God if they don't graciously submit the polygyny. Polygyny is still taught as a goal in Mormon seminary classes for teenagers, with the caveat that the mean ol' federal government doesn't allow it. Male followers are currently instructed to wait until death, when they're each awarded their own planets on which they become gods, to practice polygyny.

genevieve
05-11-2011, 07:18 AM
Do you mean polygamy? Polygyny sounds like breeding women with multiple vaginas.

VIETgrlTerifa
05-11-2011, 08:14 AM
Polygyny is the correct term I believe. I think Polygamy is an umbrella term that means multiple spouses but has been used in the common vernacular to mean one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman many husbands, which makes sense in places like Tibet where land was split up between sons but with limited land, it made sense for brothers to share one wife.

Bek, I was going to try to give a response to you about the differences between allowing gays and lesbians marry their respective partners and polygamous relationships based on equal protection arguments and the fact that disallowing consenting homosexual adults is putting an undue burden on one population but not another, but I am too tired to formulate a response. Maybe I'll try back tomorrow.

Also, one could make an argument that marriage did not start out as a religious institution but became one through time and that we do have marriages conducted through civil courts as opposed to churches so religious arguments should not be the basis as to why one segment of the population should be denied the right to marry. And it is a right, at least under the law as it exists. Also, since marriages are considered civil contracts under the government (and they use the term marriage), then any sort of religious argument against it should not be relevant as the First Amendment has the Establishment Clause which states that government cannot establish a religion and the only real arguments against gay marriage are religiously-based.

Then there is the issue of trying to frame it only about marriage and how being against gay marriage does not automatically mean one is necessarily anti-gay. I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

Allen
05-11-2011, 01:08 PM
Then there is the issue of trying to frame it only about marriage and how being against gay marriage does not automatically mean one is necessarily anti-gay. I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

:respec: I agree 100% with everything you said here.

CynicElle
05-11-2011, 01:15 PM
I argue that as nice as one may be to gay people or tolerate their "lifestyle" or acknowledge that members of the LGBT communities actually exist, supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment. To me, that's a form of hate, even if it's not vitriolic.

ITA. Sorry, but if you campaign and donate money to take away a civil right from a group of people, you don't get to turn around and claim you have no problem with that group of people. But if you do claim that, you shouldn't be all that shocked and surprised when people from that group say "That's nice, but we've got a big problem with you."

Good for Johnny for speaking up about this.

genevieve
05-11-2011, 03:07 PM
Polygyny is the correct term I believe. I think Polygamy is an umbrella term that means multiple spouses but has been used in the common vernacular to mean one man with multiple wives. Polyandry is one woman many husbands, which makes sense in places like Tibet where land was split up between sons but with limited land, it made sense for brothers to share one wife.
Thanks that makes sense it still looks funny :P



...supporting any sort of denial of equal treatment (even if you don't want to call it rights), even on traditional religious grounds, stems from some sort of attitude where one is basically thinking that LGBT individuals are inferior and therefore do not deserve equal treatment.
this cannot be stated enough.

attyfan
05-11-2011, 03:29 PM
I just fair it might not be that society is getting in general to politically correct. And really the main thing is traditional views/being marginilized.
...


Just because views are traditional doesn't mean that, sometimes, they should be marginalized. Once upon a time, "traditional" views would have prevented me from working as an attorney, simply because of my gender.

More to the point, IMO, there is no justification for singling out gay marriage as if it were the only marriage-related issue in the world. For example, the New Testament frowns on people re-marrying after divorce (absent adultery see Matt 19:9). That the state allows these re-marriages shows that the "traditional" views don't count for much. If a church wants to be "traditional", it should do so consistently; since the state has already decided that it will not be traditional, then traditional views should not be used just to single out gays.

Proustable
05-11-2011, 03:47 PM
bek, no I'm not okay with them saying gays can have civil unions but not marriage. For one thing, they are in fact two different things and in some states have differing impact of benefits, spousal support, adoption, etc.

If there was no such thing as a legally binding marriage, I would be fine with it. Also, I'm Canadian, so this battle's already over here and the world hasn't ended.

Traditional views really aren't being marginalized here. Society is never going to decree a marriage between a man and a woman as illegal or harmful. In fact, it really irritates me when I hear things like this because it's so passive aggressive.

VIETgrlTerifa: thank you. In the end, hate comes in more than one form.

Allen
05-11-2011, 04:17 PM
The attitude that gay and lesbians should not be allowed to marry in order to preserve someone else's ideas of morality is laughable to me. Do these people really think that highly of themselves that because they feel gay marriage is wrong that over a million people in this country should not be allowed to marry? I think it's high time that people get over themselves and realize that forcing their opinions on the lives of others is just as wrong as having their view marginalized. Regardless of what your religious view is, there is no proof that a gay person getting married is going to affect your life in any way.

Coco
05-12-2011, 03:02 AM
ITA. Sorry, but if you campaign and donate money to take away a civil right from a group of people, you don't get to turn around and claim you have no problem with that group of people.

Thank you!!!

MacMadame
05-12-2011, 05:28 AM
Just curious how many of you folks defending the railroading of Vidmar voted for Obama as president.
He wasn't railroaded so your question is invalid. (Actually even if he was railroaded, you are employing a logical fallacy so it's still an invalid question and I'm not going to rise to the bait.)



It feels like some of you guys not only want us to be like okay yes gay marriage should be allowed, but also to literally change our religions teachings.
And yet no one has said anything remotely like this. Where are the calls to re-write the Bible or teach another book in church? I don't see it.

What I think is that a certain segment of the population is so used to be in the majority and to having their views be the mainstream views that, now that they aren't any more, they feel threatened to the point that any disagreement with those views is seen as something much more dramatic than it really is.


Tolerance isn't agreeing with everything everyone does.
Which is why the argument towards those saying that Vidmar is intolerant that "you'll never find someone whose views you agree with 100%" is ridiculous. We're saying we want someone who is tolerant of those who he disagrees with and Vidmar isn't it.

heckles
05-12-2011, 06:51 AM
Which is why in some states I'm allowed to marry my First Cousin, and some states, I am not.

Correct, but the majority of states that refuse to perform cousin marriages will still recognize cousin marriages performed in other states. Can't get married to your cousin in your home state? Elope in a neighboring one. The Mormons avidly supported the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which allows states to not recognize gay marriages performed in other states. The laws are completely different for gay marriage versus cousin marriage.

tarotx
05-12-2011, 08:02 AM
I think "marriage" that everyone is fighting for should be called civil unions for everyone. But I think the term wife and Husband should be used stilled. Let the traditionalist and religious have "marriage" but take away it's importance by taking away it's legality to better treatment. I think the people against "gay marriage" won't be so against it when the states don't accept church conducted marriage ceremonies as legal.

Louise
05-12-2011, 06:18 PM
Wow. I wish this was like Facebook where you could "Like" someone's post. Allen, Theatregirl, MacMadame, I give you "like"s.

I deal with this issue everyday. Prop8 wasn't even preemptive. It basically was put on the ballot to actively strip the already gained rights of GLB who were or wanted to become married. It was hateful. Gay marriage wasn't hurting CA. Gays weren't harming anyone. And then you get a referendum to take away their marriage rights? Yeah, Vidmar was outspoken in his agenda to take away CA gays' rights to marriage. I say he was using his first amendment rights and that is perfectly nice, but that is not the spirit of the Olympics anymore. Yeah, in the history of the Olympics there was chauvinism, racism, etc. But for the most part, it is beyond that now. And I know there are counter-examples, it's not like the Aboriginals in AUS get a fair shake even now. But this is about Vidmar. Anyone who goes public to restrict civil rights should not be allowed a leadership position. This is not fascism. Or "bullying". This is about creating a better world. And those who hold on to their religion to harm and sometimes bankrupt "those others" need to have no leadership positions. I do not necessarily like Hersh's columns, but I'm glad if his column made a difference to get Vidmar booted, then I'll maybe respect Hersh more.