105 thoughts on “BYU censors letter to the editor critical of Prop 8”
Great job U/U! I have noticed that on some LDS sites the only views and comments that ae allowed are the supportive ones. I guess that means that everyone that reads it must support it, right?? Stalin and Castro would be proud of the media control. No one is allowed a thought oreven a knee jerk unless it is approved of. PALEEEZE!
Don in Las Vegas
http://www.tinyurl.com/myLasVegas
The DU just posted this note on their website regarding the censorship of Crall’s letter:
Statement on Viewpoint
Wed, 09/08/2010 – 16:02
The Daily Universe made an independent decision to remove the student viewpoint titled “Defending Proposition 8” after being alerted by various readers that the content of the editorial was offensive. The publication of this viewpoint was not intended to offend, but after further review we recognized that it contained offensive content.
This is consistent with policy that The Daily Universe has, on rare occasions, exercised in the past.
I wonder if I expressed how offensive the nearly ever other sexist, homophobic, blindly pro-conservative rantings which appear in nearly every other opinion/viewpoint piece are, they’d remove them.
Also what the bloody fuck is up with this “we can’t possibly offend people by expressing an opinion which contradicts theirs” mentality? It’s so thoroughly fucked.
Actually, you can use the blockquote HTML tag. There was no distinctive styling on quotes in the comments, however, so it didn’t make your quotes stand out. This should now be corrected. Blockquote away!
Yeah, it did get published in the physical paper. The staff of the DU probably supported the letter to the editor (the DU has a history of occasionally publishing controversial stuff in the name of free speech/journalistic integrity); I bet somebody in the administration or church leadership got upset, however. I know a couple of the apostles read the DU often and sometimes express concerns about what is published in it.
Perhaps the lack of supporting expert witnesses was instead a strategy based on the realization that nothing would have deterred the judge from making his ruling. Instead, you let the case be stated, and use the appeals process to sort out the result.
But that’s the thing, there is no evidence that any expert witness could point to which would support ProtectMarriage.com’s claims during the election. And going in, they certainly didn’t know how Judge Walker was going to rule. Most of the defence’s expert witnesses dropped out before the trial even began.
Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial. There was no strategy. And what’s up with you impugning the judge when you yourself haven’t even read his ruling?
The Daily UniFarce has engaged in censorship? Who would believe such a thing?
Pingback: ClobberBlog » The Daily Universe & Censorship
Pingback: Holly Welker: Good Works Can’t Compensate for Mormon Assault on Others’ Civil Rights
“Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial.”
This is true – in order to challenge a trial judgment on appeal, the challenger must have proffered (i.e., offered) evidence at trial that the judge refused to admit after the other side objected, or must have reached a decision that was indisputably unsupported by the law or the facts. The prop 8 proponents didn’t even try to support their position, and their own experts actually admitted under oath that he agreed with what the opponents of Prop 8 were saying about its harmful effects on people and its lack of rational, factual basis. In short, the Prop 8 proponents did not make much of a “record” for purposes of an appeal: they can’t point to any evidentiary errors made by the judge, and they offered no credible evidence or science to support their position. On appeal, the appellate court generally does not “revisit” factual findings (decisions as to what the facts are) made by the trial judge, because the trial judge who heard the evidence as to the facts was in a better position to make a decision as to what the facts were because he was thee to hear, see and question the witnesses, while the appellate court was not there. The Prop 8 proponents also have a major “standing” problem – they cannot (and did not) provide any evidence that they personally are harmed by the invalidation of Prop 8. I am very interested to see what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will say about the Prop 8 trial decision. The trial decision is very detailed in stating what the evidence and what the witnesses did and did not say and do – it appears to this observer that the Court of Appeals will have a tough time overturning the trial decision so long as the Court of Appeals follows the law.
Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run? I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot) simply because some people feel like their rights are being violated by not being able to marry someone of the same sex. The burden of proof has never been on supporters of traditional marriage, the burden of proof is always on supporters of same-sex “marriage” to show that it would not have detrimental effects on society. This isn’t a “civil rights” issue; homosexuality is not genetic (yes, I’m aware that there is a genetic link for some people, which link explains 10-15% of the variance in homosexual tendencies in those people but that means that environment and/or some other yet undiscovered biological factors explain the rest of the variance). Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings. The only consensus is that there is no consensus.
Further, when did we as a people stop talking about what is morally right? This is a moral issue. Or are morals merely a religious issue? Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.
Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares? That’s a choice that many of us make. Why is it somehow wrong to use religious arguments either for or against political issues? Is it okay to base your reasons on the philosophies of Plato, Kant, Marx, or James but not on religious ideals and ideas? Why are religious arguments second-class citizens to secular ones? That is clearly not how the Founding Fathers wanted the U.S. to function. They set up a great way for laws to change; how it’s been done in California goes against those principles. If supporters of same-sex “marriage” want to make it legal there’s nothing stopping them from trying to gather the support of voters. Mr. Crall wrote: “This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group.” First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right? Further, when was it taken away? In 2000 with California’s Prop 22? Or maybe 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act? Or maybe it was Prop 8? Maybe it was the Founding Fathers when they didn’t include same-sex “marriage” in the Bill of Rights (I know they didn’t include an abolishment of slavery or universal suffrage either but they did set in place the manner to extend rights, hence Amendments 13, 15, and 19).
Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article? Yes, his score is very impressive; he sounds like a very intelligent person. However, it has nothing to do with the veracity or validity of his (or Jon Adams’) arguments. It boils down roughly to the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, although in this case Mr. Crall is not an authority (at least I’m assuming that he hasn’t done any of the research looking at the effects of homosexuality on society – that’s a safe assumption to make because there isn’t any research. There are a few looking at the psychological adjustment of kids raised by same-sex parents {they turn out as well-adjusted as other kids} but that’s not addressing the issue.)
Same-sex “marriage” is not an issue like Emancipation or Women’s Suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education. But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex “marriage”. Also, I’m sure I’d probably have gotten a 0 on the MCAT (yes, I know you can’t really get a 0, I’m being facetious) if I had chosen to go to med school instead of get a PhD. Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.
I’m not opposed to same-sex civil unions but let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.
“But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’.”
At least we agree on one thing.
“…let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.”
Or a man and many women; a man, many women, and his concubines; a man and his slave; or a man and his rape victim; or a man and his sister(s); or a man and a kidnapped girl whose entire family he slaughtered after he and his buddies invaded their lands. (for references, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw). All of these are doctrinally sound traditional marriages.
Seriously though, putting scare quotes around words when you dislike the definition isn’t a terribly good way to argue your point.
If you actually read the other comments, you’ll find that all of your arguments have were refuted before you even made them. (Or “refudiated” if you prefer.)
“Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.”
Of course; you just think that they should not have the same rights that you do because you believe they are wrong, and thus the love.
I’ll be brief. Perhaps somebody will offer a more thorough response later. Please don’t mistake my brevity for rudeness, Jared.
“Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run?”
First, I don’t know the future, but I do know that, presently, society is harmed by NOT allowing same-sex marriages. Second, wresting the burden with those who think it would not harm society is onerous, because it’s difficult to prove a negative. Third, freedoms, like marriage, shouldn’t be denied to people absent compelling state interests. The burden of proof always belongs to those who would deny freedom. In a court of law, Prop 8 defendants assumed that burden, and they failed to show that there was a compelling state interest to justify the ban on gay marriage.
“I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot)”
Tradition in and of itself is not an argument against gay marriage. I hate to be cliche, but slavery was also a tradition. And how does gay marriage go against evolution? Marriage in general goes against evolution in that it commits us to one sexual partner, thus limiting our reproductive opportunities.
Do you just mean that homosexuality is unnatural? There are several studies that explain why homosexuality might have evolved. But even if it is the case that homosexuality goes against evolution, why does that matter? Evolution should not dictate our morality. Also, homosexuality is going to exist with or without gay marriage, so…yeah, I just don’t understand your argument here.
“Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings.”
Also irrelevant. There is a component of homosexuality that is likely genetic (as demonstrated by twin studies), but the main factor appears to be the hormonal environment in the womb. Genetic or no, we should at least be able to agree that people don’t choose homosexuality, just as you didn’t choose your heterosexuality. And frankly, even if people DID choose homosexuality, this isn’t grounds for discrimination. People choose to marry people of different races, so why can’t they choose to marry people of the same sex?
“Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.”
There is nothing wrong about basing laws on morals, but I just think those moral arguments should have a wide, secular appeal. Basing laws on sectarian religious morals, morals that can only be divined through appeals to revelation/scripture and are not accessible through reason, are divisive and undermine the fabric of democratic society. When laws don’t primarily serve a secular purpose, they are unconstitutional (as per the so-called “Lemon test”).
“Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares?”
It’s not wrong to follow authorities, so long as that obedience isn’t blind. In any case, Cary Crall didn’t say it was wrong to follow the prophet.
“First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right?”
When marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia, and various other court cases.
“Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article?”
It doesn’t. You misunderstood it as an appeal to authority, but that was not my intent. I was merely providing biographical info about Mr. Crall.
Finally, I don’t think you’re a bigot. I just think you’re wrong.
Craig, thank you for your reply. I’m glad you can agree with me about something! However, should I legitimize same-sex “marriage” by removing the quotes? That is what I would be doing – allowing the word to be used in a manner that it does not mean. Hence the quotation marks. I know you find them obnoxious (frankly, I do too) but it’s done for a very specific purpose. I do not use quotation marks lightly. You might think that is a semantic quibble but it’s an important issue.
Yes, I did write man and woman and not one man and one woman on purpose. All I was stating is that marriage is between male and female. Polygamy and/or polygyny has nothing to do with the issue of redefining marriage to include male-male or female-female relationships because at their base, polygamous marriages are still male – female (man and woman – both used collectively). I’m not saying I’m supporting polygamy, I’m just saying that it’s not related to this discussion; that is why I was trying to be as non-specific with my man and woman statement.
I’ll admit, I haven’t read all the comments but now I will (okay, I can say I will for sure because I am quite busy this semester) because I have never once seen or read anything that provides sound scientific evidence that repudiates my positions. I’m looking forward to having all my arguments refuted. If you don’t believe me then you do not know me (which is obvious since this is my first visit to this blog and I highly doubt we’ve ever met in real life, although it’s certainly possible). I take logic and scientific inquiry very seriously.
Moudi, I also thank you for your reply. I’ll respond more later if I am able.
Jon, thanks for your reply. My lack of reply isn’t meant as rudeness either, I simply have run out of time to respond; it’s late in this part of the country.
I meant to add that I don’t think that the letter was offensive. I disagree with Mr. Crall but there wasn’t anything offensive in it.
The proponents of Prop 8 asked to be allowed to participate in Perry v. Schwartzenegger and they were given leave to do so. They had a chance to offer evidence that same-sex marriage would harm society and they were unable to do so – in fact, one of their experts admitted on the witness stand that allowing same sex marriage would be good for society by providing stable homes for the adults and the kids. Moral considerations are a fine component of legislation, but religious considerations are not, because the moment you allow them to inform legislation, you run the risk of stepping on someone’s individual freedom on the basis of religious beliefs that that someone does not share.
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 10 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 11 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: Reminders of the anti-gay message at Mormon’s General Conference - Wide Rights
Pingback: Last Call for Brodies Nominations! | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Congratulations 2010 Brodie Winners!!! | Main Street Plaza
whoah this blog is great i like reading your articles. Keep up the great paintings! You know, lots of persons are searching round for this info, you could aid them greatly.
Great job U/U! I have noticed that on some LDS sites the only views and comments that ae allowed are the supportive ones. I guess that means that everyone that reads it must support it, right?? Stalin and Castro would be proud of the media control. No one is allowed a thought oreven a knee jerk unless it is approved of. PALEEEZE!
Don in Las Vegas
http://www.tinyurl.com/myLasVegas
The DU just posted this note on their website regarding the censorship of Crall’s letter:
I wonder if I expressed how offensive the nearly ever other sexist, homophobic, blindly pro-conservative rantings which appear in nearly every other opinion/viewpoint piece are, they’d remove them.
Also what the bloody fuck is up with this “we can’t possibly offend people by expressing an opinion which contradicts theirs” mentality? It’s so thoroughly fucked.
Oh, and Jon, is there no way to add html blockquote tags?
I don’t think so, sorry. I know. It’s lame.
It’s ok. I forgive you.
Actually, you can use the blockquote HTML tag. There was no distinctive styling on quotes in the comments, however, so it didn’t make your quotes stand out. This should now be corrected. Blockquote away!
And this isn’t offensive at all.
http://universe.byu.edu/node/10467
MY EYES! MY EYES! Please put NSFA (Not Safe For Anyone) tags when you post links like that.
And to add to the drama, they’ve also removed at least one comment which was criticising young Mr. Wes for his overzealousness.
Also, apologies to Kyle. You’re right, I should have labelled it as such.
This did get published in the physical paper, right?
That is nothing short of amazing for BYU.
Thank you pointing this one out.
Yeah, it did get published in the physical paper. The staff of the DU probably supported the letter to the editor (the DU has a history of occasionally publishing controversial stuff in the name of free speech/journalistic integrity); I bet somebody in the administration or church leadership got upset, however. I know a couple of the apostles read the DU often and sometimes express concerns about what is published in it.
Perhaps the lack of supporting expert witnesses was instead a strategy based on the realization that nothing would have deterred the judge from making his ruling. Instead, you let the case be stated, and use the appeals process to sort out the result.
But that’s the thing, there is no evidence that any expert witness could point to which would support ProtectMarriage.com’s claims during the election. And going in, they certainly didn’t know how Judge Walker was going to rule. Most of the defence’s expert witnesses dropped out before the trial even began.
Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial. There was no strategy. And what’s up with you impugning the judge when you yourself haven’t even read his ruling?
The Daily UniFarce has engaged in censorship? Who would believe such a thing?
Pingback: ClobberBlog » The Daily Universe & Censorship
Pingback: Holly Welker: Good Works Can’t Compensate for Mormon Assault on Others’ Civil Rights
“Troy – That’s not how the appeals process works. It’s not a do-over for legal teams that don’t produce arguments or witnesses at trial.”
This is true – in order to challenge a trial judgment on appeal, the challenger must have proffered (i.e., offered) evidence at trial that the judge refused to admit after the other side objected, or must have reached a decision that was indisputably unsupported by the law or the facts. The prop 8 proponents didn’t even try to support their position, and their own experts actually admitted under oath that he agreed with what the opponents of Prop 8 were saying about its harmful effects on people and its lack of rational, factual basis. In short, the Prop 8 proponents did not make much of a “record” for purposes of an appeal: they can’t point to any evidentiary errors made by the judge, and they offered no credible evidence or science to support their position. On appeal, the appellate court generally does not “revisit” factual findings (decisions as to what the facts are) made by the trial judge, because the trial judge who heard the evidence as to the facts was in a better position to make a decision as to what the facts were because he was thee to hear, see and question the witnesses, while the appellate court was not there. The Prop 8 proponents also have a major “standing” problem – they cannot (and did not) provide any evidence that they personally are harmed by the invalidation of Prop 8. I am very interested to see what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will say about the Prop 8 trial decision. The trial decision is very detailed in stating what the evidence and what the witnesses did and did not say and do – it appears to this observer that the Court of Appeals will have a tough time overturning the trial decision so long as the Court of Appeals follows the law.
Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run? I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot) simply because some people feel like their rights are being violated by not being able to marry someone of the same sex. The burden of proof has never been on supporters of traditional marriage, the burden of proof is always on supporters of same-sex “marriage” to show that it would not have detrimental effects on society. This isn’t a “civil rights” issue; homosexuality is not genetic (yes, I’m aware that there is a genetic link for some people, which link explains 10-15% of the variance in homosexual tendencies in those people but that means that environment and/or some other yet undiscovered biological factors explain the rest of the variance). Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings. The only consensus is that there is no consensus.
Further, when did we as a people stop talking about what is morally right? This is a moral issue. Or are morals merely a religious issue? Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.
Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares? That’s a choice that many of us make. Why is it somehow wrong to use religious arguments either for or against political issues? Is it okay to base your reasons on the philosophies of Plato, Kant, Marx, or James but not on religious ideals and ideas? Why are religious arguments second-class citizens to secular ones? That is clearly not how the Founding Fathers wanted the U.S. to function. They set up a great way for laws to change; how it’s been done in California goes against those principles. If supporters of same-sex “marriage” want to make it legal there’s nothing stopping them from trying to gather the support of voters. Mr. Crall wrote: “This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group.” First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right? Further, when was it taken away? In 2000 with California’s Prop 22? Or maybe 1996 with the Defense of Marriage Act? Or maybe it was Prop 8? Maybe it was the Founding Fathers when they didn’t include same-sex “marriage” in the Bill of Rights (I know they didn’t include an abolishment of slavery or universal suffrage either but they did set in place the manner to extend rights, hence Amendments 13, 15, and 19).
Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article? Yes, his score is very impressive; he sounds like a very intelligent person. However, it has nothing to do with the veracity or validity of his (or Jon Adams’) arguments. It boils down roughly to the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority, although in this case Mr. Crall is not an authority (at least I’m assuming that he hasn’t done any of the research looking at the effects of homosexuality on society – that’s a safe assumption to make because there isn’t any research. There are a few looking at the psychological adjustment of kids raised by same-sex parents {they turn out as well-adjusted as other kids} but that’s not addressing the issue.)
Same-sex “marriage” is not an issue like Emancipation or Women’s Suffrage or Brown v. Board of Education. But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex “marriage”. Also, I’m sure I’d probably have gotten a 0 on the MCAT (yes, I know you can’t really get a 0, I’m being facetious) if I had chosen to go to med school instead of get a PhD. Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.
I’m not opposed to same-sex civil unions but let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.
“But I guess I’m just another close-minded, stupid BYU graduate who is not only homophobic but also bigoted in just about every other conceivable manner because I am opposed to same-sex ‘marriage’.”
At least we agree on one thing.
“…let’s not change the definition of marriage to something other than between man and woman.”
Or a man and many women; a man, many women, and his concubines; a man and his slave; or a man and his rape victim; or a man and his sister(s); or a man and a kidnapped girl whose entire family he slaughtered after he and his buddies invaded their lands. (for references, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw). All of these are doctrinally sound traditional marriages.
Seriously though, putting scare quotes around words when you dislike the definition isn’t a terribly good way to argue your point.
If you actually read the other comments, you’ll find that all of your arguments have were refuted before you even made them. (Or “refudiated” if you prefer.)
“Yes, I have gay friends (one is a BYU graduate) but just because they are my friends doesn’t mean I have to agree with their lifestyles. It doesn’t mean I think less of them either. I have a lot of friends whose lifestyles I disagree with but I still love them.”
Of course; you just think that they should not have the same rights that you do because you believe they are wrong, and thus the love.
I’ll be brief. Perhaps somebody will offer a more thorough response later. Please don’t mistake my brevity for rudeness, Jared.
“Can anyone provide references to articles that show that allowing same-sex “marriage” would not be harmful to society in the long run?”
First, I don’t know the future, but I do know that, presently, society is harmed by NOT allowing same-sex marriages. Second, wresting the burden with those who think it would not harm society is onerous, because it’s difficult to prove a negative. Third, freedoms, like marriage, shouldn’t be denied to people absent compelling state interests. The burden of proof always belongs to those who would deny freedom. In a court of law, Prop 8 defendants assumed that burden, and they failed to show that there was a compelling state interest to justify the ban on gay marriage.
“I can’t believe that some people are so willing to change thousands and thousands of years of tradition (and go against evolution to boot)”
Tradition in and of itself is not an argument against gay marriage. I hate to be cliche, but slavery was also a tradition. And how does gay marriage go against evolution? Marriage in general goes against evolution in that it commits us to one sexual partner, thus limiting our reproductive opportunities.
Do you just mean that homosexuality is unnatural? There are several studies that explain why homosexuality might have evolved. But even if it is the case that homosexuality goes against evolution, why does that matter? Evolution should not dictate our morality. Also, homosexuality is going to exist with or without gay marriage, so…yeah, I just don’t understand your argument here.
“Anyone who tries to tell you that homosexuality is biological/genetic has not read the peer-reviewed research (I have), or is ignoring the findings.”
Also irrelevant. There is a component of homosexuality that is likely genetic (as demonstrated by twin studies), but the main factor appears to be the hormonal environment in the womb. Genetic or no, we should at least be able to agree that people don’t choose homosexuality, just as you didn’t choose your heterosexuality. And frankly, even if people DID choose homosexuality, this isn’t grounds for discrimination. People choose to marry people of different races, so why can’t they choose to marry people of the same sex?
“Should we get rid of all of our criminal law in America because it is based on specific (largely Judeo-Christian) moral beliefs? All criminal law and most of our civil law is moral law.”
There is nothing wrong about basing laws on morals, but I just think those moral arguments should have a wide, secular appeal. Basing laws on sectarian religious morals, morals that can only be divined through appeals to revelation/scripture and are not accessible through reason, are divisive and undermine the fabric of democratic society. When laws don’t primarily serve a secular purpose, they are unconstitutional (as per the so-called “Lemon test”).
“Also, when did it become a bad thing to follow what the LDS Prophet declares?”
It’s not wrong to follow authorities, so long as that obedience isn’t blind. In any case, Cary Crall didn’t say it was wrong to follow the prophet.
“First, when did same-sex “marriage” become a right?”
When marriage was declared a right in Loving v. Virginia, and various other court cases.
“Lastly, what does the MCAT score of Mr. Crall have to do with this article?”
It doesn’t. You misunderstood it as an appeal to authority, but that was not my intent. I was merely providing biographical info about Mr. Crall.
Finally, I don’t think you’re a bigot. I just think you’re wrong.
Craig, thank you for your reply. I’m glad you can agree with me about something! However, should I legitimize same-sex “marriage” by removing the quotes? That is what I would be doing – allowing the word to be used in a manner that it does not mean. Hence the quotation marks. I know you find them obnoxious (frankly, I do too) but it’s done for a very specific purpose. I do not use quotation marks lightly. You might think that is a semantic quibble but it’s an important issue.
Yes, I did write man and woman and not one man and one woman on purpose. All I was stating is that marriage is between male and female. Polygamy and/or polygyny has nothing to do with the issue of redefining marriage to include male-male or female-female relationships because at their base, polygamous marriages are still male – female (man and woman – both used collectively). I’m not saying I’m supporting polygamy, I’m just saying that it’s not related to this discussion; that is why I was trying to be as non-specific with my man and woman statement.
I’ll admit, I haven’t read all the comments but now I will (okay, I can say I will for sure because I am quite busy this semester) because I have never once seen or read anything that provides sound scientific evidence that repudiates my positions. I’m looking forward to having all my arguments refuted. If you don’t believe me then you do not know me (which is obvious since this is my first visit to this blog and I highly doubt we’ve ever met in real life, although it’s certainly possible). I take logic and scientific inquiry very seriously.
Moudi, I also thank you for your reply. I’ll respond more later if I am able.
Jon, thanks for your reply. My lack of reply isn’t meant as rudeness either, I simply have run out of time to respond; it’s late in this part of the country.
I meant to add that I don’t think that the letter was offensive. I disagree with Mr. Crall but there wasn’t anything offensive in it.
The proponents of Prop 8 asked to be allowed to participate in Perry v. Schwartzenegger and they were given leave to do so. They had a chance to offer evidence that same-sex marriage would harm society and they were unable to do so – in fact, one of their experts admitted on the witness stand that allowing same sex marriage would be good for society by providing stable homes for the adults and the kids. Moral considerations are a fine component of legislation, but religious considerations are not, because the moment you allow them to inform legislation, you run the risk of stepping on someone’s individual freedom on the basis of religious beliefs that that someone does not share.
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 10 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: BYU pulls letter to the editor regarding Prop 8 - Page 11 - LDS Mormon Forums
Pingback: Reminders of the anti-gay message at Mormon’s General Conference - Wide Rights
Pingback: Last Call for Brodies Nominations! | Main Street Plaza
Pingback: Congratulations 2010 Brodie Winners!!! | Main Street Plaza
whoah this blog is great i like reading your articles. Keep up the great paintings! You know, lots of persons are searching round for this info, you could aid them greatly.