The problem here isn't LDS, but the current state of the public's attitude. Just think to the civil war. If you asked the "Average" man if slaves should be freed, they would probably say no.

The thing about democracy is that while majority rule is part of it, it also needs checks and balances in order to protect minorities from popular, but uneducated, attitudes. All you need to do is look back to other unpopular causes: equal rights for women, races, etc. At one point or another, these would have easily lost similar votes in their times.

The key is to continue to press for real education and truth and not fear-mongering and hypocrisy.

Religion's ownership of morality is bunk and hopefully this will come to light as we move forward. Just as Steve Harvey's bullshit statement in that other video about atheists, the religious right's claim to righteousness will be undermined ultimately by the hate with fuels it. If you look at the voting numbers for Obama as well as prop 8, you see clear lines drawn at age groups. Eventually the old racist, bigoted people will be replaced by a younger generation that has grown up with friends and family who live openly gay and understand that we are all people regardless...

Finally, I'll just say that this so-called pristine concept of marriage that is supposedly being "protected" is just a fabrication. Marriage does not do anything to prevent horror to the individuals involved, their children, or their extended families. There is not one impartial study out there that can show otherwise. If the religious right wants to maintain "marriage" as it was intended by their specific faiths at their inceptions, then they are talking NOT about a partnership in love, but a business agreement whereby one family sells a female to another for money, allegiance, or some other compensation.

Please if anyone is credited with "inventing" marriage as they are claiming, it is the poets, authors, and other creative people throughout history who wrote of an idealized concept that had little bearing in reality at the time. Ironically, I am willing to be that many of those people were homosexuals...

A religious organization lying about its activities? I'm stunned.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

this is another example of the "free speech" issue that came up in this video about evangelical groups proselytizing in the military. the problem that many of these religious groups seem to have is a lack of understanding of the difference between free speech for an individual, or group of individuals, and free speech for a religious institution.

to the best of my knowledge, every mormon in utah could go to california and campaign against prop 8 and that would not be a problem, but as soon as an institution like the mormon church involves itself and its money to back said effort it becomes a religious institution acting to directly influence the working of the state, which is not legal. this is why in both of these videos, and in many many other examples of religious groups attempting to have laws changed in america, members of these groups are always trying to paint themselves as committed individuals rather than members of a very large, organized, and well-funded institution.

i believe this is the case, though someone please correct me if i'm wrong.

So a tax-exempt organization is using its money to affect legislation?

Perhaps it is time to reexamine their tax-exempt status.

Only one thing comes to mind when I think about Mormons - Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb duuuumb!

heres a popular rationalization for polygamy

so the mormons pioneered across the frontier in the 19th century. pioneer women out numbered pioneer men, also if a husband died during the trek who was going to take care of the family he left behind?

so polygamy was a way to make sure the extra females were 1. taken care of and 2. could continue to breed.

joseph smith only invited "worthy" men to enter into these celestial marriages. and for quite a while they were kept secret.

this solution was presented to joseph smith in the form of revelation from god and reversed by a later prophet in the form of a memorandum (not revelation) after pressure from the federal government. some of todays mormons will claim that god later revealed that they no longer needed to practice polygamy and that both the practice and its abolishment were legitimate revelation from heavenly father.

i dont know the justification for joseph smith taking other mens wives. except you know the normal cult leader stuff.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but seeing as I'm not sure if the Sift community has a resident lawyer, I'm going to give my lightly-educated opinion anyways. Feel free to correct any errors.

>> ^youmakekittymad:
this is another example of the "free speech" issue that came up in this video about evangelical groups proselytizing in the military. the problem that many of these religious groups seem to have is a lack of understanding of the difference between free speech for an individual, or group of individuals, and free speech for a religious institution.

This actually isn't the same issue. The problem in the linked video is that the military is specifically prohibited from expressing certain things because they're the military. A soldier in uniform can't go on record publically and say that Obama's decision to add troops to Afghanistan is doomed to failure -- That would be speaking out against a superior officer.

I know there are some ex-military (and maybe active military) individuals here, so feel free to correct me. My point is that the rules are different for the military. I believe there are specific rules against coercing soldiers into a particular religion, which is the problem in the video above. LDS is a private entity, so the rule does not apply to them.

to the best of my knowledge, every mormon in utah could go to california and campaign against prop 8 and that would not be a problem, but as soon as an institution like the mormon church involves itself and its money to back said effort it becomes a religious institution acting to directly influence the working of the state, which is not legal. this is why in both of these videos, and in many many other examples of religious groups attempting to have laws changed in america, members of these groups are always trying to paint themselves as committed individuals rather than members of a very large, organized, and well-funded institution.

To my knowledge a church or any other religious or non-religious organization is free to say whatever they want, even as a unified group, as per the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." However, that does not prohibit religious organizations from trying to influence the law like any other group of private citizens. It just says that Congress is prohibited from passing a law that counts Mormon votes triple, for example.

The trouble is that many religious organizations are defined in the tax code as non-profit organizations that are entitled to tax-exempt status. There are rules attached to that status; groups that have it are not allowed to make certain types of political statements or endorsements because they are effectively doing so with public money (the money that would have been paid in taxes). This is the crux of the problem -- we're not so angry that LDS is campaigning against gay marriage (okay we are, but that's within their rights), we're angry that they're using "our" money to do it.

Oh my god, I want to punch that smug bitch that spoke supporting it in the face.

I want to make her one of my 33 wives, so I can beat her in the privacy of my own home.

A group of conservative individuals operating within the law in order to advocate thier views... How terrible. If anything illegal happened then it will come up. But I expect everything was legit and the investigation will come to nothing. Much ado about nothing. I'm much more fascinated by the naked prejudice, hate, and bigotry coming from the gay side of the debate. It is amusing to observe people who want 'tolerance' that are themselves quite intolerant. Physicians, heal thyselves.

>> ^ponceleon:
Religion's ownership of morality is bunk

I like this statement a lot. Simple and revealing, it sums up a lot of the problems you could write essays about.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
A group of conservative individuals operating within the law in order to advocate thier views... How terrible. If anything illegal happened then it will come up. But I expect everything was legit and the investigation will come to nothing. Much ado about nothing. I'm much more fascinated by the naked prejudice, hate, and bigotry coming from the gay side of the debate. It is amusing to observe people who want 'tolerance' that are themselves quite intolerant. Physicians, heal thyselves.


So this is what irony looks like...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
A group of conservative individuals operating within the law in order to advocate thier views... How terrible. If anything illegal happened then it will come up. But I expect everything was legit and the investigation will come to nothing. Much ado about nothing. I'm much more fascinated by the naked prejudice, hate, and bigotry coming from the gay side of the debate. It is amusing to observe people who want 'tolerance' that are themselves quite intolerant. Physicians, heal thyselves.


Ah, I see you've dusted off the old 'Isn't intolerance of intolerance intolerant too?' trope. Good luck with that, pennypacker.

'Isn't intolerance of intolerance intolerant too?'... Good luck with that

low moral character... lying... dumb... punch that $^#@% in the face... beat her in the privacy of my own home...

When the shoe fits...

I note when a group with differing views steps into the public arena they are worthy of threats, violence, and bigotry from gay advocates. Yet, many gay advocacy groups also enjoy tax-exempt status and no one complains about the money they use to influence public policy. You should be celebrating how wonderful the country is to allow both groups a fair say.

This time the 'other team' outmanuvered you. Try again with a better strategy. The reason Prop 8 didn't turn out the way some of you want was because there wasn't a compromise that allowed religious groups to have their cake. 'Marriage' is too vauge a term. Come back with a better law that goes for the civil rights gays want but leaves marriage out of it so churches don't have to worry about getting sued. Then you'll have horse you can ride to the finish line.

^Does fucking children and other men's wives not count as 'low moral character' to you?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: I note when a group with differing views steps into the public arena they are worthy of threats, violence, and bigotry from gay advocates.

pics or it didn't happen.

Show us the bashed heads of all these prop8 proponents, and Mormons, who have been hospitalized for their position. I can find you a stack of people killed for being, or seeming to be, gay.

Ridiculing violent patriarchy through ironic turn of phrase is not anywhere near putting somebody in the hospital, much less in the ground. Your sense of moral indignation is misplaced.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker: The reason Prop 8 didn't turn out the way some of you want was because there wasn't a compromise that allowed religious groups to have their cake.

What a load of fucking bullshit.

Their "cake" is making sure gays don't get to have cake as well.

'Marriage' is too vauge a term. Come back with a better law that goes for the civil rights gays want but leaves marriage out of it so churches don't have to worry about getting sued. Then you'll have horse you can ride to the finish line.


If gays can get married, does that mean straight christians (as opposed to the gay christians. Yes, they exist, see "Catholicism") can't get married any more? Does allowing straights to marry somehow preclude gays from marrying?

Marriage isn't the fucking cake and you know that damn well.

The cake the gays so desperately want, and deserve, is the right to self determination. The right to the same basic accords we extend to everyone else. The arguments against are the same bigoted crap that set back abolishing slavery, it's the same argument that set back the suffrage of women. Finding a new name for "marriage between gays" to make it acceptable is unacceptable. I seem to recall a war was fought over slavery rather than just coming up with someway for the slave owners to "have their cake". You don't deal with bigotry by appeasing it.

Straight, white, middle aged, married Australian and I support gay rights to marriage.

>> I'd love to hear rationalizations if you've got them..


You can't rationalize religion. That's kind of the point isn't it?

Political donations are NOT tax-deductible, but donations to charities (including some religions) ARE tax-deductible. Since this religion is using a lot of its money for political purposes, it may lose its "charity" tax-status. THAT IS ALL. No one's free speech is on the verge of being violated in this case.

It shouldnt be important to them. They dont own marrige...they dont own people's sexual orientaion, and they certainly dont dictate the standard.

*length=01:40

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:40 - length declared by cricket.