I feel bad for reading about your problems socially and professionally. People judge, its difficult not to have judgements about something, in fact I think its impossible not to on some level. I finally faced this fact within the last two weeks. I am tired of trying to meet someone elses expectations of who I am supposed to be. I am working on dropping that as much as I can. There are a few cases where it is important for my well being, and own interest, so I work on making those as bareable as I can make them. So, there are things which you don’t choose and things which you do choose. People may judge, but in the end its your life you have to live.

“These weren’t projections on my part. They actually said all this that I just mentioned. One of their pass-times was to criticize what heteros did, from eating habits to crimes. Of course gays would NEVER do anything like that. And they always talked about the hipocrisy of religious zealots. Of course gays would NEVER do anything hipocritical. Do I really need to go on?”

Well, your earlier comments didn’t sound so specific. They sound like judgemental queens. Hipocrasy is probably something that nobody can escape. Its also a matter of your point of view, maybe to them it isn’t hipocrasy. Its totally up to you if you wish to go on into more detail.

“You get the feeling that most gays just want equal treatment? I don’t.”

I honestly believe that everyone wants at least a fair shake at everything. Perhaps everyone also wants some type of advantage, its totally possible.

Regarding “discrimination stinks”. I’m going to tell you a story.

I was in 4th grade playing a game of 4-square. Of squares A, B, C, & D, the person in the A square got to set the house rules. Of course that person always made rules favorable to himself.

One day when I got in the A square the thought occurred to me: Everybody knows what the “fair rules” are. Why not play a fair game? So I declared the fair rules.

Now, I was just good enough to stay in the A square under these rules long enough for everybody to get a taste of what fairness was like. Everybody loved it. Most of the people didn’t really care about being in the A square, but everyone wanted to play. Under fair rules the line moved so quickly, everyone got to play a lot.

Finally, a newcomer made it into the A square and set the “old style” rules. Everyone gave a sigh of disapproval. We all ganged up on him and got him out. Then the next person in the A square set the fair rules again. We were all happy again.

I don’t really understand why we never played another game like that. Even when I got into the A square again and declared those rules, they got me out too fast to see what that was like. Even though most of the players were the same ones, they had forgotten what it was like to play a fair game. We went back to business as usual.

Government is the same. I believe most people know what the fair rules are. Utopia would be for people to decide to live by them. But even if we achieved it, how long would it last? People have the memory of a hamster.

In absence of Utopia, the best we have is the swiftly moving “king of the mountain”. This was what Federalist Paper #10 describes. This was the business as usual for my 4-square game.

Under this system, people don’t want to be equal. They want to be more equal than others. I try to fight this all the time. But my desire for equality against being more equal than others is often misinterpreted as being discriminatory.

In fairness and in truth, I have to admit that most of your posts have been very logical and rational — even if I don’t agree with you. And most of the time you are polite — as far as debate permits politeness.

Very well, it is a thin line between attacking a belief and/or policy of a church and attacking people for believing the same. For myself, I only agree with the Church on this particular issue provisionally.

If the government got completely out of marriage restoring the religious rite of marraige as in centuries past, and gay people founded their own church in order to perform the religious rite of marriage, then I personally wouldn’t have a problem with it (with what knowledge I have now).

To clarify some things, I was not complaining about my troubles with discrimination to get sympathy points. I was pointing out that I actually have MORE difficulties due to liberal policies (affirmative action) than just plain old human ignorance.

For that matter, I would also lump in religious policies with political policies. In my experience, I get a lot more prejudicial remarks from other Christians than from atheists over my choice of faith. Is it atheists who spread anti-Mormon literature? No, it’s other Christians. Atheists deride most religions equally. It’s kind of like how I hate both major political parties equally.

And as a rebuttal to your statistics on atheists vs. Muslims: I think it’s apples and oranges. Politics tend to talk to that same part of people’s brains/hearts/ignorance as religion does. So asking the question about who would you vote for is different than, say, who would you hire?

In politics today, I personally would put atheists above Muslims. My only concern with voting for an atheist is that they tend to be very liberal. I’m not sure what I would do if I had to vote between a liberal Atheist and a fanatically conservative Muslim. But if I were the boss, I would hire an atheist without any scruples — so long as he met all the criteria for the job of course.

Responding to your “unsupported by evidence” statement:

As clearly as you misinterpreted my recounting my personal experience with a few homosexuals as “hey everybody, I’m special because I actually know some of these rare creatures we’re discussing.” I believe people see what they want to see — myself included. I look at the world and I see God. You look at the world and you see . . . what? Whatever it is it isn’t God, right?

Oh well, for that matter, most of the time all I see is a bunch of idiots who are just asking for the world to come down on top of them. But in my personal life, I can’t help but see patterns of consciousness that are beyond my own that have been guiding the steps of my life. You’ve had different experiences and thus see different evidence. So, I can’t really speak to that.

Well, that sucks that you’re subjected to other kinds of discrimination. I don’t know what else is going on for you, but my point is that ceteris paribus, you’re getting less flack for being straight, which is not really disputable. And I think this constitutes something of a special right for straight folks.

In fact I do deny that I have attacked anyone’s character for their religious belief. I have called out people for stands they have taken, whatever religion they are. I also traduce religion(s) on a regular basis because they induce good people to do bad things that they would not otherwise have done. But you are not your religion.

You argue that Latter-day Saints are singled out for special abuse, but I’ve got you beat on that score. Atheists rank just below Muslims in the estimation of the public. In my case, I suppose it’s because I tell people their most cherished beliefs are counter-factual or unsupported by evidence, which I can’t expect would be very endearing. Ah, well. We’ve chosen our respective paths, so I guess we’ll have to toughen up, eh?

I really do think discrimination stinks, and I’m sorry you face it. Ideally no one would have to, which is why I donated to No on Prop 8.

Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. (See 1 Kgs. 18:21.)

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

We are now entering a time of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: We will see a maximum, if indirect, effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism which uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of western civilization to shrink freedom, even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.
…
Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. M. J. Sobran also said, “A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).

This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
…
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel.

There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself.

Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, “summer is nigh” (Matt. 24:32). Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat!

Look at my argument, not one particular phrase I chose to relate a story. If you want to tear apart my argument, do so logically or with evidence or with personal experience. If you have to resort to spinning my words into a weak light in order to weaken my argument, how weak is your position?

These people were not just someone in the same office. They were people I knew on a personal level. And yes, knowing ANY gay people on a personal level considering the circles I run in, IS very rare. If I ran in liberal circles, I expect it would be more common.

No, I don’t receive special treatment because I’m a WASP.
—You do. You are, not me. Fine, you’re not a protestant. But you get my point.

I have to work extra hard because I’M A MINORITY. I have to work harder so my co-workers and supervisors don’t just think of me as “an affirmative action hire”.

It’s not just my race. People regularly think I’m 10 to 15 years younger than I am. In most situations, that would be a big bonus. But in my line of work, gray hairs rule. Boy could I tell you some stories about that predicament.

You don’t receive any prejudicial treatment in everyday activities because you are an atheist. But I receive snide remarks, disdainful looks, and more — MUCH more often for being a Mormon than for ANY other classification that you can put me in. It is one of the last socially acceptable prejudices.

And if you don’t believe you yourself are guilty of it, consider how many remarks you have made on this blog and attacked, not the argument itself, but the LDS Church and the character of anyone who would believe such hypocrisy and nonsense.

Yes, those were my words, not yours. But this is the flavor I get from many of your arguments. And if you don’t, maybe you aren’t as self-aware as you tout yourself to be.

These weren’t projections on my part. They actually said all this that I just mentioned. One of their pass-times was to criticize what heteros did, from eating habits to crimes. Of course gays would NEVER do anything like that. And they always talked about the hipocrisy of religious zealots. Of course gays would NEVER do anything hipocritical. Do I really need to go on?

You get the feeling that most gays just want equal treatment? I don’t.

How true it is and will always be

Can I just remind you that you get special treatment every day because you’re (presumably) straight? You don’t have to worry as much about losing your job over your sexual orientation, you can marry someone you’d want to, and churches don’t give you a hard time about causing the destruction of society.

How does it feel to have gay people BOW DOWN TO UR WIMS?

“But four of the five gay men I’ve known had the attitude that the world owed them something. They felt that since they were gay, they were better than heterosexuals and so required that we BOW TO THEIR WHIMS. And they weren’t afraid to use lawsuits to get what they wanted. ”

It would be interesting if you could get ALL of these 5 gay men to make a statement about their point of view. What do you think they would actually say? It sounds like a LOT of projection on your part as to what they are actually feeling emotionally, and projection as to what might motivate them to take certain actions.

“The fifth gay man was actually a firm Republican. He was NOT so pushy. He did NOT expect special treatment because he was gay.”

I suspect that most gays expect equal treatment, or fair treatment, not special treatment.

We did it before, after Reynolds vs. the US. Why wouldn’t we do it again?

I’ve personally known five gay men. I’ve personally known two lesbians.

But four of the five gay men I’ve known had the attitude that the world owed them something. They felt that since they were gay, they were better than heterosexuals and so required that we BOW TO THEIR WHIMS. And they weren’t afraid to use lawsuits to get what they wanted.

They were extemely liberal. They constantly talked about how they were mistreated by “religious zealots”. How they looked forward to a day when all religions were relegated to what they “really are — outdated myth and legend”.

The fifth gay man was actually a firm Republican. He was NOT so pushy. He did NOT expect special treatment because he was gay. He simply left his faith because he realized that he didn’t share the same values.

Of the lesbians, one was a foreign worker, and the other was fairly quiet on the subject of politics. So I don’t know what their political leanings were.

This tells me that the danger is not homosexuals or homosexuality. It is the liberal agenda using homosexuals (among many other tools) as a weapon to shut down religion. Just look at how this one issue is seeking to destroy the Boy Scouts of America.

It was only the beginning because they knew they could not destroy religion in one blow. But they can step on toes first (the Boy Scouts being a religiously supported, yet independently secular, organization). Even when they lost the major lawsuit, they’re doing everything they can to whittle it down on other issues. But now, they’re winning the lawsuits.

I have no problem believing this is just the beginning.

It seems to play out like a chess game.

Church (among others): Pass Prop 22.
FLAG: have a liberal judge say Prop 22 was unconstitutional.
Church: Priesthood NO LONGER TO PERFORM ANY CIVIL MARRIAGES IN CALIFORNIA. Support Prop 8.
FLAG: See that Prop 8 fails (which I believe it will).
Church: Change procedural manuals on marriages and temple recommends to add more requirements to marry in the temple.
FLAG: Sue the Church for being discriminatory.
Church: Show the church directive that NO civil ceremonies are to be performed by church officers.
FLAG: While losing the lawsuit, make sure Obama appoints the most liberal judges he can find to the Supreme Court.
Church: Lose a lawsuit that will go to the USSC.

Then what? Will people actually give up their religious standards to bow to governmental authority? King before God?

Who knows how this will actually play out? But it will not be pleasant.

Actually, it’s his wife.

All earthworms are hermaphrodites .

“All earthworms are hermaphrodites (that is, a single individual can produce both male and female gametes, the eggs and sperm). Eggs are produced when two earthworms inseminate each other during mating. Hermaphroditism makes possible two exchanges of sperms, instead of only one, when two individuals meet.

The sex organs, which produce the eggs and the sperm, are open to the ventral, or lower, surface on particular segments, which differ depending upon the species. There are two male openings, and two pairs of small sacs, the sperm receptacles. During mating, these receive sperm from the other partner. The eggs, formed in a pair of ovaries, are released from the oviducts into one of two tiny pores: the female genital openings. The male and female sexual openings (the gonopores) are situated on or near the clitellum. This ring-like, glandular swelling secretes a cocoon for the reception of the eggs. ”

http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/earthworms.htm

Have we never heard of semantic shift? You can’t stop the meaning of words from changing.

Nor the definition of marriage, for that matter.

~Friedrich Nietzsche