So yesterday I posted a status about how glad I am about Prop 8 being overturned. This morning I found a shitty comment from a girl I knew at BYU who pretty much NEVER posts to me, not even to express sympathy for a family death, nothing. So glad I'm OUT of this institution of idiots.

Here's a copy/paste of the whole thing:
--------------------------------

ME: A great victory today for the people of California!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/proposition-8-ruled-unconstitutional-on-to-the-supreme-court/2012/02/07/gIQAoawMxQ_story.html

California’s Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that limited the definition of marriage to a man and woman, was ruled unconsitutional by a federal appeals panel Tuesday.


Idiot BYU "Friend": And a disappointment to those who truly understand the sanctity of marriage


ME: Your comment will be deleted as soon as I'm near a computer to do it. I respect other people's timelines even when they (quite often) post opposing views to mine. I expect that same courtesy towards me. Feel free to post your viewpoint on your own timeline.

IBF: The majority of Californians disagree with you. As a citizen of this great state, if you include me in a post, it is my right to dispute it. In your heart you know what is right and true. Delete away, but truth is truth whether you agree with it or not.

ME: You seem anxious to spur a political debate. I'm not going to debate with you or anyone else. My status update was not put here for this purpose. I firmly believe the TRUTH that all men and women are created equal under the law and deserve equal protection under the law no matter what their skin color, religious belief or sexual preference. I respect your right to disagree, IBF, but do not respect the nasty implications in your comments. I do understand and appreciate the "sanctity" of marriage, having celebrated 16 years of matrimony myself. Whatever someone else does with their marriage, whether it be a same sex couple or a couple who met at BYU and get married after 2 weeks of knowing each other-- will NOT affect the sanctity of my own marriage. I wonder why Prop 8 supporters have so much fear about 2 people who dearly love each other wanting to be recognized as a committed couple under the law. If MY views on MY status line bother you so much, IBF, feel free to defriend me. But keep the nastiness to yourself or on your timeline please.


Other friend said: ‎"in your heart" is a mash of personal experience and bias. this great country, including the state of california is ruled by laws and the law was struck down because it creates a minority and subjects them to different criteria under the law. everyone must be treated equally. being unable to marry and exercise the secular rights associated with that concept simply because you choose to marry someone with the same rather than opposite genitals makes no sense whatsoever under secular law. let religion view 'marriage' however it chooses but under the law marriage is a contract and the benefits associated to it must be available to everyone competent to enter into a contract who chooses to exercise it. 


IBF: If "religion" thought "religion" could stay out of this, there would be no issue. Yes most religions feel it is ultimately wrong but we have the agency to choose. However, once marriage is legal for gays and lesbians, some of those marrying will want to feel that their marriage is sanctioned by God and will want those marriages to take place in churches. If churches refuse, based on religion, there will be lawsuits filed and eventually the government will determine that is also "unconstitutional". Separation of church and state is a one-way street. This may be a victory for gays and lesbians but it is not a victory for the state of California nor for those who understand what "marriage" is. We can agree to disagree but next time be more precise about who the victor truly is.


Other Friend: false statement and assumes facts not in evidence. churches have and will always be exempt from. i cannot declare i want to be married in a catholic church and force that. the state cannot declare that all baptism must be in jello. i note that you failed to address my ACTUAL claim that the secular recognition of marriage should be available to anyone able to enter into such a contract. i understand perfectly what marriage is. a legal contract enforceable by the state. anything religious about it is left to the religion making the rules. catholics can refuse marriage to people who are divorced. the state has no say about whether they should be forced to marry divorced persons. as long as an institution is not taking state money they can claim any rules they like and enforce them on their own parishoners with regard to marriage. but YOUR religion does not get to say that the STATE must enforce their version of marriage on all the people of the state and the state does not get to declare that baptisms are not valid unless they are performed in jello.
the rule of law is the victor in this case. and must always be the victor to preserve the constitution the religious right claims so dear

ME: I was very precise about my opinion. Your argument is riddled with logical fallacies and rhetoric. There has never been any precedent for the U.S. gov to rule any religion unconstitutional. Gay people who want their unions blessed will seek out the MANY tolerant faiths that are out there. Freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights will ultimately protect the non tolerant ones. Using that argument is an appeal to fear and a straw man. I was more precise in my OPINION than you were in your debates, which I never sought from you. I am a Californian and I've been proud of it for my entire life with the exception of the day that Prop 8 was passed with the help of hyper-generous funding and lobbying from outside resources that have nothing to do with our state.

IBF: I can see I have touched a nerve here and will close my thoughts with this: If you have not chosen the kingdom of God, it will, in the end, make no difference what you have chosen instead.

Other (hilarious) friend: I have chosen the kingdom of a god and my god is superior to your god. peace out.

ME: I'm just stunned at someone whom I haven't spoken to in 20 years, who fails to post or respond in any positive way to anything on my profile before this moment chooses to spew vitriol on my opinion after being silent for everything else. Someone needs to examine their own behavior before casting judgement on others, I think.

Also I apologize all those who liked this status and are getting updates to this unfortunate exchange as updates

LOl. Facebook can be such a great source of entertainment.

I logged in to say "bravo" to your intelligent, factual, direct remarks. The religious trolls always get their comeuppance. Can't believe they're still spewing the "lawsuits" will be filed horse manure.

Now, I'm late for work!

You and hilarious friend are very articulate. Nice job! Old BYU colleague is a self righteous a-hole.

Perhaps she's in a disappointing marriage and is just projecting? Anyway, thx for sharing.

Very interesting. I have a Facebook just for TBM friends and people in my ward, and another one for classmates, my nevermo family, etc.

Your (and your friend's) comments are incredibly articulate, intelligent, and persuasive.

I find it soooo funny that her response, in the face of such calm, cogent, factual comments was, "I can see I have touched a nerve here..."

You're my hero for the day.

I agree!

I thought you were very patient, OuttatheMorg. I would have flipped him the bird from the get-go. ;-)

When NY legalized gay marriage last year I posted on Facebook something like "yay" and a link to an article about it. A TBM "friend" posted something like "next they'll be putting rated R movies on regular TV" or something to that matter.

I didn't feel like dealing with all of that. I deleted his response and un-friended him immediately. (In previous posts he loved to correct my spelling, or grammar & etc.. which is sooo annoying!!)

Background on the friend, I'll try to make it short: when he came back from his mission how-ever many years ago, he came back a self-righteous jerk. I stopped talking to him after I left because at that point I just didn't want to deal with whatever he was going to spew at me for leaving, plus he had moved out of state anyway. I guess he found me thru some mutual friends on FB and I reluctantly accepted his friend request.

He has since tried to re-friend me, I ignored the request. The only thing I do regret is not telling him how much of a self-righteous jerk he had been since coming back from his mission before I un-friended him.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2012 02:08PM by peglet.

peglet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
. . . "next they'll be putting rated R movies on regular TV" or something to that matter.

There have been R rated movies on TV for a long time - and he/she doesn't know this? Pretty sure "Top Gun" was rated R, and only a few salty words were removed - the sexy scenes stayed.

What a maroon.

So your idiot friend assumes everyone has the same definition of "sanctity of marriage" as she does. And that people who don't believe exactly like she does has no idea what "sanctity of marriage" means. And Mormons wonder why outsiders think they are arrogant. No one outside of the Mormon church could possibly have a sanctified or sacred marriage. No one has a corner on great marriages like the Mormons.

Not surprising that she would decide to peep up for this status only. I'd say you'd touched a nerve. If something doesn't involve church stuff, seems like Mormons got nothing to say. When they want to dictate how everyone else should believe, they don't want to shut up.

Mormons really do think that. My cousin, married in the temple, actually told me that my relationship with my boyfriend will never be as true and deep as her relationship with her husband. She also said that when we die, we won't be together. If she wasn't pregnant at the time, I would have decked her.

Thanks for your comments. I seethed about this all day yesterday. She was a self-righteous a-hole in college and she's still that way today, it seems.

It was really hard to keep my cool. The only reason I did is because there are several TBMs on my timeline (including family) whom I did not want to disrespect by making rude remarks about the Morg.

Gawd, I'm so freaking glad I'm away from these people. They drive me cuckoo!!!

I think the idea about having different Facebooks is a good one but I already have a "work" Facebook and this personal one. Maybe I need to play around with those group things. On the other hand, one of the people who "liked" my original status was another BYU friend, in fact, she was Idiot BYU friend's roomate in our ward. Strange things....

Bravo to you and your competent other friend. I've been saying this for YEARS. The TBM fear tactic that churches are going to be forced to marry gays is your classic slippery slope fallacy. I think the whole thing is ironic. Those who oppose gay marriage are fighting the WRONG thing. It should be a civil right, available to ALL legal, consenting adults. Churches, as private organizations can reserve the right to determine who they will or won't marry and the criteria for full membership in their church.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who feels this way. I started a thread about this the other day:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,412581

Thanks for a great post.

Just to let everyone know that the Unitarian Universalist Church is always honored to perform marriages for same sex couples.

However, in states where same sex marriage is illegal, the UU Church's religious right to perform marriages in its sanctuaries has been violated. This by other churches which have worked so hard to make same sex marriage illegal.

I love how Mormons (in this case) will claim it's ok to oppress a minority they don't approve of because of a disapproving majority opinion, and then will go to SS and listen to a class taught about how awful it was when they were the disliked minority oppressed by a disapproving majority (over polygamy, for example).

America is supposed to be unique because our philosophy of government is supposed to operate from centain principles of individuality and freedom to be who we are. An essential role of government is to protect these fundamental rights. The appropriate role of the courts is to review disputes like the one generated over Prop 8 and judge them according to the principles contained in our founding government documents. When a law (such as Prop 8) violates those fundamental principles, it is the duty of the court to invalidate the law regardless of whether the majority approved of it or not. This is the reason the US Constitution sets the courtts system up to be insultated from the democratic process; we don't vote for or approve judges (at least, not at the the federal level). The courts are understood to need to make unpopular decisions when the will of the majority would violate our founding principles.

The other issue I would take with your "friend" is whether or not public opinion is still against state approved gay marriage. Prop 8 did not pass by that great of a margin and public opinion has been shifting in favor of gay rights over time. Polls taken last year showed several beginning in the Spring where more people polled favored gay marraige than opposed it. I see no reason to believe that the trend has not continued toward acceptence of marriage for same sex couples. A vote taken 4 years ago does not mean the results would be the same if taken today. Public opinion is funny that way.