"Gay" in the News: Arizona Controversy

Those of you who claim religious rights in Arizona are irritating to those of us who are "gay".   Opponents of the legislation assert that the result will be "NO GAYS ALLOWED" signs being posted by businesses.

Aside from the fact that no such signs have ever been produced, other than by "gays" making this argument, this is cited by homosexual advocates as a compelling and inevitable "slippery slope".

I am not convinced by the specious reasoning.  The number of tee-shirts on display with pro-homosexuality slogans is not equivalent to democratic process, nor does getting your staged protest tantrums in the news establish "consensus".  This does not even amount to "appeal to authority" logic.  It is simply demanding government support for a position that cannot be logically defended.

While the advocates for "equality" would find some satisfaction in forcing everyone to hold their hands over their hearts, stand at attention, and sing "Glory, Glory Hallelujah!" every time another "gay" flaunts his deviance, I feel no reverence for this false sense of  "equality".  It has little to do with bigotry, and everything to do with morality.

Self-identified "Gays", it would seem, have yet to live up to their own ridiculous labelling. They're just not all that gay.

"Gay" in the News: Indiana DOMA

Indiana DOMA moves forward through the State Legislature.   This is being reported from a number of different perspectives, which is confusing, but is probably an accurate reflection of the reality of the situation.  Apparently, opponents were able to force a change in the wording of the bill, which even though it has now been approved, by the rules cannot be considered again by the Indiana Congress until 2016.

"Gay" in the News: DOMA in Virginia

This court ruling is a victory?  Some people obviously would have you believe so.  Others are not so sure.

"Gay" in the News: Texas DOMA Surgical Bypass

Same-sex marriage comes to Texas.   They're ALL blushing brides.  I'm sure there's a point to all this.

Alice Meets Humpty Dumpty: A study in lingustics

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"

Get Informed, Get Involved

After finding this counsel in article from the February Ensign magazine, I feel somewhat vindicated in my new avocation in madness.

I am aspiring to get involved in political activism.  Even though I passionately hate to be involved in public affairs.  I am a very private person by nature.  It goes against my natural inclination to force myself into public performances.  I have always preferred to sit in the back.  I gravitate toward the back of the chapel, the back seat of the bus, and the less-noticed bystander on the edges of the crowd.  I long for the freedom of isolation that comes with wilderness places, shunned by the thundering herd.

The Ensign article explores the idea,

In today’s world, Latter-day Saints need to become well informed so they can speak up and engage intelligently in causes that concern them.

I do not have any particular talents that distinguish me, other than plenty of time on my hands. 

So far, only a few people have honestly questioned my sanity, and nobody has questioned my sincerity.

The article asserts,

The exaltation and happiness of any community goes hand in hand with the knowledge possessed by the people.  (Joseph Smith)

The man who cannot listen to an argument which opposes his views either has a weak position or is a weak defender of it. No opinion that cannot stand discussion or criticism is worth holding. And it has been wisely said that the man who knows only half of any question is worse off than the man who knows nothing of it. He is not only one sided, but his partisanship soon turns him into an intolerant and a fanatic. In general it is true that nothing which cannot stand up under discussion and criticism is worth defending.  (As quoted by James E. Talmage)

As we educate ourselves on issues and decide a position to take, it’s important to seek the Lord’s will. Once we have studied an issue thoroughly—including the scriptures and the words of our leaders—we can then pray about our decision with confidence that the Lord will guide us. The Savior told Oliver Cowdery, “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right” (D&C 9:8).

There is nothing new or startling about such principles.  Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, was concerned that the people must be educated to qualify them for the responsibilities of self-government.

I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.  This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.  (Thomas Jefferson)

And one of the best-known quotes from Joseph Smith, in answer to a question about how he managed the government of such a large body.

I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.  (Joseph Smith)

I have discovered a mission to be all about helping to learn and teach and advocate for correct principles of self-government.

And finally in our efforts, we should always keep in mind,

Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them.  (2 Kings 6:16)

Triumph of the Subjective

From my personal perspective, it has become progressively more obvious to me.  Experience spells it out plainly now.

To me there is every appearance that philosophical dependence on subjectivity dominates in the moral relativism of an "alternative lifestyle" culture.  Starting from the basis of "If it feels good, do it", and progressing toward the victimization posturing accusation, "You make me feel bad", subjectivity has become the leading value in this vociferous segment of our culture.

There is a sea-change in the general attitude reflected in the philosophy of a vocal minority of our culture.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks expresses concern about this trend.

It is well to worry about our moral foundation. We live in a world where more and more persons of influence are teaching and acting out a belief that there is no absolute right and wrong—that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made choices that can prevail over the commandments of God. Many even question whether there is a God.  (Dallin H. Oaks, "Balancing Truth and Tolerance").

One of the instances I see as an example is coining politically-correct terms like "gay" and "homophobe".

Ironically, in popular usage, both terms are employed to characterize the opposite of the traditional.  There is good reason for this, and to devious thinking it makes perfect sense.

Of course "gay" no longer means "being cheerful".  In fact the prospect for "gay" seems quite dismal.  Those who characterize themselves as "gay" generally seem anything but.  Today no one not wishing to self-identify with homosexual tendencies would ever even consider referring to themselves as "gay".  The "gay" public persona most often seems be an expression of unhappiness, a protest or demonstration of some sort.

Technically, the term "homophobe" is a portmanteau, the Latin roots of which would seem to denote "man" and "fear".  In actual usage it seems to have little connection with any perception of fear itself, and more to do with the accusation of discrimination based on prejudice.

The object of such protests generally seems to be an effort to transfer the blame for unhappiness onto somebody else.  This does not seem to be a culture that assumes personal responsibility for their own satisfaction with life.

The obvious intent is to claim the moral high ground.  Ironically, if we "hate the haters", we feel justified, we feel good.   And nothing is wrong if it feels good.

That such rationale seems quite inconsistent with moral relativism is apparently not a consideration. Though it escapes me why the "haters" somehow are accorded less claim to the validity of their own "hateful" feelings.

If I were assigning semantic significance, I would more often attribute such feelings to women.   Many contemporary women, as they publicly project, are fearful of men.  Their daily interaction reflects fearful and neurotic thinking.  How many men purchase products so associated with an aggressive posture of fear, like personal mace and tasers?

For public police officers these tools are available to subdue aggressive criminals.  To women, these are defense against rapists and muggers who would prey on the weak and vulnerable - and fearful.

In short I think it is women, rather than men, who tend to be "homophobes".  They use their own posture of fear as justification for legalistic schemes to protect themselves, based wholly on feeling "threatened".

I do not doubt that some women feel threatened or insecure.  But total subjectivity is not an effective basis for establishing civil laws.

Utah SB100 - Cross-dressing Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Utah Senator Steven Urquhart, the sponsor of this proposed legislation.

As for myself, this Mormon opposes the proposed Utah Housing and Employment Opportunity Act.  The "opportunity" is a promise of future legal action against any who offend the "gayness" of a "gay".  It is only calculated to "build bridges" to future contentious litigation by minority interests and homosexual advocates.

Choose you this day whom you will serve...

The politically-correct invention of problems related to "gender identity" has no merit, and does not belong in the body of Utah law. If Utah citizens were properly informed about the specific nature of SB100 proposed law, instead of attempting to disguise it as somehow relating to some vague "discrimination" hand-waving, I am confident that most of them would see little purpose for wasting any more time on the consideration of such legislation.

The Deseret News article that examines this bill contains a helpful link to the proposed legislation. I believe even a cursory examination of the actual proposal will reveal what is really intended.

What moves this particular Utah Senator to promote such interests is not for me to say.  But what is being sold to Utah citizens as "anti-discrimination" is really only intended to create new legal grounds for special interest litigation.

Excerpt from the bill SB100 that has repeatedly been proposed in the Utah Congress, deceptively being touted as an "anti-discrimination" statute...

        83          (k) "Gender identity" means an individual's internal sense of gender, without regard to
             84      the individual's designated sex at birth. Evidence of gender identity may include an
             85      individual's self-identification, as well as the individual's gender-related appearance,
             86      mannerisms, and other gender-related characteristics.
     

Near as I can judge, this is a solution in search of a problem.  It is the worst kind of politically-correct psycho-babble gibberish, as coined by post-modernist progressives, who view moral values as simply another "social construct".

The idea buried in this seemingly innocent bill is insidious.  Homosexual advocates wish to create some imaginary legal "rights" that give permission for them to play whatever sexual role they fancy that day.  I don't mind humoring occasional mental instability, but this is nothing short of insanity.

What that has to do with any actual discrimination problem is difficult to tell, but it is likely that any of the Utah Congress who dared to vote against it would instantly be smeared as a suspected "bigot" or a "homophobe".  Who could possibly vote for in favor of "discrimination"?  It has become one of the nastiest charges in our society.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around why the law would presume to mandate that I concern myself about possibly offending whatever "an individual's internal sense of gender" might happen be at any particular time of day.

It calls to mind a particular scene from the popular film "Ghostbusters".

Peter Venkman: Is there any history of mental illness in your family?
Librarian: I had an uncle who thought he was Saint Jerome. 
Peter Venkman: I'd take that as a yes.

We might tend to think this is a rather arbitrary bizarre aberration, but the very question has been made the issue of a number of high-profile lawsuits, being pressed by homosexual advocates - and won - in state courts throughout this country.

Utah advocates of true principles of fairness are accurately represented at "FairToAll".  I support their efforts to promote equality and fight against discrimination.   As opposed to the shameful duplicitous attempts at misrepresentation of the proponents of SB100, this group represents an honest effort that the majority of Utah residents can stand up for, and be proud of.

In contrast to the overreach of SB100, my impression of HB87, making revision to existing statutory regulations to modernize outdated language, is a fair and sensible legislative approach to implement reasonable accommodations.  

A fair summary of related issues appears in the Daily Herald, the Utah Valley newspaper

Near as I can tell, currently in the State of California, everything is either illegal, heavily regulated by the government, or the focus of some lunatic fringe interest group demonstrating on the streets in protest.  I have no interest in transforming Utah into a similar asylum of common and perennial discontentment.

Let us continue to govern ourselves, promote freedom in all prudence and wisdom, with discussion on the merits of all issues in the public square, in true democratic fashion.

Utah Endangered

Earlier I noted the great rock-tipping incident that was staged out in the Utah desert.

The now-famous rock tippers of Goblin Valley Utah are now facing felony charges.  I suppose the Salt Lake Tribune can take major credit for trumpeting the alarm.  The SLTrib publishes the latest.  Not to be outdone, the Deseret News adds their documentation.

It would appear that Utah is under threat from illicit rock-tipping.  The lawlessness is out-of-control.  We need government intervention before every rock in the desert is ravaged by such evil maniacs.

Just imagine what these guys might have done if they got their hands on the iconic Rainbow Bridge, or Natural Arch.  How fortunate are we that the ever-vigilant State authorities are so busy keeping the dramatic natural features of this pretty great State safe from such evil predators.

Meanwhile, at the Utah State Capitol, homosexual advocates demand "equality".  They argue that anything that can be referred to as "love" is every bit as legitimate as any other specious rationale for State-sanctioned "marriage".  With the intent of demanding normalization for their ironic parody of "marriage", they storm around and stage petulant tantrums.  Prancing parade marchers mock the faith of the pioneer founders of Utah.  Under the complete umbrella of protection by the laws, the few members this deviant lunatic fringe invoke "free speech" rights to promote their deviancy and immorality as "normal" behavior.  All the while spewing derisive slogans justifying their perversion.

Most ironic are the common gutter epithets and slanderous smears with which they characterize their opponents.  And they have the unmitigated temerity to denigrate any attempt to utter a contradictory expression as "hate-speech". 

I am not surprised at the turn of current events.  Such things are bound to happen, in this diverse world.  What I dismay at is the disproportionate response.

On the one hand, we see a major expression of social outrage when some idiots dislodge a rock.  On the other hand, we see minority interest groups vying to overturn major foundational principles of society, that threaten the very future of mankind.  About such an absurd attack on the future welfare of the human race, we hardly hear a whimper.

Difficult to grasp.

Reiterating: Watchmen on the Tower

In the October 1999 General Conference, Elder M. Russel Ballard taught:

As Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is our duty to be watchmen on the tower, warning Church members to beware of false prophets and false teachers who lie in wait to ensnare and destroy faith and testimony. Today we warn you that there are false prophets and false teachers arising; and if we are not careful, even those who are among the faithful members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will fall victim to their deception...

False prophets and false teachers are also those who attempt to change the God-given and scripturally based doctrines that protect the sanctity of marriage, the divine nature of the family, and the essential doctrine of personal morality. They advocate a redefinition of morality to justify fornication, adultery, and homosexual relationships. Some openly champion the legalization of so-called same-gender marriages. To justify their rejection of God’s immutable laws that protect the family, these false prophets and false teachers even attack the inspired proclamation on the family issued to the world in 1995 by the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.

 President Joseph F. Smith:

We can accept nothing as authoritative but that which comes directly through the appointed channel, the constituted organizations of the Priesthood, which is the channel that God has appointed through which to make known His mind and will to the world.

 … And the moment that individuals look to any other source, that moment they throw themselves open to the seductive influences of Satan, and render themselves liable to become servants of the devil; they lose sight of the true order through which the blessings of the Priesthood are to be enjoyed; they step outside of the pale of the kingdom of God, and are on dangerous ground (Joseph F. Smith)

In the Book of Mormon, the prophet Samuel the Lamanite denounced the Nephite people, who had become worse than the formerly morally depraved Lamanites:

Behold ye are worse than they...

...if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

  

Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him. (Helaman 13:27-28)

President James E. Faust:

In our desire to be broad-minded, to be accepted, to be liked and admired, let us not trifle with the doctrines and the covenants which have been revealed to us, nor with the pronouncements of those who have been given the keys of the kingdom of God on earth. For all of us, the words of Joshua ring with increasing relevance. “Choose you this day whom ye will serve; … but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15). (James E. Faust, "Keeping Covenants and Honoring the Priesthood")

 Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

In our system of Church government, evil speaking and criticism of leaders by members is always negative. Whether the criticism is true or not, as Elder George F. Richards explained, it tends to impair the leaders’ influence and usefulness, thus working against the Lord and his cause. (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947)

The prophet Moses expressed another reason we should refrain from criticizing Church leaders. On one occasion, the whole congregation of the children of Israel became dissatisfied and “murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness.” (Ex. 16:2.)

“What are we, that ye murmur against us?” Moses asked them. “The Lord heareth your murmurings which ye murmur against him: and what are we? your murmurings are not against us, but against the Lord.” (Ex. 16:7–8.)

Similarly, when the children of Israel ignored the prophet Samuel’s inspired warnings and begged him to appoint a king to rule over them, the Lord directed him to do as they asked, explaining: “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me.” (1 Sam. 8:7.) (Dallin H. Oaks, "Criticism")