Sunta

I believe that the answer lies in the fact that people who are against this bill, in their heart, really despise gay people. The people who are against this bill, in their hearts, believe that gay people are going against the Bible, that they are sinners, that they are choosing a life of "abomination," and that essentially they pretty much deserve whatever "hate" comes their way. The thing that I don't understand is this: If religious conservatives have such views, that gay people are sinners and deserve what they get, why not just stand up and say so? Why argue that this is a "flawed" bill. Why not just acknowledge that you believe that gay people are choosing a life of sin, and if they want to avoid hate crimes, all they have to do is change their evil ways. If that is what people believe in their hearts, why not just stand up and say so? :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

The detriment is this. If a "hate crime" against someone is committed who is not part of the "special minority" is not considered a hate crime. Ok, so by this argument you're saying "If I can't have it, then no one else should be allowed to have it either." Right? By your argument, I think the lottery should be illegal, because when someone else wins, I don't win. This argument is completely illogical and does nothing to prove that the law is any way detrimental to you. Nothing will change for you should the bill pass. It does not affect you negatively in any way nor does it detract from your current life. If you feel strongly that fat people should be protected under the current legislation, then you should work to make that happen instead of working to take protection away from others.

Sunta, First of all, your claim that Christan's wish harm and violence to anyone is absurd! I am not opposed to the bill. My point is that all crime should be treated equally, a hate crime is a hate crime regardless of races, gender, sexuall preference, etc, make no difference to me. I oppose all violent crime and think the penalties should be very harsh equally across the board. I think the point Jill was trying to make (and she can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that someone bent on committing a crime out of hatred will do so regardless of the penalty and adding extra time won't be a determining factor. I am sorry you have such disdain for Christan's and religion in general. I think I have been very respectfull of you in my posts on religious matters, but it definately seems you have an agenda against organized religion. Absolutely you have been more than respectful, and have demonstrated what Christians are supposed to be like. Unfortunately, though, most I run into are nothing like you whatsoever, and that is what has given me my negative impression, overall, of Christianity. You say you are not opposed to the bill. Well, that could be because you are indeed a loving person who actually embodies the love that Jesus was all about. Unfortunately, most Christians are opposed to the bill, and since they cannot provide any evidence as to what detriment it would pose, I am left with no other option that to assume that along with their often nasty and self-righteous attitude, they also get a certain (perhaps guilty) pleasure at the thought of "sinners" getting what they deserve. Do you see any problem with the fact the leaders of this bill's opposition are so-called "Christians"? How do you reconcile the ironic nature of that fact? Any bill or law which even had the possibility of deterring even one person from violent crime is a good law in my book, and it is outrageous that someone could call themselves a Christian and yet oppose such a law. What detriment would it be to them, exactly, if Gays were added to the existing legislation? The law does not limit free speech and there are no provisions in it to do so. So that means that all the ministers protesting it now will still be able to spout their ignorant homophobia to their nasty little heart's content, even if the bill passes. Like I said before, I could never live with myself if I voted against a law that protected Christians from harm if they happened to be a persecuted and often-targeted minority. But they won't return the favor.

To be honest Carlene, this is the same song I've heard all my life, just a different verse. Because I'm Gay, I've been compared to pedophiles, rapists, prostitutes, what have you. I didn't really expect it to come from you though, particularly the emphasis on "CHOOSE" since you know I didn't CHOOSE my orientation. Unless I've taken your reply incorrectly, I'm actually quite disappointed. I would have expected it from others, just not from you... __________ MsDad, I don't think Carlene's intention was to compare being Gay to being a pedophile, just by saying that both are unchangeable. I should let her speak for herself, but I don't think she would make this comparison. I have heard, seen, and read interviews with pedophiles, and it is their feeling that their condition is unchangeable, and that it is an orientation. I saw a special on them on a news program (something like 60 Minutes maybe), and this one guy, he said he basically stays in his house and doesn't go out, in order to protect children from himself. I remember this guy was interviewed in shadow to protect his identity, and he talked about how painful his life is because he basically can't leave his house because the temptation is too strong. And he tried everything, such as therapy, and medications, etc., to overcome his attraction to children, and he just can't. So maybe we shouldn't call pedophilia an "orientation" but rather an unchangeable mental illness. It's really just a matter of semantics. Either way, it's not related or connected in way, shape, or form to being Gay, and I am pretty sure Carlene knows that

PS: Does anyone else see the extreme irony that it's mostly Christians who oppose hate crime legislation?

Nothing is going to deter someone who hates someone or a group of people if they are hell bent on destruction. Really? Nothing will deter anyone from committing any crime? Well, then, let's remove ALL the laws in place designed to do that then. It'll be anarchy! Since nothing deters people from committing crimes, what good is having any prison sentences for anything? Think of the money we could all save on taxes! And as for being "horrible", since no one has provided me with a shred of evidence of the detriment of such a bill, I am forced into that conclusion and stand by it.

if you kill some poor Black man and you are in the kkk, (lets say you pull him behind your truck). You can not get anymore leathel injection than what is enough to kill you! So what is the purpose of this legislation. The purpose of the legislation is that it could possibly deter people from committnig a hate crime, because of more stiff penalties. People who would not committ a crime on just anyone, but who would committ a crime only towards minority groups. I am not surprised that the Christians here are against the bill. Honetly I believe that they want to see violent crime happen to Gays. Since there is no disadvantage to the bill, that is the only conclusion I am able to draw.

I can say that, if i had 8 children running around, I would be depressed too. I do know woman who have that many children and are on Prozac. Even if they weren't Mormon they would still be stressed out and become depressed with that many young ones. He also didn't mention the authoritive roles that woman play in the church, like in the Relief Society. He mentioned HOme teachers which are men but not the Women's visiting teachers which are Woman. But isn't the fact that they have eight children a direct result of church doctrine and ideas? So certainly you can see that church teachings are have a direct impact on depression levels. I think his point was that women do not hold true positions of power and authority in the church. Any positions they hold are secondary to men. I am wondering, from your posts, if maybe you do not live in Utah, and because of that benefit from a different culture and environment then Mormon women who do live there.

Facts.. those darned pesky facts ROFL! Yep, they'll getcha every time I'm not surprised at all that the Mormon people on here are not going to read the paper. I half expected that, but hope still springs eternal.

Now I know that these people actually "deserve" to go to hell because they failed to find their way to Christianity. I'm really disappointed. It just takes my breath away that my fellow human beings could believe such things. It's even worse than I thought. I mean no disrespect, but you do realize you're talking about people who's heritage includes the Crusades, right? It's no different today. I am convinced that some (NOT ALL! NOT ALL!) Christians actually feel a sense of glee when they think of other people burning in hell, or when they vote against the hate crimes bill (as if they're saying "whoopee! Maybe another fag will be beaten up today!"), or when they murder abortion doctors. I honestly believe that their self-righteous glorification of their own person is so twisted that they get pleasure when they think of others who are not "saved" coming to harm. Otherwise, they would never answer that people "deserve" to burn in hell. Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

About that paper that was published, remember, just because an Active Mormon wrote it, doesn't mean it is Church Doctrine. It's merely his oppinion. Firstly, did you read the paper? Secondly, it is his observation as a Phd, about the suffering and mental anguish of women and girls in the Mormon religion. He interviewed hundreds of people to formulate "just his opinion." So, you discount his observations completely? He's just one lone guy with some random opinion that means nothing? It's easier to deny something exists than to be upset by its existence. I understand that, but I'm surprised that's all you have to say about his well-researched and compassionate report.

My issue in this particular discussion is not whether or not God exists, or which religion is "right", nor am I asking for proof of God or scientific facts, or anything like that. My issue in this discussion is the abuses of women and girls (and Gays) within the Mormon religion; abuses which are well-documented by mainstream Mormons and which, yes, make me angry. Just because I am angry over these abuses does not make me an "angry person" or "bitter" in general, or any of the other things I've been called here. Actually it really concerns me even further when people do not become "angry" about such things, because silence and turning a blind eye like that further purpetuates the abuse, especially by people who could seek to change the way things are, such as Mormon women. It's really convenient to say "oh you're just an angry, bitter person and I'm soooo happy I have the Lord and I'm not like you!" while meanwhile the antidepressant use in Utah is more than double the rest of the country and women and girls are subjected to atrocious emotional manipulation and abuse. That's nice for the people who can turn a blind eye and not give a shit about other people, but I do care and it makes me really angry to see injustice in any way, shape, or form. And I don't just rant about it, believe me. I do my part to assist in creating change where it's desperately needed. Actually, the most shocking thing is that the Mormon women here wouldn't be upset over the mental anguish of the women and girls in Utah, and wouldn't attempt to learn more about it and open their minds to the possibility that some parts of the Mormon doctrine are extremely denigrating of women and girls. That's really a shame, and it's a big reason why this kind of treatment is allowed to continue. I wonder if any those who are arguing with me ever get angry when they see women being stoned to death in Iraq? I do. Does that make me just an angry person? Well I submit that Mormon men participate in the emotional stoning of women here in the United States. Finally, did any of the Mormons on here even read the paper? Or would learning something that challenges the status quo be too upsetting?

I am interested to know if anyone, especially those arguing with me about how misinformed I am, has read the paper I posted by the Mormon Phd. and if so, what are your thoughts on women's depression in the church?

Not main stream Mormons. Ooooh ok that makes more sense. It seems, upon research, that mainstreamers have an extensive private (aka: Mormons run) welfare system.

I encourage everyone on this thread to read the following paper, written by a Mormon (not ex-Mormon) doctor and professor in examining Mormon's women's deep depression and use of anti-depressants: http://home.teleport.com/~packham/prozac.htm

You seem like such a bitter and unhappy person, to spend so much time bashing somthing that you obviously know not much about. If living without religion would lead me to anywhere close to were you are, then that is reason enough for me to continue to beleive in my savior Jesus Christ and strive daily to follow his commandments and be a better person, mother, and friend. Are you addressing me? Since you quoted me in this post I will assume this is addressed to me. I am in no way bitter, or unhappy. In fact I have one of the happiest lives of anyone I know. I do, though, get angry when I see religion denigrating women, and victimizing children. Is this why you say I seem "bitter"- because I care about the welfare of my fellow human beings? Speaking of unhappy, would you like to explain why Utah leads the nation in antidepressant use? Did you even see the special I'm talking about? And also, I find it amusing that you criticize my knowledge as coming from "reading". Since I don't live in Utah, how else would I be able to gather information, except from reading and watching credible shows like ones on PBS? I submit that Mormon women are largely desperately unhappy, suffer tremendous pressure to be "perfect", and feel the effects of their subordination deeply, and therefor there is a high rate of anti-depressant use among Mormon women in an effort to counteract their oppressive lives. And yes, it does make me a little sad and angry that they would have to suffer in this way. But then again I am a very sensitive person who has a deep sense of empathy for my fellow human beings.

As long as the marriages involve consenting adults, why would anyone care how many wives a man has? I agree 100% Consenting adults being key.

I personally don't know exactly what mangina is, but the term totally freaks me out. I know it's used on gossip Websites. One example is on perezhilton.com they wrote "mangina" across Sanjaya's pants. I guess meaning he's effeminate. I think it is mostly applied to men. In the urban dictionary, it is defined as:1. mangina when a guy pulls his dick and balls back between his legs (forming a basket of fruit behind him) and then putting his legs together to simulate the look of a vagina However there are also other definitions listed, so I don't know which one is the "official" definition.

Many, many denominations ordain only men. And just straight men, at that. Yep, and that's why many, many religions are anti-women, anti-Gay, and just plain suck. When I was like seven years old and at Catholic school and I found out women couldn't be priests, I was like "Whattttt?!?!? Screw that!" I don't know why I had that sensibility at 7 and yet millions of people think it's perfectly acceptable. I knew right then I wanted no part of that nonsense and decided it wasn't for me. Could have had to do with the fact I was being raised by a single mom and for someone to tell me she wouldn't be allowed to do something because of her gender made me really pissed off. That and them telling me both my parents were sinning because they were divorced. Uh, no thanks. Think I'll stick with something that respects me instead of something that denigrates me.

And where do you get your information that the mainstream Mormons still practice polygamy? Then who are the 60,000 polygamous people in Utah? Like I said it's my bet that it goes on. I'm going by articles I've read and interviews with people who live in Utah, etc. who say it does go on but that people are not vocal about it. It's just like any other religion. Officially the members are not supposed to do certain things, but those things still go on. In mainstream Mormonism, the percentage is probably pretty low, but there are plenty of fundamentalist Mormons NOT associated with Warren Jeffs, who practice it. I've seen (recently) interviews with some of the wives, on Larry King and on CNN and other similar programs. Wives who don't follow Warren Jeffs but who are Mormons. Yes, the are fundamentalist Mormons but they are still Mormons all the same.

Well, I know in my heart I need a fill. Weight loss has been nill for almost two months, I'm much more hungry, eating more, and this morning after a large-ish Indian dinner, the scale shot up like in pre-band days after a large meal. My issue is... I don't want a fill!!! I really, really, really don't. I HATE the vomiting that comes after the fill for a few months, and I HATE not being able to drink fluids sometimes in the morning, and I HATE the pain I get in my esophogus when I start eating. My question is, could I just exercise instead (I haven't been doing any)? Would that offset the amount of extra calories I'm taking in due to being loose? Here's what I had yesterday: 2-3 ounces of tilapia, quarter cup of potatoe wedges. After that I was not full. An hour later I had one ounce of cheese. I then didn't eat for six hours due to being busy, and I was STARVING like anything. So I went to Indian dinner and this is what I had there: One half of a large "Paratha" (flat, round, Indian bread) Two (one-ounce each) veggie balls in creamy sauce. Quarter cup to half cup of rice. Small piece of mango pickle. Two glasses of wine (before my meal). So then I was STUFFED. And then this morning, I gained like three pounds. That has not happened to me since pre-band, 14 months ago. But then, as I'm writing this, the dinner really doesn't look like that much. It's certainly still less than half of what I would have eaten pre-band, when I would have had at least one or two whole breads, an entire entree, the entire two cup serving of rice, plus dessert. So... I don't know what to do! Should I wait for a few weeks of exercising to see if the weight loss jumps starts back up? Or should I ask my doctor for a tiny fill? I don't think I need a large fill as I still have "restriction" to some degree because I'm still eating tons less than pre-band. Problem is, he really like that big giant 1cc fill all the time. I wonder if he'd be willing to give me .5 instead. Anyway... thanks for listening.

They have different responsibilities but not of less importance. Does the relief society make the laws and rules that govern the church? No, it does not. Do positions women hold have any influence over how the church is run day to day, and what laws people are held to? No, they do not. Women do not hold positions of power in the church, nor do they hold positions of influence. Nor do they make important decisions. All callings and positions within the church are subject to a priesthood authority. But let me quote from a reputable source, the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith, 16: Priesthood, the Divine Government, From the Life of Joseph F. Smith, 137, © 2005 "The Lord has assigned to men the chief responsibility for governing over the affairs of the Church and the family." "We can honor the counsel of priesthood leaders—our husbands, bishops or branch presidents, stake or district leaders, and General Authorities. We should refrain from criticizing priesthood leaders and teach our children to do the same. Sustaining and supporting the priesthood is more than just raising our hands or saying that we support the priesthood. It is learning, praying, obeying, and serving in a good cause." All of the people in positions of power are men, not women. Women's role is secondary and supportive, not primary and leading. And the thing about women being able to have children... That is a natural ability that we can't change, not an award from one human being to another, bestowed to be able to govern, such as in the case of priesthood. I guess the inequalities are so very deeply institutionalized that women themselves are unable to pull back enough to see them...

As for the Colorado City, AZ folks not being part of your religion, I'd have to differ with you. EVERY religion has those they would prefer not to claim as their own but you know what? Just like everyone else you have to suck it up and accept the fact that others are a part of your religion, they merely interpret the rules different from you. Absolutely. I think the Warren Jeffs folks would take offense to being told they're not "real" Mormons. In fact, they are Mormons and they founded their church on Mormon principles, the exact same principles as "other" Mormons. And my bet is that the "real" Mormons also participate in polygamy, as well as underage polygamy, even though it's not "officially" recognized. And the fact is, women are inferior in that religion and I think young girls should be protected from that demoralizing treatment.

God is a man. How would God being a man have anything to do with whether or not women can be priests? By nature of them not being allowed to be priests, they are held in an inferior position to men. The first doctor was a man, but this doesn't mean women can't be doctors. The first astronaut was a man, but this doesn't mean women can't be astronauts. And so on and so forth. God being a man does not, and should not equal "so women can't be priests". It does not make any logical sense as the two are not connected in a linear way in the argument. Women can't be priests because they are held as inferior to men. And therefore, the Mormon church views women as inferior to men.

In the mormon religion that I belong to we are taught that we are equal to men Then please do explain why only men can be priests. Thanks.