Comments on: Any-sex marriage advocacy kind of reminds me of the Khmer Rouge

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:30:08 +0000

Geoff, I didn’t compare anything to homosexuals. Most people advocating any-sex marriage are not themselves homosexual, and with a little looking, one can find homsexuals who don’t want to change marriage laws.

Also, I wish to note Mark D.’s comment #9. That and Chris H.’s deleted comment made nice points why my comparison may be inapt, aside from being unavoidably provocative. For any still reading, the Year Zero aspect has been on my mind for all of this last year, though I read the Colby Cosh item linked above years ago. Then there was the response to Dallin H. Oaks’ BYU-Idaho speech. The “Who’s oppressing who?” question (or in more Leninist terms “Who? Whom?”) seemed like a legitimate matter to debate. But, oh, how tempting to simply play the trump card against the Mormon who thinks he has experienced anything analogous to a 60’s civil rights advocate!

It is hard to say any better response could have been expected. Serious, monitory comparisons theoretically could be made between Germany’s National Socialists and some current political maneuver (“In 1935, the Nazis did X, and Hugo Chavez/John Ashcroft/Silvio Berlusconi’s latest action is just too similar to what those dead political gangsters did.”), but in practice, there is just too much baggage to do so. One aspect of Nazi misrule can’t be mentioned without memories of devastation across Europe cascading down. Intimidation of black citizens exercising their civil rights can’t be mentioned without evoking a half millennium of racial injustice. So, I found myself musing over the difficulty of expressing my Year Zero thought effectively, combined with wonder at how, in the style of Elder Oaks’ less thoughtful critics, this provocation could be turned around against me. (“Doesn’t this guy know that it’s the Mormons who are just like the Khmer Rouge?”)

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:48:44 +0000

No worries. I would try again, but the thought is lost.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:44:25 +0000

Sorry about that, Chris. For myself, the ratio of value to time spent creating a blog comment is usually so low, that recreating one is a very dubious proposition. I liked your comment, and am glad you wrote it.

By: Chris H.

Chris H. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:28:48 +0000

Well, John, looks like you will need to insult yourself.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 16:13:36 +0000

John M, ad hominems are not encouraged here, which is why Chris H’s #25 has disappeared into the ether of cyberspace, becoming your #25. Chris H is invited to re-post his comments without ad hominems.

I will admit, however, a provocative post comparing gays to the Khmer Rouge in any way is likely to stir people up, which is not necessarily a good thing.

By: John Mansfield

John Mansfield — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:59:59 +0000

Well, with Chris H.’s #25, someone is at last getting into the spirit of things. It was starting to look as though, like Cyrano, it was left to me to create worthwhile insults of my own nose.

“What hypocrisy that you, a Mormon, an heir of those who murdered 150 men, women and children at Mount Meadows, would compare anyone to any aspect of the Khmer Rouge!”

“Year Zero! What about polygamy? Oh, you don’t want to remember anything about that, do you?”

“Well, if it hadn’t been for support from Kissinger and Nixon, who probably every single Mormon voted for over Humphrey or McGovern, maybe the Khmer Rouge wouldn’t have taken over Cambodia.”

“Mansfield, Brother Number One may have done astonishingly awful things to his country, but I think of you as merely America’s Brother Number Two.”

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:49:07 +0000

Same-sex advocacy may be distasteful, but comparing it to the Khmer Rouge is hardly constructive. These are people who had no voice or rights at all until recent decades. Some of those who posted above might want to reconsider their underlying assumptions about homosexuality: it is not exclusive to humans but is fairly widespread among the animal kingdom, it tends to run in families, and has not as yet been shown to have any post-natal cause whatsoever.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:35:18 +0000

I would also like to point out that so far almost all of the comments have had nothing to do with the post.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 10:33:12 +0000

I am against SSM, but it is interesting to note that all comments by recent prophets and apostles on the subject have concentrated on defending marriage but have also pointed out that Latter-day Saints must show love and sympathy to everyone. I think we as a people are being tested on this issue, and one of the tests is: did you treat people with homosexual tendencies with charity? Sometimes people forget the second part of the test.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 05:31:51 +0000

Bookslinger, regrettably the world spent most of the twentieth century (re-)learning that lesson, and we still have some rather prominent groups for whom it hasn’t sunk in yet. The ability to disagree on “what is evil” is the foundation of civil society.