You ever get somebody's goat by accident, and then they get all riled up, and you apologize, and in so doing you get their goat AGAIN?  Pretty soon the goat-transactions take on a story-like quality, and you feel duty-bound as the protagonist (or antagonist) of this story to KEEP getting the goat, for as long as the story will continue, until the goat is either yours to keep, or else dead.
 
With that, I share the following emails of one (now former) Singlesaints member.  After I sent out a message to all members of the site about the Federal Marriage Amendment, I got the following:
 

THIS IS SPAM!!!
DON'T SEND ME YOUR POLITICAL CRAP ANYMORE!!!
WHY SHOULD WE FORCE OUR IDEALS ON A FREE SOCIETY???

I wrote back with the following:

Sorry if I offended you with my email -- I assumed that most of the members of Singlesaints.com would be interested in knowing what the Church had said and what they could do.
 
If I may ask, how do you feel about the Church's announcement?  Do you feel I've misinterpreted it?
 
Randy Tayler

 
I received the following:
 

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU INTERPRETED IT!!!
IT IS SPAM - UNSOLICITED EMAIL!!!
THIS IS VERY VERY OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN OPINION, BUT NOBODY
SHOULD FORCE THEIR IDEALS ON SOMEONE ELSE, ESPECIALLY
IN OUT "FREE SOCIETY"!!! 

 
"Oh, wait. Are you OFFERING me your goat?  I'm confused."
 

Again, I apologize. The email list is simply members of Singlesaints.com, and is in accordance with the Terms of Use.  If you do not want to receive emails that I feel relate to the Church, I suggest you cancel your membership to the site,  unless you're getting value from the site that outweighs the occasional email from me.  Either way, the link to the cancellation page is at the bottom of the email that started all this.  
 
I've received a number of very heated responses, and I'm confident that had I chose my wording more carefully, or more clearly outlined how I felt about same-sex attraction and homosexuality, I'd have gotten fewer angry retorts.  
 
I have friends in the Church who have battled same-sex attraction, and other outside the Church who are just outright "gay".  I love them equally, and I feel they have the most arduous challenge God has given to any mortals.   
 
 I do not feel, as some do, that they CHOSE that lifestyle, or that they were PERVERTED over to it; I think rather, that they have a trial I do not envy.  And since I can't blame THEM for their orientation, I let the blame fall on God, but who has said that homosexual acts are a sin.    
 
How can He do that?  How can he let some people be homosexual, yet command them to refrain from it their whole lives?  
 
I've only been able to justify it in my mind with the belief that homosexuals will be happier if they obey the commandments.  That through nothing short of miraculous intervention, they will be able to find greater fulfillment in a traditional marriage and family.  And I believe there are people with same-sex attraction within the Church who are doing just that.  Sometimes they don't succeed, but sometimes they actually do.    
 
I can't say why the homosexual marriage would damage society, but I trust the Lord knows.  I'm beginning to think that the people it would be most damaging to are the homosexuals -- any that might consider striving for a traditional marriage as God commands will, instead, have their resolve weakened -- and possibly end up protesting the Church for not allowing same-sex sealings.  Some who might've seen the greatest miracle of their lives will instead be led to apostasy.  
 
I suppose I should've said all this in my email; I assumed mistakenly that most of us love the sinner, but not the sin, and as a result I've been grouped by a few into the category of haters and bigots.   
 
I wish you the best, whatever you decide regarding your membership to the site.  
 
Randy

AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT!!!
THIS IS VERY VERY OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
I DIDN'T JOIN THIS SITE TO DEAL WITH TOPICS LIKE THIS!
FURTHERMORE, EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN
OPINION, BUT NOBODY SHOULD FORCE THEIR IDEALS OR
RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ON SOMEONE ELSE!
THIS IS A "FREE SOCIETY", OR DIDN'T YOU KNOW??? 

At this point, I started to get upset.  I'd taken the time to write out a kind, thoughtfully worded response, and got more anger as a result. 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but when the Church has made a public statement about something, I feel it falls within the purview of a sited dedicated to the Church's members.  And I will continue to email members of Singlesaints.com when I feel the desire to do so.  As you say, it's a free society.  I'm free to do what I want with the website I built and that I maintain.  
 
I reiterate that if you do not want to receive emails that I feel relate to the Church, I suggest you cancel your membership to the site,  unless you're getting value from the site that outweighs the occasional email from me.   
 Randy Tayler

YOU JUST DON'T GET IT???
WE DIDN'T JOIN THIS SITE TO HEAR YOUR VIEWS OR THE
VIEWS OF THE CHURCH!!!  THERE ARE PLENTY OF SITES FOR
THAT!!!  AGAIN, THIS IS OFF-TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!!!
MOST SITES GIVE MEMBERS THE COURTESY OF OPTING OUT OF
VARIOUS EMAILS (NOTICES AND/OR PROMOTIONS), BUT IT
SEEMS THAT YOU WANT TO FORCE YOUR VIEWS DOWN OUR
THROATS!!!  BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDE, MYSELF AND
SEVERAL OTHERS WILL BE CANCELING OUR MEMBERSHIP!!!

PLEASE DROP THIS DIALOG, I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY
MORE, I HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO WITH MY TIME AND I
SUGGEST YOU FIND SOMETHING MORE PRODUCTIVE TO DO WITH
YOUR TIME!!!

 
Fine.  I wrote back one last time -- or so I thought -- just to show you can't demand the end of a dialog.  You can only stop talking.
 

See ya!

Randy Tayler

 
Then, curious as to whether she had deleted her account or not, I looked at her profile -- which had no description at all.  She had succeeded in deleting everything about herself, but not deleting her account.  So, I took the liberty of cancelling her account, as she said she was going to do, and put "your request" as the reason.  The automated email was sent saying just that.
 

Your Singlesaints account has been deleted due to the following:
 
 your request.

 
Well, she got the first email, and responded thusly:
 

YOU HAD TO GET THE LAST WORD IN DIDN'T YOU???
I HOPE YOU FEEL PROUD OF YOURSELF!!!
JUST THE FACT THAT SEVERAL PEOPLE COMPLAINED ABOUT
YOUR POSTING SHOULD BE SIGN ENOUGH FOR ANY INTELLIGENT
PERSON THAT IT WAS OFF TOPIC FOR THIS SITE!  GOOD
RIDDENS!!!

 
She then, apparently, read the second email, and responded to it, too:

 DIDN'T REQUEST FOR YOU TO DELETE MY SINGLESAINTS ACCOUNT!!!   I SAID THAT I ALONG WITH OTHERS PROBABLY, AND I EMPHASIZE PROBABLY, WOULD DELETE OUR ACCOUNTS WITH SINGLESAINTS.  THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT UP US WHEN WE WANTED TO DELETE OUR ACCOUNTS.  WHAT I DID ASK WAS FOR THIS DIALOG TO CEASE AND YOU WON'T RESPECT THAT REQUEST!!!  IT SEEMS YOU DELETED US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH YOUR OPINIONS AND HAD OPINIONS OF OUR OWN.  I AM SURE A LOT OF MEMBERS WILL FIND IT VERY INTERESTING THAT YOU DELETE MEMBERS BECAUSE OF THEIR OPINIONS!!! 

 
Whew.  Okey dokey.  Um, first off -- I deleted ONE other member who had a Terms of Use violation, who could conceivable claim I was just deleting him because he disagreed with me.  But I had a few more folks than that who disagreed, and most stayed on the site.
 
What I actually wrote was this:

Do you just leave capslock on all the time?  
 
I didn't delete people that disagreed with me -- I thought you were truthfully wanting to delete your account, but didn't know how.  I've had people have trouble in the past.  When I saw you had no bio written in your account, I just assumed not hassle you again with yet ANOTHER email asking if you were trying to delete your account.  
 
I don't understand why the fact that we disagree makes you so angry.  I think you must be an angry person in general.  
 
Randy

 
It's fun at this point, isn't it?
 

YOUR PROBLEM IS JUST THAT, "YOU DON'T THINK"!!! NOWHERE DID I ASK YOU TO HELP ME WITH DELETING MY ACCOUNT NOR DID I EVER SAY I WAS HAVING TROUBLE DELETING MY ACCOUNT!!!  SO, THERE MUST HAVE BEEN ANOTHER REASON FOR YOU DELETING ME???  YOU SAY YOU DIDN'T WANT TO HASSLE ME TO ASK IF I WANTED YOU TO DELETE MY ACCOUNT, BUT YET YOU HASSLE ME WITH ANOTHER ONE OF YOUR EMAILS ACCUSING ME OF BEING "an angry person in general"!!!  GO FIGURE THAT ONE OUT FOR YOURSELF???  I ASKED TO END THIS DIALOG ANY YET YOU CONTINUE???  WHEN WILL YOU GET IT WITH YOUR EMAILING YOUR MEMBERS WITH YOUR UNSOLICITED OPINIONS AND HASSLING THEM WHEN THEY ASK YOU TO STOP EMAILING THEM!!!  STOP ALREADY!!!  TAKE YOUR SINGLESAINTS AND HAVE ALL THE FUN YOU THINK YOU CAN HAVE???  IF ONLY YOU KNEW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING BEHIND YOUR BACK!!!

 

1. If you truly want the dialog to stop, YOU have to stop writing.  See how that works?  You don't give the other person more to respond to, unless you can handle getting a response.  Even if you say "DON'T EMAIL ME ANYMORE OR I'LL SUE", I'll have to send a confirmation.
 
2.  "IF ONLY YOU KNEW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING BEHIND YOUR BACK!!!"
Oh no!
 
-Randy

 
That's all for now.  I'll keep you posted on whether she writes again or not.

So, I took the liberty--

(that phrase! How ironic it now seems to me! After my feelings have been construed as actually taking liberty, or freedom, from others!)

--of emailing 4800+ US members of Singlesaints.com to inform them of the Church's stance on a federal marriage amendment, and of the action they could take.

Got some heated responses, I did.

First, what I wrote:

If you haven't already heard, the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on a federal marriage amendment this week.

You also may not have heard that the Church announced last Wednesday that it favors an amendment that preserves "marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."

Without massive action, however, it probably won't pass.

But it might. Here's what you can do if you haven't already done so.

Call your senators' offices. This page will show you how the voting stands right now -- you should be able to see if your senators are for or against. It also has their phone numbers. We've called. You can, too. Let them know how you feel. (If you can't afford the long distance charges, use this page to find their email address.)
Tell your friends. If you're not up to writing your own email, you're welcome to forward this one on, though this one is basically presuming you're LDS and you trust the leaders of the Church. See where the opposition is coming from, and contact your close friends in those states.
Pray. I shouldn't have to give you instructions on that one.

Thanks for letting me take this opportunity to get all politically active. You may now resume your normal web-surfing. (After you make the calls.)

Randy Tayler
Head Honcho

Now, some of the replies:

---

im glad u sent this , i hate those dang queers

---

Why should I be a bigot and vote against civil rights for gay people? If your prophet told you to drink poisoned kool-aid, would you do that too? Mind your own ****ing business, you hypocrites.
[edited. For the record, turns out he was an Ex-Mormon, but still on the records. He later said, when I delved further: "He's not my prophet. I merely said that I am a member of the church."]

---

you really think it's constitutional to deny anyone their rights as a US Citizen on the basis of religion?

it's a rhetorical question. I'll call my senator, opposing.

---

You are a bigot and I hope your company fails. Please take me off your
list. I do not support hatrid nor denying anyone rights. If this is a
political organization you should say that when people sign up for it. I
will however pray for you and our church to remember what it feels like to
be persecuted, hated, and denied rights. Try reading the 11th article of
faith. You and your company are hypocrits and unchrist-like. I rebuke you
sir. Good Day.

---

I am sorry, but I have resigned from the church, and also I wholeheartedly
support GAY MARRIAGE.
I cancelled my account with you in April 2003.
Please remove me from your list.

---

Well, I don't agree and i think that anyone that does agree with it... HAS NO RIGHT TO JUDGE !!!!!

---

---

I also received two more cordial thanks, and two or three more respectful disagreements.

What have we learned, class? We learned to more loudly voice our love for the sinner when we denounce the sin.

It's ironic to find myself in this position, being called a bigot, hate-filled, etc., because not more than a year ago, our Stake President was addressing a fireside about the topic of homosexuality, and I walked out of it, because I felt contentious and angry, and because I wanted to voice my dissent in the most non-contentious way I could think of. I wrote a letter to the Stake President.

Now, I didn't call him hate-filled, or bigot -- I merely... oh, here, I saved the letter.

Dear President,

I don't know if a letter of this sort is appropriate or not, or if keeping my thoughts to myself is more apropos. I feel no ill will towards you, and, being relatively new in the stake (4 months), I have never been introduced to you.

At the stake priesthood meeting, your remarks about gay people and homosexuality saddened me for two reasons. First, I felt that any young man there who has been struggling with the temptation of same-sex attraction would have felt estranged and alienated and unwelcome in the fold. Second, I felt that your words fanned the flame of hatred in heterosexuals towards homosexuals.

I know this was surely not your intent, neither to push sinners away from their source of healing, nor to add to the already strong prejudice against and hatred for homosexuals. Intended or not, however, I feel like your approach to the matter was destructive and saddening. I left before you finished; I felt that the only peacable way I could express disagreement was to simply go. (Neither do I know if that, too, was inappropriate. I knew it would never do to voice disagreement from the congregation, despite your admonition to stand up for what we believe in. Instead I simply stood up and walked out.)

As far as my first concern goes, I don't know what goes on inside the mind of young man with issues of same-sex attraction. I have had friends -- members of the church -- that struggled against this temptation, and one took almost 20 years to tell his parents about his struggle. If such a man was in the congregation Sunday night, I think he's much less likely to confront a bishop or parent about his feelings -- which is surely a necessary step in overcoming them -- when they have been so villified.

Surely homosexual behavior is a choice, as you stated. But nothing was said to console those with such urges. I wish you had said something like "The individual struggling against such temptations may not have brought them on himself, and should find strength in talking with his priesthood leaders on how to overcome them." That would have helped draw the line more clearly between hating the sin and loving the sinner.

I once believed that same-sex attraction was a perversion that resulted from lust. I felt like homosexuals had brought upon themselves their own misery. I felt, like you stated, that on Judgment Day, homosexuals would be weeping and wailing and gnashing their teeth.

I now believe that while choosing to commit homosexual acts is certainly the result of free will, that same-sex attraction is not necessarily, or even in most cases, a choice. I have the utmost pity and sorrow for my friends that have struggled with same-sex attraction, and I consider it the greatest of all mortal challenges. Greater than economic hardship, greater than disabilities or health problems, greater than abusive relationships.

As for my second concern, the natural man, I believe, already finds homosexuality gross. It's disgusting to all heterosexual men -- it's built-in to us to find it wrong and disturbing. Thus there is no value in preaching that it's disgusting -- to do so is, as they say, preaching to the choir. I did value your comments on standing up for what's right, in fighting legislation that degrades the family and allows homosexual practictioners to be called a family unit. But I never felt that your message was "love the sinner, hate the sin"; on the contrary, it seemed like you were saying we should shun anyone with such tendencies -- they will be found guilty at Judgment Day. There was no message about reclaiming them, in helping them to repent, or if there was, I missed it completely.

I don't believe such belligerence was your point -- I believe you were trying to dissuade tempted individuals from entering into sin, and trying to fight the tide of thought that considers homosexuality normal and not sinful. Both are crucial goals in the fight against this form of immorality. Yet your word choice, the points you made -- these, in my mind, were mistakes, and were more harmful than helping.

I hope I've been able to write this in the spirit of love that I feel for you. I'm grateful for righteous men like you that shoulder the burdens of priesthood leadership.

Sincerely,


Randy Tayler

What did my Stake President and I have in common? We both neglected to express love for the sinner adequately for those listening.

That said, I realize many will claim my love is feigned, if I don't think gays should have the right to marry. I don't know what to say to that. If I compare it to forbidding a child to play in the street, they'll say the comparison is unfair.

I should reiterate that not all those who disagreed with me resorted to name-calling, and that most folks didnt respond, period. 1300 some people have seen the message now, if my tracker is right, and only about a dozen responses thus far. I hope that those numbers are not representative of the level of participation we're taking in our own government.