Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
provoman

Equal Rights Amendment: The Church is neutral...

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Burnside said:

What do you mean it would be unclear what the effects of the ERA would be if implemented?

Perhaps you could explain to me what the effects of the ERA would be.  Its implications are unclear to me.

5 hours ago, Burnside said:

When it didn’t pass, the “political agenda” used the courts and eventually SCOTUS to get same-sex marriage legal.

Look at #9.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-closer-look?lang=eng  [March 1980]

So you agree that ERA was not needed to obtain those results, and would not be needed to render polygyny or polyandry legal?  Or other forms of non-traditional marriage?  So, what is the practical purpose of the ERA?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, tulip said:

“Woman is God’s supreme creation. Only after the earth had been formed, after the day had been separated from the night, after the waters had been divided from the land, after vegetation and animal life had been created, and after man had been placed on the earth, was woman created; and only then was the work pronounced complete and good.

“Of all the creations of the Almighty, there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely daughter of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why she should do so, who honors and respects her body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates her mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of her understanding, who nurtures her spirit with everlasting truth.”1

Then President Hinckley warns us, “God will hold us accountable if we neglect His daughters.”2

Nothing you have quoted says women are perfect. 

You made a false assertion. Own it. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

@Nehor that certainly is the kinder of his statements on nuetrality.

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, provoman said:

@Nehor that certainly is the kinder of his statements on nuetrality.

Well considering he attacked the neutrals afterwards.....yes.

Share this post


Link to post

I was under the impression that women already have  equal rights in the United States.  Why do we need an amendment?

Edited by Rivers
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/10/2019 at 1:10 PM, tulip said:

Today at church we were taught that men are insensitive and women are perfect.

Men and women equally suck.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Rivers said:

I was under the impression that women already gave equal rights in the United States.  Why do we need an amendment?

We don’t but some people see it as a symbolic move.

5 minutes ago, Rivers said:

Men and women equally suck.

FraK6qD.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Deleted

Edited by Rivers

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, tulip said:

“Woman is God’s supreme creation. Only after the earth had been formed, after the day had been separated from the night, after the waters had been divided from the land, after vegetation and animal life had been created, and after man had been placed on the earth, was woman created; and only then was the work pronounced complete and good.

“Of all the creations of the Almighty, there is none more beautiful, none more inspiring than a lovely daughter of God who walks in virtue with an understanding of why she should do so, who honors and respects her body as a thing sacred and divine, who cultivates her mind and constantly enlarges the horizon of her understanding, who nurtures her spirit with everlasting truth.”1

Then President Hinckley warns us, “God will hold us accountable if we neglect His daughters.”2

I'm not sure why you interpreted this as an indictment of all men and an elevation of all women.  I think he was promoting what women should be striving to be (most don't attain this level, and the world does not encourage women to view themselves in this manner) and reminding men they'll be help accountable if they are neglectful of their wives, is needed.  Maybe not necessary for you, but I'm sure a lot of men needed this admonition, and women need to be reminded of their divine potential.

 

Pres. Hinckley was a Prophet and was divinely inspired to admonish us in the things Heavenly Father wanted us to hear.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

As a woman, I don't feel the need for an Equal Rights Amendment.

If they're going to go spend time and effort amending the Constitution, I can think of a lot of things that are actually needed and useful--like a Balanced Budget or a term limit amendment for the Senate and Congress members.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rivers said:

I was under the impression that women already have  equal rights in the United States.  Why do we need an amendment?

Equal pay?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Equal pay?

Equal promotions...equal credit status..😁

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, alter idem said:

As a woman, I don't feel the need for an Equal Rights Amendment.

If they're going to go spend time and effort amending the Constitution, I can think of a lot of things that are actually needed and useful--like a Balanced Budget or a term limit amendment for the Senate and Congress members.

Or getting rid of Daylight Saving Time. My big pet peeve.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We don’t but some people see it as a symbolic move.

FraK6qD.jpg

Gosh, I didn't expect to see a photo of a porn star on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Bane said:

Gosh, I didn't expect to see a photo of a porn star on this site.

Posting here is and should be an adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2019 at 12:34 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you could explain to me what the effects of the ERA would be.  Its implications are unclear to me.

So you agree that ERA was not needed to obtain those results, and would not be needed to render polygyny or polyandry legal?  Or other forms of non-traditional marriage?  So, what is the practical purpose of the ERA?

I was around when Pres. Kimball was President of the Church. Weren’t you? I answered your question with a LDS link from 1980.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Burnside said:
 
Quote

 

 On 2/12/2019 at 6:52 PM, Burnside said:

What do you mean it would be unclear what the effects of the ERA would be if implemented?

Perhaps you could explain to me what the effects of the ERA would be.  Its implications are unclear to me.

  5 hours ago, Burnside said:

When it didn’t pass, the “political agenda” used the courts and eventually SCOTUS to get same-sex marriage legal.

Look at #9.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-closer-look?lang=eng  [March 1980]

So you agree that ERA was not needed to obtain those results, and would not be needed to render polygyny or polyandry legal?  Or other forms of non-traditional marriage?  So, what is the practical purpose of the ERA?

I was around when Pres. Kimball was President of the Church. Weren’t you? I answered your question with a LDS link from 1980.

Yes, I was certainly around, and I watched closely as the LDS Church and Phyllis Schlafly systematically defeated the ERA (I have a degree in  political science).  However, I still have not received a clear answer to my above (bolded) questions.

The entirely one-sided legal brief in the March 1980 Ensign is a mixed bag and does not profit from the perspective of time (it is now almost 40 years since being prepared).  I find many of the assumptions and statements in that brief to be false or tendentious.  I regard, for example, the notion of the nuclear family strongly supported by the LDS Church to be a weak and failing structure, when we should have been pushing the notion of the traditional extended family (which churches and modern society have been destroying).  Then too, many of the list of horribles which the ERA would supposedly create have come to  pass without it.

Most of all, however, I am just not sure that the ERA makes any difference if enacted.  Is it needed for any valid purpose?  Has its absence been noticed?  Have the right or the left gained or lost anything in its absence?

Edited by Robert F. Smith
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/13/2019 at 2:16 PM, Tacenda said:

Equal pay?

They generally do get equal pay.  Are there lists out there that employers use with one pay scale for men and one for women?

Edited by carbon dioxide

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/17/2019 at 1:31 PM, carbon dioxide said:

They generally do get equal pay.  Are there lists out there that employers use with one pay scale for men and one for women?

You are wrong, women do not generally get equal pay. 

According to this report by Business Insider dated August 2018, "Today, on average, a woman earns 80.5 cents for every dollar a man earns, and women's median annual earnings are $10,086 less than men's, according to data from the US Census Bureau."

And no, there are not separate pay scales for men and women that are maintained by corporate HR departments. What does exist is a pay range for each position, and women are generally offered a wage at the lower end of that range than a man in the same position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

This post made me wonder what ever happened to Sonia Johnson.  There is a great recent article about her in the Salt Lake Tribune.  The most interesting part to me was about her and her female partner.

 

Quote

they have been together now for 28 years. They are best friends, soul sisters and marriage partners, Johnson said, but not lovers.

That's a interesting arrangement.  

 

Phaedrus 

Share this post


Link to post

Gregory Korte, “With women in combat roles, a federal court rules the male-only draft unconstitutional,” USA Today/msnnews, Feb 23, 2019, online at https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/with-women-in-combat-roles-a-federal-court-rules-the-male-only-draft-unconstitutional/ar-BBU04a8?ocid=spartandhp .

Quote

U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat "may have justified past discrimination," men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service. 


 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...