Gays fight for identity at religious colleges

[Pahoran]

These major denominations have married same gender couples:

The Episcopal Church

United Church of Christ

Metropolitan Community Church

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

Unitarian Universalist Church

Reform Judaism

I take you think that by doing so they have either abandoned

or have never held principle based moral standards.

That doesn't actually follow from what I wrote, as I rather think you know. Nevertheless, since you brought it up, it is a well-known truism that the UU's in particular have no teachings of any kind that anyone is expected to adhere to, being essentially a social club for atheists who like to go to church.

Here's an old joke: What do you get if you cross a JW with a UU? Someone who knocks on your door on Saturday morning for no particular reason.

Its not dishonest if they sincerely believe it to be true.

"Sincerely believe" that anyone who isn't falling all over themselves to give them whatever they want is a "bigot?"

Sure, Wilbur. No doubt it's a complete coincidence that it just happens to advance their agenda; just like it's a complete coincidence that a pair of "gay" Madison Avenue types came up with this very strategy some years ago.

Since those are the words I chose, I take it then, you are calling me a "hedonistic reprobate." As I don't know what that means, I will assume its a compliment. So thanks. Its always a pleasure to converse with you.

You're welcome. And may I return the compliment by saying that it's always such fun to see how skilfully you can misrepresent my arguments.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Jaybear]

That doesn't actually follow from what I wrote, as I rather think you know. Nevertheless, since you brought it up, it is a well-known truism that the UU's in particular have no teachings of any kind that anyone is expected to adhere to, being essentially a social club for atheists who like to go to church.

From their Website:

There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:

* The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

* Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

* Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;

* A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

* The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;

* The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;

* Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Sure, Wilbur. No doubt it's a complete coincidence that it just happens to advance their agenda; just like it's a complete coincidence that a pair of "gay" Madison Avenue types came up with this very strategy some years ago.

You don't need to be gay or some pig to recognize an effective political strategy. The fact that a major law firm would walking away in shame from litigation defending Congress confirms that they have succeeded brilliantly in their branding strategy.

As someone who has an affinity for labeling his opponent, surely you must appreciate their accomplishment.

[Analytics]

Nevertheless, since you brought it up, it is a well-known truism that the UU's in particular have no teachings of any kind that anyone is expected to adhere to, being essentially a social club for atheists who like to go to church.

Of course that isn't true. UU's take their principles very seriously, and do in fact expect their members to adhere to them. Their principles are:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
  
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
  
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
  
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

Pahoran's attitude towards this reminds me of the words of Emerson:

The populace think that your rejection of popular standards is a rejection of all standard, and mere antinomianism; and the bold sensualist will use the name of philosophy to gild his crimes. But the law of consciousness abides. There are two confessionals, in one or the other of which we must be shriven. You may fulfil your round of duties by clearing yourself in the direct, or in the reflex way. Consider whether you have satisfied your relations to father, mother, cousin, neighbour, town, cat, and dog; whether any of these can upbraid you. But I may also neglect this reflex standard, and absolve me to myself. I have my own stern claims and perfect circle. It denies the name of duty to many offices that are called duties. But if I can discharge its debts, it enables me to dispense with the popular code. If any one imagines that this law is lax, let him keep its commandment one day.

[Daniel2]

I will repost this as Darin and Jaybear haven't thus felt inclined to answer the question...

My question is why they feel the need to force their lifestyles on schools associated with Conservative denominations. There are plenty of "gay-friendly" churches out there with schools where they would be welcome. Why not just attend there?

I support the right of privately-owned religious schools to set their own standards with regards to the code of conduct required of all students, including BYU and it's Honor Code (which I, myself, abided by during my entire education). Over the course of earning one's college degree, it certainly IS possible to abide by the standards many of these colleges set with regards to abstaining from sexual behaviors (of any kind), alcohol, drugs, etc, when a student's committment is strong and his or her motivation is high.

Now that I am living as an openly gay, former-Latter-day Saint who considers himself to be culturally Mormon, I would never conceive of attending such a university as those described in the article--and, frankly, I would encourage any LGBT students to seek their education elsewhere, primarily for their own sakes. In short, I agree, BookofMormonLover: they can and could attend "gay-friendly" churches and the schools associated with them.

I think it's easy to guess what drives the motives of many of these students who are raised in conservative Christian homes. In embracing their identities as gay or lesbian Christians (and Mormons, in some cases), they would seem to still hold on to many of their Chrisitain principles and beliefs that are not directly related to their same-sex affections. It seems that many go through a personal "bargaining" phase (which I believe is one of the phases of grief), when their sexual orientation and their spiritual beliefs collide. There will likely be an ongoing tug-of-war on campuses with regards to gay-related issues, as students who enroll may not be personally able to give voice to their feelings/attractions until after their personal confidence blossoms at college. This kind of intellectual push-and-pull, I believe, is likely common to every college as each new generations tackles the "hot button issues" if it's day.

let me ask an additional question...

How can we believe the gay forces wouldn't try to force Conservative churches to marry them, if they are right now trying to force private religious schools to honor their lifestyle?

You shouldn't believe that "gay forces" won't try to force Conservative churches to marry them. In fact, you should do just the opposite: plan on the fact that there very likely be at least a few gay and lesbian couples that will attempt to exert such pressure on conservative churches and schools.

The fact that such attempts will be made is reason to ensure that the arguments being made today to equally preserve both the freedom for citizens to exercise one's religion as well as the freedom of citizens to exercise their own sexual orientation are sound, fair, and equitable. Rather than taking the stance that "ANY movement to legitimize gay and lesbian lifesyles should be viewed as a threat to religious freedom," I believe it would be wiser for churches to proactively take the stance of "We demand equal civil rights for LGBT couples to marry or choose not to marry, just as they see fit---so that we can likewise argue that Churches should have that same equal civil right to marry or choose not to marry, just as they also see fit." When the rule is the same for everyone---then justice will also be the same. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I believe churches that lobby for equal civil marriage rights, for example, for both straight and gay couples---even if they personally condemn the morality of gay relationships--they're in a much better position to appeal to the sense of fairness when they need to defend their own freedom to set their own boundaries when it comes to marriage, school codes, membership conduct, etc.

My view,

Darin

[Daniel2]

In addition to Jaybear's and Analytics' post concerning the UU values in response to Pahoran's disheartening mischaracterization of Unitarian Universalism, I think the following is also helpful to explain our shared beliefs and values:

Ten Beliefs Unitarian Universalists Hold In Common

By: David Rankin, Minister of the Fountain Street Church

Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1980

1. We believe in the freedom of religious expression. All individuals should be encouraged to develop a personal theology, and to openly present their religious opinions without fear of censure or reprisal.

2. We believe in tolerance of religious ideas. The religions of every age and culture have something to teach those who listen.

3. We believe in the authority of reason and conscience. The ultimate arbiter in religion is not a church, a document, or an official, but the personal choice and decision of the individual.

4. We believe in the search for truth. With an open mind and heart, there is no end to the fruitful and exciting revelations that the human spirit can find.

5. We believe in the unity of experience. There is no fundamental conflict between faith and knowledge; religion and the world; the sacred and the secular.

6. We believe in the worth and dignity of each human being. All people on earth have an equal claim to life, liberty, and justice.

7. We believe in the ethical application of religion. Inner grace and faith finds completion in social and community involvement.

8. We believe in the force of love, that the governing principle in human relationships is the principle of love, which seeks to help and heal, never to hurt or destroy.

9. We believe in the necessity of the democratic process. Records are open to scrutiny, elections are open to members, and ideas are open to criticism, so that people might govern themselves.

10. We believe in the importance of a religious community. Peers confirm and validate experience, and provide a critical platform, as well as a network of mutual support.

Source: Buehrens, John A. and Church F. Forrester, Our Chosen Faith: An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism, Beacon Press, 1989, Preface.

Hope that's helpful to someone,

Darin

[TAO]

Guess all those years of BYU sponsored electroshock therapy never happened to people who were trying to overcome temptation.

Frankenstein... erm... there is nothing wrong with electroshock therapy, even if it uses electrical shocks. It's pretty much the same as medicine - using an outside source to change how your brain works.

Electrical Shocks are also used to change the behavior of people with severe depression, and I am guessing with other conditions as well. Just because it sounds bad doesn't mean we don't use it; it truly helps some people. It is not really philosophically different than other forms of therapy, be they medicinal, human, or surgical. I don't truly see the problem with it.

If I was to be cautious with one thing with the therapy itself, it would be that it shouldn't be used so quickly, even electroshock therapy is used for mostly severe cases, other things usually are tried first.

Somber Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

You would know this .... how?

It's pretty sound.

Why do I consider myself an Autistic, but because there are certain things that I will not change, no matter how much society complains.

If you consider yourself gay, rather than saying that you have gay feelings, you are submitting that there are certain things that you will not change willfully, no matter how much society complains. Aka, you have submitted to temptation.

That isn't to say there is anything wrong with this. As said, I consider myself an Autistic. But I consider myself an Autistic based on one thing really... which truly isn't all that amazing... it's the ability to not take things for granted that normal people do. That's why I call myself Autistic. Because sometimes, I start from the base up. I have overcome almost all of my Autistic feelings, that I have. But I keep the ones I can justify as being better than what normal people have. That's what makes me call myself an Autistic.

To call yourself gay, you are saying that you aren't going to change. In order to not change, you must have judged something you have as being not worth changing despite the consequences; social, physical, and perhaps spiritual. I can justify the reasons why I keep certain Autistic habits, and most people can see why I do them. Can you justify why you won't change your feelings if God wants you to? That is the real question. No offense is intended by this post (I guess I'm just a bit direct right now), but that is what the real question is =/.

I feel I may have been to harsh with these words - sometimes I try to hit things directly like a hammer. Hopefully it doesn't hurt.

Somber Wishes,

TAO =(

[Calm]

Frankenstein... erm... there is nothing wrong with electroshock therapy, even if it uses electrical shocks. It's pretty much the same as medicine - using an outside source to change how your brain works.

Electrical Shocks are also used to change the behavior of people with severe depression, and I am guessing with other conditions as well. Just because it sounds bad doesn't mean we don't use it; it truly helps some people. It is not really philosophically different than other forms of therapy, be they medicinal, human, or surgical. I don't truly see the problem with it.

If I was to be cautious with one thing with the therapy itself, it would be that it shouldn't be used so quickly, even electroshock therapy is used for mostly severe cases, other things usually are tried first.

Somber Wishes,

TAO

What frankenstein is referring to as happening at BYU was a study done by a grad student under the supervision of his advisor using the then not uncommon form of aversion therapy using electrical stimulation located on the thighs (possibly arms as well, tonight the details are a bit blurry), not electroshock therapy. Your comments about electroshock therapy are quite accurate, things have changes significantly from when it was first used, but this is not actually applicable to what frankenstein was commenting on. For more details about what he was referrring to, see the link to the FAIR article I gave.

[TAO]

Ah... would that not just be aversion therapy then?

I use a technique of it (mental form, not physical) to avoid certain things myself sometimes

I Guess I'm weird like that XD

Zany Wishes,

TAO

[Daniel2]

If you consider yourself gay, rather than saying that you have gay feelings, you are submitting that there are certain things that you will not change willfully, no matter how much society complains. Aka, you have submitted to temptation.

If a man acknowledges that he is a heterosexual, or considers himself straight, and doesn't feel that he can "change" his heterosexual attractions, but also doesn't enter into any type of romantic or physically-intimate relationship, has he "submitted to temptation" by acknowledging and accepting his "straightness"?

If an alcoholic self-identifies as an alcoholic, accepting the fact that he'll never outgrow or change his inner craving for alcohol, would you say any ongoing self-acceptance as an "alcoholic" means he's "submitted to temptation"?

To call yourself gay, you are saying that you aren't going to change. In order to not change, you must have judged something you have as being not worth changing despite the consequences; social, physical, and perhaps spiritual... Can you justify why you won't change your feelings if God wants you to? That is the real question...

Somber Wishes,

TAO

Here's how I would say what you're trying to say, above: "To call yourself gay, you are acknowledging and accepting that there are certain aspects of your own attractions and orientation that are unchangeable. In order to not change, you must have accepted that somethings are unchangeable, whatever the value or losses would be, if such things could be altered."

When it comes to this issue, I find the words of the Serenity Prayer to be incredibly wise and instructive:

God grant me the serenity

to accept the things I cannot change;

courage to change the things I can;

and wisdom to know the difference.

Living one day at a time;

Enjoying one moment at a time;

Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;

Taking, as He did, this sinful world

as it is, not as I would have it;

Trusting that He will make all things right

if I surrender to His Will;

That I may be reasonably happy in this life

and supremely happy with Him

Forever in the next.

Amen.

--Reinhold Niebuhr

My view,

Darin

[Jeff K.]

TAO, on 25 April 2011 - 10:50 PM, said:

If you consider yourself gay, rather than saying that you have gay feelings, you are submitting that there are certain things that you will not change willfully, no matter how much society complains. Aka, you have submitted to temptation.

If a man acknowledges that he is a heterosexual, or considers himself straight, and doesn't feel that he can "change" his heterosexual attractions, but also doesn't enter into any type of romantic or physically-intimate relationship, has he "submitted to temptation" by acknowledging and accepting his "straightness"?

If an alcoholic self-identifies as an alcoholic, accepting the fact that he'll never outgrow or change his inner craving for alcohol, would you say any ongoing self-acceptance as an "alcoholic" means he's "submitted to temptation"?

Is it acceptable for the heterosexual in a gay society to attempt to change that society to fit his own needs? Should he change that society's needs in order to fulfill his own sexual desire? Or does he acknowledge that the belief system of others is not his?

As to the alcoholic, does that mean society must accomodate the alcoholic by providing larger amounts of alcohol and making drinking large amounts more acceptable?

Here's how I would say what you're trying to say, above: "To call yourself gay, you are acknowledging and accepting that there are certain aspects of your own attractions and orientation that are unchangeable. In order to not change, you must have accepted that somethings are unchangeable, whatever the value or losses would be, if such things could be altered."

And yet people who have called themselves gay have changed, and often do, celebrities included.....so how can you say it is a permanent aspect when there is evidence from many sectors that it is not permanent. Or are you speaking of real gay men and women, versus fake gay men and women, and then of course there are the bisexual. You simply cannot make a statement that so many have stated and yet later changed.

[Daniel2]

Is it acceptable for the heterosexual in a gay society to attempt to change that society to fit his own needs? Should he change that society's needs in order to fulfill his own sexual desire? Or does he acknowledge that the belief system of others is not his?

I'm not following what you're referring to, here. I don't understand what you're referring to when you speak of the acceptableness of a heterosexual in a gay society to attempting ot change that society to fit his own needs... That doesn't sound like a scenario that I'm familiar with. Can you be more specific? What "gay society" are you referring to? What heterosexual has tried to change "gay society"? Who offers this "acceptablenss"? I guess I'm not following what you're saying--perhaps, in large part, because I know of no "gay societies" that exist according to how you would describe them...

As to the alcoholic, does that mean society must accomodate the alcoholic by providing larger amounts of alcohol and making drinking large amounts more acceptable?

I believe our capatilist society must accomodate all citizens' ability to freely engage in commerce, which would include the ability to purchase alcohol (whether or not they self-identify as alcoholics), should they so choose.

And yet people who have called themselves gay have changed, and often do, celebrities included.....so how can you say it is a permanent aspect when there is evidence from many sectors that it is not permanent. Or are you speaking of real gay men and women, versus fake gay men and women, and then of course there are the bisexual. You simply cannot make a statement that so many have stated and yet later changed.

Clearly, when the pressures to conform to a heterosexual ideal is as pronounced as it is in many circles of modern society, self-descriptions of sexual orientation may or may not be indicative of inward realities. The potential of confusing bisexuality for homosexuality is another factor which also comes into play, just as gender differences in manifestations of male homosexuality vs. lesbianism.

Rather than presume that my personal experience is universally true for and of everyone else, I strive to be self-critical enough to challenge my own assumptions about myself, while ultimately respecting the freedoms of others to self-designate/identify themselves with the same level of respect that I wish (and hope) they would/could offer me.

Darin

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I support the right of privately-owned religious schools to set their own standards with regards to the code of conduct required of all students, including BYU and it's Honor Code (which I, myself, abided by during my entire education). Over the course of earning one's college degree, it certainly IS possible to abide by the standards many of these colleges set with regards to abstaining from sexual behaviors (of any kind), alcohol, drugs, etc, when a student's committment is strong and his or her motivation is high.

Now that I am living as an openly gay, former-Latter-day Saint who considers himself to be culturally Mormon, I would never conceive of attending such a university as those described in the article--and, frankly, I would encourage any LGBT students to seek their education elsewhere, primarily for their own sakes. In short, I agree, BookofMormonLover: they can and could attend "gay-friendly" churches and the schools associated with them.

I think it's easy to guess what drives the motives of many of these students who are raised in conservative Christian homes. In embracing their identities as gay or lesbian Christians (and Mormons, in some cases), they would seem to still hold on to many of their Chrisitain principles and beliefs that are not directly related to their same-sex affections. It seems that many go through a personal "bargaining" phase (which I believe is one of the phases of grief), when their sexual orientation and their spiritual beliefs collide. There will likely be an ongoing tug-of-war on campuses with regards to gay-related issues, as students who enroll may not be personally able to give voice to their feelings/attractions until after their personal confidence blossoms at college. This kind of intellectual push-and-pull, I believe, is likely common to every college as each new generations tackles the "hot button issues" if it's day.

You shouldn't believe that "gay forces" won't try to force Conservative churches to marry them. In fact, you should do just the opposite: plan on the fact that there very likely be at least a few gay and lesbian couples that will attempt to exert such pressure on conservative churches and schools.

The fact that such attempts will be made is reason to ensure that the arguments being made today to equally preserve both the freedom for citizens to exercise one's religion as well as the freedom of citizens to exercise their own sexual orientation are sound, fair, and equitable. Rather than taking the stance that "ANY movement to legitimize gay and lesbian lifesyles should be viewed as a threat to religious freedom," I believe it would be wiser for churches to proactively take the stance of "We demand equal civil rights for LGBT couples to marry or choose not to marry, just as they see fit---so that we can likewise argue that Churches should have that same equal civil right to marry or choose not to marry, just as they also see fit." When the rule is the same for everyone---then justice will also be the same. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I believe churches that lobby for equal civil marriage rights, for example, for both straight and gay couples---even if they personally condemn the morality of gay relationships--they're in a much better position to appeal to the sense of fairness when they need to defend their own freedom to set their own boundaries when it comes to marriage, school codes, membership conduct, etc.

My view,

Darin

I, sincerely, appreciate this answer. While I don't agree that conservative churches should lobby for legalizing gay marriage, I think, perhaps, agrements could be made to where the churches don't stand in the way of it, if the gay community agrees to not exert pressure through courts, legislation, or otherwise to force said churches to perfrom their marriages- and that any future legislation allowing for gay marriage would contain such unambiguous language freeing churches from any and all legal action for refusing to conduct gay-marriage ceremonies or for expressing their theological views against homosexuality.

[BCSpace]

CFR "we all know" that "gay identity" is not like that.

I refer you to the OP:

Decades after the gay rights movement swept the country’s secular schools, more gays and lesbians at Christian colleges are starting to come out of the closet, demanding a right to proclaim their identities and form campus clubs, and rejecting suggestions to seek help in suppressing homosexual desires

[Calm]

Ah... would that not just be aversion therapy then?

Yep, but "electroshock" sounds much more interesting, doesn't it?

[TAO]

If a man acknowledges that he is a heterosexual, or considers himself straight, and doesn't feel that he can "change" his heterosexual attractions, but also doesn't enter into any type of romantic or physically-intimate relationship, has he "submitted to temptation" by acknowledging and accepting his "straightness"?

Nah, what it means is that he has decided. Temptation depends upon what you decide upon. It's not temptation if you know, you decide to abstain from premarital sex if you know what I mean.

But yes, it means he has acknowledged it. But nah... it doesn't have to do with feeling that one 'can't change'... it has to do with choosing not to change. Choice is what seperates 'having something' from 'being something'. I may choose to fight something all my life, and I will always 'have something' but never 'be that something'. At least in my opinion, that is the difference.

If an alcoholic self-identifies as an alcoholic, accepting the fact that he'll never outgrow or change his inner craving for alcohol, would you say any ongoing self-acceptance as an "alcoholic" means he's "submitted to temptation"?

Yes. Oftentimes you will hear 'I was an alocholic' though, or 'I struggled with alcoholism'. Both of those differ from 'I am an alcoholic'. One of the important things about recovery is to realize you can change, that you aren't stuck, and so it is important not to think of yourself as being that thing, but instead having that thing, and struggling against it.

Also... it isn't about outgrowing the temptation (although that does happen to a degree)... it's about not submitting to it. It's about saying that you are stronger than that... or at least that's how I see it... I think the important thing is to view that you can progress, you can succeed, you may fail, but if you always get up and start trying again, you will succeed in the end, I hope.

Here's how I would say what you're trying to say, above: "To call yourself gay, you are acknowledging and accepting that there are certain aspects of your own attractions and orientation that are unchangeable. In order to not change, you must have accepted that somethings are unchangeable, whatever the value or losses would be, if such things could be altered."

No, I would not say that. Again... if you consider yourself gay, you are not saying that there are certain things that are unalterable. You are saying that you aren't going to try and alter them. In other words, you've given up, you've given up struggling, you've given up trying. Even in 'I'm gay and I'm doing my best to change it', it gives the impression that you have doubts, that you have given in part of the battle. It is important to realize that you determine who you are. You aren't gay because you have these feelings. Your gay because you have given up trying to overthrow these feelings.

The weird thing is... with enough practice... temptation seem to go away more easily, some of the time. Or they seem to shift and alter. So it really is possible to escape these feelings. It's hard, but it really is possible. And even if you don't, fighting it is enough, imo. Never giving in is enough.

When it comes to this issue, I find the words of the Serenity Prayer to be incredibly wise and instructive:

My view,

Darin

Although it is a nice poem, I must disagree with it. It has to do with something similar to faith... you have to take the step, to belive that everything is overcomable if you try, to actually overcome it. A shade of doubt covers and colors it. I do not accept that there are things which are not overcomable. I will find a way, even if it's obscure. Death, it's no problem through Christ. Neither should be anything else. There is a way to overcome anything in him, if it's what he desires, and if it's what you want to.

Strange as it seems to say, I will not give in to the idea that there are some things that are un-overcomable. I will overcome it ;-).

Eh, I hope the post didn't sound too harsh.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Pahoran]

Of course that isn't true. UU's take their principles very seriously, and do in fact expect their members to adhere to them. Their principles are:

• The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
  
• Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
  
• Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in our congregations;
  
• A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
  
• The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large;
  
• The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;
  
• Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part.

I will admit that, to me, these look a lot like platitudes, more than principles. Certainly it is entirely unclear from this list what would constitute a breach of UU standards, as long as everyone smiles and makes nice to each other.

Nevertheless, I will stand aside and allow those who actually espouse UU teachings, to state what they are and what they mean; to tell their story in their way.

Because that's what all good people do, when it comes to someone else's faith.

In fact it's the only honest thing to do.

Don't you agree, Analytics?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Oftentimes you will hear 'I was an alocholic' though, or 'I struggled with alcoholism'. Both of those differ from 'I am an alcoholic'. One of the important things about recovery is to realize you can change, that you aren't stuck, and so it is important not to think of yourself as being that thing, but instead having that thing, and struggling against it.

When my daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes the counselor stressed we weren't supposed to say things like "my diabetic daughter" and instead say something along the lines of "my daughter, who deals with diabetes" etc. It was important to make sure that diabetes did not become her identity as that would more likely lead to a sense of helplessness and hopelessness and being overwhelmed rather than diabetes just being another factor in her life that she would be able to adjust to but that wouldn't be taking over her life.

[Jaybear]

I will admit that, to me, these look a lot like platitudes, more than principles. Certainly it is entirely unclear from this list what would constitute a breach of UU standards, as long as everyone smiles and makes nice to each other.

It not my church, but from reading those principles, its seems obvious to me that a UU pastor would be in breach of those standards were he impose rules requiring:

1. All leadership positions be held by men;

2. Impose a dress code for those who serve the sacrament;

3. Initiate excomunication proceedings agaisnt members who cohabitate, drink, smoke, masterbate or are gay.

4. Withhold privileges to members who do not tithe ten percent of their income.

CAL: When my daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes the counselor stressed we weren't supposed to say things like "my diabetic daughter" and instead say something along the lines of "my daughter, who deals with diabetes" etc. It was important to make sure that diabetes did not become her identity as that would more likely lead to a sense of helplessness and hopelessness and being overwhelmed rather than diabetes just being another factor in her life that she would be able to adjust to but that wouldn't be taking over her life.

If homosexuality was a disease, that would be a helpful analogy. It seems painfully obvious that if the person counseling your son or daughter believes that homosexuality is a disease, then you need to get a new counselor.

A recent study has confirmed the obvious. If the predominate culture stigmatizes and marginalizes gays, gay teens are more likely to commit suicide.

Suicide attempts by gay teens — and even straight kids — are more common in politically conservative areas where schools don't have programs supporting gay rights, a study involving nearly 32,000 high school students found.

[Analytics]

I will admit that, to me, these look a lot like platitudes, more than principles. Certainly it is entirely unclear from this list what would constitute a breach of UU standards, as long as everyone smiles and makes nice to each other.

Nevertheless, I will stand aside and allow those who actually espouse UU teachings, to state what they are and what they mean; to tell their story in their way.

Because that's what all good people do, when it comes to someone else's faith.

In fact it's the only honest thing to do.

Don't you agree, Analytics?

Regards,

Pahoran

"The only honest thing to do?" Are you suggesting that when you said "it is a well-known truism that the UU's in particular have no teachings of any kind that anyone is expected to adhere to," that you were doing the opposite of what "all good people do" and were not doing "the only honest thing to do"?

Don't be so hard on yourself. Personally, I believe in the right of conscience, in the free search for truth, and in free speech. If what you said about UUism represent your sincere thoughts, I celebrate your willingness to talk about your views and presumably, your willingness to listen and learn. The truth is like a diamond; it has many facets. While of course the UU’s have the right to tell their story in their way, other viewpoints exist and ought to be expressed.

I support the free speech of everyone to talk about UUism, and would never try to bully people into silence by suggesting that they are being dishonest by expressing their sincere views.

[Pahoran]

"The only honest thing to do?" Are you suggesting that when you said "it is a well-known truism that the UU's in particular have no teachings of any kind that anyone is expected to adhere to," that you were doing the opposite of what "all good people do" and were not doing "the only honest thing to do"?

No, I'm not saying that. I had been asked my opinion, and I gave it.

However, now that actual UU adherents have weighed in, the only honest thing for me to do is to step back and allow them to tell their story their way.

And if I were to lower myself to drag out bits of their religious literature and start "explaining" it in subtly (or unsubtly) hostile terms, I'd be just another spiteful liar with an axe to grind about someone else's faith.

And such worthless, opinionated individuals don't add anything meaningful to any discourse anywhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

However, now that actual UU adherents have weighed in, the only honest thing for me to do is to step back and allow them to tell their story their way.

And if I were to lower myself to drag out bits of their religious literature and start "explaining" it in subtly (or unsubtly) hostile terms, I'd be just another spiteful liar with an axe to grind about someone else's faith.

And such worthless, opinionated individuals don't add anything meaningful to any discourse anywhere.

Regards,

Pahoran

Why post this? You must be aware that it is against the board rules to post things that are "meant to do nothing more than push others' buttons." It’s disappointing that you are so disrespectful towards the moderators.

[Pahoran]

Why post this? You must be aware that it is against the board rules to post things that are "meant to do nothing more than push others' buttons." It’s disappointing that you are so disrespectful towards the moderators.

I must say I am impressed. You manage to cast your remarks as a gentle remonstrance, where in fact you are attempting to sow discord by creating an imaginary grievance. Your skill at manipulation is really remarkable.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Analytics]

I must say I am impressed. You manage to cast your remarks as a gentle remonstrance, where in fact you are attempting to sow discord by creating an imaginary grievance. Your skill at manipulation is really remarkable.

Regards,

Pahoran

Imaginary? You called me a "spiteful liar with an axe to grind, [a] worthless, opinionated individual [who doesn't] add anything meaningful to any discourse anywhere."

Far be it from me to tell you how to behave, but it would be hard to imagine a more flagrant violation of the rule "be respectful of each other."

Given how you are a guest here too, it is disappointing that you don't honor the board owners' request to be respectful.

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Insults

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff