A Possible Resolution To Presumed Gender Inequality In The Church And Society?

[wenglund]

May I propose a possible resolution to the debates about women and the priesthood, head of households, so-called war on women and between the sexes, disparate incomes between men and women, and other forms of discrimination between the sexes, and on and on?

How about we borrow from the playbook of gay activist and simply redefine a traditional definition and invent new rights and distort the notion of equality? How about we change the legal and non-generic definition of "men" and its synonyms and cognates to include women, thereby making those gender-specific terms entirely generic and gender neutral? How about we advocate for the equal right of women to be called "men"? What say we refer to this movement as men equality?

Think of how this will solve all the aforementioned problems. Since only men can hold the priesthood, and since women may be legally called "men," then women can hold the priesthood. And, for those who believe that men should be the head of the household, then since women may be legally called "men," they may rightly be the head of the house. Furthermore, they could then legitimately belong to men's clubs. This movement will eliminate the need for separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. It will eliminate the need for gender-specific checkboxes on applications, which means that our mens' army can be made up entirely of female men. All nurses will be men. There will be no mothers, just fathers. What ever disparity there may be in income will all be just among us men. What was once the right of women to have control over their own bodies, will become the right of men over their bodies. No longer will there need to be a gender-specific definition of marriage. All marriages will be between men and men. And all relationships will be between men and men, and thus all relationship will, by definition, be gay. And, so on and so forth.

I could go on and on, but I want to hear what you think. (And, in case some of the readers may not clue in, I am being somewhat facetious in order to make a point.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 9, 2012 by wenglund

[thesometimesaint]

That's a stretch.

My son is a RN. He is very good at his job working in hospice care. BTW He was a paratrooper in the US Army during the first Iraq war.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Alternatively, we could simply ordain women to Priesthood offices, consider women to be just as much a "head" of a household as their husbands, pay women equally for equal jobs, and allow gay couples to be sealed.

[BCSpace]

From the official Church statement on same gender attraction:

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me he’s planning on going to Canada where same-gender marriage is allowed. He insists that he agrees that loving marriage relationships are important. He’s not promiscuous; he has one relationship. He and his partner intend to have that relationship for the rest of their lives. He cannot understand that a lifetime commitment can’t be accepted by the Church when society seems to be moving in that way. Again, if I am a Latter-day Saint father, what would I be expected to tell him?

ELDER WICKMAN: For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.

ELDER OAKS: Another way to say that same thing is that the Parliament in Canada and the Congress in Washington do not have the authority to revoke the commandments of God, or to modify or amend them in any way.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

Edited November 9, 2012 by BCSpace

[DavidB]

Did a man acting as a man for the benefit of a group of men, change the meaning of "men" or "man" some 5000 years ago from what God intended?

[thesometimesaint]

The women in the Church have all the Authority as men have. But in different areas of responsibility. The husband is the head of the household in the Priesthood, but that gives him no more authority than his wife. Women should be paid equally for equal work. Not going to happen.

[volgadon]

This thread reminds me of Loretta.

[Nathair/|\]

Brilliant satire.

[wenglund]

Alternatively, we could simply ordain women to Priesthood offices, consider women to be just as much a "head" of a household as their husbands, pay women equally for equal jobs, and allow gay couples to be sealed.

My way is simpler and easier and much more comprehensive.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My way is simpler and easier and much more comprehensive.

It really, really isn't.

[SamIam]

Alternatively, we could simply ordain women to Priesthood offices, consider women to be just as much a "head" of a household as their husbands, pay women equally for equal jobs, and allow gay couples to be sealed.

While I take no occasion against claims that equal work warrants equal pay, it is a remarkable thing to me to consider the voices of those who would protest in such fashion claiming, in sincerity I believe, an approach begging for greater unity, who, in their protestations manifest they have no concept of what it is for the blessings of the Lord to be predicated upon the principles of a man and woman being unified.

Even more disconcerting to plead the union of chaos with order that speaks to an eternal bond that portends a blessing of the continuation of the seeds for eternity as if half a seed will ever germinate into a life force. Parthenogenesis may be applicable to bees, but seems ill conceived for reproducing viable strains of offspring that can become as their eternal parents.

Edited November 9, 2012 by SamIam

[Scott Lloyd]

May I propose a possible resolution to the debates about women and the priesthood, head of households, so-called war on women and between the sexes, disparate incomes between men and women, and other forms of discrimination between the sexes, and on and on?

How about we borrow from the playbook of gay activist and simply redefine a traditional definition and invent new rights and distort the notion of equality? How about we change the legal and non-generic definition of "men" and its synonyms and cognates to include women, thereby making those gender-specific terms entirely generic and gender neutral? How about we advocate for the equal right of women to be called "men"? What say we refer to this movement as men equality?

Think of how this will solve all the aforementioned problems. Since only men can hold the priesthood, and since women may be legally called "men," then women can hold the priesthood. And, for those who believe that men should be the head of the household, then since women may be legally called "men," they may rightly be the head of the house. Furthermore, they could then legitimately belong to men's clubs. This movement will eliminate the need for separate mens' and womens' bathrooms. It will eliminate the need for gender-specific checkboxes on applications, which means that our mens' army can be made up entirely of female men. All nurses will be men. There will be no mothers, just fathers. What ever disparity there may be in income will all be just among us men. What was once the right of women to have control over their own bodies, will become the right of men over their bodies. No longer will there need to be a gender-specific definition of marriage. All marriages will be between men and men. And all relationships will be between men and men, and thus all relationship will, by definition, be gay. And, so on and so forth.

I could go on and on, but I want to hear what you think. (And, in case some of the readers may not clue in, I am being somewhat facetious in order to make a point.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To some extent, this has already been attempted with the introduction of awkward, non-gender-specific coinages into our language, such as spokesperson, chairperson, businessperson, Ms, etc.

Terms such as those are prohibited by Associated Press style, but I would refuse to use them in newswriting, even if they weren't.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Bikeemikey]

From the official Church statement on same gender attraction:

Quote

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me he’s planning on going to Canada where same-gender marriage is allowed. He insists that he agrees that loving marriage relationships are important. He’s not promiscuous; he has one relationship. He and his partner intend to have that relationship for the rest of their lives. He cannot understand that a lifetime commitment can’t be accepted by the Church when society seems to be moving in that way. Again, if I am a Latter-day Saint father, what would I be expected to tell him?

ELDER WICKMAN: For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.

ELDER OAKS: Another way to say that same thing is that the Parliament in Canada and the Congress in Washington do not have the authority to revoke the commandments of God, or to modify or amend them in any way.

http://www.mormonnew...nder-attraction

That is a great quote... it is also the reason I do not want to have govt. invited into the process of defining marriage in anyway. That is why believe the Church should be publicly requesting the govt. to give up the marriage business. Stop messing with something that for us is a sacred religious institution.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[wenglund]

It really, really isn't.

Of course it is. Obviously.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

To some extent, this has already been attempted with the introduction awkward, non-gender-specific coinages into our language, such as spokesperson, chairperson, businessperson, Ms, etc.

Terms such as those are prohibited by Associated Press style, but I would refuse to use them in newswring, even if they weren't.

Great! That is a start. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mark Beesley]

That is perhaps the dumbest attempt at making a point that I have seen for a while.

(And this is coming from someone who essentially agrees with you in this particular debate.)

Edited November 9, 2012 by Mark Beesley

[Scott Lloyd]

That is perhaps the dumbest attempt at making a point that I have seen for a while.

(And this is coming from someone who essentially agrees with you in this particular debate.)

It struck me as rather clever.

[Cobalt-70]

I could go on and on, but I want to hear what you think. (And, in case some of the readers may not clue in, I am being somewhat facetious in order to make a point.)

Well, you've certainly hacked up lots of straw men. Congratulations.

[Nathair/|\]

Well, you've certainly hacked up lots of straw men. Congratulations.

As I said, and as he implied, it's called satire. As a Celt, it's in my blood to recognize well done satire, and Wade is very good at it.

[Saints Alive]

... which means that our mens' army can be made up entirely of female men. All nurses will be men...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

As a male who has been both in the army and a nurse, and who has seen some truly amazing female soldiers, I deeply resent this portion of your remark. Perhaps if you pulled your head out of your neather region and tried to understand gender roles in the 21st century you would realize that there are many proud heterosexual nurses who happen to be men. Additionally there are some amazing soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who are female. There is no reason any profession needs to be tied to a gender. Are you upset by female physicians and lawyers as well? Perhaps you should work on that and them women in the priesthood wouldn't be such a streach to you.

[TAO]

Saints Alive, weg is trying to build satire, not trying to insult male nurses, which I'm sure he appreciates very much.

[SamIam]

Saints Alive, weg is trying to build satire, not trying to insult male nurses, which I'm sure he appreciates very much.

Aren't Satires the Girls and Satyroi the boys?

Edited November 10, 2012 by SamIam

[TAO]

Aren't Satires the Girls and Satyroi the boys?

Possibly. If all sounds Greek to me =p.

[Scott Lloyd]

Saints Alive, weg is trying to build satire, not trying to insult male nurses, which I'm sure he appreciates very much.

Saints Alive is apparently subject to irony impairment.

[BCSpace]

That is a great quote... it is also the reason I do not want to have govt. invited into the process of defining marriage in anyway. That is why believe the Church should be publicly requesting the govt. to give up the marriage business. Stop messing with something that for us is a sacred religious institution.

I'm actually okay with the notion of the government having nothing to do with marriage; no licenses etc. However, I do believe government has a compelling interest in benefiting and recognizing the ideal condition, heterosexual marriage, if they want to and no interest whatsoever in recognizing gay marriage, a much less than ideal condition. Let gays marry all they want, just don't recognize it in law, or taxes etc.