Lds Church Files Friend Of The Court Brief W/ Scotus Re: Prop 8, Doma

[AddamS]

Thanks, you have just validated my point. Failing logical discourse, you must now resort to Bozo the clown arguments.

honk, honk!

Slippery slope arguments are not logical.

[rockpond]

The destruction of the family and marriage expands==>>

This is just the beginning.

Hmmm... I'm no lawyer but it seems that if the lesbian couple had been legally married the Uniform Parentage Act might have prevented having a third party on the birth certificate.

[jwhitlock]

Looking at what gay rights groups are demanding from the BSA, it is becoming evident that "religious exemptions" are meant to be only temporary, and will be overturned as soon as possible. Initially, the news reports indicated that the BSA was going to allow individual units to make their own determinations for admitting gays. However, gay rights groups are demanding that all units be required to admit gays, and there is no religious exemption being mentioned. This is especially significant since the majority of BSA units are supported by religious organizations that have moral issues with gay behavior. It appears that gay rights groups are trying to take their agenda one step further and ignoring religious belief as a qualifier for whether to accept gays or not in units.

This is interesting because it makes it quite clear that gay groups want nothing more than full and total acceptance of gay behavior, as they choose, with religious belief being ultimately subject to that litmus test. It will be labeled "discrimination" if a religious group refuses to perform gay marriages, or in the case of the church, to perform gay sealings in temples. I've been of the opinion for some time that this is the ultimate agenda of gay rights groups, and the BSA case a clear indication of that ultimate agenda.

Given that, I think that the church is right in filing briefs in support of Prop 8. Religious exemptions written into law are going to as valid as Indian peace treaties ultimately.

[rockpond]

However, gay rights groups are demanding that all units be required to admit gays, and there is no religious exemption being mentioned.

CFR on this claim that gay rights groups are demanding that all BSA units be required to admit gays.

[jwhitlock]

CFR on this claim that gay rights groups are demanding that all BSA units be required to admit gays.

You ought to try actually reading some news articles about it. Here's one to get you started. I'm sure you can find plenty of others if you try.

[california boy]

Looking at what gay rights groups are demanding from the BSA, it is becoming evident that "religious exemptions" are meant to be only temporary, and will be overturned as soon as possible. Initially, the news reports indicated that the BSA was going to allow individual units to make their own determinations for admitting gays. However, gay rights groups are demanding that all units be required to admit gays, and there is no religious exemption being mentioned. This is especially significant since the majority of BSA units are supported by religious organizations that have moral issues with gay behavior. It appears that gay rights groups are trying to take their agenda one step further and ignoring religious belief as a qualifier for whether to accept gays or not in units.

This is interesting because it makes it quite clear that gay groups want nothing more than full and total acceptance of gay behavior, as they choose, with religious belief being ultimately subject to that litmus test. It will be labeled "discrimination" if a religious group refuses to perform gay marriages, or in the case of the church, to perform gay sealings in temples. I've been of the opinion for some time that this is the ultimate agenda of gay rights groups, and the BSA case a clear indication of that ultimate agenda.

Given that, I think that the church is right in filing briefs in support of Prop 8. Religious exemptions written into law are going to as valid as Indian peace treaties ultimately.

When in doubt, throw in a slippery slope argument. You do realize that it is the BSA that started this whole issue to open up their organization to gays. They are the only ones that have the power to change their policy. The Supreme Court ruled on that. No one is forcing them to change their policy.

Edited February 9, 2013 by california boy

[jwhitlock]

When in doubt, throw in a slippery slope argument. You do realize that it is the BSA that started this whole issue to open up their organization to gays. They are the only ones that have the power to change their policy. The Supreme Court ruled on that. No one is forcing them to change their policy.

Your original post before you edited should have been left in place.

In any case, there's no slippery slope argument here. Simply a clear indication of what gay rights groups are demanding - which is full inclusion of gays, and acceptance of gay behavior, without any religious exemption.

It was pressure by gay rights groups and pro-gay elements within the BSA that have opened this issue up. Gay rights groups have put government pressure on the BSA to change their policies in the past, by denying them public access based on accusations of "discrimination".

Again, this applies to the issue of gay marriage because it is a clear indication that gay rights agendas view religious exemptions as something that can and should be overturned eventually in the name of being "inclusive". They're only there to try to appease people by telling them their religious rights won't be trampled upon. However, given the very religious base of BSA units, the way gay rights groups are approaching that issue is revealing of where they are headed with other issues. Religious exemptions will be attacked and overturned as part of this whole process of giving gay rights special, overriding status in society.

[DavidB]

Jtwhitlock,

Still waiting for you to explain why:

A Temple worthy Aaronic Priesthood holder must and should always be excluded from Scouts due to his ability to live a Temple worthy life despite that he is attracted to members of his own gender - which attraction is known by his Priesthood Leaders and friends.

Can you explain why an worthy male should be excluded from a program designed to strengthen his character, his Faith and his desire to do good to all.

[jwhitlock]

Jtwhitlock,

Still waiting for you to explain why:

A Temple worthy Aaronic Priesthood holder must and should always be excluded from Scouts due to his ability to live a Temple worthy life despite that he is attracted to members of his own gender - which attraction is known by his Priesthood Leaders and friends.

Can you explain why an worthy male should be excluded from a program designed to strengthen his character, his Faith and his desire to do good to all.

If I had made such a claim, then perhaps you might be justified in your demand for an "explanation".

But I didn't. So let's move on to something with actual relevance to the discussion.

[DavidB]

If I had made such a claim, then perhaps you might be justified in your demand for an "explanation".

But I didn't. So let's move on to something with actual relevance to the discussion.

You have suggested such a claim and, like now, you avoid defending it.

Edited February 9, 2013 by DavidB

[Scott Lloyd]

Jtwhitlock,

Still waiting for you to explain why:

A Temple worthy Aaronic Priesthood holder must and should always be excluded from Scouts due to his ability to live a Temple worthy life despite that he is attracted to members of his own gender - which attraction is known by his Priesthood Leaders and friends.

Can you explain why an worthy male should be excluded from a program designed to strengthen his character, his Faith and his desire to do good to all.

Why should jwhitlock have to explain your own false premise?

[DavidB]

If I had made such a claim, then perhaps you might be justified in your demand for an "explanation".

But I didn't. So let's move on to something with actual relevance to the discussion.

Are you saying you support allowing a Temple worthy male who identifies as gay - due to being open and honest about his attraction to males - be in Scouting.

And this discussion is.about the Church and gay Scouts.

[jwhitlock]

You have suggested such a claim and, like now, you avoid defending it.

Absolute nonsense. I've always been very careful to differentiate between celibate SSA and active gay behavior.

Let's do this. CFR where I've made such a claim. And you'd better be specific, and not just put your usual spin on things to fit your agenda.

Put up, or drop it.

[DavidB]

Absolute nonsense. I've always been very careful to differentiate between celibate SSA and active gay behavior.

Let's do this. CFR where I've made such a claim. And you'd better be specific, and not just put your usual spin on things to fit your agenda.

Put up, or drop it.

You are asking for a CFR when you haven't honored the CFR I requested of you a few days ago?

And as to your "suggesting" I posted elsewhere about the Scouts and the Church and was clear about the person living Church standards.

Edited February 9, 2013 by DavidB

[jwhitlock]

Your asking for a CFR when you haven't honored the one I requested of you a few days ago?

And as to your "suggesting" I posted elsewhere about the Scouts and the Church and was clear about the person living Church standards.

More of your usual irrelevant misdirection. CFR on where I made the claim you said I did.

[DavidB]

More of your usual irrelevant misdirection. CFR on where I made the claim you said I did.

Speaking of misdirection...I used the term "suggested such a claim" (clearly an opinion statement on my part not requiring a CFR) not "made the claim" (would be a statement of fact requiring a CFR) please do not deliberatly misrepresent what I have clearly posted - your misdirection and avoidance of my statement linked in a post or two above "suggested" a position on your part.

Edited February 9, 2013 by DavidB

[rockpond]

You ought to try actually reading some news articles about it.

I would but I sent my letter to the BSA and then kinda stopped being overly concerned about it 'cause I feel it's out of my control now.

Here's one to get you started. I'm sure you can find plenty of others if you try.

That's interesting. Well, good for them for fighting for equality even if I think they won't get far with churches who serve as chartered organizations. For the record, I agree with the court's decision that BSA should be allowed to exclude gays (as well as all of its chartered organizations). But I also can understand the viewpoint of these groups who feel that the BSA is still being discriminatory if they allow chartered orgs to prohibit gays from entering.

[jwhitlock]

Speaking of misdirection...I used the term "suggested such a claim" (clearly an opinion statement on my part not requiring a CFR) not "made the claim" (would be a statement of fact requiring a CFR) please do not deliberatly misrepresent what I have clearly posted - your misdirection and avoidance of my statement linked in a post or two above "suggested" a position on your part.

This is ridiculous. You say I need to explain something. I tell you I never made such a claim. You then spin it as me "suggesting" such a claim and demand that I defend it. I tell you to CFR where I did so, and now you're tell me that you don't have to, and that it's inappropriate for me to ask you to do so.

Clearly you operate on a set of rules that doesn't reflect the real world. What you're doing now is simply badgering me in order to try to avoid being backed into a corner. I've seen enough of your posting style to know that this is what you do. So why don't you try honestly engaging in the discussion, for once, instead of playing these games?

BTW, I did respond in that thread to your ridiculous CFR here. Hence, your claim that I didn't respond is false.

Now, are you going to respond to my request for where I made the claim you said I did? if not, then drop it.

[DavidB]

This is ridiculous. You say I need to explain something. I tell you I never made such a claim. You then spin it as me "suggesting" such a claim and demand that I defend it. I tell you to CFR where I did so, and now you're tell me that you don't have to, and that it's inappropriate for me to ask you to do so.

Clearly you operate on a set of rules that doesn't reflect the real world. What you're doing now is simply badgering me in order to try to avoid being backed into a corner. I've seen enough of your posting style to know that this is what you do. So why don't you try honestly engaging in the discussion, for once, instead of playing these games?

BTW, I did respond in that thread to your ridiculous CFR here. Hence, your claim that I didn't respond is false.

Now, are you going to respond to my request for where I made the claim you said I did? if not, then drop it.

You continue tap dance around the issue, there is a big difference between "suggested such a claim" (my opinion) and "made the claim" (your misdirection that I made a factual statement).

[california boy]

Your original post before you edited should have been left in place.

In any case, there's no slippery slope argument here. Simply a clear indication of what gay rights groups are demanding - which is full inclusion of gays, and acceptance of gay behavior, without any religious exemption.

It was pressure by gay rights groups and pro-gay elements within the BSA that have opened this issue up. Gay rights groups have put government pressure on the BSA to change their policies in the past, by denying them public access based on accusations of "discrimination".

Again, this applies to the issue of gay marriage because it is a clear indication that gay rights agendas view religious exemptions as something that can and should be overturned eventually in the name of being "inclusive". They're only there to try to appease people by telling them their religious rights won't be trampled upon. However, given the very religious base of BSA units, the way gay rights groups are approaching that issue is revealing of where they are headed with other issues. Religious exemptions will be attacked and overturned as part of this whole process of giving gay rights special, overriding status in society.

You are making the case that because those who support inclusiveness in the BSA, then surely gay marriage will be FORCED upon the church. Yet you claim this is not a slippery slope argument???

You completely ignore the fact that no on is FORCING the BSA to do anything. They can legally exclude anyone they want, even Mormons if they so wish. Whether they become more inclusive is ENTIRELY up to them. Your whole premise is simply revealing your distain for equality of treating gays equally and nothing more. No facts here to support your false argument.

Of course there is social pressure and the use of the existing law to push both marriage as well as the BSA to be more inclusive. Is not religious groups also applying pressure to try and keep gays out of both institutions? Should I make a similar slippery slope argument that churches are forcing their beliefs on the public and the next thing they are going to try and do is force people to pray in school? Or force everyone to stone all adulterers? Your argument is groundless. No group is forcing religion to do anything.

[jwhitlock]

That's interesting. Well, good for them for fighting for equality even if I think they won't get far with churches who serve as chartered organizations. For the record, I agree with the court's decision that BSA should be allowed to exclude gays (as well as all of its chartered organizations). But I also can understand the viewpoint of these groups who feel that the BSA is still being discriminatory if they allow chartered orgs to prohibit gays from entering.

The response of gay rights groups to the proposed BSA policy change has been interesting to me. I thought that they would accept the "let the unit decide" change and move on from there. However, they've decided to go for an all-or-nothing approach on this, and in doing so have made their ultimate agenda quite a bit more clear.

Two basic fundamental rights that people have are freedom of belief and the right to associate with like minded people. The gay rights group approach to the BSA policy is something that would override both of those fundamental rights. Inclusiveness and being non-discriminatory in any way trump those two fundamental rights. This is why, when we consider responses to Prop 8 or SSM, we need to understand where gay rights groups are actually ultimately headed with their agendas. I think the BSA situation shows fairly clearly that gay rights groups want their demands for inclusion, whether it comes to Scouts or marriage or church participation or temple sealings, to take precedence over those fundamental rights without regard to gay behavior or concerns anyone may have with those behaviors.

I see this all headed in this direction. The church may find that it can't buck the tide, but in filing the briefs, it certainly recognizes that there are some problems on the horizon.

[cdowis]

When in doubt, throw in a slippery slope argument.

How about this one -- "you are using religion to deny me my rights", or even better, "that is racist."

Edited February 9, 2013 by cdowis

[jwhitlock]

You are making the case that because those who support inclusiveness in the BSA, then surely gay marriage will be FORCED upon the church. Yet you claim this is not a slippery slope argument???

You completely ignore the fact that no on is FORCING the BSA to do anything. They can legally exclude anyone they want, even Mormons if they so wish. Whether they become more inclusive is ENTIRELY up to them. Your whole premise is simply revealing your distain for equality of treating gays equally and nothing more. No facts here to support your false argument.

Of course there is social pressure and the use of the existing law to push both marriage as well as the BSA to be more inclusive. Is not religious groups also applying pressure to try and keep gays out of both institutions? Should I make a similar slippery slope argument that churches are forcing their beliefs on the public and the next thing they are going to try and do is force people to pray in school? Or force everyone to stone all adulterers? Your argument is groundless. No group is forcing religion to do anything.

You need to re-read what I've posted. I've been clear in making the point that gay rights groups' responses to the BSA policy are revealing of what their ultimate agendas are. The BSA embodies two fundamental rights (as I outlined in my post above), and I see those rights as being attacked by gay groups who want inclusiveness of gay lifestyles to be forced upon all segments of society. That's where this is headed.

[jwhitlock]

You continue tap dance around the issue, there is a big difference between "suggested such a claim" (my opinion) and "made the claim" (your misdirection that I made a factual statement).

CFR where I made the claim you said I did or even suggested something of the sort.

[rockpond]

The response of gay rights groups to the proposed BSA policy change has been interesting to me. I thought that they would accept the "let the unit decide" change and move on from there. However, they've decided to go for an all-or-nothing approach on this, and in doing so have made their ultimate agenda quite a bit more clear.

Two basic fundamental rights that people have are freedom of belief and the right to associate with like minded people. The gay rights group approach to the BSA policy is something that would override both of those fundamental rights. Inclusiveness and being non-discriminatory in any way trump those two fundamental rights. This is why, when we consider responses to Prop 8 or SSM, we need to understand where gay rights groups are actually ultimately headed with their agendas. I think the BSA situation shows fairly clearly that gay rights groups want their demands for inclusion, whether it comes to Scouts or marriage or church participation or temple sealings, to take precedence over those fundamental rights without regard to gay behavior or concerns anyone may have with those behaviors.

I see this all headed in this direction. The church may find that it can't buck the tide, but in filing the briefs, it certainly recognizes that there are some problems on the horizon.

I didn't realize that their "agenda" of full inclusion and acceptance was in doubt. Just as your desire to not have homosexual activity normalized in society is not in doubt (am I capturing that correctly, if not I apologize and hope you'll correct me).

The Supreme Court has stood on the side of the BSA in its right of association. And I agree completely agree with that decision even though I simultaneously feel that the BSA should not exclude based solely on orientation. It's their decision to make.

Similarly, I think that full marriage equality should be the law of the land. And yet, I have no concerns that our temple ceremonies will be untouchable due to the first amendment. We might lose the ability to have a temple sealing be recognized as a legal marriage but that's already the case in other areas of the world where I've lived and it doesn't make me lose any sleep. Our temple ceremonies are beautiful and deeply meaningful with our without government backing.

I still feel it was a mistake for the church to file the brief... I think our involvement in Prop 8 stands in contrast to the beliefs we espouse in D&C 134 and the 11th Article of Faith.

Edited February 9, 2013 by rockpond