Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gray said: https://www.lds.org/church/news/elder-christofferson-says-handbook-changes-regarding-same-sex-marriages-help-protect-children?lang=eng This is the opposite of acceptance. Church leaders have gone out of their way to make it clear that they reject homosexuality. The message is loud, clear, and constant. Your opinion again. Rejecting one variation of homosexual behaviour does not inherently require rejecting homosexuals themselves. If someone defines homosexuality as inherently including homosexual sexual relationships, then acceptance of that aspect of LGBT members won't be happening any time soon. But it does not appear to me that participation in homosexual sexual relationships is an inherent part of homosexual identity as I know quite a few of those who identify as homosexuals and do not participate in homosexual sexual relationships. 3
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Hit my limit of posts today...numbness has started reappearing. i must bow out.
Gray Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Calm said: Your opinion again. Rejecting one variation of homosexual behaviour does not inherently require rejecting homosexuals themselves. If someone defines homosexuality as inherently including homosexual sexual relationships, then acceptance of that aspect of LGBT members won't be happening any time soon. But it does not appear to me that participation in homosexual sexual relationships is an inherent part of homosexual identity as I know quite a few of those who identify as homosexuals and do not participate in homosexual sexual relationships. It's not my opinion Calm. The church has made its position more than clear. If you think accepting gay people means you can accept everything about a person but their sexual orientation, I think you've misunderstood what acceptance really is.
Danzo Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Gray said: It's not my opinion Calm. The church has made its position more than clear. If you think accepting gay people means you can accept everything about a person but their sexual orientation, Sexual behavior I think you've misunderstood what acceptance really is. I corrected it for you. 1
Gray Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, Danzo said: I corrected it for you. I know it's a habit that seems to be fomented naturally by internet discussion, but please don't put words in my mouth. 1
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not my opinion Calm. The church has made its position more than clear. If you think accepting gay people means you can accept everything about a person but their sexual orientation, I think you've misunderstood what acceptance really is. One more because it is clear I am not being understood. I don't believe studies have demonstrated that sexual orientation inherently includes sexual relationships of that orientation. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals in my experience see themselves as fully oriented without requiring. Attraction is obviously part of orientation. I don't see studies requiring same sex relationships as part of the identity of sexuality. Can virgins/celibates have sexual orientations? If so, than orientation is something apart from actual sexual relationships in my view. And therefore the Church does not have to include SSM or SS sexual behaviour in its acceptance of sexual orientation solely because they desire (assuming leadership does) to demonstrate acceptance of LGBT members at this time. If in the future, studies somehow demostrate that those with same sex orientation can never feel accepted without the Church accepting SSM and other SS sexual behaviour as well, then I will acknowledge that feelings of acceptance can only come in opposition to the Church's teachings. However, this would mean that all I am aware of (and those I am not) who currently identify as homosexuals and state they feel accepted by the Church now even knowing of and experiencing all of its teachings about SS orientation and behaviour in intimate detail in their lives are either not in some way actually SS oriented or are lying to themselves about feeling accepted (as they have often stated many tell them, but they reject the mindreading). Since we don't know yet what teachings are the protection against suicide, it would be best not to remove any of them until we find out. Though we can choose to emphasize those we see as most likely being beneficial. 2
kllindley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 18 hours ago, smac97 said: I wonder if you are perhaps being overly kind here. Yes and No. I think that many straight LDS "allies" mean well and are simply misguided. But yes, more than a few people are fully aware of the dishonesty of their position. 21 hours ago, ERMD said: The only ones telling them this are those who stand in opposition to the Church. Yes, even as they pretend to stand in the Church. 2
kllindley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 5 hours ago, Gray said: You can't take generalized data and apply it to a small sub-group. Acceptance of a young person's sexual orientation is known to bring down suicide risk for LGBT youth, and acceptance is not what is generally found in orthodox LDS communities. To the contrary, church leaders have aggressively been pushing for the opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_among_LGBT_youth He can't take generalized data and apply it to a small sub-group, but you can, I guess. You quote suicide rates among ALL LGBT youth and then apply it to the small sub-group of LDS LGBT youth. 2
kllindley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: I know it's a habit that seems to be fomented naturally by internet discussion, but please don't put words in my mouth. Please don't put words in the mouths of LGBT LDS. Just because you can't or won't accept a distinction between sexual attraction, sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and sexual identity doesn't mean we don't. 2 hours ago, Gray said: No, of course not. I'm saying LDS teachings about homosexuality probably lead to more LDS LGBT teen suicide and suicidal thoughts than would have otherwise existed. There are always other factors, however. See Calm's link. Actually, the data is more convincing that increasing levels of societal approval and more vocal opposition/persecution from progressive/ally members lead to more suicide than LDS teachings which have been present for decades-with tone softening in the last decade. If we're actually looking at data, of course. 2
USU78 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 7 hours ago, Atheist Mormon said: I can't agree with you more...... But isn't it incumbent on you to pick your battles right? Why would Church pick the same battle it lost in every arena? Some beaches are worth dying on
Atheist Mormon Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: Some beaches are worth dying on I disagree, no beach is worth dying......
USU78 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: There is nothing in tax law that prohibits churches from stating a moral code. Or from voting based upon the dictates of that moral code.
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: There is nothing in tax law that prohibits churches from stating a moral code. I know that, it is obvious! but I don't think it is right for tax-exempt churches to have political positions. Just because tax laws allow churches to get involved in political issues, that doesn't mean it is right. Can't see the difference between morality and politics? not the same thing! 3 hours ago, Calm said: there is data that demonstrates that suicide risk goes up if the LGBT youth leaves their religious community. Suicide risk goes up for non-religious people, but not necessarily for atheists or thinking agnostics.
kllindley Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 On 7/7/2016 at 1:01 PM, Daniel2 said: Not sure why, but I've written three posts in response to Kllindley, and none have gone through. For now, I will just say I believe most of his post is inaccurate and not reflective of the facts about bans on conversion and reparative therapies for underage minors, the most vulnerable portions of the LGBT population, and most deserving of protection from alleged therapies shown to be not only false, but damaging and increasing the levels of suicidal thoughts and behaviors when promoted outcomes prove to be unattainable. Those interested in finding out the facts about the JONAH case may wish to check out the following two sources: JONAH, the Largest Jewish Gay Conversion Therapy Organization, Takes its Last Breath (from Newsweek) Ex-Utahn’s journey from Mormon counseling to ‘abusive’ reparative therapy and, ultimately, a happy gay marriage (from the SLT, given that one of the plaintiffs in the JONAH case was a former Mormon, BYU graduate, and LDS RM). That being said, I actually respect and support Kllindley's ability and decision to enter into a mixed-orientation marriage, and as an adult, his therapist has every legal right to encourage him in that endeavor. If you really believe that underage minors are the most vulnerable portion of the LGBT population, why do you think it is OK to prevent them from hearing that it is possible for them to be happy living their religion? Does that mean you grant religious freedom to adults but restrict it from minors? That doesn't take advantage of their vulnerability? You say you actually respect my ability and decision to enter my marriage. Maybe you mean that. Most people don't. Or more accurately they support my ability to enter it, but not my ability to be happy in it. They want to take away the resources that enable me to live according to my religious beliefs. People Can Change has never worked with minors, but that doesn't stop bullying activists from trying to shut it down. You say I have the right to enter my marriage as an adult, but if I had talked about my desire to have that marriage with a therapist at 17? I should have been told that trying to live my religious beliefs was impossible or unhealthy? 1
TheSkepticChristian Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Your opinion again. Rejecting one variation of homosexual behaviour does not inherently require rejecting homosexuals themselves. If someone defines homosexuality as inherently including homosexual sexual relationships, then acceptance of that aspect of LGBT members won't be happening any time soon. Why not just live and let live? Just because the USA is a Christian majority country doesn't mean it is a Christian country. Our church says "we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage" I don't understand why our Church wants to stop the legalization of gay marriage everywhere, how come our church doesn't try to make adultery illegal everywhere? or sex before marriage illegal? Edited July 8, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
USU78 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 15 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said: I disagree, no beach is worth dying...... A position wholly consistent with nihilism, and therefore wholly unsurprising.
Jeanne Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 1 minute ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Why not just live and let live? Just because the USA is a Christian majority nation doesn't mean it is a Christian nation. Our church says "we’re concerned that legalizing same-sex marriage" I don't understand why our Church wants to stop the legalization of gay marriage everywhere, how come our church doesn't try to make adultery illegal everywhere? or sex before marriage illegal? Because we need to bake cakes or somebody!
USU78 Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: Why not just live and let live? It is entirely disingenuous to claim that it is the moral majority Christian who is being harassed in his workplace, his home and his church and compelled to participate in obscene and abominable public rites by homosexual bullies who is refusing to Live and Let Live.
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Agh....I must not post...I must not post... Ignoring all that wisdom... SC, do you or do you not recognize the difference between making something illegal (against the law so practice means going to jail, thus is meant to discourage the practice) and giving something legal status (promoting the behaviour by giving tax and other incentives to participate in the practice)? No one is making a serious attempt to put adultery on the same legally preferred status as marriage. SSM is about giving SSM the same legal and legally dictated financial advantages as OSM, not about changing SSM from being illegal (someone having to go to jail or pay a fine for particiapting in). The LDS Church, as far as I aware, has never promoted making SSM illegal, only legal neutral (the government does not get involved in promoting or discouraging). Think of the differences between arresting someone for attending a church meeting, taxing a church or requiring it to pay fines but not other churches in general, taxing churches if they have income no matter what activity is involved, not taxing churches on its nonprofit activities and possessions, and giving tax money to a church as income (as happens with some state religions or similar relationships). These are all significantly different examples of legal status. Conflating one with another is not appropriate. Campaigning to remove tax exempt status from a group of churches...say those who comment on political issues...is not the same thing as campaigning to have these churches outlawed and people arrested for attending them just as campaigning to stop the change of the legal status of gay marriage from tax neutral to tax promoted is not the same thing as campaigning to make SSM illegal. 3
california boy Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 23 minutes ago, Calm said: Agh....I must not post...I must not post... Ignoring all that wisdom... SC, do you or do you not recognize the difference between making something illegal (against the law so practice means going to jail, thus is meant to discourage the practice) and giving something legal status (promoting the behaviour by giving tax and other incentives to participate in the practice)? No one is making a serious attempt to put adultery on the same legally preferred status as marriage. SSM is about giving SSM the same legal and legally dictated financial advantages as OSM, not about changing SSM from being illegal (someone having to go to jail or pay a fine for particiapting in). The LDS Church, as far as I aware, has never promoted making SSM illegal, only legal neutral (the government does not get involved in promoting or discouraging). Think of the differences between arresting someone for attending a church meeting, taxing a church or requiring it to pay fines but not other churches in general, taxing churches if they have income no matter what activity is involved, not taxing churches on its nonprofit activities and possessions, and giving tax money to a church as income (as happens with some state religions or similar relationships). These are all significantly different examples of legal status. Conflating one with another is not appropriate. Campaigning to remove tax exempt status from a group of churches...say those who comment on political issues...is not the same thing as campaigning to have these churches outlawed and people arrested for attending them just as campaigning to stop the change of the legal status of gay marriage from tax neutral to tax promoted is not the same thing as campaigning to make SSM illegal. I think you brought up some very valid points. But as I understand it, California is going to vote on legalizing marijuana. Do you think the church will ask the members to donate 20 million dollars and go door to door to campaign against that? Did they mobilize the forces when Colorado and Washington voted on this issue? Has the church initiated anything to outlaw prostitution in Nevada? Because I have never seen anything like what the church did on Prop 8 on ANY other political issue
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 (edited) Legalizing marijuana...will it create tax incentives for smoking it. Does Nevada use tax dollars to promote prostitution? If not, somewhat different situation. Why would you expect the same. Were you around in the ERA days? That seems to me to be the closest that I can remember. The ERA would create tax incentives and laws that were seen as potentially promoting lifestyle changes that would have an impact on moral behaviour and ability to freely practice religious expression. There was a huge involvement of or push to get involved church members in the several areas of the US I lived during that time period and it was even more talked about at church and among church members in my experience. Edited July 8, 2016 by Calm
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/03/the-church-and-the-proposed-equal-rights-amendment-a-moral-issue?lang=eng
Calm Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 From a pro-ERA POV, church involvement seems quite similar given the differences in tech culture at the time: http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2005/MormonChurchAndERA_Aug-05.html
cinepro Posted July 9, 2016 Posted July 9, 2016 On 7/7/2016 at 3:40 PM, JLHPROF said: Is it really hypothetical when it says "LDS Family Services also would not place children with same-sex couples" and a change is announced that means they won't have to? The "hypothetical" was your what-if about Temple sealings. Your claim was "LDS Family Services no longer provides adoption services because they no longer had the space to create only families within their traditional beliefs." You are correct that they no longer provide direct adoption services, but your theory still isn't supported by the statements in the article. They specifically state that it wasn't because of same-sex couples. You can think they're engaging in a cover-up, but that doesn't negate their statements nor create evidence for your claim.
Recommended Posts