BYU now a target for LGBT groups

[UtahTexan]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Off topic for this thread.

Maybe....but you brought it up....so you were questioned about it.  Does it seem odd to bring something up on this thread then refuse to answer about it because it is off topic?  Was it off topic when you mentioned it, or was it off topic right after?

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yes.

Defense against the Hun vs Hunnish imperialism.

Sorry, I don't get that answer.

What is fundamentally different about the church's campaign against gay marriage vs what is being done by LGBT advocacy groups? 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Maybe....but you brought it up....so you were questioned about it.  Does it seem odd to bring something up on this thread then refuse to answer about it because it is off topic?  Was it off topic when you mentioned it, or was it off topic right after?

I thought that asking my opinion on why God would approve of same sex unions had strayed too far off topic (and yes, bluebell's line of questions about my personal beliefs may have also been off topic but I was trying to not go even further off track).  When threads veer too far off topic they tend to go closed.

But, if you want to go down that road, here's my answer:

I believe that sexual orientation is, for most people, an immutable characteristic.  I also believe that God wants us to love and commit to another person, to create that bond and family.  Most married people I know, including myself, will say that marriage and family are incredible opportunities for spiritual growth.  I think God wants that for all his children rather gay or straight.

[Jeanne]

42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why would God approve of Same sex unions?

Why would God have people born gay? 

[UtahTexan]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I thought that asking my opinion on why God would approve of same sex unions had strayed too far off topic (and yes, bluebell's line of questions about my personal beliefs may have also been off topic but I was trying to not go even further off track).  When threads veer too far off topic they tend to go closed.

But, if you want to go down that road, here's my answer:

I believe that sexual orientation is, for most people, an immutable characteristic.  I also believe that God wants us to love and commit to another person, to create that bond and family.  Most married people I know, including myself, will say that marriage and family are incredible opportunities for spiritual growth.  I think God wants that for all his children rather gay or straight.

Ok...I was just curious....seemed odd to bring up a topic then shut it down claiming it is off topic.

I follow the Scripture.  I cannot find support for your opinion there, but I respect it

[carbon dioxide]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I don't get that answer.

What is fundamentally different about the church's campaign against gay marriage vs what is being done by LGBT advocacy groups? 

Their actions are not much different.  But I find it funny they want to bash BYU on a policy that all the students agree to before they even pay their tuition.  So whether BYU discriminates or not really does not matter.  All of the students consented to the "discrimination" beforehand and said they would abide by it.  Lets put it in football terms since this is about football.   Suppose a group of people get together and decide to play some football.  They all agree to the rules of the game before they play the game.  Once the game starts, some don't like the rules and want them changed to suit them better.  The others don't want the change the rules. They are fine with what was agree to by everyone prior to the start of the game.  So should one bash the majority claiming they are discriminating because they don't want to change the rules?  I say NO.  Those complaining should be play the game or go home.  Changing the rules in the name of being more "inclusive" will only compromise the game and water it down.  At some point. might as well not play the game. 

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Sorry, I don't get that answer.

What is fundamentally different about the church's campaign against gay marriage vs what is being done by LGBT advocacy groups? 

The Church was defending against radical judicial adventurism, while the homosexual lobby is presently attempting to "own" the Big 12 via enfoeffment, just like they already own ABC, Disney and ESPN.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Ok...I was just curious....seemed odd to bring up a topic then shut it down claiming it is off topic.

I follow the Scripture.  I cannot find support for your opinion there, but I respect it

I didn't bring it up, I just answered a question that was asked of me.

I follow the Scripture also... men are that they might have joy, all men are alike unto God, the Lord looks upon the heart, it's not good for man to be alone, etc.

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Ok...I was just curious....seemed odd to bring up a topic then shut it down claiming it is off topic.

I follow the Scripture.  I cannot find support for your opinion there, but I respect it

To what scripture are you referring?

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Why would God have people born gay? 

There are a thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to  ...  homosexuality being but one, assuming one is, indeed, "born that way," which has never been established.

Why would G-d create a world in which humans not only have to face sometimes horrible physical barriers and environmental threats, but also inborn or acquired imperfections of body, mind and soul?

If you are indeed Mormon, you already know the answer.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Their actions are not much different.  But I find it funny they want to bash BYU on a policy that all the students agree to before they even pay their tuition.  So whether BYU discriminates or not really does not matter.  All of the students consented to the "discrimination" beforehand and said they would abide by it.  Lets put it in football terms since this is about football.   Suppose a group of people get together and decide to play some football.  They all agree to the rules of the game before they play the game.  Once the game starts, some don't like the rules and want them changed to suit them better.  The others don't want the change the rules. They are fine with what was agree to by everyone prior to the start of the game.  So should one bash the majority claiming they are discriminating because they don't want to change the rules?  I say NO.  Those complaining should be play the game or go home.  Changing the rules in the name of being more "inclusive" will only compromise the game and water it down.  At some point. might as well not play the game. 

Interesting analogy since changing the rules in California was exactly what Prop 8 did (albeit temporarily).

Also, you might want to consider how formative those college years are.  I have personally known LGBT kids who didn't really come to grips with their sexual orientation until they are halfway through their time at BYU.

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Church was defending against radical judicial adventurism, while the homosexual lobby is presently attempting to "own" the Big 12 via enfoeffment, just like they already own ABC, Disney and ESPN.

Wow.  Hyperbole much?

I guess we can both play that game...

With Prop 8, the LDS Church worked to overturn the constitution of the State of California and deny equality to a minority population.  Claiming divine mandate, LDS authorities forced many members to contribute vast amounts of cash to a campaign which effectively bought the outcome they wanted.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Interesting analogy since changing the rules in California was exactly what Prop 8 did (albeit temporarily).

You are not being accurate:  Prop 8 was designed to overturn by legal, constitutional means a decision by a socialist, adventurist state judiciary which had overturned laws passed by legal, constitutional means regarding the nature of marriage.  Upon passage, Prop 8 prohibited constitutionally the socialist, adventurist state judiciary from meddling with the definition of marriage.

So California voters never changed the rules, the socialist, adventurist state judiciary did.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

There are a thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to  ...  homosexuality being but one, assuming one is, indeed, "born that way," which has never been established.

Why would G-d create a world in which humans not only have to face sometimes horrible physical barriers and environmental threats, but also inborn or acquired imperfections of body, mind and soul?

If you are indeed Mormon, you already know the answer.

When I was a mormon..those answers were found "after we die"..but I don't believe that gayness is a disease.  One shouldn't have to overcome what is the capability to love others albeit differently. Any joy in the world is not a handicap.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Jeanne

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wow.  Hyperbole much?

I guess we can both play that game...

With Prop 8, the LDS Church worked to overturn the constitution of the State of California and deny equality to a minority population.  Claiming divine mandate, LDS authorities forced many members to contribute vast amounts of cash to a campaign which effectively bought the outcome they wanted.

Are you claiming the Church lacked a divine mandate?

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You are not being accurate:  Prop 8 was designed to overturn by legal, constitutional means a decision by a socialist, adventurist state judiciary which had overturned laws passed by legal, constitutional means regarding the nature of marriage.  Upon passage, Prop 8 prohibited constitutionally the socialist, adventurist state judiciary from meddling with the definition of marriage.

So California voters never changed the rules, the socialist, adventurist state judiciary did.

Ha.  I'M not being accurate?

SCOTUS disagrees with you but I guess you'd also call them a "socialist, adventurist judiciary", eh?

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you claiming the Church lacked a divine mandate?

I can't cite one, can you?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

You are not being accurate:  Prop 8 was designed to overturn by legal, constitutional means a decision by a socialist, adventurist state judiciary which had overturned laws passed by legal, constitutional means regarding the nature of marriage.  Upon passage, Prop 8 prohibited constitutionally the socialist, adventurist state judiciary from meddling with the definition of marriage.

So California voters never changed the rules, the socialist, adventurist state judiciary did.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reviewed the role of the judiciary.

You seem to be claiming they were functioning outside the law and were therefore an illegitimate branch of government. I'm not attempting to start a political debate so I'll let you respond however you like and I won't reply, but the judiciary (a legitimate and essential branch of government) is responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it is legal. Laws are regularly struck down as unconstitutional. Your disagreement with the judiciary doesn't make them illegitimate.

[carbon dioxide]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Wow.  Hyperbole much?

I guess we can both play that game...

With Prop 8, the LDS Church worked to overturn the constitution of the State of California and deny equality to a minority population.  Claiming divine mandate, LDS authorities forced many members to contribute vast amounts of cash to a campaign which effectively bought the outcome they wanted.

The LDS Church did not force any members to contribute money.  My dad did give some money but nobody forced him to contribute.  Prop 8 came about as a result of a court decision to overturn an early vote on the issue that the people of California passed.  It passed without too LDS church assistance.  Prop 8 was passed by the people of California and passed despite more money being spent to defeat Prop 8 than pass it.  (Money does not always equal results).

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

When I was a mormon..those answers were found "after we die"..but I don't believe that gayness is a disease.  One shouldn't have to overcome what is the capability to love others albeit differently. Any joy in the world is not a handicap.

So might the firebug argue  ...  "I was always this way.  My earliest memories are of wanting to burn things.  Fire is beautiful.  It is natural.  It is the secret at the heart of the Universe.  Where it burns, life follows death in the ultimate cosmic dance.  You can't just jail me or put me in a funny farm because I am compelled to burn things."

In any case, you avoided addressing your own issue:  why would G-d create an imperfect being in an imperfect world?  What's your no-longer-Mormon [note caps for proper noun] answer for that?

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps it would be helpful if you reviewed the role of the judiciary.

You seem to be claiming they were functioning outside the law and were therefore an illegitimate branch of government. I'm not attempting to start a political debate so I'll let you respond however you like and I won't reply, but the judiciary (a legitimate and essential branch of government) is responsible for interpreting and applying the law. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean it is legal. Laws are regularly struck down as unconstitutional. Your disagreement with the judiciary doesn't make them illegitimate.

So  ...  the judiciary is incapable of mistakes in your world view?

[carbon dioxide]

7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you claiming the Church lacked a divine mandate?

One of the mandates that the Church and members have is to stand for Christ in all places and times.  If one believes that Christ opposes gay marriage, how can one say they are standing for Christ will not opposing it.  It really does not matter whether one wins or loses the debate or the court ruling because at some point, all wicked practices will be thrown down and righteousness will win but it gives us an opportunity to show the Lord where we stand. 

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So might the firebug argue  ...  "I was always this way.  My earliest memories are of wanting to burn things.  Fire is beautiful.  It is natural.  It is the secret at the heart of the Universe.  Where it burns, life follows death in the ultimate cosmic dance.  You can't just jail me or put me in a funny farm because I am compelled to burn things."

In any case, you avoided addressing your own issue:  why would G-d create an imperfect being in an imperfect world?  What's your no-longer-Mormon [note caps for proper noun] answer for that?

Guess what?  You don't get to call anything imperfect.  I may be deaf but I am perfect to the people who love me..Gays may be gay...oh my..but there are so many gays and/or as you say imperfect people who know how to give..how to share and learn and grow and enjoy this awful imperfect world.  And this "no longer MORMON" believes everyone...absolutely everyone has value.  There are sins that can be validated ..like lying..murder etc..But those who know how to love unconditionally..There is nothing wrong with them.  The church could learn a lot from so many.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can't cite one, can you?

See C02, above.

Edited August 10, 2016 by USU78
Lacks spacial awareness

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The LDS Church did not force any members to contribute money.  My dad did give some money but nobody forced him to contribute.  Prop 8 came about as a result of a court decision to overturn an early vote on the issue that the people of California passed.  It passed without too LDS church assistance.  Prop 8 was passed by the people of California and passed despite more money being spent to defeat Prop 8 than pass it.  (Money does not always equal results).

You'll note that I said it was hyperbole... a response to USU78's ridiculous hyperbole.