Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Analytics said: Or even worse, their opposition to Proposition 8. The nerve of them, forcing that agenda on you. Proposition 8 was a resistance to the endeavor to force a societal and fundamental redefinition of marriage, an endeavor that ultimately succeeded. But that wan’t enough. Witness the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Proposition 8 was a response to the endeavor to force a societal and fundamental redefinition of marriage, an endeavor that ultimately succeeded. But that wan’t enough. Witness the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. You could say that about any major political or legal decision. Going through judicial and legislative channels is certainly preferable to, say, armed rebellion.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, jkwilliams said: You could say that about any major political or legal decision. Going through judicial and legislative channels is certainly preferable to, say, armed rebellion. There are various methods of force. No argument there.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: There are various methods of force. No argument there. Do you think Brown v. Board of Education was forced on us? Loving v. Virginia? The whole point of our republican democracy is to provide checks and balances on majority rule and ensure equal protection under the law. Since the beginning of this country, it has been the right of citizens to plead their cause in court or at the ballot box. Neither represents force but legal redress. 3
kllindley Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, Analytics said: Or even worse, their opposition to Proposition 8. The nerve of them, forcing that agenda on you. There is a real attempt to have a respectful, meaningful dialogue here. I've been very impressed with how we've done. This doesn't help. 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think the fear of a forced agenda is not altogether unwarranted. Witness the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. I actually don't believe that most people see that as an example of forcing. It is much more a byproduct of a specific narrative about sexual orientation, identity, religious belief, and more. From within that narrative, there is no question that the baker was wrong and the Colorado court was justified. I believe that narrative makes a number of unnecessary assumptions, making the conclusions questionable. But I acknowledge the reality that many people don't see anti-discrimination laws as trying to force an agenda. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Do you think Brown v. Board of Education was forced on us? Loving v. Virginia? The whole point of our republican democracy is to provide checks and balances on majority rule and ensure equal protection under the law. Since the beginning of this country, it has been the right of citizens to plead their cause in court or at the ballot box. Neither represents force but legal redress. Apples to oranges. The instances you cite were not attempts to force the redefinition of an institution as old as society itself.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Apples to oranges. The instances you cite were not attempts to force the redefinition of an institution as old as society itself. Loving v Virginia was, arguably. The bottom line is that the "force" was simply people exercising their rights as citizens. You, as a citizen, have the right to elect representatives who will choose judges who will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. If your side wins, are you forcing something?
kllindley Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 36 minutes ago, changed said: Blame is part of problem solving Respectfully no. Blame is part of shame. Brene Brown is a great advocate of accountability and responsibility, but clearly differentiates these from blame. Blame is not empowering. 2
kllindley Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apples to oranges. The instances you cite were not attempts to force the redefinition of an institution as old as society itself. 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Loving v Virginia was, arguably. The bottom line is that the "force" was simply people exercising their rights as citizens. You, as a citizen, have the right to elect representatives who will choose judges who will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. If your side wins, are you forcing something? I know it's not my post, so this is the only comment I'll make on the subject. Haven't we hashed this out enough? I see this thread as a new opportunity to discuss this issue without getting distracted by the political and legal issues.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, kllindley said: I know it's not my post, so this is the only comment I'll make on the subject. Haven't we hashed this out enough? I see this thread as a new opportunity to discuss this issue without getting distracted by the political and legal issues. Fair enough. Sorry about that.
kllindley Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 1 minute ago, jkwilliams said: Fair enough. Sorry about that. No apology necessary, IMO. It's sooo easy to go down that road!
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Loving v Virginia was, arguably. The bottom line is that the "force" was simply people exercising their rights as citizens. You, as a citizen, have the right to elect representatives who will choose judges who will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. If your side wins, are you forcing something? Interracial marriage (the issue in Loving v. Virginia) had been around for millennia prior to the enactment of laws to prohibit it. Same-sex marriage had not prior to the redefinition. And efforts to overturn a forced redefinition could be seen as resistance to force. And with that, I will stop, but I do believe I was entitled to make a response. Edited June 21, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Interracial marriage (the issue in Loving v. Virginia) had been around for millennia prior to the enactment of laws to prohibit it. Same-sex marriage had not prior to the redefinition. And efforts to overturn a forced change could be seen as resistance to force. And wirth that, I will stop, but I do believe I was entitled to make a response. I don't think exercising our rights as citizens ever qualifies as force, no matter the issue.
Storm Rider Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 2 hours ago, jkwilliams said: I was thinking of specific people I know who think any criticism of the church is an attack. Fortunately, they are a small minority, but they're out there. I know some of those people. Though they mean well, but I think they are not listening to all that is being said and react to the sound of a negative comment.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 1 minute ago, Storm Rider said: I know some of those people. Though they mean well, but I think they are not listening to all that is being said and react to the sound of a negative comment. Back when I was on the debate team, they taught us that one of the most important tactics is to concede a point when the point is valid. Some people seem to believe that nothing must ever be conceded, and no hill is too small to die on. When I come across people like that, it's quickly apparent that there's no real point in discussing anything with them. The answer is always the same on every question. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 14 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I don't think exercising our rights as citizens ever qualifies as force, no matter the issue. Some do endeavor to exert force by exercising citizen rights. Preventing or hindering that sort of thing is the very purpose of the Bill of Rights, which exists to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Back when I was on the debate team, they taught us that one of the most important tactics is to concede a point when the point is valid. Some people seem to believe that nothing must ever be conceded, and no hill is too small to die on. When I come across people like that, it's quickly apparent that there's no real point in discussing anything with them. The answer is always the same on every question. I don’t very often see criticisms of the Church that are valid. I can see letting some things fall by the wayside that aren’t worth arguing about, but I don’t see the virtue of conceding points that aren’t worthy of concession.
Analytics Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Proposition 8 was a resistance to the endeavor to force a societal and fundamental redefinition of marriage, an endeavor that ultimately succeeded. But that wan’t enough. Witness the Masterpiece Cake Shop case. Of course that isn't the only way of framing the issue. The fact is that there were at least 4 people with opinions that matter in California who believed that same-sex marriage is a civil right in that state. That being the case, Prop 8 was an attempt to take away that civil right. Of course you don't frame the issue that way, but I hope you can at least recognize why some people sincerely felt that Prop 8 was about forcing your agenda on them and taking away their civil rights. 4
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t very often see criticisms of the Church that are valid. I can see letting some things fall by the wayside that aren’t worth arguing about, but I don’t see the virtue of conceding points that aren’t worthy of concession. Even when I was a believer here and elsewhere, I often saw valid criticisms and had no problem acknowledging them. The church isn't perfect, and it doesn't get everything right all the time. Who knows? Maybe acknowledging problems in the church turned me into an apostate. Edited June 21, 2018 by jkwilliams
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, Analytics said: Of course that isn't the only way of framing the issue. The fact is that there were at least 4 people with opinions that matter in California who believed that same-sex marriage is a civil right in that state. That being the case, Prop 8 was an attempt to take away that civil right. Of course you don't frame the issue that way, but I hope you can at least recognize why some people sincerely felt that Prop 8 was about forcing your agenda on them and taking away their civil rights. Obergefell squeaked by as well. For want of a single vote, it would not be the law of the land today. And a Supreme Court decision one way or the other is very powerful in swaying public opinion.
Calm Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Apples to oranges. The instances you cite were not attempts to force the redefinition of an institution as old as society itself. It was certainly forcing a redefinition held for multigenerations. Most people don't care if a tradition/law has a thousand year history, they more likely care a great deal if it was something their grandparents lived, their parents lived, and they lived as children. One only needs to look at how deep traditions that didn't start until the early 1900s are ingrained in some that they feel fundamental rights are being stolen if they don't get the same opportunities to live in those ways. Edited June 21, 2018 by Calm
california boy Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t know that it would be productive to get into a back-and-forth rehash of your exchange with Smac, but I think he has already explained how your “thank goodness” remark came across. And on that matter, I don’t see why it must necessarily be viewed as a dreadful thing for a gay person to deal with being a member of the Church. The recent editorial in the Deseret News taking issue with Dan Reynolds’s remarks on the Ellen Degeneris show, mentioned in a recent thread here, cited studies showing that people who observed their religious faith were less, not more, likely to commit suicide. I think it is important to keep these studies in a proper perspective. I absolutely believe that having a support group like church can be VERY helpful in making suicide less likely. That totally makes logical sense. But I have not read any studies that show those who are gay are helped by a religious faith background. Specifically those who are gay and brought up Mormon. I don't think there is any data that addresses that particular issue. Perhaps you have one to share? I am not saying that the Mormon Church contributes to gay suicide. Let me be clear about that. What I am saying is that to my knowledge, I don't think there is any data about this issue. Until we have some credible date, everyone is just projecting on both sides of the issue. Without data, your POV lacks just as much credibility as Dan Reynolds. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Even when I was a believer here and elsewhere, I often saw valid criticisms and had no problem acknowledging them. The church isn't perfect, and it doesn't get everything right all the time. I don’t know what you’re referring to in particular, but one’s individual readiness to concede one or more points does not necessarily validate those points. It only means the person doing the conceding has been persuaded.
jkwilliams Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t know what you’re referring to in particular, but one’s individual readiness to concede one or more points does not necessarily validate those points. It only means the person doing the conceding has been persuaded. I guess some people are harder to persuade.
Calm Posted June 21, 2018 Posted June 21, 2018 15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Even when I was a believer here and elsewhere, I often saw valid criticisms and had no problem acknowledging them. The church isn't perfect, and it doesn't get everything right all the time. Who knows? Maybe acknowledging problems in the church turned me into an apostate. Not likely since I know many who do, who died fully in the faith. I think it is more about balance and if one focuses on criticisms or if one criticicizes in a conversation that includes a lot of positives as well and presents possibilities for change that one can begin to work on as an individual.
Recommended Posts