Daniel2 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: That is a very fringe belief. I wonder why the National Review likes to showcase it so much. I guess it is just a mystery. According to Smac, it’s not fringe because he found a handful of other LGBT commentaries that agree with her, one of whom said she isn’t fringe. But the fact that their opinions exist doesn’t mean the rest of the LGBT community agrees. After all, in today’s world where Google allows you to find a plethora of hits on any sundry topic, It’s easy to dig up at least a dozen quotes to agree with and support any given idea, regardless of how widely it is or is not held.
smac97 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: According to Smac, it’s not fringe because he found a handful of other LGBT commentaries that agree with her, one of whom said she isn’t fringe. That's not quite an accurate summary of what I said. I also quoted the article by Prof. George at length. I also quoted a number of other community "leaders" who have said things very similar to what Gessen said. 4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: But the fact that their opinions exist doesn’t mean the rest of the LGBT community agrees. Fair enough Nobody's looking for a 100% consensus. Again, I think there is a legitimate question of whether Ms. Gessen's remarks are - as you claim - fringy and extremist, or whether they are - as Prof. George indicates - fairly mainstream and uncontroversial in the community, even if not shared by "the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America" (emphasis added). And again, your anecdotal experience in that community means something. I acknowledge that. I will take it under advisement. But please don't misrepresent my position by omitting salient and significant portions of it. Thanks, -Smac
california boy Posted June 25, 2020 Author Posted June 25, 2020 12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: I've been thinking about some of the comments about 'compromise.' I'm uncomfortable with that verbiage, and here's why: I don't think people should be expected to or required to 'compromise' their values on the basis of their religion unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not as some sort of back-and-forth bartering in an exercise of "I'll conceed this to you, if you conceed that to me." In the context of this discussion and in the United States of America, I define "absolutely necessary' (as per the sentence above) as 'that which is required by our Constitution, our laws, and our understanding/application of both the Constitution and our laws as per court rulings.' In similar fashion, I don't think people should be expected to or required to 'compromise' their values on the basis of their race, color, national origin, or sex (whether 'on the basis of sex' that is related to their gender, gender identity/expression, or the gender of their spouse) unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not as some sort of back-and-forth bartering in an exercise of "I'll conceed this to you, if you conceed that to me." While compromise is admirable in most aspect of our lives, when it comes to Constitutionally-mandated, legally-authorized, and judicially supported civil rights, I think most people won't want to compromise those, especially when they've fought for said freedoms, as all of us have done to one degree or another. As related to civil rights, I think the best we can do is strive our best for civility, kindness, patience, and empathy towards one another when new rights clash with what we thought were actions that were previously seen as acceptable. But civility, kindness, patience, and empathy should not be excuses for diligently and purposefully moving forward with laying claim to those civil rights that are afforded to all of us, as citizens of the United States of America. My two cents... D Of course no one on either side likes to compromise. But there are conflicts between what people believe are religious rights guaranteed them in the Constitution and people who believe their rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution. Trying to figure out what is MOST important to either side and be willing to give up what is LESS important might be a better way to resolve these issues. As the article that I quoted in the OP suggests, when both sides feel like they have been treated evenhandedly, they are more likely to not only obey those laws but support them and eachother. Most of the big issues have been dealt with. But sometimes I think this adversarial dynamic makes even the less important issues a don't back down issue. I see it on this site. People digging their heels in on issues that really are almost laughable in the actual impact on our lives. Isn't anyone else tired of this war between religion and the LGBT community. The only other alternative I see is to continue to fight it out in the courts and public square. By its very nature, it sets up an us against them type dynamic. Did the Church get a big WIN from passing Prop 8? Was it worth the battle? Are people flinging open their doors for the Church that fought to keep its definition of marriage? Is the next battle going to draw people to Christ or drive them further away? Does this battle mentality make it more risky or safer for gay people on the street? Or do some people feel like they are doing some kind of twisted work for God by beating up or bullying someone who is gay. One of the biggest concerns parents have when their children are gay is will they be safe. Now if you had religion and the gay community working together, and yes compromising on some of these issue, wouldn't that be a win win for everyone? Unless you have some other magic solution to this issue up your sleeve, it is either the courts or passing legislation where both sides work out their differences. If you do have a third option, I am all ears.
Daniel2 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, smac97 said: That's not quite an accurate summary of what I said. I also quoted the article by Prof. George at length. I also quoted a number of other community "leaders" who have said things very similar to what Gessen said. Fair enough Nobody's looking for a 100% consensus. Again, I think there is a legitimate question of whether Ms. Gessen's remarks are - as you claim - fringy and extremist, or whether they are - as Prof. George indicates - fairly mainstream and uncontroversial in the community, even if not shared by "the entire LGBT Civil Rights movement in America" (emphasis added). And again, your anecdotal experience in that community means something. I acknowledge that. I will take it under advisement. But please don't misrepresent my position by omitting salient and significant portions of it. Thanks, -Smac Again, regardless of your quotation 'at length' of a professor's article and a handful of others gathered together in one article (which I presume you found by way of searching via an internet search browser...? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, there...), some of which are from decades past and not connected to the current LGBT movement, I disagree that said authors are de facto "community 'leaders'," or are representative of a substantial number of members making up the LGBT equality movement, today. I don’t believe I was misrepresenting your position--I actually still stand my my characterization of it. I don't believe your 'Google-Search/Cut-and-Paste" job from what appears to be a conservative propaganda website who's sole purpose in compiling and posting "12 Shocking Quotes: How Same-Sex "Marriage" Spells the Death of Natural Marriage" appears solely to inflame fear and mistrust and galvanize the base by making the LGBT Civil Rights movement appear insidious, qualifies as raising "a legitimate question of whether Ms. Gessen's remarks are - as I claim - fringy and extremist." And others in this thread have also recognized that the sentiment your quotes espouse are "very fringe" beliefs. As a side note: cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes from an article on a website from "TFP Student Action" and expecting it to accurately raise "a legitimate question" that accurately reflects the LGBT movement is analogous to cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes from an article on the Tanner's Lighthouse Minitries" website and expecting it to "raise a legitimate question" that accurately reflects the LDS Church, community, and beliefs. Regarding your claim I'm "misrepresenting" your position by omitting anything: I'm absolutely not making any attempt to hide it or to obstruct others' ability read it and judge for themselves. It isn't hidden or ancient history, and is in this same thread just two pages back, (here's the link, if anyone wants to read it). D Edited June 25, 2020 by Daniel2 3
Daniel2 Posted June 25, 2020 Posted June 25, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, california boy said: Of course no one on either side likes to compromise. But there are conflicts between what people believe are religious rights guaranteed them in the Constitution and people who believe their rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution. Trying to figure out what is MOST important to either side and be willing to give up what is LESS important might be a better way to resolve these issues. As the article that I quoted in the OP suggests, when both sides feel like they have been treated evenhandedly, they are more likely to not only obey those laws but support them and eachother. Most of the big issues have been dealt with. But sometimes I think this adversarial dynamic makes even the less important issues a don't back down issue. I see it on this site. People digging their heels in on issues that really are almost laughable in the actual impact on our lives. Isn't anyone else tired of this war between religion and the LGBT community. The only other alternative I see is to continue to fight it out in the courts and public square. By its very nature, it sets up an us against them type dynamic. Did the Church get a big WIN from passing Prop 8? Was it worth the battle? Are people flinging open their doors for the Church that fought to keep its definition of marriage? Is the next battle going to draw people to Christ or drive them further away? Does this battle mentality make it more risky or safer for gay people on the street? Or do some people feel like they are doing some kind of twisted work for God by beating up or bullying someone who is gay. One of the biggest concerns parents have when their children are gay is will they be safe. Now if you had religion and the gay community working together, and yes compromising on some of these issue, wouldn't that be a win win for everyone? Unless you have some other magic solution to this issue up your sleeve, it is either the courts or passing legislation where both sides work out their differences. If you do have a third option, I am all ears. CB, I appreciate your attempts to try to find middle ground, and I second those efforts whenever possible. I think dialogue about understanding one another and encouraging civility are key areas in which to do so. As Smac acurately pointed out earlier in this thread, however, at some point, two opposing parties may reach a point where we have to allow for differences of belief and opinion; where compromise may no longer bridge any gap. When two sides alledge a right to something which conflict with one another, it is the role of the courts to weight the competing viewpoints against the Constitution, the law, precedent, and decide how the law is and should be applied. When it comes to civil rights, I'm on record as not claiming or expecting any more or less legal protections for myself on the basis of sex (including the gender of my spouse) than the same protections that I likewise fully support and expect for all other citizens on the basis of their sex, race, religion, or national origin. When it comes to our shared inherent worthiness for equal protection from discrimination on the basis of any of those characteristics, I believe the law should treat us all equally. Since the law has found that as a gay man, SCOTUS has clarified that the law and Constitution require that, on the basis of sex, I am entitled to the same non-discrimination and civil rights that all others also enjoy, I don't see where a need for compromise exists. As for "magic solutions"... I don't think there is one. The legislature, and then the courts, ARE the final arbiters, at least in so far as how we are to understand and abide by civil rights law. Now they have spoken, time will pass. LGBT individuals will marry and work and contribute alongside our straight counterparts. Integration will increasingly occur, (as it already has been)... and society's view will change and become more accepting (as they have, exponentially, around the world)... and those condemning same-sex families will fade, and society will move forward with LGBT families opening living, loving, and contributing to our shared communities at all levels, according to our abilities. While none of us can change one another's personally and deeply held beliefs or views, in some cases I believe the best both sides can do, at this point, is encourage civility despite differences and encouraging working together on shared goals. IMO, one example of this is how the LDS Faith, while continuing to promote it's doctrines regarding same-sex relationships and asserting they have and will not change, continues to call for kindness, civility, and mutual respect, even when difference of opinion are unavoidable, Edited June 25, 2020 by Daniel2 2
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) Writing for The Federalist, Glenn Stanton outlines some of the problems that are perhaps inherent in recent calls for "compromise." Some excerpts: Quote The Queer Movement Wants To Convert Christians, Not CoexistThe dream for compromise between those demanding absolute affirmation for ever-evolving gender and sexual convictions and others of strong religious faith is unrealistic — and not because of religious folks. Even the subtitle merits attention. I see much of the calls for "compromise" to be directly solely at religious people. Moreover, these calls seem to be, as Stanton puts it, "demanding absolute affirmation for ever-evolving gender and sexual convictions." Quote Rest easy, orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The New York Times wants you to know there is no reason to fear your conscience protections being steamrolled by the juggernaut that is the queer politics machine. In a hopeful op-ed titled “We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty,” with the rest-assured subtitle “It does not have to be all or nothing,” Jonathan Rauch, whom I value as a long and deeply respected friend, and Peter Wehner say the Supreme Court’s recent Bostock decision provides a golden opportunity for religious conservatives and gay activists to “make a deal.” They speak hopefully of mutually beneficial compromise, with both sides attaining their desired freedoms and protections. While I trust their talk of compromise is well-intentioned, it is profoundly naïve. Both men are intimately aware of the way the queer movement’s leadership has framed the issue and how dutifully their media and elite partisans have carried their water for decades. Their message? Gay rights are civil rights. Full stop. Kinda hard to argue with any of this. Quote Activists Don’t Negotiate Civil Rights This truth claim is not a statement of fact. It is one of faith, ideological conviction, and rhetorical strategy. It is aspirational. The mission is for all to adopt this belief and condemn anyone who doesn’t as a hateful bigot. There is no middle ground. The call of the day used to be “live and let live,” but no more. Now the call is, “You will respect and affirm everything about my new understanding of sexuality and gender, or else.” I appreciate that Daniel is trying to go against this flow. Truly. But I'm concerned he's swimming upstream against a raging current. Mostly by himself. Quote This script has been most effective. But if gay and trans rights really are civil rights, their proponents know the first rule of civil rights is that you don’t negotiate them. True justice dictates you demand them, and don’t quiet down until you’ve attained the fullness of every last one. I think this is correct. That's why I've found some of the proposed "compromises" in this thread to be fairly problematic. The religionists are supposed to capitulate on their rights and civil liberties and personal conscience, and the LGBT folks are supposed to . . . what? Let the religionists capitulate? That's apparently the idea. And since do we trade civil rights in a zero sum bartering system? Quote The queer movement — elsewhere, Rauch recommends using the more concise and inclusive “Q,” or queer, rather than the alphabet soup — cannot employ the end-of-discussion “civil rights” language, consistently label their opponents hateful bigots, and then also speak of good-faith compromise. The two exist in necessarily exclusive universes. Absolute language requires absoluteness, and the queer movement leaders set these terms with great care and intention. I emphasized the important part above. I think this is an essential precondition that must be substantively undertaken by the LGBT folks. Sadly, I don't think they have any intention of doing that. As I said earlier: "I think each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side. This includes explanations of the other side's motives (which usually include the worst possible assumptions and imputations). This is a *huge* problem. Every accusation of 'hater,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe' and so on is an implicit imputation of motives. That needs to stop." Sadly, I don't think it will. And Stanton is quite right. LGBT folks cannot "consistently label their opponents hateful bigots, and then also speak of good-faith compromise." The continued use of the former essentially guarantees no progress will be made on the latter. Quote Religious Freedoms Endanger Queer Demands Likewise, the free exercise of religion, a foundational right of all Americans from our nation’s founding, cannot be negotiated either. Leading gay advocates powerfully dismiss that right, even calling it dangerous. Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop sought to defend himself against emotional, reputational, economic, and legal ruin by saying his faith disallowed him from using his God-given talents to design a cake for a same-sex wedding. Was he met with deference, understanding, and a spirit of compromise by the authorities of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission? Hardly. One commissioner condemned his faith-based reason at a public hearing in the strongest terms, equating his action to slavery and the Holocaust and denouncing his religious freedom claim as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric people can use.” If only such accusations were rare. A commissioner for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries insisted that two bakers who could not provide services for a gay wedding because of their faith needed to be “rehabilitate[d].” As a presidential candidate, Beto O’Rourke declared that churches refusing to get on board with performing same-sex weddings would lose important legal protections. Yep. Have LGBT folks re-examined their posture toward Jack Phillips and those who are situated like him? Or is there an intention to double down and go after him, endlessly, until he capitulates? We know the answer. We saw what happened after Jack Phillips prevailed at the Supreme Court: After 7 Years of Legal Battles and 2 Wins, Jack Phillips Has Been Sued AGAIN Can calls for "compromise" really be taken seriously when this sort of thing continues to happen? Is there any significant part of the LGBT crowd that is speaking against what Jack Phililps has endured? Has anyone in that crowd spoekn in defense of the two bakers in Oregon? Did anyone in that crowd speak out against the threats leveled by Beto O'Rourke? Daniel? Can you point us to such things? Quote The Fairness For All Act Isn’t Fair at All Rauch and Wehner are selling the federal Fairness for All Act as the right vehicle for compromise and togetherness. This is also naive. This legislation, joined by the so-called Equality Act in the Senate, has been strongly denounced by leading groups on both sides of the issue. When a bill’s rosy title signals that if it is passed, all will be right with the world, it’s a good sign someone’s putting rouge on a pig. First, when you negotiate carveouts for religious protections — a first freedom — you give up, not gain, ground. The Fairness for All Act provides protections for religious schools, colleges, and charities, but these are tremendously narrow and few given the breadth of possible encroachments that will occur as sexual and gender options continue to expand. This will leave not only religious organizations seriously vulnerable, but also medical and social-service professionals whose work is informed by religious convictions. Yep. That's pretty much how I see calls for "compromise." Unilateral surrender of religious protections. Quote Compromise Doesn’t Have a Good Track Record The authors make much of how a similar compromise bill passed with great fanfare in the extremely conservative and religiously informed Utah Legislature some years ago. Using Utah as an example for the nation is problematic though. Mormon public relations were heavily at play there, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was a power player in California’s Prop 8, which sought to protect natural marriage from redefinition. Their involvement created a great deal of blow back with charges of “bigotry” from members and others and thus a PR crisis for the church. Church leadership soon mobilized with great enthusiasm, getting passed a piece of legislation termed “The Utah Compromise,” which was the seed of the Fairness for All Act. It was clear to all parties in the state legislature that church leadership at the highest level wanted this to happen as a counterbalance to “anti-gay” stigma stemming from its Prop 8 work. Thus, the Republican-dominated Utah legislature got behind the bill. Few leaders or organizations on either side of the issue were really happy with this exceptional legislative phenomenon. It was really only a win for the Mormon Church. So no, the dream for reasonable and equitable compromise between those demanding absolute affirmation for ever-evolving gender and sexual convictions and others of strong religious faith is unrealistic — and not because of the intransigence of religious folks. They are not the ones who framed this debate in such absolutist terms. Here Stanton loses me a bit. Here merely asserts, and does not explain or demonstrate, problems inherent in the Utah Compromise. However, other critics of it have weighed in. See, for example, this article in Slate: Quote Utah “Compromise” to Protect LGBT Citizens From Discrimination Is No Model for the Nation By NELSON TEBBE, RICHARD C. SCHRAGGER, and MICAH SCHWARTZMAN Last week, Utah’s governor signed a historic bill that extends state antidiscrimination protection to LGBT people in housing and employment. The law will extend needed protection to tens of thousands of Utah’s citizens. Remarkably, this has happened in a state with a Republican legislature and a Republican governor. That development is remarkable and salutary. Because Utah’s bill has been supported not only by the Mormon church, but also by the ACLU and other advocates for LGBT rights, it is being hailed as a model for other jurisdictions. When he signed the bill, Gov. Gary Herbert said, “I have no doubt that the eyes of the nation are upon us,” and he called lawmakers’ attempts to strike a balance between religious freedom and LGBT equality “historic.” But the Utah legislation should not become a model for the nation. The bill contains troubling exemptions for religious groups, allowing them to continue to discriminate in ways that would be impermissible in many other states and under federal law. In particular, the Utah law specifically exempts religiously affiliated nonprofits such as schools, hospitals, and social service organizations. Ah. "Troubling exemptions for religious groups." No "compromise" can have such things, I guess. See also this article from ThinkProgress: Quote Last year, Utah was the only state that advanced statewide nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, leaving behind 28 states that still offer no such protections. Utah’s legislation, however, included some rather unprecedented “religious liberty” carveouts, which many conservatives have since suggested should serve as a model for other states, particularly those wrestling against the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling. At the forefront of this push is Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois who actually helped craft the Utah bill. ... But Wilson’s motivations don’t seem to be what’s best for LGBT people. In fact, at every turn, she promotes opportunities to water down these bills with exemptions that enable the various forms of discrimination they’re supposed to prevent. At other times, she is prepared to strip out whole provisions to make the rest easier to pass. For example, she has recommended that Indiana pass protections for employment and housing while leaving public accommodations alone. “Can’t we fix the two things that are easiest to agree on,” she offered the Indianapolis Star last October, “and leave the harder one for later?” Her starting place is compromise. As she told the Georgia Voice after being asked about the many pro-discrimination “religious liberty” bills being considered there, “My basic position is that both sides have to take something off the table here.” Wilson champions her victory in Utah as the perfect example. “If it can happen in Utah, the single most conservative state in America, it can happen in Georgia.” "Her starting place is compromise." Compromise by the LGBT side. Didn't they get the memo? Calls for "compromise" are a one-way street. The religionists are supposed to compromise and capitulate on their rights and convictions, and the LGBT folks are supposed to accept those compromises and capitulations. See also this critique by Alliance Defending Freedom, which criticizes the Utah Compromise from the other direction. All three of these seem to say the same thing, just in different ways. The Utah Compromise represents concessions that allow for religious protections. Slate and ThinkProgress complain about it because the concessions didn't go far enough. Alliance Defending Freedom complains that the concessions went too far. Personally, I am generally in favor of the Utah Compromise. It's a good faith effort. It improves protections for LGBT folks, while still protecting religious liberties. And perhaps most important, it was passed by the state legislature. It was not an executive or judicial fiat. It was not a nationwide, one-size-fits-all, put-the-federal-government-in-charge-of-everything solution. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
california boy Posted June 26, 2020 Author Posted June 26, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Writing for The Federalist, Glenn Stanton outlines some of the problems that are perhaps inherent in recent calls for "compromise." Some excerpts: Even the subtitle merits attention. I see much of the calls for "compromise" to be directly solely at religious people. Moreover, these calls seem to be, as Stanton puts it, "demanding absolute affirmation for ever-evolving gender and sexual convictions." Kinda hard to argue with any of this. I appreciate that Daniel is trying to go against this flow. Truly. But I'm concerned he's swimming upstream against a raging current. Mostly by himself. I think this is correct. That's why I've found some of the proposed "compromises" in this thread to be fairly problematic. The religionists are supposed to capitulate on their rights and civil liberties and personal conscience, and the LGBT folks are supposed to . . . what? Let the religionists capitulate? That's apparently the idea. And since do we trade civil rights in a zero sum bartering system? I emphasized the important part above. I think this is an essential precondition that must be substantively undertaken by the LGBT folks. Sadly, I don't think they have any intention of doing that. As I said earlier: "I think each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side. This includes explanations of the other side's motives (which usually include the worst possible assumptions and imputations). This is a *huge* problem. Every accusation of 'hater,' 'bigot,' 'homophobe' and so on is an implicit imputation of motives. That needs to stop." Sadly, I don't think it will. And Stanton is quite right. LGBT folks cannot "consistently label their opponents hateful bigots, and then also speak of good-faith compromise." The continued use of the former essentially guarantees no progress will be made on the latter. Yep. Have LGBT folks re-examined their posture toward Jack Phillips and those who are situated like him? Or is there an intention to double down and go after him, endlessly, until he capitulates? We know the answer. We saw what happened after Jack Phillips prevailed at the Supreme Court: After 7 Years of Legal Battles and 2 Wins, Jack Phillips Has Been Sued AGAIN Can calls for "compromise" really be taken seriously when this sort of thing continues to happen? Is there any significant part of the LGBT crowd that is speaking against what Jack Phililps has endured? Has anyone in that crowd spoekn in defense of the two bakers in Oregon? Did anyone in that crowd speak out against the threats leveled by Beto O'Rourke? Daniel? Can you point us to such things? Yep. That's pretty much how I see calls for "compromise." Unilateral surrender of religious protections. Here Stanton loses me a bit. Here merely asserts, and does not explain or demonstrate, problems inherent in the Utah Compromise. However, other critics of it have weighed in. See, for example, this article in Slate: Ah. "Troubling exemptions for religious groups." No "compromise" can have such things, I guess. See also this article from ThinkProgress: "Her starting place is compromise." Compromise by the LGBT side. Didn't they get the memo? Calls for "compromise" are a one-way street. The religionists are supposed to compromise and capitulate on their rights and convictions, and the LGBT folks are supposed to accept those compromises and capitulations. See also this critique by Alliance Defending Freedom, which criticizes the Utah Compromise from the other direction. All three of these seem to say the same thing, just in different ways. The Utah Compromise represents concessions that allow for religious protections. Slate and ThinkProgress complain about it because the concessions didn't go far enough. Alliance Defending Freedom complains that the concessions went too far. Personally, I am generally in favor of the Utah Compromise. It's a good faith effort. It improves protections for LGBT folks, while still protecting religious liberties. And perhaps most important, it was passed by the state legislature. It was not an executive or judicial fiat. It was not a nationwide, one-size-fits-all, put-the-federal-government-in-charge-of-everything solution. Thanks, -Smac How many post on this board can you put up that paints the LGBT community in the worse possible light? Would you feel ok if a poster continually combed the internet and put post after post showing the Church in the worse possible light? Because there is plenty out there. In a thread that is trying to bring people together, you are doing all you can to keep that divide going.. Sorry, but I just don't think much about how you practice the teachings of Christ. 1
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, california boy said: How many post on this board can you put up that paints the LGBT community in the worse possible light? How 'bout you address the substance of what has been posted, or else ignore it. Rather than personalize the thread. Quote Would you feel ok if a poster continually combed the internet and put post after post showing the Church in the worse possible light? Because there is plenty out there. I do not "comb the internet." I came across the Stanton article because it mentions the Church. It seemed relevant to this thread, so I posted it. Feel free to address it. Or not. But I am not the topic here. Quote In a thread that is trying to bring people together, you are doing all you can to keep that divide going. Stop personalizing the thread. Quote Sorry, but I just don't think much about how you practice the teachings of Christ. Again, I am not the topic here. This thread has some good things going for it. You materially lessen that by scolding individuals who provide substantive input. Each side needs to be taking a good long look at itself. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
california boy Posted June 26, 2020 Author Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: How 'bout you address the substance of what has been posted, or else ignore it. Rather than personalize the thread. I do not "comb the internet." I came across the Stanton article because it mentions the Church. It seemed relevant to this thread, so I posted it. Feel free to address it. Or not. But I am the the topic here. Stop personalizing the thread. Again, I am not the topic here. This thread has some good things going for it. You materially lessen that by scolding individuals who provide substantive input. Each side needs to be taking a good long look at itself. Thanks, -Smac You aren't the topic, your continued shining the worst possible light on the LGBT community is the topic. Your divisiveness is the topic. Your post quoting from an anti-gay organizations that are designated as a LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Your continued anti-LGBT post are the topic. From Wikipedia Quote The Southern Poverty Law Center designates the ADF as an anti-LGBTQ hate group.[9] The SPLC has also described the ADF as a "prominent Christian legal powerhouse," and criticized it for providing "advice to anti-gay bigots in Belize. This is what you base your post on. Quote The Queer Movement Wants To Convert Christians, Not CoexistThe dream for compromise between those demanding absolute affirmation for ever-evolving gender and sexual convictions and others of strong religious faith is unrealistic — and not because of religious folks. Do you have any polls to back this up? Just what percentage of the gay movement believes this? Oh wait, no objective information, just hubris remarks hurled out there to stoke the flames of divisive prejudice. You aren't presenting facts, you are presenting prejudice. This thread is about finding common ground. In the OP in bold letters I said this Quote I request that each poster to address BOTH sides of the divide, both religious liberties and LGBT rights, not just support their own point of view. If you are unwilling to do that, then I kindly ask that you do not participate in this particular thread. You have plenty of other opportunities in other threads to bash the LGBT community and dig through LGBT hate groups to support your point of view. Could you please stick to what the topic is about in this thread or don't participate. Edited June 26, 2020 by california boy 1
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 17 minutes ago, california boy said: You aren't the topic, your continued shining the worst possible light on the LGBT community is the topic. Your divisiveness is the topic. No, no and no. The topic is in the OP. The topic is not me. The topic is not about how I "practice the teachings of Christ." Quote Your post quoting from an anti-gay organizations that are designated as a LGBT hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Which group is that? The SPLC is a bunch of partisan hacks. It is a punchline. Its designations carry zero weight with me. Zero. Quote Your continued anti-LGBT post are the topic. As you continue to personalize this thread, I'll report you to the mods and let them sort things out. I reject the label, BTW. Stanton said "The mission is for all to adopt this belief and condemn anyone who doesn’t as a hateful bigot. There is no middle ground." You are proving his point. Disagreement or criticism is not allowed. I must either capitulate or be branded "anti-LGBT," "prejudiced," etc. -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
Ahab Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 23 hours ago, california boy said: Of course no one on either side likes to compromise. True, and I think more people need to think about that more seriously. People don't like to compromise so they are usually fighting for ALL that they want and expect any who don't agree to somehow just agree to agree with them. And then that doesn't work, of course, because the people who don't agree still don't agree, so the other side just keeps waiting and hoping that those who don't agree will eventually change their minds to agree. That's why there are always 2 sides to every issue, with people on each side supporting their own side, and the 2 opposing sides never agreeing to agree on every detail. 23 hours ago, california boy said: But there are conflicts between what people believe are religious rights guaranteed them in the Constitution and people who believe their rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution. Trying to figure out what is MOST important to either side and be willing to give up what is LESS important might be a better way to resolve these issues. A possible option, but I don't think everyone on either side will like that option with some continuing to fight for ALL that they want. 23 hours ago, california boy said: As the article that I quoted in the OP suggests, when both sides feel like they have been treated evenhandedly, they are more likely to not only obey those laws but support them and each other. Which seems to suggest that we should seek is what is fair for all, which may not necessarily be the same as what is right. 23 hours ago, california boy said: Most of the big issues have been dealt with. But sometimes I think this adversarial dynamic makes even the less important issues a don't back down issue. I see it on this site. People digging their heels in on issues that really are almost laughable in the actual impact on our lives. When I see that I see it as people just voicing their preferences or their support for what they, individually, see as the right thing to do, which may not be the same as what is fair for everybody. 23 hours ago, california boy said: Isn't anyone else tired of this war between religion and the LGBT community. I'm not tired of it, exactly, but it would be really nice if everybody else on this planet just agreed with how I think things ought to be. 23 hours ago, california boy said: The only other alternative I see is to continue to fight it out in the courts and public square. Or for everyone to just choose to agree with one particular perspective. Of course that would mean we would all need to vote on who we should all agree with. And then whoever won the vote would need to get everyone's support. 23 hours ago, california boy said: By its very nature, it sets up an us against them type dynamic. That's always what happens when people don't agree with each other. 23 hours ago, california boy said: Did the Church get a big WIN from passing Prop 8? Was it worth the battle? Are people flinging open their doors for the Church that fought to keep its definition of marriage? Is the next battle going to draw people to Christ or drive them further away? Does this battle mentality make it more risky or safer for gay people on the street? Or do some people feel like they are doing some kind of twisted work for God by beating up or bullying someone who is gay. Too early to tell yet, I think. I see each side winning some battles but I think it's still to early to tell, by the evidence alone, which side will be winning the war. 23 hours ago, california boy said: One of the biggest concerns parents have when their children are gay is will they be safe. Now if you had religion and the gay community working together, and yes compromising on some of these issue, wouldn't that be a win win for everyone? No, not for everybody. And safe is a relative term. Safe from what? Safe as in saved by a Savior? What would be compromised to achieve that level of safety? Anyone's ideas about what a real family is and should be like? 23 hours ago, california boy said: Unless you have some other magic solution to this issue up your sleeve, it is either the courts or passing legislation where both sides work out their differences. If you do have a third option, I am all ears. I vote that we all agree to agree with what our Savior, Jesus Christ, wants us to do because he always knows what is right and good even when some of us don't. Any opposed?
california boy Posted June 26, 2020 Author Posted June 26, 2020 46 minutes ago, smac97 said: No, no and no. The topic is in the OP. The topic is not me. The topic is not about how I "practice the teachings of Christ." Which group is that? The SPLC is a bunch of partisan hacks. It is a punchline. Its designations carry zero weight with me. Zero. As you continue to personalize this thread, I'll report you to the mods and let them sort things out. I reject the label, BTW. Stanton said "The mission is for all to adopt this belief and condemn anyone who doesn’t as a hateful bigot. There is no middle ground." You are proving his point. Disagreement or criticism is not allowed. I must either capitulate or be branded "anti-LGBT," "prejudiced," etc. -Smac Please do not post in this thread unless you are willing to abide by the request and purpose of this thread. Quote I request that each poster to address BOTH sides of the divide, both religious liberties and LGBT rights, not just support their own point of view. If you are unwilling to do that, then I kindly ask that you do not participate in this particular thread.
california boy Posted June 26, 2020 Author Posted June 26, 2020 17 minutes ago, Ahab said: True, and I think more people need to think about that more seriously. People don't like to compromise so they are usually fighting for ALL that they want and expect any who don't agree to somehow just agree to agree with them. And then that doesn't work, of course, because the people who don't agree still don't agree, so the other side just keeps waiting and hoping that those who don't agree will eventually change their minds to agree. That's why there are always 2 sides to every issue, with people on each side supporting their own side, and the 2 opposing sides never agreeing to agree on every detail. A possible option, but I don't think everyone on either side will like that option with some continuing to fight for ALL that they want. Which seems to suggest that we should seek is what is fair for all, which may not necessarily be the same as what is right. When I see that I see it as people just voicing their preferences or their support for what they, individually, see as the right thing to do, which may not be the same as what is fair for everybody. I'm not tired of it, exactly, but it would be really nice if everybody else on this planet just agreed with how I think things ought to be. Or for everyone to just choose to agree with one particular perspective. Of course that would mean we would all need to vote on who we should all agree with. And then whoever won the vote would need to get everyone's support. That's always what happens when people don't agree with each other. Too early to tell yet, I think. I see each side winning some battles but I think it's still to early to tell, by the evidence alone, which side will be winning the war. No, not for everybody. And safe is a relative term. Safe from what? Safe as in saved by a Savior? What would be compromised to achieve that level of safety? Anyone's ideas about what a real family is and should be like? I vote that we all agree to agree with what our Savior, Jesus Christ, wants us to do because he always knows what is right and good even when some of us don't. Any opposed? I agree with a lot of your post. And thanks for offering your opinion on this issue. Let me know when everyone can agree on just exactly what Christ wants us to do. Even those that claim to follow Christ can't seem to agree on what that is.
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, california boy said: Please do not post in this thread unless you are willing to abide by the request and purpose of this thread. I request that each poster to address BOTH sides of the divide, both religious liberties and LGBT rights, not just support their own point of view. If you are unwilling to do that, then I kindly ask that you do not participate in this particular thread. I am willing. See my remarks about the Utah Compromise: Quote Personally, I am generally in favor of the Utah Compromise. It's a good faith effort. It improves protections for LGBT folks, while still protecting religious liberties. And perhaps most important, it was passed by the state legislature. It was not an executive or judicial fiat. It was not a nationwide, one-size-fits-all, put-the-federal-government-in-charge-of-everything solution. (Bold emphases added.) I find it quite ironic that the OP is rife with disparaging/critical rhetoric about one "side of the divide" (the religionists), and that's apparently okey dokey. But measured criticisms of (or even expressed concerns about the actions of) the "LGBT" side of things yields - surprise! - accusations of bigotry, prejudice, etc. Same old, same old. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 23 hours ago, california boy said: Of course no one on either side likes to compromise. But there are conflicts between what people believe are religious rights guaranteed them in the Constitution and people who believe their rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution. Trying to figure out what is MOST important to either side and be willing to give up what is LESS important might be a better way to resolve these issues. As the article that I quoted in the OP suggests, when both sides feel like they have been treated evenhandedly, they are more likely to not only obey those laws but support them and eachother. Most of the big issues have been dealt with. But sometimes I think this adversarial dynamic makes even the less important issues a don't back down issue. I see it on this site. People digging their heels in on issues that really are almost laughable in the actual impact on our lives. Isn't anyone else tired of this war between religion and the LGBT community. The only other alternative I see is to continue to fight it out in the courts and public square. By its very nature, it sets up an us against them type dynamic. Did the Church get a big WIN from passing Prop 8? Was it worth the battle? Are people flinging open their doors for the Church that fought to keep its definition of marriage? Is the next battle going to draw people to Christ or drive them further away? Does this battle mentality make it more risky or safer for gay people on the street? Or do some people feel like they are doing some kind of twisted work for God by beating up or bullying someone who is gay. One of the biggest concerns parents have when their children are gay is will they be safe. Now if you had religion and the gay community working together, and yes compromising on some of these issue, wouldn't that be a win win for everyone? Unless you have some other magic solution to this issue up your sleeve, it is either the courts or passing legislation where both sides work out their differences. If you do have a third option, I am all ears. CB- I appreciate what you're trying to do. I really do. But... "Compromise" seems to suggest that both sides are on equal footing and that both have something they can give up. When Biff from Back to the Future harassed and bullied George McFly, was there something George could have done to compromise with Biff to get him to stop treating him badly? With regards to the LGBT community, I see them as George being continually bullied by religion. Religion doesn't like them. Religion doesn't want them to co-exist in an equal and respected way. Religion is like Biff always wanting to treat George badly and then getting upset when George fights back. Granted, religion doesn't engage the LGBT community badly because they are sadists (like Biff) but it doesn't change the fact that it does (generally speaking) treat the LGBT community bad. I don't know how or why a victim would find a way to compromise with their bully.
Ahab Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Let me know when everyone can agree on just exactly what Christ wants us to do. Thank you for the offer but I really do not want that to be something I am expected to do as part of my job. I'd rather you just learn from God for yourself, through the Holy Spirit, and then you will know when others agree with him/them. 3 minutes ago, california boy said: Even those that claim to follow Christ can't seem to agree on what that is. Their problem, not mine, or yours. You can learn from God for yourself without any need to be dependent on what other people think or believe. I would even say you have the ability to learn from God as a right, given to you by God, whether you are gay or straight or bi or whatever other sexual orientation you may have or develop.
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: CB- I appreciate what you're trying to do. I really do. But... "Compromise" seems to suggest that both sides are on equal footing and that both have something they can give up. It also seems to suggest that civil rights are a zero sum game, such that LGBT rights can only exist over here if the civil rights of religionists are taken away over there. 6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: When Biff from Back to the Future harassed and bullied George McFly, was there something George could have done to compromise with Biff to get him to stop treating him badly? With regards to the LGBT community, I see them as George being continually bullied by religion. Religion doesn't like them. Religion doesn't want them to co-exist in an equal and respected way. Religion is like Biff always wanting to treat George badly and then getting upset when George fights back. Granted, religion doesn't engage the LGBT community badly because they are sadists (like Biff) but it doesn't change the fact that it does (generally speaking) treat the LGBT community bad. I don't know how or why a victim would find a way to compromise with their bully. The interesting question is which side is better characterized as the "bully." Perhaps we could ask Jack Phililps... 🤨 -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 14 minutes ago, smac97 said: It also seems to suggest that civil rights are a zero sum game, such that LGBT rights can only exist over here if the civil rights of religionists are taken away over there. The interesting question is which side is better characterized as the "bully." Perhaps we could ask Jack Phililps... 🤨 -Smac Biff had his friends too, but otherwise he was pretty easily discerned to be a bully. By his fruits and all that. And we're not talking about an isolated occurrence or two. The LGBT community has consistently been treated badly by religions since... (was there a time they weren't?)
Ahab Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Biff had his friends too, but otherwise he was pretty easily discerned to be a bully. By his fruits and all that. And we're not talking about an isolated occurrence or two. The LGBT community has consistently been treated badly by religions since... (was there a time they weren't?) Can we agree on a compromise to not treat all religions or adherents of religion the same way, as if all are the same. I know there are some bad ones but I also know there are some good ones.
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 (edited) 11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Quote It also seems to suggest that civil rights are a zero sum game, such that LGBT rights can only exist over here if the civil rights of religionists are taken away over there. The interesting question is which side is better characterized as the "bully." Perhaps we could ask Jack Phililps... Biff had his friends too, but otherwise he was pretty easily discerned to be a bully. By his fruits and all that. And we're not talking about an isolated occurrence or two. I agree. Masterpiece Cake was not "an isolated occurrence." Does Brendan Eich ring a bell? I have lost count of how many times I have seen breezy accusations of hatred and bigotry and prejudice. Again, from Stanton's article: Quote The queer movement — elsewhere, Rauch recommends using the more concise and inclusive “Q,” or queer, rather than the alphabet soup — cannot employ the end-of-discussion “civil rights” language, consistently label their opponents hateful bigots, and then also speak of good-faith compromise. The two exist in necessarily exclusive universes. Absolute language requires absoluteness, and the queer movement leaders set these terms with great care and intention. Biff and his cronies are the guys excoriating anyone who dares disagree with them as bigots and homophobes. All the time. As a matter of course. Quote The LGBT community has consistently been treated badly by religions since... (was there a time they weren't?) In 2020, I think it's pretty clear who the bullies are. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97 1
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: Can we agree on a compromise to not treat all religions or adherents of religion the same way, as if all are the same. I know there are some bad ones but I also know there are some good ones. Yes, you are absolutely right. I am definitely painting with a broad brush for how LGBT individuals have been treated throughout the ages, even before there was an LGBT identity. Generally speaking, do you think gay individuals have been treated well, fairly, equally, by religion? 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: I agree. Masterpiece Cake was not "an isolated occurrence." Does Brendan Eich ring a bell? I have lost count of how many times I have seen breezy accusations of hatred and bigotry and prejudice. Again, from Stanton's article: Biff and his cronies are the guys excoriating anyone who dares disagree with them as bigots and homophobes. All the time. As a matter of course. In 2020, I think it's pretty clear who the bullies are. And I see we are now tarring all religionists with the same brush. So Masha Gessen is back in play? Thanks, -Smac Decades and centuries of being bullied means nothing to you? The fact that the LGBT community has recently become more vocal and are fighting back (and I won't condone ever instance) but what you are seeing in 2020 and recent years is George McFly standing up to his bully. Standing up to a bully doesn't make George the bully. It's actually the part of the movie when everyone cheers and pats him on the back, even if Biff didn't appreciate it much.
smac97 Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Decades and centuries of being bullied means nothing to you? Sure they do. But I reject the notion of collective guilt. I could point to past wrongs committed against my ancestors, but I'm not sure how much that means to me in 2020. 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: The fact that the LGBT community has recently become more vocal and are fighting back (and I won't condone ever instance) but what you are seeing in 2020 and recent years is George McFly standing up to his bully. Okay. But the point, I think, is that George McFly has become the bully. 1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said: Standing up to a bully doesn't make George the bully. You are correct. Bullying makes George the bully. Ask Jack Phillips. Or Brendan Eich. Or anyone who has been falsely accused of bigotry, hatred, prejudice for daring to have a thought or opinion that it not in lockstep with modern notions of LGBT orthodoxy. Shoot, even the OP grudgingly admits that this is happening (or that it can happen): "I think it is pretty clear that the ability for religion to steamroll it's beliefs on others no longer is working. I also think it is in the best interest of the LGBT community to not now become the steamroller of it's beliefs against religious liberties." I think this is not accurate. I think religionists are being "steamrolled" all the time. And if they dare say anything about it, they'll be accused of hatred, bigotry, prejudice, etc. much like CB has done in this very thread. "Your continued anti-LGBT post{s}..." "...just hubris remarks hurled out there to stoke the flames of divisive prejudice..." "{Y}ou are presenting prejudice." "You have plenty of other opportunities in other threads to bash the LGBT community..." "You have plenty of other opportunities to ... dig through LGBT hate groups to support your point of view." George is the bully now. Thanks, -Smac
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Sure they do. But I reject the notion of collective guilt. I could point to past wrongs committed against my ancestors, but I'm not sure how much that means to me in 2020. Okay. But the point, I think, is that George McFly has become the bully. You are correct. Bullying makes George the bully. Ask Jack Phillips. Or Brendan Eich. Or anyone who has been falsely accused of bigotry, hatred, prejudice for daring to have a thought or opinion that it not in lockstep with modern notions of LGBT orthodoxy. Shoot, even the OP grudgingly admits that this is happening (or that it can happen): "I think it is pretty clear that the ability for religion to steamroll it's beliefs on others no longer is working. I also think it is in the best interest of the LGBT community to not now become the steamroller of it's beliefs against religious liberties." I think this is not accurate. I think religionists are being "steamrolled" all the time. And if they dare say anything about it, they'll be accused of hatred, bigotry, prejudice, etc. much like CB has done in this very thread. "Your continued anti-LGBT post{s}..." "...just hubris remarks hurled out there to stoke the flames of divisive prejudice..." "{Y}ou are presenting prejudice." "You have plenty of other opportunities in other threads to bash the LGBT community..." "You have plenty of other opportunities to ... dig through LGBT hate groups to support your point of view." George is the bully now. Thanks, -Smac I think when religionists say and do bigoted things, it is appropriate to call it out. Calling it out and fighting back against those things is not bullying. So IMO a religionist supporting lesser rights for LGBT people is bigoted just like it would be bigoted for a religionist to oppose equal rights for other minorities.
Ahab Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Yes, you are absolutely right. I am definitely painting with a broad brush for how LGBT individuals have been treated throughout the ages, even before there was an LGBT identity. Generally speaking, do you think gay individuals have been treated well, fairly, equally, by religion? First, I notice you seem to have a tendency to refer to religions rather than religious adherents, which seems strange to be when referring to how anyone is treated, whether LGBT or not. I think of a religion as a way of life, rather than as a person or a people/ I will say that, generally speaking, most religions or ways of living do not favor sexual relations between people of the same sex, or consider sexual relations of that nature to be equal to sexual relations between people of opposite sex. That doesn't mean religious adherents should treat LGBT people badly, though, even when they regard same sex sexual relations to be abhorrable and an abomination of sexual relations as it should be. Christianity, for example, advocates for all people loving everybody, regardless of creed or color or sex, but that doesn't mean all people should have sexual relations with other people regardless of creed, color or sex. We generally say we love and should love everybody but while hating all forms of sin.
Islander Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 On 6/24/2020 at 11:51 PM, The Nehor said: The Constitution originally gave rights to some people. We cut the pieces about 3/5ths of a person when slavery ended. We added an amendment intended to guarantee rights to all (men) but that was reinterpreted later. We have been changing how the constitution works since the beginning and many of those changes are improvements. Acting like it is some golden standard we have strayed from is silly revisionist history. The right you are holding as “codified in the founding document” and hold to be fundamentally inviolable was not even part of the original constitution. It was an early amendment promised In the federalis/antifederalist debates to help with ratification and was codified later. Te original draft of the Constitution was a work in progress. Thomas Jefferson, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, directly condemned slavery in no uncertain terms. His position was excluded in order to have the southern states get on board. In sum, religious liberty is in the constitution and has been there since 1791. So, yes, it is part of the founding documents. 1
Recommended Posts