Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[AtlanticMike]

23 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's offensive to all believing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

Not all.

[Jamie]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am getting the idea that there is little tolerance or respect for a different point of view 

I think people should be as nice as they can be even when they disagree with other people.  And the fact that people often disagree with other people show there is often a different point of view.  Like it or not.  Agree with it or not.  Calling it right or not.

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You are once again falsely asserting that I "suggested" this.  I did not.  

This is the third time I have corrected your falsehood, yet you persist in it.

I think civility would help. 
 

would you acknowledge that it was you that started this *** for tat by introducing “breeder” into the conversation?  Aren’t you the very one who inflamed the conversation by introducing a term that is not used on this board to justify comparing gay marriages to pedophiles?   Is that your attempt at civil discourse?

Quote

I also think not spreding falsehoods would help.

I also think your calls for civility start to ring a bit hollow when you do stuff like this.

You can see why I feel similar when Mormons are comparing gay marriages to pedophiles can’t you?  Or do you not consider that language as being inflammatory?

Quote

As I said previously:

Similarly, your continued spreading of falsehoods about me (repeatedly claiming that I "suggested" that you call heterosexuals "breeders," when I did nothing of the sort) also tends "to inflame and offend more than {} illustrate and clarify."  
 

Yet you introduced the idea as justification for degrading gay marriages 

Quote

Similarly, you repeatedly threatening to call heterosexuals "breeders" also tends "to inflame and offend more than {} illustrate and clarify."  
 

it is an approach I hadn’t thought about until you introduced it.  Maybe it would help because over the years other approaches have consistently failed.  You didn’t suggest it but you did inspire the approach 

Quote

And yet you keep doing these things.

I would encourage civility.  I would encourage you to lead by example.  I would encourage you to not spread falsehoods about other people.

So when you and your fellow Mormons degrade Gay marriages by comparing them to things like child rape am I suppose to just not say anything?   What specifically would you like me to say  Give me the words and I will cut and paste it for future LPSG threads   Just what is a civil response to being compared to a child rapist

 

Quote

Edited June 2, 2021 by california boy

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I have always been very clear. While I don’t agree with the Church position on gay marriages, I respect their right to have those beliefs.  You won’t find a single post where I have ever even said the Church must or even will change that belief. This is NOT what I am objecting to.  

Understood.

 

Quote

What I am objecting to is repeated comparing gay marriages to child rapists on these [LGBT] threads.

I think that's a fair objection. Such comparisons generate more heat than light and should generally be avoided.

Plus, I would add that we don't tolerate such extreme comparisons / characterizations when discussing subjects like Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, so it shouldn't be too much to expect the same sort of courtesy in return.

 

Quote

There is nothing that supports that position other than bigotry and the need to demonize those marriages.

I think this is where the discussions tend to explode.

Because once you say that there is "nothing" similar between two things - any two things - my brain immediately jumps into the process of trying to find an exception; it's one of my few talents, much to the chagrin of many a Sunday school teacher's object lesson. And once I've thought of an exception it's almost impossible for me to keep my mouth shut (which is one of my many faults).

Now, with this particular subject I understand that, even though I may only mean to relay the exception, any comment to that effect is going to be perceived as supporting the original objectionable comparison (regardless of my intent to merely rebut the claim of absolute dissimilarity), and then the discussion is going to spiral out of control faster than I can type.

Plus, I'm likely going to personalize the claim about "bigotry" and the desire to "demonize" gay marriages as being the only reasons to justify the notion that gay marriage isn't absolutely dissimilar to some other practice. I mean, who are you to call me a bigot when you are the one who threw down the challenge to find something similar? I'm just answering what I believe to be a technically inaccurate claim. If you don't like it, well, then (to borrow a phrase) don't ask and I won't tell.

 

Quote

If you truly believe that Christ wants you to demonize others that don’t share your beliefs then in my opinion it is blasphemy to use the name of Christ in your name

I don't believe that Christ wants me to demonize anybody, so I guess I'm good then.

 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

While some may have suggested this wouldn’t happen, many of us who are pro-LGBT equality have been saying this is exactly what would happen, just as it happened with race.

It would be false to imply those that are pro-LGBT equality unanimously claimed this would never happen. 

It would also be false to imply that those on the pro-LGBT equality side didn't routinely downplay such consequences in discussions about SSM - telling us that we were making an appeal to a 'slippery slope,' and that legalizing gay marriage was a completely separate issue from anti-discrimination laws.

The reality, of course, is that the slope is slippery. Some people just like what's at the bottom of it and others don't.

 

[Jamie]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just what is a civil response to being compared to a child rapist

The same response you would use when someone said anything else you did not agree with. 

I disagree with you, I don't believe it is a valid comparison, and I will go so far as to say it is not. Further, I think you are wrong and unenlightened on this issue, and I believe God would disagree with you, too.

Feel free to cut and paste that anywhere anytime someone says something you do not agree with.  You can even edit it to suit your own personal preference for speech.  And just let me know if you can think of anything else I can say to help you.

[Amulek]

59 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

The windows are also there to assist in preventing a safe place for a molester.

And to allow parents to look in on their kids discreetly without them being able to see them and run out of the room.

And to allow light into building so you are still able to see in the hallways when the main lights aren't all on.

And for a bunch of other reasons.

It's almost as if windows are...dare I say it...multipurpose (shocking, I know).

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Amulek

[OGHoosier]

15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And to allow parents to look in on their kids discreetly without them being able to see them and run out of the room.

And to allow light into building so you are still able to see in the hallways when the main lights aren't all on.

And for a bunch of other reasons.

It's almost as if windows are...dare I say it...multipurpose (shocking, I know).

 

Every now and then I get assigned to make sure the local multi-stake center is appropriately locked and the lights are all off on Sunday evening and am I ever grateful for those windows. The halls would be very dark and I'd be bouncing off the walls (quite literally) without them. 

Also there's the general deserted-church-building-with-no-lights vibe. I'm not ashamed to admit it gives me a minor case of the creeps. 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because once you say that there is "nothing" similar between two things - any two things - my brain immediately jumps into the process of trying to find an exception; it's one of my few talents, much to the chagrin of many a Sunday school teacher's object lesson. And once I've thought of an exception it's almost impossible for me to keep my mouth shut (which is one of my many faults).

This is me. At least having to type my thoughts and hit send tends to cut down on much of the frivolous comparisons. 

 

3 hours ago, california boy said:

This is so hypocritical. You act as if comparing gay marriage to a pedophile is not shocking harsh and disturbing language.

 If you go back and read Chum’s posts, he is not participating in that side of the conversation. His only comment in this thread prior to expressing his concern about language was to point out it is most often straight men that are child molestors. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73771-federal-lawsuit-against-religious-schools-including-byu/?do=findComment&comment=1210033442

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Calm

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is me. At least having to type my thoughts and hit send tends to cut down on much of the frivolous comparisons. 

 

 If you go back and read Chum’s posts, he is not participating in that side of the conversation. His only comment in this thread prior to expressing his concern about language was to point out it is most often straight men that are child molestors. 
 

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73771-federal-lawsuit-against-religious-schools-including-byu/?do=findComment&comment=1210033442

 

I am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.  But I will ask you this.  Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

And over the years when a LGBT thread starts, how many times have gay relationships been compared to pedophiles, beastiality, and other disgusting behaviors?

[Jamie]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.  But I will ask you this.  Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

And over the years when a LGBT thread starts, how many times have gay relationships been compared to pedophiles, beastiality, and other disgusting behaviors?

Just a side note to say comparing something to some other thing(s) isn't an indication that all things compared are equal.   Something can be compared to some other thing(s) while saying it is better than those other things, even if all are said to be bad.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.

I linked to it. 

 

Quote

Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

Why would what other members do or don’t do excuse  criticizing someone for doing something they didn’t do?  

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

would you acknowledge that it was you that started this *** for tat by introducing “breeder” into the conversation?  

As an example of incivility, yes.  As a corollary to the characterization of SSMs which you found offensive.

In short, I was agreeing with you.  I thought at the time you were calling for civility.  Instead, you have now repeatedly mused about calling heterosexuals "breeders."

Quote

Aren’t you the very one who inflamed the conversation by introducing a term that is not used on this board to justify comparing gay marriages to pedophiles?  

No, I am not the one.  I noted it as an example of incivility to be avoided, and concluded with "Common civility and respect is important."

And yet here you are, repeatedly threatening to compare heterosexuals to livestock.  To call them "breeders."  I struggle to understand how this advances a call for civility.

Quote

Quote

I also think not spreading falsehoods would help.

I also think your calls for civility start to ring a bit hollow when you do stuff like this.

You can see why I feel similar when Mormons are comparing gay marriages to pedophiles can’t you?  Or do you not consider that language as being inflammatory?

Yes, I can see your point, and yes I consider the comparison inflammatory.  That is why I agreed with you that "comparing gay marriages to pedophiles" is wrong, and also said that your request that people "{q}uit comparing gay marriages with pedophiles" is "reasonable" because "such comparisons tend to inflame and offend more than they illustrate and clarify." 

Quote

Quote

As I said previously:

Quote

Quote

Quit comparing gay marriages with pedophiles , beastiality, and other criminals sexual activities. I don’t care if members think someone in a gay marriage is committing fornication.  But they are not the same as a pedophiles.

In the main, I think this is a reasonable request.  I think such comparisons tend to inflame and offend more than they illustrate and clarify.  

Similarly, your continued spreading of falsehoods about me (repeatedly claiming that I "suggested" that you call heterosexuals "breeders," when I did nothing of the sort) also tends "to inflame and offend more than {} illustrate and clarify."  

Yet you introduced the idea as justification for degrading gay marriages 

I did nothing of the sort.

Quote

Quote

Similarly, you repeatedly threatening to call heterosexuals "breeders" also tends "to inflame and offend more than {} illustrate and clarify."  

it is an approach I hadn’t thought about until you introduced it.  

I introduced it into the thread to condemn it.  To agree with you about avoiding inflammatory rhetoric.  

When you said that comparisons of SSM to pedophilia is intended to "devalue same sex marriages," I said "You may have a point."  I then compared it to how some gay folks "devalue" heterosexuals by derisively calling them "breeders."  I then said "Common civility and respect is important."

I having made that point, you said "I have yet to see temple marriages be referred to as breeder marriages   Maybe it would be helpful to start doing that to even the playing field."  You repeated this several times. 

You also falsely claimed that I can "suggest{ed}" that gays should call heterosexuals "breeders," even though I did nothing of the sort.  You nevertheless repeated this falsehood several times over.

All this from a fellow decrying incivility.

Quote

Maybe it would help because over the years other approaches have consistently failed.  

And here you are again threatening to call heterosexuals "breeders."

The mind reels.

Quote

You didn’t suggest it but you did inspire the approach 

Strange, then, that you have repeatedly stated that I did "suggest it."

• Here: "I have yet to see temple marriages be referred to as breeder marriages   Maybe it would be helpful to start doing that to even the playing field.  I will consider your suggestion next time..."
• Here: "You are the one who introduced breeder relationships not me.  I said I would take your suggestion to start calling straight marriages as breeder marriages into consideration if gay marriages continue to be compared to pedophiles   Maybe Mormons have no idea what it is like to constantly have their relationship with their loved one and marriages debased regularly.  Maybe your  suggestion might help them think  before using such derogatory terms."
• Here: "I took it as a suggestion. Do you think it would help?"

Again, your call for civility rings hollow when you repeatedly threaten to call heterosexuals "breeders," and when you repeatedly falsely claim that I "suggested" that you do this.

Quote

So when you and your fellow Mormons degrade Gay marriages by comparing them to things like child rape am I suppose to just not say anything?  

First, I don't think I have ever compared SSM to "child rape" or pedophilia.  If you can point me to a post where I did, please do so.  Otherwise, you are are making a false allegation against me.  This is particularly obnoxious given that I, in this very thread, have agreed with you that the comparison is inappropriate.

Quote

What specifically would you like me to say  

I would hope that you, in your calls for civility, would model it.  Instead, you have repeatedly threatened to call heterosexuals "breeders," and you have repeatedly falsely claimed that I "suggested" that you do this.  And now you have (I believe) falsely accused me of "comparing {same-sex marriage} to ... child rape."

Quote

Give me the words and I will cut and paste it for future LPSG threads   Just what is a civil response to being compared to a child rapist

Again, I disagree with the comparison.  I don't think I have used it.

I likewise dislike the epithet of "breeders" that you are now threatening to use against heterosexuals.

As I said: "Common civility and respect is important."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2021 by smac97

[secondclasscitizen]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

And to allow parents to look in on their kids discreetly without them being able to see them and run out of the room.

And to allow light into building so you are still able to see in the hallways when the main lights aren't all on.

And for a bunch of other reasons.

It's almost as if windows are...dare I say it...multipurpose (shocking, I know).

 

Multi purpose just like two adults at all time with the kids. I’m sure it’s so one can take a kid to go to the bathroom.. oh I mean take them to their parent so they can take them to the bathroom. This measure and the windows is primarily abuse prevention and everyone knows it.  

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I linked to it. 

 

Why would what other members do or don’t do excuse  criticizing someone for doing something they didn’t do?  

The link took me to the page but not a post by Chum

Of all the replies not much was said about disagreeing with the comparison. I am guessing most didn’t find the comparison to be inaccurate 

Maybe I was just hoping that there were some members that also felt the comparison was inappropriate.  Guess not.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Maybe I was just hoping that there were some members that also felt the comparison was inappropriate.  Guess not.  

Maybe you aren’t reading posts as closely as you should or are assuming because one poster says something, others agree with it if they don’t mention it instead of assuming they may be ignoring the comparison in their own comments because they see it as inappropriate, but don’t believe they should play the role of monitoring how other posters frame their arguments....or they don’t understand the same way you do. 
 

Maybe you should ask rather than guess about people’s positions before choosing to criticize. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

The link took me to the page but not a post by Chum

I really dislike the latest update which does not take one directly to the posts like it used to.  I was hoping it was just a glitch for me. Sounds like it isn’t.   My experience is the posts linked to are a few posts above where the link sends me. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Calm

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.  But I will ask you this.  Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

Well, two have done so explicitly (I ("In the main, I think this is a reasonable request.  I think such comparisons tend to inflame and offend more than they illustrate and clarify.") and Amulek ("I think that's a fair objection. Such comparisons generate more heat than light and should generally be avoided.")).

I also think it's unreasonable to suggest that failure to affirmatively and publicly disagree with X is equivalent to endorsing and ratifying X.  Surely you would not think that Calm or Bluebell believe this comparison to be appropriate?

Quote

And over the years when a LGBT thread starts, how many times have gay relationships been compared to pedophiles, beastiality, and other disgusting behaviors?

I don't know.  Since you have apparently kept track, perhaps you could enlighten us.

Broadly speaking, I think this board is generally quite civil.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2021 by smac97

[bluebell]

52 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not sure exactly what post you are referring to.  But I will ask you this.  Since this issue came up, how many members objected to gay marriages being compared to pedophiles?

I haven't objected because I did not see it done.  I've read you saying it was done quite a few times but I must have missed the post where it actually occurred.

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

It would also be false to imply that those on the pro-LGBT equality side didn't routinely downplay such consequences in discussions about SSM - telling us that we were making an appeal to a 'slippery slope,' and that legalizing gay marriage was a completely separate issue from anti-discrimination laws.

The reality, of course, is that the slope is slippery. Some people just like what's at the bottom of it and others don't.

 

I disagree. The aspects of the slippery slope arguements recognizing the civil marriage right for same-sex couples that I and other pro-LGBT advocates routinely denounced were that it would lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality.
 

In dueling theorties from divergent circles, people on both sides suggested legal recgonition of same-sex marriages would OR would not lead to legal recognition of polygamist marriages (I happen to be one on the pro-LGBT side that suggested it WOULD lead to legalized polygamy; and as a great, great grandson of devoutly-LDS polygamists who had to flee the United States to maintain their family units and practice their Faith, I believe polygamy SHOULD be legalized as a matter of religious freedom, for those religions who believe it is God-ordained or those who’s religious views allow for it).

I don’t know of any pro-LGBT advocates who ever suggested that sexual orientation would not closely follow the way that racial equality unfolded over time, as KLindley’s post implied. In fact, as far as the explicit topic of this thread is concerned, this is EXACTLY what pro-LGBT advocates have suggested would happen all along, and that it absolutely WOULD parallel and mirror anti-discrimination laws.

So no, Amulek. I disagree that I have falsely implied anything that those on the pro-LGBT equality side have said or done in the past in my previous post. Further, I re-iterate that the  slippery slope arguement is false as far as it relates to any legal comparison, state-sanctioned tolerance, or civil recognition of pedophilic or inter-species relationships. I don’t believe that will happen, and predict it won’t be so.

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I disagree. The aspects of the slippery slope arguements recognizing the civil marriage right for same-sex couples that I and other pro-LGBT advocates routinely denounced were that it would lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality.
 

In dueling theorties from divergent circles, people on both sides suggested legal recgonition of same-sex marriages would OR would not lead to legal recognition of polygamist marriages (I happen to be one on the pro-LGBT side that suggested it WOULD lead to legalized polygamy; and as a great, great grandson of devoutly-LDS polygamists who had to flee the United States to maintain their family units and practice their Faith, I believe polygamy SHOULD be legalized as a matter of religious freedom, for those religions who believe it is God-ordained or those who’s religious views allow for it).

I don’t know of any pro-LGBT advocates who ever suggested that sexual orientation would not closely follow the way that racial equality unfolded over time, as KLindley’s post implied. In fact, as far as the explicit topic of this thread is concerned, this is EXACTLY what pro-LGBT advocates have suggested would happen all along, and that it absolutely WOULD parallel and mirror anti-discrimination laws.

So no, Amulek. I disagree that I have falsely implied anything that those on the pro-LGBT equality side have said or done in the past in my previous post. Further, I re-iterate that the  slippery slope arguement is false as far as it relates to any legal comparison, state-sanctioned tolerance, or civil recognition of pedophilic or inter-species relationships. I don’t believe that will happen, and predict it won’t be so.

 

I heard it often around the time that SSM was fighting to become legal.  That people who were worried legalized SSM would eventually cause religious institutions who had tax exempt status to lose it if they didn't support SSM were just fear mongering.  You heard that kind of stuff again when the push for certain LGBT protections be added to anti-discriminatory laws and people again worried that lose of tax exemption for religious institutions would be the result. 

So while not everyone who was pro-LGBT made those types of arguments they were fairly common in some circles. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I haven't objected because I did not see it done.  I've read you saying it was done quite a few times but I must have missed the post where it actually occurred.

The first post was on the second page by mgy.  Comparison was not imo meant to imply they were the same, but pointing out reasoning should be consistent across all forms of inclinations/behaviour.  However, since pedophilia has so much baggage, its usage is inflammatory and therefore other examples are probably better to be used where possible.  But the point being made imo was the same reasoning should be applied to behaviours we don’t approve of as behaviours we approve of, so the setup is going to always involve a behaviour viewed negatively, so unsure how someone could make this point inoffensively.  Perhaps Meadowchik or California boy could give an acceptable example for explaining the reasoning.

 

Will be checking for others.  
 

Chum’sfirst post in the thread was supportive of Meadowchik’s comment that homosexual behaviour wasn’t comparable to pedophilia.

Added:  a couple of posts, including webbles and this one that argue mgy’s post is not meant to compare homosexual behaviour to pedophilia. 
 

After that point the argument is about the argument and whether or not it is actually comparing or just including everything that involves sexual desires into one category and if either is appropriate. 
 

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Funny you should ask. After my military career I became a cop in a city with a higher than average number of Mormons. That said I have met a few. Don’t even get me started on domestic violence. 
 

So your statement was this:

”Every Mormon child molester I know is straight, married and has a temple rec.”

Does that mean every “Mormon” child molester you know is still carrying a temple recommend and has never been brought to justice? If not, why not? 
 

Your answer was rather vague. 
 

Added later: If you were a cop, it stands to reason that you would be disproportionately brought into contact with offenders of every stripe, molesters included, and if you were working in a city with a higher-than-average number of “Mormons,” a disproportionate number of those offenders would be “Mormons”. I don’t think anyone here would dispute that offenders are present in pretty much every demographic group. So I don’t see anything particularly amazing about your statement — unless you meant to tell us that every “Mormon” child molester you know still holds a temple recommend. 

Edited June 3, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

The first post was on the second page by mgy.  Comparison was not imo meant to imply they were the same, but pointing out reasoning should be consistent across all forms of inclinations/behaviour.  However, since pedophilia has so much baggage, its usage is inflammatory and therefore other examples are probably better to be used where possible...but the point being made imo was the same reasoning should be applied to behaviours we don’t approve of as behaviours we approve of, so the setup is going to always involve a behaviour viewed negatively, so unsure how someone could make this point in offensively.  Perhaps Meadowchik or California boy could give an acceptable example for explaining the reasoning.

 

Will be checking for others.  
 

Chum’sfirst post in the thread was supportive of Meadowchik’s comment that homosexual behaviour wasn’t comparable to pedophilia.

Added:  a couple of posts, including webbles and this one that argue mgy’s post is not meant to compare homosexual behaviour to pedophilia. 
 

 

So I did actually see the post I guess, I just interpreted it like you did and not like California Boy and Meadowchik did. 

[secondclasscitizen]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So your statement was this:

”Every Mormon child molester I know is straight, married and has a temple rec.”

Does that mean every “Mormon” child molester you know is still carrying a temple recommend and has never been brought to justice? If not, why not? 
 

Your answer was rather vague. 

Here is a better response. Every one I know is not a gay man. Just make my point clear given the vitriol being slung around by a poster or two.