Jump to content

Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally, I think we would have more people join the church if, instead of teaching constraints on sex, we would teach about restraints when talking about sex.

 

Screenshot_20210531-192052~2.png

Not worth it. 

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Engaging in homosexual sex does not make one a libertine, nor is it comparable to pedophilia. Full stop.

It doesn't make one a libertine any more than heterosexual sex necessarily does. And agreed, practitioners of homosexual sex are not morally equivalent to pedophiles. 

However, I don't think @mgy401 intended for his comment to be understood in that way. The gist is that it's inconsistent with reality and with our own current societal perceptions to assert that God would be unwilling to command the restraint of innate sexual desires.  

 

Edited by OGHoosier
  • Like 2
Link to post
18 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

No, thankfully. I am a citizen of a much different nation.

What country do you live in.?

Expecting people to hide how they feel or face getting 'kicked out' if they act on it sounds terribly discriminatory to me. I hope no one is using public funds to support this ugly injustice!

The  us military is held up here in the us as probably the most inclusive organization in the country. It is more inclusive than the church could even dream of being medical and mental situations aside. Blacks had more rights in the military than they did in the church until 1978. Even with that there are black generals everywhere nowadays and some are women.  You have to look to the fourth string of general authorities before you find a black guy there. Edward Dube -fantastic speaker btw.  

Women have more rights and opportunity in the us military than they will ever see in the church. 
 

gays? Yep you can be gay gay gay in the military. Transgender ? Well we will see. They were excluded from service typically because of medical issues with transition which preclude deployment. That restriction applies to anyone with a medical situation that can’t be managed at the same time as a military operation. Can’t be sending extra doctors around to see how well someone’s new accessories are working and the accompanying pharmaceutical supply chain that accompanies that situation. 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

but I do care about my tax dollars being applied in a discriminatory manner.  

As opposed to tax dollars several orders of magnitude greater which go to buy non-discriminating bombs. Sorry, I may have brushed the political line there . 🥴

Link to post
45 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I thought the point was to decide whether religious exemptions to title ix enforcement are constitutional.

did you read the article? 
“About 30 current and former students at evangelical colleges filed suit last week against the U.S. Department of Education, asking that the religious exemption to a federal law prohibiting sex-based discrimination at educational institutions be declared unconstitutional in how it is applied to LGBTQ students”

I don’t know the totality of it but it appears to be oriented around how lgbt are treated. 

If schools that currently have a religious exemption are happy to accept title ix related lawsuits then school policies are unlikely to change and they will still accept the funding right?

the suit is to prevent them from getting the funding in the first place. The suit is against the dept of education, not the schools. 

 

Assuming the courts actually have the guts to make a ruling on it of course.

these days? I’d be surprised if they did rule in favor of the religious schools. It isn’t a hard stand to take to not give the schools free money. The fed govt doesn’t owe it to them. 

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, webbles said:

I don't see where he says that in his post.

We were comparing the church's view on sex to the view that homosexual relationships can be valid. He somehow introduced sexual libertinism and pedophilia into the topic as relevant. There's no relevance. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

It doesn't make one a libertine any more than heterosexual sex necessarily does. And agreed, practitioners of homosexual sex are not morally equivalent to pedophiles. 

However, I don't think @mgy401 intended for his comment to be understood in that way. The gist is that it's inconsistent with reality and with our own current societal perceptions to assert that God would be unwilling to command the restraint of innate sexual desires.  

 

And people in gay relationships can practice restraint, too. And their relationships can be about much more than sex. 

His comments reflect a deep misunderstanding of homosexuality.

 

Edited by Meadowchik
  • Like 2
Link to post
28 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

I don’t know the totality of it but it appears to be oriented around how lgbt are treated. 

Yes. As far as title 9 exemptions.

28 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

the suit is to prevent them from getting the funding in the first place. The suit is against the dept of education, not the schools. 

The suit is trying to get the courts to declare religious exemptions from title ix unconstitutional. 

From wikipedia "Title IX is a federal civil rights law in the United States of America that was passed as part (Title IX) of the Education Amendments of 1972. It prohibits sex-based discrimination in any school or other education program that receives federal money." 

Based on that, title 9 does not give out funding, it only applies if funding is received by the schools. So if schools still receive funding, and discriminate, they will be open to title ix based suits rather than protected under the exemption.

38 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

these days? I’d be surprised if they did rule in favor of the religious schools. It isn’t a hard stand to take to not give the schools free money. The fed govt doesn’t owe it to them. 

But will the federal government want to spend more money in funding so the students can go to a school that isn't subsidised by a church?

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

The  us military is held up here in the us as probably the most inclusive organization in the country.

Yes, you have made it clear previously that you prefer the US military and its rules over the Church of Jesus Christ and its rules.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, OGHoosier said:
10 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Personally, I think we would have more people join the church if, instead of teaching constraints on sex, we would teach about restraints when talking about sex.

 

Screenshot_20210531-192052~2.png

Expand  

Not worth it. 

Oh no, it was worth it to me , that's why I posted it, because if I was going to criticize the church it would be over their beliefs on sex and especially masturbation. In my experience, talking to a Mormon about sex can be one of the most uncomfortable situations you could or will ever find yourself in. Because to us, I should say most of us, sex is sacred above anything else, and it shows when we talk about it because most Mormons get really uncomfortable and serious when talking about sex.

     Take masturbation for instance, masturbation is a natural act that God has given us to relieve sexual tension, to relieve stress and learn how our body works. But somehow, we've turned it into a sexual act that Satan uses to tempt us into sin, ridiculous! In my opinion, if the youth want to masturbate, let them do it without putting a major guilt trip on them by telling them Satan made them do it. There's a large portion of young adults that can't help it, they're going to masturbate no matter what. 

 We taught our girls early on that masturbation was a natural act and to have at it if they felt like it was something they had to do. I rather them play with themselves than be prescribed an antidepressant because everytime they masturbate an overwhelming sense of guilt comes over them and they feel guilty for weeks afterwards. Infact, my wife helped my daughter pick out a vibrator last year. 

    Unlike me, my kids have never been on an antidepressant or anxiety medications. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, secondclasscitizen said:

You are right. I’m actually a second class citizen in the church for not going on a mission. That’s what my then bishop told me I would be for the rest of my life before I went to boot camp. I am embracing it!

First, thank you for your service, I love veterans. My bishop didn't tell me I would be a second class citizen, but he told me if I didn't go on a mission, I would be held accountable for not following my priesthood mandate. It xxxxed me up mentally for years afterwards.  I'm just not mission material, I'm opinionated, stubborn and very independent. 

      I remember when I went into see the bishop to tell him I wasn't going to go on my mission. He told me I would never be happy until I repented, he also said I have a hard heart and a contrite spirit. So I told him the truth and told him that most of his kids couldn't stand him, and until he repented for being a xxxtty dad, he and his wife would have a terrible relationship with their kids. His relationship with his kids ended up being full of tension while my life has ended up being full of positivity, go figure 🤔

   

Edited by AtlanticMike
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, you have made it clear previously that you prefer the US military and its rules over the Church of Jesus Christ and its rules.

Yea I actually do. It is much more consistent, much more transparent and its rules, laws and policies are in black and white for all to see. Also, there is a clear chain of command which by law gives service members the right to appeal decisions by leaders who go rogue instead of 100% backing them up when wrong like the church does. 
 

where are you from again? I don’t believe you answered that one. No biggie if you don’t want to say.

Link to post
21 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:
Quote

Yes, you have made it clear previously that you prefer the US military and its rules over the Church of Jesus Christ and its rules.

Yea I actually do. It is much more consistent,

"Consistent" in what sense?

21 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

much more transparent

Are you sure?

21 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

and its rules, laws and policies are in black and white for all to see.

The Church's handbook is also available "in black and white for all to see."

21 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Also, there is a clear chain of command which by law gives service members the right to appeal decisions by leaders who go rogue instead of 100% backing them up when wrong like the church does. 

The Church also has a "clear chain of command."

As for "backing them up when wrong," are you sure that doesn't also happen in the military?

As for "100% backing them up," are you sure that happens in the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

We were comparing the church's view on sex to the view that homosexual relationships can be valid. He somehow introduced sexual libertinism and pedophilia into the topic as relevant. There's no relevance. 

It looks like you two were talking about two different things about sex.  You seem to be using "sex" as "gender" and @mgy401 seems to be using "sex" as the "sexual act".  That's probably why you think he/she introduced sexual libertinism when he/she probably thinks you introduced it.

As for the pedophilia, he/she in no way relates it to homosexual.  He/she is talking about "the underlying assumption that “God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress” fails the test of common experience."  He/she appears to think that you agree with that assumption ("God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress") and he/she is pointing out that far worse "sexual desires" are given to people and that we, as society, expect and demand that they repress them.  So saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals shouldn't be required to repress their desires just because it is compassionate is hypocritical when we demand others to repress their desires even though they were created with those sexual desires as well.  Either, you need to say that everyone should repress their God-given sexual desires (no matter how acceptable they are) or that no one should repress their God-given sexual desires (no matter how unacceptable they are).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

"Consistent" in what sense?

in lots of ways. I’ll throw one out there.. COVID Ppe measures. Each stake was doing a different thing and even bishops were doing their own thing. It was clear there was almost no definitive leadership. My neighboring stake was doing a totally different thing and we are both under the same area authority. I think the whole thing was an over reaction but yea their application of this thing was a dumpster fire and everyone knows it.
 

The dod has a consistent policy and everyone knows exact what it is to include the exceptions. Commanders do not have the authoritarian just wing it cuz well bob next door is doing this so sounds good to me. 

Are you sure?

The Church's handbook is also available "in black and white for all to see."

And the mission pres manual, budget (detailed), resolved child molest cases, membership numbers including ex comm, resignations etc are all secret. 

The Church also has a "clear chain of command."

look at the other thread re who presides and you can see the chain isn’t exactly clear esp locally. 

As for "backing them up when wrong," are you sure that doesn't also happen in the military?

it does happen there and people get prosecuted or relieved of command (fired) when proven it happened. 
 

an example of this personally is a full bird colonel denied me medical care for rounds I got in Iraq (a major corrective surgery) and I complained up the chain of command. They backed her up because she was a senior officer and I was no one right up to the point I provided an email i sent to McCain’s office where it not only showed she denied me authorization for medical care, but also that she lied to her chain of command. Her career was ended. 

As for "100% backing them up," are you sure that happens in the Church?

yep all we need to do is look at how Paul h Dunn was handled and that was public. Any of his co-worker apostles who served in a war knew he was full of it. Elder packer tried to keep it covered up according to the reporter who broke the story. If that is as tough as they can get publicly you know it is much easier behind closed doors there is no accountability. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited by secondclasscitizen
Link to post
20 minutes ago, webbles said:

It looks like you two were talking about two different things about sex.  You seem to be using "sex" as "gender" and @mgy401 seems to be using "sex" as the "sexual act".  That's probably why you think he/she introduced sexual libertinism when he/she probably thinks you introduced it.

As for the pedophilia, he/she in no way relates it to homosexual.  He/she is talking about "the underlying assumption that “God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress” fails the test of common experience."  He/she appears to think that you agree with that assumption ("God would never create a person with sexual desires He expected them to repress") and he/she is pointing out that far worse "sexual desires" are given to people and that we, as society, expect and demand that they repress them.  So saying that heterosexuals and homosexuals shouldn't be required to repress their desires just because it is compassionate is hypocritical when we demand others to repress their desires even though they were created with those sexual desires as well.  Either, you need to say that everyone should repress their God-given sexual desires (no matter how acceptable they are) or that no one should repress their God-given sexual desires (no matter how unacceptable they are).

No, I was talking about sex, the act.

The problem with mgy401 introducing libertinism and pedophilia into the conversation is that they have nothing to do with the topic. Such diversions are a common but really irrelevant tactic in discussing homosexuality. 

Honoring same-sex relationships as legitimate does not equate to sexual libertinism. Specifically it does not mean that there should be no sexual morality or no repression of sexual desires. Those who desire to hurt others with sexual violence, who desire to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts should seek help. 

This is a strange mindset that seems to be appearing in this discussion. For some, it seems they believe that a major purpose of heterosexual marriage is to divert people from committing sexual crimes. Such would be an extremely fear-based and depravity-based view of humanity. Also, when taken alone or overemphasized would objectify the marital spouse, less as a desired partner and desired personal relationship and more as a tool to produced outcomes outside of the relationship itself.

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

The latter mindset can accommodate heterosexual and homosexual partners, and it certainly does not require people to abandon morality or enact sexual violence against others.

The fact that mgy401 introduces libertinism and sexual violence into the subject is, imo, really inappropriate.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I was talking about sex, the act.

The problem with mgy401 introducing libertinism and pedophilia into the conversation is that they have nothing to do with the topic. Such diversions are a common but really irrelevant tactic in discussing homosexuality. 

Honoring same-sex relationships as legitimate does not equate to sexual libertinism. Specifically it does not mean that there should be no sexual morality or no repression of sexual desires. Those who desire to hurt others with sexual violence, who desire to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts should seek help. 

This is a strange mindset that seems to be appearing in this discussion. For some, it seems they believe that a major purpose of heterosexual marriage is to divert people from committing sexual crimes. Such would be an extremely fear-based and depravity-based view of humanity. Also, when taken alone or overemphasized would objectify the marital spouse, less as a desired partner and desired personal relationship and more as a tool to produced outcomes outside of the relationship itself.

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

The latter mindset can accommodate heterosexual and homosexual partners, and it certainly does not require people to abandon morality or enact sexual violence against others.

The fact that mgy401 introduces libertinism and sexual violence into the subject is, imo, really inappropriate.

 

Introducing pedophilia, libertinism, even beastiality is commonly introduced in threads around LGBT issues by Mormons on this board. Never in threads about temple marriages or straight relationships.  It is one of the ways Mormons devalue same sex marriages.  The more you can vilify something by comparing it to something that is criminal the easier it is to justify prejudice. It is a template that has been used for centuries to justify prejudices and cruel behavior towards a minority groups. 
 

Members are constantly fed the story that their marriages are superior to gay marriages. Anything is fair game to use to defend that belief

Edited by california boy
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

"Consistent" in what sense?

in lots of ways. I’ll throw one out there.. COVID Ppe measures. Each stake was doing a different thing and even bishops were doing their own thing. It was clear there was almost no definitive leadership. My neighboring stake was doing a totally different thing and we are both under the same area authority. I think the whole thing was an over reaction but yea their application of this thing was a dumpster fire and everyone knows it.

Some variation in response to an unprecedented-in-several-generations world-wide pandemic is not indicative of much.

8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

Are you sure?

The Church's handbook is also available "in black and white for all to see."

And the mission pres manual, budget (detailed), resolved child molest cases, membership numbers including ex comm, resignations etc are all secret. 

You are undermining your position here, in pretty much every respect.  There are all sorts of things in the military for which information is kept "secret" or not publicly disclosed or otherwise limited to those who have a need to know.

The general public has little need to know about the mission president's manual (though I would not care if it was published to the world).  The Church provides annual reports about its finances.  The Church doesn't have the legal capacity to manage "child molest cases" except to impose restrictions on, or withdraw, the individual's membership in the Church.  

In any event, the Church is a private religious organization, not a publicly-funded and state-run military organization.

8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

The Church also has a "clear chain of command."

look at the other thread re who presides and you can see the chain isn’t exactly clear esp locally. 

Not really.  The Church's "chain of command" is, in virtually all respects, quite clear and obvious.

8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

As for "backing them up when wrong," are you sure that doesn't also happen in the military?

it does happen there and people get prosecuted or relieved of command (fired) when proven it happened. 

I am confused.  People in the military are held accountable for their misconduct, and you think that's a good thing.

People in the Church are held accountable for their misconduct, and you think that's a bad thing.

No system of governance is perfect.  No appellate procedure is 100% effective.  However, a great thing about the Church is that repentance and forgiveness are emphasized and encouraged.  So a person who is properly disciplined has his destiny in his own hands.  He can return to full fellowship.  He can repent and be forgiven.

The same goes for a person who is improperly disciplined.  If a restriction or withdrawal of membership is later demonstrated to have been in error, well, the individual can re-join the Church, renew his covenants with God, and continue on his way.

Avraham Gileadi is an interesting case study, as he was excommunicated and then had his excommunication expunged, which he therefore - and perhaps with some justification - characterizes as "a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake." But look at his 2012 approach to his erroneous excommunication and compare it with the combative, defiant, slanderous, litigious, rebellious, in-your-face approach taken by Kate Kelly (emphases added):

Quote

Having attempted over the years to correct erroneous statements about me that others have made under my name on Wikipedia—only to have them intentionally or non-intentionally replaced by the same ones as before—I feel constrained to clarify several things...
...
Third, although I was excommunicated in 1993 from the LDS church in a disciplinary council that began a wave of several thousand excommunications on the Wasatch Front in the 1990s, in my case—as not a single charge was true or supported by evidence—all record of it was expunged from the church’s records nearly a decade ago in a tacit admission that the church had made a mistake. In other words, as my excommunication from the church was a non-event so far as the church is concerned, it doesn’t define me as a person. Yet there are those who take it on themselves to define me as such throughout the current Wikipedia article, attaching it even to my listed name.

Fourth, while several prominent writers who were excommunicated in 1993 pleaded their cause in the media at that time and thus embarrassed the church, I never did so, even though my family, reputation, work, etc. were adversely affected by the church’s action. Yet those same prominent writers were evidently glad to see me among their number and to ascribe to me the very same questioning of the church’s authority and “speaking against church doctrine or leadership” in which they engaged, as the current Wikipedia write-up asserts. As I have never been asked to change my conclusions that derive from applying several methodologies of literary analysis to researching scriptural texts, my supposedly “challenging the exclusive right of leaders to define doctrine” is a non sequitur. In short, the above writers have no evidence of any such spurious claims and I ask them to desist from their calumnies.

Assuming the foregoing is correct (and I do), I admire Bro. Gileadi's resilience.  It took a lot of character for him to pursue the above course of action.

Does the military have this sort of thing?  Not really.  

Don't get me wrong, I love our uniformed services.  I previously served (though not in combat).  But the notion that the U.S. military is some sort of smooth-running machine is, um, a bit unrealistic.  

8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

an example of this personally is a full bird colonel denied me medical care for rounds I got in Iraq (a major corrective surgery) and I complained up the chain of command. They backed her up right up to the point I provided an email to send McCain’s office where it not only showed she denied me authorization for medical care, but also that she lied to her chain of command. Her career was ended. 

So the military backed its in-the-field leader until that leader's misconduct was demonstrated.  But for your email, what do you think would have happened?

As regarding the Church, I think the disciplinary process works pretty well, for a few reasons:

First, there is an inherent sifting process brought about by the circumstances in which the Church operates.  The Church has essentially no investigative infrastructure, and no "law enforcement" capacity at all.  Consequently, the vast majority of discipline arises from three circumstances:

  • A) Volitional confession (by the individual).  The individual confesses his misconduct to his local leader, who then takes appropriate action (hopefully).
  • B) Secondary disclosures.  Example 1: Husband discloses wife's infidelity to local leader, wife later confesses.  Example 2: Individual criminally charged and prosecuted, and local leader thereafter learns of the matter and takes appropriate action (hopefully).
  • C) Patently obvious misconduct.  Think Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Jeremy Runnells.  The Calderwoods.  Denver Snuffer.  Kate Kelly.

Second, because of the above-mentioned "sifting," the factual predicates of the churchmember's misconduct are seldom in dispute.  Thus the chances of a bishop or stake president getting something wrong factually are usually pretty low.  Rather, disputes about membership councils tend to center not on what happened, but rather the meaning and significance of what happened.  In legal parlance, a judge is obligated to make "findings of fact" (ascertain what actually happened) and then reach "conclusions of law" (the legal significance and consequence of what actually happened).  Fortunately, a bishop or a stake president seldom has to worry about the "findings of fact" bit.  For example, nobody disputed that Jeremy Runnells wrote the CES Letter, so no fact-finding was necessary.  However, whether Runnells' conduct surrounding the CES Letter amounted to apostasy was something that did need to be addressed.  This is the "conclusions of law" part.

Third, the Handbook provides a pretty good framework for local leaders to manage and conduct membership councils.  Compared to the arcane complexities of the UCMJ, the Church's disciplinary procedures are a picture of streamlined clarity and simplicity.

Fourth, the "jurisdiction" of the Church is very limited.  Unlike the military, the Church can do virtually nothing to a misbehaving member except to restrict or withdraw his membership in the Church.  There is no violence or threat of violence.  There is no risk to the individual's life, liberty or property.  There is no physical punishment or threat of it.  

Fifth, disputes about a membership council having reached the "wrong" conclusions are usually agenda-driven and partisan.  Just look at the folderol regarding Natasha Helfer.  

8 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:

As for "100% backing them up," are you sure that happens in the Church?

yep

CFR, please.  How do you know?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm gonna be entirely honest it sounds like your conceptions of repentance and sin are unhealthy, as opposed to the commandments themselves.

How are they unhealthy?

 

6 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

And I thoroughly question the biological essentialism which appears to inhere in your philosophy of the God-given nature and inevitability of masturbation

If it's not part of our god given nature, then what is it?

Edited by AtlanticMike
Link to post
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No, I was talking about sex, the act.

The problem with mgy401 introducing libertinism and pedophilia into the conversation is that they have nothing to do with the topic.

Are you sure?  The Church teaches constraints on sexual behavior.  Those constraints prohibit "libertinism and pedophilia" along with other sexual behaviors.  There is still something of a broad social consensus that looks down on libertinism and condemns pedophilia.  It seems like you and I agree in terms of the basic wrongness of these things (as evidenced by the fact that you object to them being presented in this discussion).  And I'm sure we likewise share common ground in condemning sexual abuse.

But what about fornication?  We as a society have largely abandoned a consensus that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  Yet the Church teaches that it is wrong.  So would you object to mgy401 "introducing" comparisons between fornication and homosexual behavior?  Why or why not?

What about comparisons between homosexual behavior and adultery?

Quote

Such diversions are a common but really irrelevant tactic in discussing homosexuality. 

But why?  As I see it, homosexual behavior is a form of conduct prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  So are fornication, adultery, "libertinism," and other forms of sexual behavior.  So how are these "irrelevant?"

Quote

Honoring same-sex relationships as legitimate does not equate to sexual libertinism.

I don't think anyone is "equating" the two.  However, they are both behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  I recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the eyes of the secular law.  No problem there at all.  But I find it difficcult to "honor" something I believe to contravene the commandments of God.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate."  Could you elaborate?  By way of example: I have a friend, who is a member of the Church, and who for many years has cohabited with a man who is married to another woman.  I am in no position to judge or condemn her, but are you suggesting that I can or ought to "honor" her relationship with this man "as legitimate?"  If so, what does that mean?

Quote

Specifically it does not mean that there should be no sexual morality or no repression of sexual desires. Those who desire to hurt others with sexual violence, who desire to engage in nonconsensual sexual acts should seek help. 

Agreed.  

But surely consent is not the sole determining factor?  If it were, we wouldn't have prohibitions against fornication or some forms of adultery (consensual, open marriages, "swinging," etc.).

Weren't you just a moment ago complaining about comparisons to sexual libertinism?

Quote

This is a strange mindset that seems to be appearing in this discussion. For some, it seems they believe that a major purpose of heterosexual marriage is to divert people from committing sexual crimes.

I don't think anyone is saying that.  

Quote

Such would be an extremely fear-based and depravity-based view of humanity.

I think abandoning constraints on sexual behavior leads to all sorts of problems.

Quote

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. 

And in the Church it is even more than that.

Quote

In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

The latter mindset can accommodate heterosexual and homosexual partners, and it certainly does not require people to abandon morality or enact sexual violence against others.

The fact that mgy401 introduces libertinism and sexual violence into the subject is, imo, really inappropriate.

But you seem to be advocating for "libertinism" in your comments about consent.  If, as you seem to imply, consent is the sole arbiter of sexual ethics, then doesn't that lead to a pretty standard form of libertinism?  "I can do anything I want with whomever I want whenever I want, provided I do so with their consent"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to post
2 minutes ago, secondclasscitizen said:
Quote
Quote

As for "100% backing them up," are you sure that happens in the Church?

yep

CFR, please.  How do you know?

Just like my testimony - I know it’s true. Impossible to cfr. 

Ah.  It's just your unsubstantiated and unsupported opinion, then.  Made in mockery, no less.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you sure?  The Church teaches constraints on sexual behavior.  Those constraints prohibit "libertinism and pedophilia" along with other sexual behaviors.  There is still something of a broad social consensus that looks down on libertinism and condemns pedophilia.  It seems like you and I agree in terms of the basic wrongness of these things (as evidenced by the fact that you object to them being presented in this discussion).  And I'm sure we likewise share common ground in condemning sexual abuse.

But what about fornication?  We as a society have largely abandoned a consensus that sex outside of marriage is wrong.  Yet the Church teaches that it is wrong.  So would you object to mgy401 "introducing" comparisons between fornication and homosexual behavior?  Why or why not?

What about comparisons between homosexual behavior and adultery?

But why?  As I see it, homosexual behavior is a form of conduct prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  So are fornication, adultery, "libertinism," and other forms of sexual behavior.  So how are these "irrelevant?"

I don't think anyone is "equating" the two.  However, they are both behaviors prohibited by the Law of Chastity.  I recognize the legitimacy of same-sex marriage in the eyes of the secular law.  No problem there at all.  But I find it difficcult to "honor" something I believe to contravene the commandments of God.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimate."  Could you elaborate?  By way of example: I have a friend, who is a member of the Church, and who for many years has cohabited with a man who is married to another woman.  I am in no position to judge or condemn her, but are you suggesting that I can or ought to "honor" her relationship with this man "as legitimate?"  If so, what does that mean?

Agreed.  

But surely consent is not the sole determining factor?  If it were, we wouldn't have prohibitions against fornication or some forms of adultery (consensual, open marriages, "swinging," etc.).

Weren't you just a moment ago complaining about comparisons to sexual libertinism?

I don't think anyone is saying that.  

I think abandoning constraints on sexual behavior leads to all sorts of problems.

And in the Church it is even more than that.

But you seem to be advocating for "libertinism" in your comments about consent.  If, as you seem to imply, consent is the sole arbiter of sexual ethics, then doesn't that lead to a pretty standard form of libertinism?  "I can do anything I want with whomever I want whenever I want, provided I do so with their consent"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Requiring consent doesn't make it the only value in a relationship or sexual encounter. Certainly a read of my post would not be forced into that conclusion:

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

California Boy and I have already pretty much addressed the problems with Mgy401's comparisons. 

The only difference in "constraint" in sexual behavior in this topic is that the couple is gay instead of heterosexual. To reframe it to imply all manner of abandonment of constraint is fallacious and avoidant of the topic at hand.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Introducing pedophilia, libertinism, even beastiality is commonly introduced in threads around LPSG issues by Mormons on this board.

"LPSG"?  I googled that because I did not know what you meant by it.  I assume it is a typo (and I encourage others not to google the acronym, as you will not like what you find).

Anyhoo, back to the Law of Chastity.  As King Benjamin put it: "And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."  (Mosiah 4:29.)  Homosexual behavior is but one of the many, many ways a person can break the Law of Chastity. 

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

Never in threads about temple marriages or straight relationships.  

There are plenty of ways for heterosexuals to violate the Law of Chastity, including those you itemize above.

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is one of the ways Mormons devalue same sex marriages.

You may have a point here.  Kinda like how some homosexuals devalue heterosexuals by describing them as "breeders."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Breeder is a pejorative term coined by homosexuals particularly for parents who purportedly overfocus on their children and allegedly abandon their previous friends and lifestyle; or to women who give birth to many children, often with the derisive implication that they have too many offspring.
...

While using the term "breeder" as a descriptive term is not new, the term has increased in use within the last decade mainly due its acceptance by pop culture and specifically youth pop culture. Some heterosexuals have said that the term "breeder" is offensive to straight people and associated it with "heterophobia" or degrading heterosexual lifestyles. However, heterosexuals who do not have children can also be referred to as breeders, simply because they are heterosexual.

And here:

Quote

Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that homosexual sexual activity does not normally lead to reproduction, whereas heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry, the original usage of the word.

And here:

Quote

“Breeder” is classic queer lingo. (Straight people, I’m giving away our secret language; don’t go snitching.) A breeder is someone who engages in the type of sex that can lead to the production of a new human — i.e., someone in a heterosexual relationship. The term is used jokingly, but it has an implicit negative connotation: It’s meant to make you think of gauche, brutish animal breeding, not sex for pleasure.

And here:

Quote

The arrest of a police sergeant’s live-in boyfriend has reportedly launched a multi-agency probe into allegations that gay cops in upstate New York may have hosted or participated in sex parties attended by teens not old enough to drink booze or give consent.

The Times Union reports that Schenectady police Sgt. Jonathan E. Moore, 35, was at an auto dealership last month in Colonie, NY, when his boyfriend, Anthony Aubin, 27, was arrested after trying to use a counterfeit check to buy a 2016 Jaguar coupe for $92,000, according to arrest records. Aubin’s arrest has since triggered a broader investigation into allegations that gay officers may have hosted “breeding parties.”

In reference to gay sex, the term “breeding” generally does not refer to propagation of the species.

And here:

Quote

Heterosexuals in this overwhelmingly gay resort town on the tip of Cape Cod are complaining that the oppressed have become the oppressors.

Straight people say they have been taunted as "breeders." One woman who signed a petition against gay marriage says she was berated as a bigot by a gay man, and another complained that dog feces were left next to her car.

"The gay community is not immune to having potential prejudices. We're all human, including gay people," said Tom Lang, director of knowthyneighbor.org, a nonprofit group that supports gay marriage.
...
Straight tourists have also complained of being called "breeders," a joking or derogatory slur used by gays to describe heterosexuals.

"It's a term of divisiveness," said Town Manager Keith Bergman.

And here:

Quote

An Etiquette Guide for Straight People in Gay Bars

We love having straight people hang out with us, we really do, but I'm going to break down the rules for the breeders who forget how to behave when there is a rainbow flag on the wall.

Common civility and respect is important.

Nevertheless, in the end we disagree about the morality of homosexual behavior.  I think we need to allow space for such disagreement.  

43 minutes ago, california boy said:

The more you can vilify something by comparing it to something that is criminal the easier it is to justify prejudice.

I don't think criminality is the point.  After all, homosexual behavior is often listed as being prohibited alongside fornication, adultery, and other forms of sexual behavior that are prohibited by the Law of Chastity while also not being "criminal."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
17 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Requiring consent doesn't make it the only value in a relationship or sexual encounter.  Certainly a read of my post would not be forced into that conclusion:

Quote

Whereas, for many people, marriage is an outward expression of personal, mutual commitment between two people. Marriage is generally characterized as being sexual in nature, but it is also many other things: companionship, emotional intimacy, shared household, and shared family unit. In this case, the spouses seek partnership and choose being together because they value the relationship itself. It is its own reward, rather than some external, or indirect outcome.

California Boy and I have already pretty much addressed the problems with Mgy401's comparisons. 

The only difference in "constraint" in sexual behavior in this topic is that the couple is gay instead of heterosexual. To reframe it to imply all manner of abandonment of constraint is fallacious and avoidant of the topic at hand.

I guess I don't understand what you are complaining about.  The Church's teachings about marriage, the Law of Chastity, modesty, etc. are well known.  We believe

  • A) that marriage and sexual behavior is between a husband and wife,
  • B) that the purposes of sex are procreation and the strengthening of the husband-wife relationship, 
  • C) that marriage was ordained by God, such that He is part of the equation, and 
  • D) that sexual behavior outside of these parameters is wrong.

There are all sorts of ways people can exceed these parameters.  I don't think we can rehabilitate those ways by pointing to consent and other abstractedly worthwhile objectives ("companionship, emotional intimacy, etc.).  From the August 2020 Ensign:

Quote

If we want our children to keep God’s law of chastity, we need to give them reasons for why it is important to abide by this law. They must be taught that “sexuality is a powerful gift from Heavenly Father and that it should be used within the bounds He has set.”

Now, I appreciate and understand that you may have different "boundaries" of sexual propriety from those espoused by the Church.  But your boundaries are as susceptible to outside criticism as ours are, perhaps even more so if they end up being ad hoc.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...