Federal lawsuit against religious schools, including byu

[Chum]

We might want to couch the language here a bit, hold back from spelling out the details in every post.

[secondclasscitizen]

20 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Child molesters come in all shapes, sizes, colors, sexual orientation, gender and religious beliefs. Just because someone's Mormon or Christian doesn't mean he's safer to leave your kid with him/her. And, just because someone's gay, doesn't mean they're more likely to molest your kid. 

 

 

 

Fact. There is a reason there are windows installed in all lds classroom doors. Cuz someone is touching the kids and it isn’t the relief society women.

[jkwilliams]

This thread is a nice reminder that I dodged a bullet in getting out of the church before my son came out to me. I can't imagine how I might have reacted. 

Apropos of nothing:
 

 

[Amulek]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  A few suggestions:

1. We can and ought to refrain from risible terminology.  [...]

Sure. I've got no problem with civility.

 

Quote

2. As much as possible, we ought to compare apples to apples.

Again, I agree.

 

Quote

3. We still need to be able to get to the "ultimate issue," and to voice our opinions about it.  People like California Boy are at loggerheads with the teachings of the Church.  We believe homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage to be substantively wrong and incompatible with the commandments of God.  

This is kind of what I'm driving at. If our belief about the "ultimate issue" is that homosexual behavior is not morally acceptable, then it seems fair to say that we wouldn't consider same-sex marriages on par with heterosexual marriages, and such a sentiment would pretty much be in alignment with the textbook definition of what it means to demean something (i.e., lower in status).

So, whenever we make a value judgement about the morality of a certain activity or behavior that we believe ought not to occur, those who believe differently will always be able to say that we are demeaning their position, at least in some respect.

Of course, the same could be said in reverse. Those who believe certain activities / behaviors are morally acceptable could be characterized as demeaning the position held by those who feel that such should be verboten - it's really just a matter of perspective.

 

Quote

4. I am not sure if the biggest complaint is the above-referenced "ultimate issue" or else comparisons/characterizations about that ultimate issue. 

I think that's an important distinction. I would point out, however, that certain arguments which might be proffered to justify a given position (similar to what transpired earlier in the thread) might naturally invite obvious, if perhaps (to some) undesirable, comparisons.

But what if those who disagree with you believe all of your comparisons / characterizations are offensive? Certainly you shouldn't have to capitulate the entire discussion.

So, while I agree that we should engage those who disagree with us, as you say, with tact and respect, we do need to have room to express our actual beliefs without having to worry about somebody crying foul every time we do.

 

[webbles]

48 minutes ago, california boy said:

Because married gay couples are not raping little children. They are not having sex with animals They are not breaking up marriages. They are not getting single women pregnant 

And what about all of the other relationships that don't "rape little children", "have sex with animals", "break up marriages", "getting single women pregnant"?  There's a lot more relationships than just those.  Stop focusing on the "bad relationships".  What makes opposite-sex and non-opposite-sex couples intrinsically better than all of the other ones?

Or, are they not intrinsically better and the Law of Chastity should be expanded to include all of those relationships?  If so, what would be the new definition of the Law of Chastity?

[2BizE]

A key point of the lawsuit is that these religious colleges (title 9) fail to investigate reported complaints around LBGTQ discrimination because of the religious exception.

Edited June 2, 2021 by 2BizE

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I dodged a bullet in getting out of the church before my son came out to me. I can't imagine how I might have reacted. 

As my kids close in on adulthood, I no longer get that voice in who they are.  I can only accept their agency or not.

[webbles]

59 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally don’t. But I am guessing you and a lot of other Mormons are ok with that

You do realize that the Law of Chastity excludes all of those?  So, per the Law of Chastity, being adulterous or raping little children are both bad.  Yes, there is a difference of degree (raping little children is far worse than adultery), but they are both bad.  It's like first-degree murder and justifiable homicide are both bad (someone died in both cases), but the first is far worse than the later and therefore we punish the first a lot more.

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Chum said:

As my kids close in on adulthood, I no longer get that voice in who they are.  I can only accept their agency or not.

Even if my kids didn't care what I think, I shudder to think how much distance I could have unnecessarily put between myself and my son. I'm just glad he was out before he absorbed too much of the doctrine.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

We might want to couch the language here a bit, hold back from spelling out the details in every post.

Why?   Do you find it ok to compare gay marriages with child rapist if you just use prettier language?

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Even if my kids didn't care what I think, I shudder to think how much distance I could have unnecessarily put between myself and my son

 

33 minutes ago, Chum said:

As my kids close in on adulthood, I no longer get that voice in who they are.  I can only accept their agency or not.

I like both points here. One of the hardest parts about parenting is knowing when to step back and realize you've completed your job in raising your kids. "Over parenting" can be detrimental to a parent/child relationship. Just love them for who they are and don't expect them to be a certain way because they're not following a path you laid out for them. Embrace change, God will love you for it.

     

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

 

I like both points here. One of the hardest parts about parenting is knowing when to step back and realize you've completed your job in raising your kids. "Over parenting" can be detrimental to a parent/child relationship. Just love them for who they are and don't expect them to be a certain way because they're not following a path you laid out for them. Embrace change, God will love you for it.

     

I was thinking of how my son could have ended up like a close family friend, who is in his forties. He is extremely lonely and alternates between despair and self-loathing, but he believes he needs to remain celibate and alone to be worthy of his priesthood, etc. I wouldn't wish that on anyone, let alone my own son.

Edited June 2, 2021 by jkwilliams

[california boy]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure. I've got no problem with civility.

 

Again, I agree.

 

This is kind of what I'm driving at. If our belief about the "ultimate issue" is that homosexual behavior is not morally acceptable, then it seems fair to say that we wouldn't consider same-sex marriages on par with heterosexual marriages, and such a sentiment would pretty much be in alignment with the textbook definition of what it means to demean something (i.e., lower in status).

So, whenever we make a value judgement about the morality of a certain activity or behavior that we believe ought not to occur, those who believe differently will always be able to say that we are demeaning their position, at least in some respect.

Of course, the same could be said in reverse. Those who believe certain activities / behaviors are morally acceptable could be characterized as demeaning the position held by those who feel that such should be verboten - it's really just a matter of perspective.

 

I think that's an important distinction. I would point out, however, that certain arguments which might be proffered to justify a given position (similar to what transpired earlier in the thread) might naturally invite obvious, if perhaps (to some) undesirable, comparisons.

But what if those who disagree with you believe all of your comparisons / characterizations are offensive? Certainly you shouldn't have to capitulate the entire discussion.

So, while I agree that we should engage those who disagree with us, as you say, with tact and respect, we do need to have room to express our actual beliefs without having to worry about somebody crying foul every time we do.

 

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.  What I am objecting to is repeated comparing gay marriages to child rapists on these LPSG threads. There is nothing that supports that position other than bigotry and the need to demonize those marriages.  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

[california boy]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

And what about all of the other relationships that don't "rape little children", "have sex with animals", "break up marriages", "getting single women pregnant"?  There's a lot more relationships than just those.  Stop focusing on the "bad relationships".  What makes opposite-sex and non-opposite-sex couples intrinsically better than all of the other ones?

Or, are they not intrinsically better and the Law of Chastity should be expanded to include all of those relationships?  If so, what would be the new definition of the Law of Chastity?

What?  Did my answer not fit your agenda?   I think I was pretty clear what the difference is.  
 

Have I ever suggest that Mormons are not entitled to their beliefs on morality?
 

Is it now the belief that a gay marriage is comparable to child rapists?   

[Chum]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why?   Do you find it ok to compare gay marriages with child rapist if you just use prettier language?

Because unnecessarily overt language can be distressing to folks who've experienced similar mistreatment.

It could also be said that effective discussions generally don't need shocking language to make the point - especially not over and over, one post after another.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

You asked "Can homosexual behavior be safely compared to fornication?  Adultery?"

I am and was talking about relationships.

That seems like a distinction without a difference, though.  An unmarried couple are in a "relationship."  An adulterous couple are in a "relationship."

Quote

A gay couple can abstain from sex before marriage.  A gay couple can believe in forsaking all others just like heterosexual couples can so believe.

Again, I am not saying that same-sex marriage = fornication = adultery.  These are separate and distinct behaviors that nevertheless share some attributes (see above).  You are saying comparing these shared attributes is beyond the pale of civil discourse.  I don't think that is so.

Quote

A gay couple can be every bit as moral and spiritual in their relationship as a heterosexual couple.

That's like saying "a fornicating couple can be every bit as moral and spiritual in their relationship as a married couple."  Well, except they can't, because God prohibits sex outside of marriate.

Or "an adulterous can be every bit as moral and spiritual in their relationship as a married couple."  Well, except they can't, because God prohibits adultery.

Again, I don't see how avoiding one form of prohibited conduct over here (physical violence, fornication, adultery) justifies/legitimizes engaging in another form of prohibited conduct over there (homosexual behavior).

I get that there is a frame of reference here.  If an individual believes there is nothing wrong with fornication or adultery, if an individual has thrown off the scriptural constraints on sexual behavior, then . . . pretty much anything goes, I guess (provided there is consent).  But that just ends up being . . . libertinism.

On the other hand, if an individual does believe in scriptural constraints on sexual behavior, then it becomes pretty difficult to selectively embrace and endorse socially-popular-but-scripturally-prohibited behaviors.

Fornication and adultery are categorically prohibited.  They cannot be morally/spiritually rehabilitated with justifications like "We're consenting adults" or "We're faithful to each other."

Homosexual behavior is also categorically prohibited.  So...

Quote

An observation: you break down people's valued personal relationships into the rule that "nobody can engage in homosexual behaviour."

No, I don't.

Quote

This is detached and inhumane.

No, it's not.  It's also not detached or inhumane to say that "nobody can engage in fornication" or "nobody can engage in adultery."

I am not denying that a fornicating or adulterous couple may believe that theirs is a "valued personal relationship."  My point is that the behavior is still prohibited by God.

Quote

Judges and prophets worth their salt don't do that. 

To the contrary, that is precisely what they do.  Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.  Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.  Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  

Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  And why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  He also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  He also said: "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

These are not "detached and inhumane."  To be frank, I think it is "detached and inhumane" to disregard the commandments of God.  To deliberately disregard a particular constraint on sexual behavior because the constraint is socially unpopular, or because someone I know and love wants to engage in that behavior.

Look, I understand that you may have friends and family who are gay.  So do I.  So do most people these days.  These are our brothers and sisters.  They are children of our Heavenly Father.  They have tremendous worth.  But I believe that God has given us commandments constraining our sexual behavior.  He has done this for our benefit.  He has done this knowing that during our mortal lives we would experience strong emotions and urges.  He has done this knowing that The World would have us believe that these constraints don't exist, or that they are optional, or that they don't matter very much, or that they can be set aside if you have strong feelings that contravene them.

Christ did not tell the woman caught in adultery "Hey, as long as you value your 'personal relationship' with the guy with whom you were caught, you be you.  Carry on."  Instead, he said "go, and sin no more."  He wasn't being "detached and inhumane."  He was exhorting her to repent and obey God.

And He was right to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2021 by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

You do realize that the Law of Chastity excludes all of those?  So, per the Law of Chastity, being adulterous or raping little children are both bad.  Yes, there is a difference of degree (raping little children is far worse than adultery), but they are both bad. 
 

Yet in these threads gay marriages become comparable to child rapists. Why is that?   The only reason I can see is to put them on the same level as child rapists.  

1 hour ago, webbles said:

It's like first-degree murder and justifiable homicide are both bad (someone died in both cases), but the first is far worse than the later and therefore we punish the first a lot more.

Would you compare telling a lie to raping a child?  They are both sins.  Since we have all sinned should all of us be compared to child rapists?  If not, why not?

[smac97]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

YES.  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.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 2, 2021 by smac97

[Chum]

40 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

One of the hardest parts about parenting is knowing when to step back and realize you've completed your job in raising your kids.

I find whatever leads to kids gaining/learning power tends to be the better choice. Typically that means stepping back when the opportunity presents itself, while being available at their discretion.

My guideposts: Our duty is to serve our children. & Failure is awesome.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Chum

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

Because unnecessarily overt language can be distressing to folks who've experienced similar mistreatment.

It could also be said that effective discussions generally don't need shocking language to make the point - especially not over and over, one post after another.

LOL.  So it is ok to compare gay marriage to a pedophile just don’t call him a child rapist?

I guess I find it pretty shocking language to compare a gay marriage to a pedophile. Maybe that is not such a big deal to you?  You don’t find that shocking until I spell out what that means?

[smac97]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

What country do you live in that views gay marriage as CRIMINAL?

Gay marriages may not be legally binding, but criminal?  

Yep.  See here:

Quote

Fifty years after homosexuality was decriminalised in England and Wales, 72 other countries and territories worldwide continue to criminalise same-sex relationships, including 45 in which sexual relationships between women are outlawed.

There are eight countries in which homosexuality can result in a death penalty, and dozens more in which homosexual acts can result in a prison sentence, according to an annual report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA).

Southern and east Africa, the Middle East and south Asia persist with the most draconian approaches. Western Europe and the western hemisphere are the most tolerant.

The article includes a map.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Chum]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

So it is ok to compare gay marriage to a pedophile just don’t call him a child rapist?

I find that your compulsion to phrase your point - this particular way - shows a concerning lack of empathy. You could absolutely convey the exact same message using gentler language.

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, california boy said:

I guess I find it pretty shocking language to compare a gay marriage to a pedophile. Maybe that is not such a big deal to you?

You are countering a lack of concern with a different lack of concern. Your audience is unlikely to feel uplifted after having their emotions tweaked in such a harsh and disturbing manner.

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I gave you a rep point. I would be more enthusiastic about your post if I didn’t feel like these constant comparisons are a way Mormons use to demonize gay relationships. That seems to be a necessary part of dealing with this issue for some Mormons. 

(and yes I am using the term Mormon in this thread because there is nothing Christ-like in demonizing other peoples beliefs and relationships.)

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

You are countering a lack of concern with a different lack of concern. Your audience is unlikely to feel uplifted after having their emotions tweaked in such a harsh and disturbing manner.

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

That is exactly why I am making it crystal clear what Mormons are actually comparing gay marriages to. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by california boy