Article Re: SCOTUS Review of Gay Rights Case (Wedding Websites)

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

I think Jesus would not design the site.  He would, however, sit down and dine with the mob boss.  Look at Matthew 9:

Quote

10 ¶ And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.
11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?
12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.
13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

We are all sinners in one way or another.  We all need the Physician.

Meanwhile, the topic here is compelled speech.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

53 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Possibly, though I don't think I've opined on that in this discussion.

 

This case isn't about selling a cake though - it's about whether or not the government should be allowed to force somebody to communicate a message (to the entire world no less) against her will.

 

And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

 

Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going.  

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going.  

If I say "The apple's skin was as red as blood," I am not saying that the apple "is the same as" blood.  I am saying they both share a trait: color.

When discussing legal principles, judges and lawyers often us comparison, analogy, simile, metaphor, etc. to make a point.  It would be tendentious to accuse the judge or the attorney of conflating the two things being compared.  

Comparing the shared traits of two otherwise dissimilar things is not saying the two things are "the same as" each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

If I say "The apple's skin was as red as blood," I am not saying that the apple "is the same as" blood.  I am saying they both share a trait: color.

When discussing legal principles, judges and lawyers often us comparison, analogy, simile, metaphor, etc. to make a point.  It would be tendentious to accuse the judge or the attorney of conflating the two things being compared.  

Comparing the shared traits of two otherwise dissimilar things is not saying the two things are "the same as" each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

As long as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think that gay marrriage is a comparison, analogy, simile, or metaphor for human trafficking and mob boss behavior, I don’t think there is much room for dialogue and understanding.  
 

You are talking about our marriages to the people we love.  Do you think your marriages are a anaology to human trafficking?

Edited February 25, 2022 by california boy

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

As long as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think that gay marrriage is a comparison, analogy, simile, or metaphor for human trafficking and mob boss behavior, I don’t think there is much room for dialogue and understanding.  

I agree that we need to be respectful and circumspect in making comparisons about such topics.

But Amulek did not make that comparison.  And yet you are not only saying he did, you are attributing that comparison to other "members of the Church."

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are talking about out marriages to the people we love.  

No, we are not.  We are talking about compelled speech.

You regularly denigrate our faith, which we hold to be sacred and important.  We both dislike seeing things we hold to be important to us to be publicly denigrated.  The difference, though, is that neither Amulek nor I am arguing in favor of laws that would compel you, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak things you do not want to speak.  You, however, seem to be advocating for such laws.

Free Speech is both a blessing and a burden.  It is part of the price we pay for living in a pluralistic society.  Part of the "blessing" is, or should be, protection from laws that compel us, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak things we do not want to speak.  Part of the "burden" is that we must endure speech we dislike.  

We need to disagree without becoming disagreeable.  That's a hard balance to strike at times.  

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you think your marriages are a anaology to human trafficking?

That's not what Amulek said.  Not even close.  He said:

Quote

Quote

Withholding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught.  

And condoning and/or participating in sinful activity is something Christ never did.

If Jesus was a web designer, do you honestly think that he would happily create a human trafficking site for a mob boss on the dark web? I mean, surely he wouldn't withhold his services just because the person requesting them was a sinner, right?

He was speaking of compelled speech.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2022 by smac97

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Ah.  Ok.  A gay wedding is the same as human trafficking and mob boss behavior.  I see where this is going.  

I apologize if you took offense at my previous comment. It was needlessly hyperbolic. I'm sorry. Let's try this again...

You said that "[w]ithhoding services because the person is a sinner is not something Christ taught."

Well, in this particular case, the service being withheld is web design.

So, that sort of begs me to ask following question: If Jesus were a web designer, do you believe there is any website he would refuse to create?

For example, do you believe he would create a website for the Ashley Madison Agency?

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Amulek

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree that we need to be respectful and circumspect in making comparisons about such topics.

But Amulek did not make that comparison.  And yet you are not only saying he did, you are attributing that comparison to other "members of the Church."

No, we are not.  We are talking about compelled speech.

You regularly denigrate our faith, which we hold to be sacred and important.  We both dislike seeing things we hold to be important to us to be publicly denigrated.  The difference, though, is that neither Amulek nor I am arguing in favor of laws that would compel you, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak things you do not want to speak.  You, however, seem to be advocating for such laws.

Free Speech is both a blessing and a burden.  It is part of the price we pay for living in a pluralistic society.  Part of the "blessing" is, or should be, protection from laws that compel us, under threat of fine and imprisonment, to speak things we do not want to speak.

We need to disagree without becoming disagreeable.  That's a hard balance to strike at times.  

That's not what Amulek said.  Not even close.  He said:

He was speaking of compelled speech.  

Thanks,

-Smac

This seems to be your consistent game plan.  Tell me exactly where I have degraded your religion.  Consider this a CFR.   Show everyone the dirt you have on me that warrants this endless accusation 

Edited February 25, 2022 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This seems to be your consistent game plan.  Tell me exactly where I have degraded your religion.  Consider this a CFR.   Show everyone the dirt you have on me that warrants this endless accusation 

This is quite a derail, but since you presented it as a CFR...

Quote

I think it was Hamba who is pointing out and commenting California Boy's use of "the victim card," characterizing it (correctly, I think) as a form of emotional blackmail.

Let's review:

1. California Boy once again railed against the Church and BYU for presuming to believe in and teach the Law of Chastity and instill its precepts in the Honor Code: "Not only should someone who is LGBT should be looking for another university to go to.  They should also be looking for another Church to go to.  One that actually. follows the teachings of Christ."

Right.  To teach sexual ethics that do not conform to socially popular, and increasingly licentious and tenuous, trends is to abandon "the teachings of Christ."  To have beliefs that contravene California Boy's personal opinions is to fail to follow "the teachings of Christ."

That's how I took this statement (kinda hard to take it any other way).  It's a rather flabbergasting thing to say, both as to its viewpoint intolerance and its remarkably unironic departure from the basic sexual ethics that have been taught in most of Christianity for the last 2,000 years.  But since it's from California Boy, it's pretty standard fair.  Ho hum, even.  

2. Speaking of the Honor Code and its associated with the Law of Chastity, and responding to California Boy, I responded: "The Law of Chastity is not secret.  It is not hidden.  It is not unknown."  I made this comment in relation to students and faculty who act all hot and bothered when they are called upon to keep the Honor Code despite knowing all about it well before matriculation.
...
7. Hamba, responding to the same post from California Boy I responded to (items #1 and #2 above), and also responding to me, said:

Quote

It's a textbook attempt at emotional blackmail. Based on the number of times that it has been deployed in this forum, I get the strong impression that it probably works in other contexts. That it doesn't work with most of us appears to be a source of perpetual (and possibly growing?) frustration. 

And here:
 

Quote

 

One of the most common forms identified by Forward and Frazier is the 'sufferer':

Quote

This is the voice of a victim conveying guilt on the partner if they do not do what is demanded. If they don’t comply, there is a suggestion that their suffering will be the others’ fault.

 

Hamba can certainly speak for himself, but I think by "emotional blackmail" he was referring to California Boy's long-term and ongoing efforts to foment estrangement and division by telling LGBT people that there is "no place" for them in the Church.  See, California Boy has a very long track record of doing this.  Many years.  Back in 2018 I commented on it this way (the discussion was about then-recent comments made by Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons fame) :

Quote

Quote

I am really interested in what members that object to how this issues is being brought up mostly by other members like Reynolds think should happen.  

Again, let's stop grossly mischaracterizing the Church's teachings and policies regarding LGBT folks.

Let's stop with the vitriolic and over-the-top rhetoric.

Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children.

Let's stop putting the worst possible spin imaginable on the policy changes.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church presume to speak for the Church to LDS children about what the Church teaches and believes, and let's stop saying horrible and false things to those children about the Church's teachings.

Let's stop having enemies and critics of the Church putting false words into the mouths of the leaders of the Church.

Quit working nonstop to publicly foment anger about and discord within and hate against the Church.

Let's give the Church some room to, you know, teach what it sincerely believes, and then let those teachings stand (or fall) on their merits.

Let's give the Church room and time to work with the policy changes (much as it has - with generalized success - with its nearly-identical policies regarding children of polygamous families).

In the same thread, I also commented:

Quote

The current state of acrimony and high tension is not attributable to the November 2015 policy changes, but to the sensationalized, agenda-driven, I-hate-the-LDS-Church-so-much-I'm-willing-to-inflict-fear-and-anger-and-confusion-on-children-and-then-exploit-their-reactions-and-weaponize-them-against-the-Church style of controversy ginned up by the Church's critics and opponents.

Hamba responded then as follows:

Quote

I wish you were wrong here, smac, but you are not ... and I fear people will hate you for pointing this out.

But history is filled with victims who were led both to and over the brink of destruction by those who found power or influence or even self-identity and purpose by setting themselves up as the self-proclaimed champions of those they harmed.

So . . . yeah.  I think the "emotional blackmail" thing is utilized quite regularly by California Boy and others when they go around presuming (in the worst possible sense of the word) to tell others - most particularly young, impressionable, emotionally-vulnerable Latter-day Saints - that their Church and its members hate these youth, that there is no place in the Church for these youth, and that the only thing they can and ought to do is leave BYU, leave the Church, and so on.

It's an ugly, ugly thing going on with these efforts.  And sadly, the folks advancing them have been doing it for years, so we can't really write it off as a slip of the tongue or a heat-of-the-moment thing.  

I think it's a pretty appalling thing to spend years trying to alienate youth from their families, friends, and faith.  I think it is appalling to instill in them feelings of insecurity and fear, of being hated, of having no place in their community.  I think it's wrong.  Manipulative.  Bad.  The same goes with people who run fomenting fear and panic and angre and hatred by falsely accusing the Church and its members of fomenting gay suicides (hat tip to the Mama Dragons).

And here:

Quote

But the church has no place for those that are gay despite the PR effort to say otherwise.  Just where does a gay person fit into the plan of happiness?  Does he get a family on this earth life to bring him joy and happiness that is something we all long for?  Does he get to spend eternity with the love of his life?  Does his children have a place in the church?  

Sorry, but the Mormon church would be at the bottom of almost anyone's list of where a gay person would fit in.  

"Not only should someone who is LGBT should be looking for another university to go to.  They should also be looking for another Church to go to.  One that actually. follows the teachings of Christ."

"{T}he church has no place for those that are gay despite the PR effort to say otherwise."

As I have said previously: "Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children."

To that I add: Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we "have no place" for them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2022 by smac97

[Stormin' Mormon]

Duplicate post

 

 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

Duplicate post.  Sheesh.  I am experiencing severe technical difficulties.  With my brain.  Sorry.

Edited February 25, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[Stormin' Mormon]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

As long as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think that gay marrriage is a comparison, analogy, simile, or metaphor for human trafficking and mob boss behavior, I don’t think there is much room for dialogue and understanding.  
 

 

I think there is value in establishing a comparison, even if it's far out on the margins.  If we can agree on the treatment of the extreme example, then all we are left is the simpler exercise in line drawing. Using an extreme example is a shortcut to establishing that baseline agreement over principles so that the discussion can then proceed to particulars and details. 

No one here actually believes that same sex marriage is anything like a human trafficking operation.  But neither does anybody here know what your position on compelled speech is, despite being asked several times to weigh in on more moderate, less extreme examples.  Earlier in this thread I used the example of lawyers, ad agencies, and PR firms picking and choosing the clients for whom they wish to speak.  Smac used the example of artists who object to their work being used to speak on behalf of politicians with whom they disagree. 

So, let's cut to the chase: Does a person EVER have protections from compelled speech?

If so, then we can proceed to the line drawing exercise, and figure out why you believe protections from compelled speech apply in some circumstances but not in others.  What factors apply to make those protections viable?  Why do they not apply in the 303 case?

But none of that discussion even matters if you don't even believe a person should EVER be protected from compelled speech, even in extreme circumstances. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

This seems to be your consistent game plan.  

Dodge.

The topic is Free Speech. 

More particularly, compelled speech. 

In particular, we are seeing the apparent approval and endorsement of using laws to compel speech. That is, the use of laws to either coerce people into speaking against their will, or else punishing them for refusing to speak things they do not want to speak.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Earlier in this thread I used the example of lawyers, ad agencies, and PR firms picking and choosing the clients for whom they wish to speak.  Smac used the example of artists who object to their work being used to speak on behalf of politicians with whom they disagree. 

These are, in my view, pretty apt comparisons.  But they are not being substantively addressed.

I think there are some who are fine with laws that punish Michael Phillips for declining to use his artistic/expressive/symbolic speech to say things he does not want to say.

I think some of these folks would, however, be opposed to those same laws punishing, say, Elton John for declining to use his artistic/expressive/symbolic speech to say things he does not want to say.

In other words: "Free speech for me and mine, but not for thee and thine."

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is quite a derail, but since you presented it as a CFR...

And here:

"Not only should someone who is LGBT should be looking for another university to go to.  They should also be looking for another Church to go to.  One that actually. follows the teachings of Christ."

"{T}he church has no place for those that are gay despite the PR effort to say otherwise."

As I have said previously: "Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children."

To that I add: Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we "have no place" for them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wow this truly shows your true colors doesn't it.  You have accused me over and over and over again about saying horrible things about your Church.  Your accusations come up just about every time we interact.  For years you have been portraying me as being some vile enemy of the Church denigrate church leaders and beliefs regularly.  So finally you have the guts to actually answer one of my CFR's concerning those basis accusations.

And here is what you came up with?  Drum roll.   One of your fellow members accusations of, as he put it, "emotional blackmail".  Did you read what his response was when I asked him to give me an example of using "emotional blackmail"?  When I asked Hamba to please point out exactly where I was using "emotional blackmail" he refused knowing full well it was an unfounded accusation, kinda like yours.  

Quote

 

   On 2/3/2022 at 6:04 PM,  california boy said: 

Please point out exactly what I said or withdraw your accusation.

Hamba Tuhan

No, thanks. I choose not to comply with these kinds of demands/threats.

 

So when the proof was asked for, Hamba bailed didn't he.  It is easy to make accusations.  Much harder to actually find them to be accurate.  I see you find yourself in the same situation.  And besides, even if this was true, how is that some kind of proof of degrading your Church and saying the most vile things against your Church? 

One of the things you CONSISTENTLY do is take what I say out of context to twist it to be what you want it to say in order to cast me in the worse possible light.  This is what you said in your above post.

Quote

 

But the church has no place for those that are gay despite the PR effort to say otherwise.  Just where does a gay person fit into the plan of happiness?  Does he get a family on this earth life to bring him joy and happiness that is something we all long for?  Does he get to spend eternity with the love of his life?  Does his children have a place in the church?  

Sorry, but the Mormon church would be at the bottom of almost anyone's list of where a gay person would fit in.  

 

Why didn't you include the entire post?  Was your intention to paint a false picture of what I actually said?  Cause this is the whole post, not cut and pasted like you want to do.

Quote

 

I love the church and I think that for many, it is a great place to raise a family and support that family with a strong community that embraces good for the most part.  So yeah, if your are straight the church is a good place to embrace a lot of the principles that Christ taught.  

But the church has no place for those that are gay despite the PR effort to say otherwise.  Just where does a gay person fit into the plan of happiness?  Does he get a family on this earth life to bring him joy and happiness that is something we all long for?  Does he get to spend eternity with the love of his life?  Does his children have a place in the church?  

Sorry, but the Mormon church would be at the bottom of almost anyone's list of where a gay person would fit in.  

Fortunately Christ died for all of us.  His blessings and atonement are open to the other 99% of the population that have no interest in what Mormons believe or their toxic policies towards those that are gay.  This is the reality.  And all the PR speeches of this type falls on deaf ears to those that know the very public face the church puts on in attacking the civil rights of gay couples. 

 

 

You completely cut out the first part of the post.  Why?  Isn't that being a bit deceptive?  Did you not like the part where I said that "I  love the Church and I think that for many, it is a great place to raise a family and support that family with a strong community that embraces good for the most part? "  This is why I really don't like interacting with you.   I don't like the way you slice and dice every comment, taking things out of context, slanting things in the worse possible light.  You think of me as your enemy and try to defeat me with every post I make,  I can't change your attitudes towards me.  But I can ignore your false accusations.  If what you have presented is the worse I have ever said about the Church, then your accusations remain unproven.  I do disagree with much of how the Church treats the LGBT community.  I don't think the Church has a particularly good track record in treating that community fairly.  At times I do believe the Church has not acted in a Christ like way towards those that are gay.  I mean what kind of Church forbids baptisms to underaged children just because their parents believe they should be married?   But disagreement with some of the policies the Church institutes against its LGBT members and speaking out against them does not constitute vile and demeaning treatment of the Church.  

Do I think there is a place for someone who is gay in the Church?  For the vast majority, the answer is NO.  It is no secret that most gay members end up leaving the Church at some point for many of the reasons I listed in that post. It is also no secret that how the Church treats LGBT issues is one of the major reasons people list as reasons for leaving the Church.   Are you really disputing that?  if that is true, how is that an attack on the Church?  How is that some kind of vile thing to say about your Church?

I think it is probably best that I return to my policy of not responding to your posts even when they are distorting what I am actually saying.  

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I say "The apple's skin was as red as blood," I am not saying that the apple "is the same as" blood.  I am saying they both share a trait: color.

When discussing legal principles, judges and lawyers often us comparison, analogy, simile, metaphor, etc. to make a point.  It would be tendentious to accuse the judge or the attorney of conflating the two things being compared.  

Comparing the shared traits of two otherwise dissimilar things is not saying the two things are "the same as" each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

So you need to compare selling a legal service in support of something that is legal that you find morally problematic yourself with something else to make a point.

Taking those facts into account you decide to go with something that is very illegal and very hunted supporting a practice that virtually everyone considers to be one of the most heinous things possible to do?

I don’t think you are very good at this analogy thing.

[Stormin' Mormon]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

I don’t think you are very good at this analogy thing.

One of the purposes of an argument by analogy is to define limits and boundaries. An extreme example is likely to be outside of the limit of the principle in question, and in fact is intended to be outside those limits. Once you establish a scenario where speech protections don't prevail and a scenario where speech protections do prevail, you can proceed with figuring out where the line between the two actually is.  

 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

One of the purposes of an argument by analogy is to define limits and boundaries. An extreme example is likely to be outside of the limit of the principle in question, and in fact is intended to be outside those limits. Once you establish a scenario where speech protections don't prevail and a scenario where speech protections do prevail, you can proceed with figuring out where the line between the two actually is.  

 

This post is like dumping raw sewage into the water main.

 

Am I doing this right now?

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you need to compare selling a legal service in support of something that is legal that you find morally problematic yourself with something else to make a point.

Taking those facts into account you decide to go with something that is very illegal and very hunted supporting a practice that virtually everyone considers to be one of the most heinous things possible to do?

I don’t think you are very good at this analogy thing.

I'm not sure why you are trying to goad @smac97over something he never said.

I am the one who made the original comment. I was using it to demonstrate that CB's blanket statement couldn't possibly be true (see here for full context).

It was not my intent to offend, but when CB took offense I apologized and re-framed the question.

If you would like though, you can report me to the mods. I believe "extreme comparisons and hyperbole" are still against the board rules.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This post is like dumping raw sewage into the water main.

 

Am I doing this right now?

An excellent start.  Now we find a post that's NOT like dumping raw sewage into the water main, compare the two, and together work out what makes a post like dumping raw sewage into the water main and what makes a post NOT like dumping raw sewage into the water main.

 

[kimpearson]

On 2/25/2022 at 11:17 AM, smac97 said:

As I have said previously: "Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we hate them, that we hate gay people and their children."

To that I add: Let's stop with the efforts by you and yours to alienate young gay Latter-day Saints from their faith and their families by asserting - falsely - that we "have no place" for them.

Thanks,

-Smac

What makes this so sad is your complete ignorance as to what is actually going on with Latter-day Saint families with LGTBQ+ kids.  Having spent most of this morning chatting online with another 5 parents looking for ways to make the Church work with their family that just learned they had a queer child and 15 other families earlier this week, I have a very clear picture of what is going on.  No one is trying to alienate these young people from their faith or their families that I am aware of.  I fact every queer person I know (its into the thousand now) is trying desperately to help parents navigate the situation because they know how devastating it is to loose your relationship with your mom and dad.  I now mentor over 2,700 families trying to keep their relationship with their queer child intact.  Almost without fail, everyone of them have expressed the hope to keep their child's faith in place.  Guess what has happened to every one of those families with the exception of about 5, their child has chosen to step away from the Church because the child feels no place in the Church for a queer son or daughter of God.  Guess what else has happened to all those parents?  They couldn't find any way to try to convince their child otherwise.  Many like me, met with bishops, young men and women leaders, stake presidents and even general authorities, in the hope of creating a safe place for their queer child and they failed.  Many of the parents in our group continue to work to make the Church a safe place for queer youth and adults.  One of our parents is friends with Elder Scott and is working to gather stories of families to explain what is going on and the pain and destruction that is occurring.  Similar stories have been shared with Elder Rasband, Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks, President Nielsen and Elder Gong.  Even with all this effort, the queer kids keep leaving and nothing has made the Church any safer for them.  I had a mom this morning who is almost inconsolable because her queer child has decided to leave the Church at 15 and the mom realizes she can't ask her child to stay because it would likely lead to self harm or suicide.  This mom realized there is no place for her queer child in the church and she now questions her faith.   Another mom I messaged with yesterday is a 70 year old temple worker whose adult son finally came out as gay.  This mom, who has based her entire life on the Church and Church service, is devastated because of the response of her church leaders to her son.  She realized there was no safe place in the Church for her son and now her testimony is falling apart.

Do you want me to go on?  Your arrogance towards queer people and their experience is just appalling and I am calling you out on it.  Before you make such incredibly untrue statements about queer people, I challenge you to find 50 families with queer children and just sit down and listen to their stories.  Then find 50 queer adults who are either members of former members and just listen to their stories.

[Stormin' Mormon]

This topic of extreme analogies and odious comparisons strikes close at one of my pet peeves in online discussions.  This notion that you can't compare apples and oranges.

Of course you can!  Apples are red.  Oranges are orange.  Apples have a crunchy interior; oranges have a soft, pulpy interior.  They are both fruit.  They both grow on trees.

And the validity of that comparison does not change if the apple is particularly odious or the orange particularly praiseworthy.  If we approach the comparison logically, we can most certainly compare an odious apples with a praiseworthy orange.  Only emotion would keep us from engaging in that discussion. 

That being said, the REASONS for the comparison may be odious or factually incorrect.  Maybe someone says that apples are like oranges because neither grow in the United States.  Maybe someone says that apples are better than oranges because only people of a certain race like apples.  But in order to examine the comparison at that level, you actually have to ENGAGE in the discussion.  You can't simply declare the comparison out of bounds and refuse to engage.  ESPECIALLY when moderate and reasonable comparisons have already been proposed and not been engaged with. 

But I digress, and we have gotten FAR off topic.  I renounce all previous analogies and start with a simple, analogy-free question:

Does a person EVER have protections from compelled speech?

From there, we can judiciously apply analogies like lawyers, ad agencies, PR firms, and musical artists and try to suss out TOGETHER whether these types of professionals are protected from compelled speech, and if not why not. 

 

Edited February 26, 2022 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

An excellent start.  Now we find a post that's NOT like dumping raw sewage into the water main, compare the two, and together work out what makes a post like dumping raw sewage into the water main and what makes a post NOT like dumping raw sewage into the water main.

 

I scanned the whole board’s history for posts that are not like dumping raw sewage into the water main.

Search returned: POST NOT FOUND

*sigh*

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

This topic of extreme analogies and odious comparisons strikes close at one of my pet peeves in online discussions.  This notion that you can't compare apples and oranges.

Of course you can!  Apples are red.  Oranges are orange.  Apples have a crunchy interior; oranges have a soft, pulpy interior.  They are both fruit.  They both grow on trees.

And the validity of that comparison does not change if the apple is particularly odious or the orange particularly praiseworthy.  If we approach the comparison logically, we can most certainly compare an odious apples with a praiseworthy orange.  Only emotion would keep us from engaging in that discussion. 

That being said, the REASONS for the comparison may be odious or factually incorrect.  Maybe someone says that apples are like oranges because neither grow in the United States.  Maybe someone says that apples are better than oranges because only people of a certain race like apples.  But in order to examine the comparison at that level, you actually have to ENGAGE in the discussion.  You can't simply declare the comparison out of bounds and refuse to engage.  ESPECIALLY when moderate and reasonable comparisons have already been proposed and not been engaged with. 

But I digress, and we have gotten FAR off topic.  I renounce all previous analogies and start with a simple, analogy-free question:

Does a person EVER have protections from compelled speech?

From there, we can judiciously apply analogies like lawyers, ad agencies, PR firms, and musical artists and try to suss out TOGETHER whether these types of professionals are protected from compelled speech, and if not why not. 

 

What if someone told you that your marriage to the person you loved is analogist to the immorality of human trafficking and mafia behavior?  Maybe you wouldn't care because you have never heard such a analogy and it is a ridiculous comparison.  But what if the Church that you belonged to didn't recognize your marriage as being valid a valid marriage.  Would that comment hurt a little more?  Would it want you to draw closer to members of that Church or distance yourself from such toxic opinions?  Now what if that Church not only didn't recognize your marriage as being valid, but labeled you an apostate for being married to the person you love.  Or even worse, refused to baptize your innocent underaged children simply because of who you married?  Would that make you want to ever associate with that Church? Would it draw you closer to those kind of toxic people?  Would it be so easy to just dismiss that analogy? Or would you realize that you don't really need that kind of toxic friends in your life.  Would any of those analogies be helpful in having a dialogue with those kinds of people?  And what if that Church did everything it could to try and prevent you from even being able to marry.  Even with these things laid out, I doubt you could really understand what that feels like because no one has ever treated your marriage and the person you love that way in your life.

Don't misunderstand me.  I fully believe and respect that any Church can have any belief it wants.  I don't have a problem with the Church not accepting gay marriage and looking upon it was sinful.  But it is how it treats that sin that is toxic.  So let's say that if you watch porn or if you are not honest in your business dealings or any other sin, and the church called you an apostate and refused to baptize your underaged children because of that.  Let's say the Church did everything it could to legally prevent you from ever having a business. 

Does a person EVER have protections from compelling speech?

Yes.  And I have said that regularly when this subject has come up.  But I also am well aware that there are some, not most, but some who will use compelled speech to push the same kind of toxic behavior against members of the LGBT community as well as the black community as well as the Jewish community and other minority communities that are often marginalized simply because of who they are.  I know that the courts have to balance speech that would not give blanket ability for people to just discriminate based on who a person is with that persons right to be treated equally under the laws of this country.  

 

[california boy]

2 hours ago, kimpearson said:

What makes this so sad is your complete ignorance as to what is actually going on with Latter-day Saint families with LGTBQ+ kids.  Having spent most of this morning chatting online with another 5 parents looking for ways to make the Church work with their family that just learned they had a queer child and 15 other families earlier this week, I have a very clear picture of what is going on.  No one is trying to alienate these young people from their faith or their families that I am aware of.  I fact every queer person I know (its into the thousand now) is trying desperately to help parents navigate the situation because they know how devastating it is to loose your relationship with your mom and dad.  I now mentor over 2,700 families trying to keep their relationship with their queer child intact.  Almost without fail, everyone of them have expressed the hope to keep their child's faith in place.  Guess what has happened to every one of those families with the exception of about 5, their child has chosen to step away from the Church because the child feels no place in the Church for a queer son or daughter of God.  Guess what else has happened to all those parents?  They couldn't find any way to try to convince their child otherwise.  Many like me, met with bishops, young men and women leaders, stake presidents and even general authorities, in the hope of creating a safe place for their queer child and they failed.  Many of the parents in our group continue to work to make the Church a safe place for queer youth and adults.  One of our parents is friends with Elder Scott and is working to gather stories of families to explain what is going on and the pain and destruction that is occurring.  Similar stories have been shared with Elder Rasband, Elder Uchtdorf, President Oaks, President Nielsen and Elder Gong.  Even with all this effort, the queer kids keep leaving and nothing has made the Church any safer for them.  I had a mom this morning who is almost inconsolable because her queer child has decided to leave the Church at 15 and the mom realizes she can't ask her child to stay because it would likely lead to self harm or suicide.  This mom realized there is no place for her queer child in the church and she now questions her faith.   Another mom I messaged with yesterday is a 70 year old temple worker whose adult son finally came out as gay.  This mom, who has based her entire life on the Church and Church service, is devastated because of the response of her church leaders to her son.  She realized there was no safe place in the Church for her son and now her testimony is falling apart.

Do you want me to go on?  Your arrogance towards queer people and their experience is just appalling and I am calling you out on it.  Before you make such incredibly untrue statements about queer people, I challenge you to find 50 families with queer children and just sit down and listen to their stories.  Then find 50 queer adults who are either members of former members and just listen to their stories.

This is my experience that I have had with members who are gay.  Usually they try desperately to make it work and keep a relationship with the Church.  But in the end, I know personally of only one who has stayed involved in the Church.  

[Stormin' Mormon]

The emotional and logical valence of an argument are independent variables.  An argument can be both hurtful and valid. For example (and please note, the "you" in the example below is a generic you, and not meant to indicate any particular individual)

A. If you are ugly, you will never get married. (If A then B)

B. You are ugly. (A)

C. Therefore, you will never get married.  (Therefore B)

The argument is valid, but it may not be true.  It is also hurtful, but its hurtfulness does not change the fact that its construction is logically valid.  In order to prove it false, one has to engage with the premises and prove that one or more of them are untrue.  Dismissing the argument as hurtful does not refute the valid construct of its logic.     

My heart goes out to you (it really does) for all the difficult discussions you've had on this issue with friends, family, and acquaintances.  Those types of in-person interactions ought to take into consideration the emotional valence of the discussion. 

I engaged in this thread because I have an interest in law, logic, rhetoric, and free speech.  I wanted to engage in a dispassionate discussion about free speech issues and their logical implications.  Instead, the thread has gone down an emotional rabbit hole.  And while there is value in having discussions about feelings and emotions and experiences, that wasn't the discussion I had intended to engage with.

So, my apologies for any hurt feelings.  I'll take myself to a favorite legal blog and hopefully find there the kind of dispassionate discussion I had hoped to find here.