Another Instance of Compelled Speech (Targeting Religious People) (Sorta)

[YJacket]

53 minutes ago, ttribe said:

So because the other items I noted are not physically adjacent in the tome that is the Bible, you get to dismiss them from the argument? You sure like your cafeteria approach to faith, it seems.

It's called context. 

[YJacket]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, a QAnoner. It is all about exploiting the kids.

The enemy must be defeated at all costs to protect the children!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/from-hastert-to-gaetz-lets-talk-about-republicans-and-sex-crimes.html

Oh……huh? “It’s always projection” slogan proved again and the supposed defenders of morality are willing to shield the pedophiles in their own ranks. Hmmmmmmm……. 

And comparing same sex relations with bestiality.

 

What is QAnon... Oh that's right the only way to stop the brutal destruction of your ideology is to make ad hominem attacks. 

[YJacket]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ah, a QAnoner. It is all about exploiting the kids.

The enemy must be defeated at all costs to protect the children!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/04/from-hastert-to-gaetz-lets-talk-about-republicans-and-sex-crimes.html

Oh……huh? “It’s always projection” slogan proved again and the supposed defenders of morality are willing to shield the pedophiles in their own ranks. Hmmmmmmm……. 

And comparing same sex relations with bestiality.

 

Yes I will do it. You advocate for sexually mutilating children... bestiality is the least one can compare it to. 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

So anything that is consensual is morally okay.

In other words if I can convince you to do it and you agree it's perfectly fine.

Now that we have that established and it is established that children can KNOW that they are the opposite sex at what age? 10, 11, 14?

So at what age can they then "consent" to KNOWING they want to have sex with an adult?

If a child can take puberty blockers because they "consent" to it then why can they not "consent" at age 10 to having sex with an adult? 

If we allow adults to choose to do something we must allow children to do it as well.

That is seriously your argument? Straight up perverse libertarian NAMBLA talking points.

What is wrong with you?

[YJacket]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You can’t say the quiet part out loud anymore. 

You are just surprised there is pushback you thought you had won in the Church... You haven't.

I'd say this things directly face to face. And I have to my bishop and stake president and others. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

So anything that is consensual is morally okay.

In other words if I can convince you to do it and you agree it's perfectly fine.

Now that we have that established and it is established that children can KNOW that they are the opposite sex at what age? 10, 11, 14?

So at what age can they then "consent" to KNOWING they want to have sex with an adult?

If a child can take puberty blockers because they "consent" to it then why can they not "consent" at age 10 to having sex with an adult? 

That's a giant leap, indeed. Oddly enough, we have laws about consent and the age and circumstances under which it can be given. I don't recall saying anything about puberty blockers or about underage sex, so I'm not sure why you're going there. I just mentioned the purpose of pride activities, which you have dismissed as emotional blackmail. Heaven knows why. 

[YJacket]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

If nothing else, this guy is unintentionally (I think) making a good case for separation of church and state. 

Church and state are never separated. Your religion is in charge... For now, but it will end in tears.

Secularism is a religion. 

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, YJacket said:

It's called context. 

Not really, no.

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

What is QAnon... Oh that's right the only way to stop the brutal destruction of your ideology is to make ad hominem attacks. 

That is not a denial.

2 minutes ago, YJacket said:

Yes I will do it. You advocate for sexually mutilating children... bestiality is the least one can compare it to. 

I did what now?

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, YJacket said:

It's called context. 

Nope. You made a blanket appeal to the authority of the Bible. No walking that back now. Better go check to make sure none of your clothes mix linen and wool!

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If we allow adults to choose to do something we must allow children to do it as well.

That is seriously your argument? Straight up perverse libertarian NAMBLA talking points.

What is wrong with you?

I'm really having a hard time understanding where this guy is coming from. His posts definitely read better when you imagine them in Helen Lovejoy's voice. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

Church and state are never separated. Your religion is in charge... For now, but it will end in tears.

Secularism is a religion. 

Ahhh, the Crazy Train in a roll now!

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You aren’t conversant with recreational inhalants?

Are you some kind of Mormon or something?

 

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Recreational inhalants?  Hell, now that Marijuana is legal everywhere, for anything, at any time, for any reason, why bother with the "light" stuff?

 

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

And Marijuana won't kill ya.

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There has not be enough research into cannabis to say this definitely, though the risk is likely quite low.  And there has been at least one death due to dehydration and kidney failure as a result of regular cannabis use ( https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326357 ).   But cannabis impairs judgment and motor skills and those can kill you if you are stupid enough to drive under the influence or do something else dangerous.  And it can result in significant apathy, which may cause one to neglect oneself or others, so there are risks to using it.

Plus cannabis caused illnesses can be significant…

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/327126#health-risks

 

1 hour ago, Chum said:

If I may put the Pedantic in PSA, Cannabis isn't an inhalant.

No, but then, there must be a reason why people talk about whether they inhale or not when they use Marijuana ... AmIRight?  

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

You are just surprised there is pushback you thought you had won in the Church... You haven't.

I'd say this things directly face to face. And I have to my bishop and stake president and others. 

Yeah, most bishops have to humor some loose-cannon weirdos. Part of the job.

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

Church and state are never separated. Your religion is in charge... For now, but it will end in tears.

Secularism is a religion. 

It is really not by any acceptable definition.

[YJacket]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

That's a giant leap, indeed. Oddly enough, we have laws about consent and the age and circumstances under which it can be given. I don't recall saying anything about puberty blockers or about underage sex, so I'm not sure why you're going there. I just mentioned the purpose of pride activities, which you have dismissed as emotional blackmail. Heaven knows why. 

You didn't answer the question.

So the T is not a part of the LGBTQ?

Gays are "born that way"?

So the T is NOT "born that way"?

And if they are born that way, then why not let them do whatever they can at whatever age bc aren't there so many LGBs who knew at age 3 they were LGB?

So you are denying the human rights of the T to be born that way? Or you just want to gatekeep the T bc they make they rest of the LGB look bad bc they took your argument and expanded it and now people are seeing how insane it is? 

 

[YJacket]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Yeah, most bishops have to humor some loose-cannon weirdos. Part of the job.

It is really not by any acceptable definition.

More personal attacks. You can not defeat the argument.

[YJacket]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Ahhh, the Crazy Train in a roll now!

So you do not believe that a material thing or an ideology can be someone's god? 

You do not believe that people can do and will worship material things or ideologies? 

Edited July 29, 2022 by YJacket

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

You didn't answer the question.

So the T is not a part of the LGBTQ?

Gays are "born that way"?

So the T is NOT "born that way"?

And if they are born that way, then why not let them do whatever they can at whatever age bc aren't there so many LGBs who knew at age 3 they were LGB?

So you are denying the human rights of the T to be born that way? Or you just want to gatekeep the T bc they make they rest of the LGB look bad bc they took your argument and expanded it and now people are seeing how insane it is? 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about "born that way"? Who said anything about children having the "human right" to do whatever they can at whatever age? Seriously, you need to calm down.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

So you do not believe that a material thing or an ideology can be someone's God? 

After reading your posts, I'd say it's a safe bet that ideology can be deified.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, YJacket said:

You didn't answer the question.

So the T is not a part of the LGBTQ?

Gays are "born that way"?

So the T is NOT "born that way"?

And if they are born that way, then why not let them do whatever they can at whatever age bc aren't there so many LGBs who knew at age 3 they were LGB?

So you are denying the human rights of the T to be born that way? Or you just want to gatekeep the T bc they make they rest of the LGB look bad bc they took your argument and expanded it and now people are seeing how insane it is? 

 

The T part of LGBT has always been an uncomfortable part of the alliance. They get it worse than the B part and no one really likes the Bs either.  L and G don’t really get along that well either.

The TERF movement has already been taken over by the far-Right. There is no need for you to advocate for them in a weird attempt to fracture the LGBT community.

[YJacket]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm really having a hard time understanding where this guy is coming from. His posts definitely read better when you imagine them in Helen Lovejoy's voice. 

More personal attacks.

So much for the love everyone, respect everyone, include everyone.

2nd commandments doesn't apply to those who think differently.

 

Which shows what it always was, a rouse just to bludgeon people with so the ideology gets in and rooted. 

[YJacket]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

What the hell are you talking about? Who said anything about "born that way"? Who said anything about children having the "human right" to do whatever they can at whatever age? Seriously, you need to calm down.

I'm perfectly calm, just absolutely obliterating your arguments and you have to personally attack bc you have no leg to stand on. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, The Nehor said:

The T part of LGBT has always been an uncomfortable part of the alliance. They get it worse than the B part and no one really likes the Bs either.  L and G don’t really get along that well either.

The TERF movement has already been taken over by the far-Right. There is no need for you to advocate for them in a weird attempt to fracture the LGBT community.

I think people don't like me just because they know me, not because I'm B.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, YJacket said:

More personal attacks. You can not defeat the argument.

You didn’t make one. It is all emotional appeals and an eschatology about the evil gays abusing kids that you believe as a matter of faith but one day soon you will be vindicated and then can point at the gays burning in hell and cackle with glee. Until then with no proof we laugh at your unfounded beliefs. But soon we will see the truth. Your Dad will come to the playground and beat up all the bullies and we will all see!

[jkwilliams]

Just now, YJacket said:

I'm perfectly calm, just absolutely obliterating your arguments and you have to personally attack bc you have no leg to stand on. 

Obliterating what arguments? You've gone slippery-slope on topics I haven't even mentioned and then complained that I'm not playing along. Some winning.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

You did the wrong thing Smac.

The pictures should have been left up.  Why?  So that everyone can absolutely see with clear eyes where this is headed. 

I think the request to remove the pictures was reasonable.  I provided links to the content, so people who want to see the photographs can do so.  Meanwhile, others who come to this board without expecting (or wanting) to see such disturbing images will not need to avert their eyes.

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

For all of CB's protesting . . .he protests too much.

CB dislikes me personally.  A lot.  A lot.  I think most of his "protesting" comes from that (more than from what I actually wrote).

CB thinks I post too often about LGBT issues, which I find weird given that A) that is a distinctly minority topic on which I write, and B) it is overwhelmingly the topic on which he writes.

To be fair, there have been times when I have been too strident in my communications with CB.  While I categorically reject his endless accusations of bigotry and homophobia, I have antagonized him in the past, sometimes with facts and arguments with which he disagrees, but sometimes also with too-harsh responses to him.

Contrary to CB's accusations, I have nowhere disparaged the entirety of the "LGBT community."  I haven't even disparaged all "Pride" parades and drag shows.  I have, instead, criticized and expressed concern about those Pride parades that include lewd and grossly sexualized images, participants, clothing and behaviors, and that these things are being done in public and in front of children.  I have criticized and expressed concern about drag shows that are sexualizing and grooming children.

It is CB, not I, who has characterized these criticisms/concerns as an indictment on the entirety of the "LGBT community."  So in that sense, yes, he "protests too much."  But I think most of that comes from his personal dislike of me.

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

He knows it, you know it, I know it where this is headed.

Love is Love!!!!!!!!

Which is really saying "sex is sex".  The whole LGBTQETC movement is all about sex, having sex, thinking sex, doing sex with whoever, whenever, however, whereever.  No rules, no bounds; a complete free for all orgy.

With respect, I cannot go along with this characterization.  I think much of this "movement" has been about calling for legal protections, legal rights, greater understanding and compassion, more empathy, more communication.  I can disagree with some the movement's objectives while at the same time acknowledging and supporting some other objectives.  I think this sentiment is the basis of the Church's "Fairness for All" approach (bolded/italicized emphases added) :

Quote

In a May 13 statement expressing opposition to the Equality Act, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reemphasized its stance that “fairness for all” plays an important role in protecting both LGBT community rights and the right to freedom of religion.

Protections for both religious liberties and LGBT rights can can be reached without either side having to compromise its values, the statement added, but the Equality Act does not offer that harmonious conclusion.

Why the Equality Act isn’t fair for all

As the Equality Act—a bill proposing increased LGBT protections on a national level—is put before Congress, the Church voiced concerns for how the proposed increased protections for LGBT rights could potentially harm existing protections for religious freedom.

“The Equality Act now before Congress is not balanced and does not meet the standard of fairness for all,” the statement said.

Such opposition expressed by the Church is not directed at the increased protections for the LGBT communities. On numerous occasions, the Church has expressed support for protecting LGBT rights. Rather, its opposition comes due to the threat the proposed bill poses to the continuing protection of religious freedom.

While the majority of the changes proposed by the Equality Act align with changes made during the 2015 legislation in Utah concerning the same topics, some of the proposed changes would limit the ability of religiously affiliated institutions, organizations, businesses, or individuals to act according to their religious beliefs and conscience.

Additionally, a proposal to negate any use of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in defense of any such organizations, businesses, or individuals in judicial cases against discrimination is seen by many as a threat to the protection of religious freedom, which has been long upheld by the U.S. Constitution and courts in accordance with that and similar acts.

A history of fairness

In 2015, after working on similar issues specific to the state of Utah, a Church statement read, “Rights work best when sought and shared by everyone. And since we all live and breathe and move in the same public space, there is no acceptable alternative to working out our differences.”

In March of that year, Utah State Legislators had just passed Senate Bill 296, which asserted antidiscriminatory protections for LGBT people in areas of housing, employment, and public spaces in Utah. Following the bill’s passing, Church leaders—who worked closely with state legislators to develop the bill in a way that did not impinge upon the freedom of religion protected by the Constitution—issued the 2015 statement regarding its involvement.

“The intent of the Church is to promote sound principles to encourage discussion and action in legislatures that reflect fairness for all,” the statement continued. “Our society’s information environment steers the public to view conflicts as just a part of a bigger culture war, a battle of winner-takes-all in which there is only ever one right and one wrong, and where the only answer to any question is either ‘yes’ or ‘no.’”

The Church asserted then, as it has echoed again in its most recent statement, that “protecting the conscience of religious people and affirming the right of LGBT people to lead a dignified life—can be compatible.”

Fairness without compromise

Speaking in 2016, at the Regional Religious Freedom conference in Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas, then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated, “We deny any intent to compromise our doctrine or religious belief or to invite any others to compromise theirs.”

At the time, leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought to defend the idea that “fairness for all,” did not entail any form of compromise of beliefs from either the religious or LGBT sides during the legislative discussions in Utah the year prior, which had led to what the media dubbed the “Utah Compromise.”

The 2015 Utah legislation on LGBT rights and religious freedom, as Elder Oaks explained a year later, was not, in fact, a compromise at all. Rather, it exemplified efforts to resolve differences through mutual understanding, accommodation, and practice of civility.

“The key to what we did in Utah is that no one compromised any of their values or positions,” said Utah State Senator Stuart Adams in a recent interview with the Church News. “The LGBT community stayed with their same positions, and so did the religious communities. Their deep-seated religious beliefs were not compromised.”

What made the 2015 legislation in Utah unique—and perhaps a good model for similar issues moving forward—is that both sides worked to protect each others values and beliefs and found ways to respect both without compromising, Sen. Adams added.

“It’s kind of cool when both sides try to protect each other. It’s a really significant thing … and when that happens, it helps everyone in society.”

Balancing the opposition

It’s no secret some of the core doctrinal beliefs of the Church and many other religious organizations are in many ways opposed to the practices of the LGBT communities. But as Church leaders made clear during a 2015 press conference explaining the Church’s stance of “fairness for all,” the beliefs and the rights of one citizen should not outweigh another’s.

“We must find ways to show respect for others whose beliefs, values, and behaviors differ from our own while never being forced to deny or abandon our own beliefs, values, and behaviors in the process,” said Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “Every citizen’s rights are best guarded when each person and group guards for others those rights they wish guarded for themselves.”

Stating then, as it recently did again in opposing the Equality Act, the Church reiterated its favor for taking reasonable measures to protect the rights of the LGBT community to live and act according to their consciences and in ensuring fair access to housing, employment, and public spaces. However, it also expressed the need to similarly protect faith communities and individuals in their rights for freedom of expression and religious practice.

As Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained during the 2015 press conference, the Church seeks to find “a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek for solutions that will be fair to everyone.”

In an interview with the Church News following the 2015 press conference, Elder Christofferson said, “We are troubled by the position of some absolutists that nondiscrimination must trump all other values and considerations. … But tolerance does not mean forcing someone to condone what they in good conscience cannot condone.”

He further explained that the Church’s call for “fairness to all” would lead to an end to discrimination while simultaneously protecting the liberty of people to live according to their conscience.

Sen. Adams underscored the importance of protecting one another.

“Everybody’s rights should be protected—whether you have deep-seated religious beliefs or whether you’re gay. And if you try to just protect one or the other, that’s not the American way,” he said in reference to the Equality Act and the Church’s decision to oppose it.

“We believe in freedom for all, we believe in fairness for all, we believe that everyone has unalienable rights, and those rights ought to be protected. And when they overlap, we ought to do it in a way that doesn’t wash away somebody else’s rights.”

Such is the significant difference between the Equality Act and the Church’s proposal for “fairness for all,” he said, adding the Equality Act only safeguards the LGBT community and dismisses protections for the religious communities.

Freedom and fairness for all

After the Church launched its website for religious freedom in September 2016, Elder Oaks explained that because the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was “established to give favored constitutional treatment to religion, speech, press, and assembly,” the weakening of any part of the amendment would weaken the whole.

And if such a time were to come when the predominant culture no longer sufficiently valued such freedoms, said Elder Christofferon in 2017, “even constitutions will not be sufficient to sustain and preserve them.”

As legislation and culture continue to sporadically propose changes that challenge the freedom of religion upon which the United States of America was established, the Church will continue to defend such rights. And they will do so in the same manner they always have: working to protect their rights, as well as those of others.

“The opportunity to be involved in the ­political process is a privilege given to every citizen,” said Elder Ronald A. Rasband, then of the Presidency of the Seventy, in a 2015 BYU devotional. “Our laws and legislation play an important teaching role in shaping our social and moral culture. We need every individual in society to take an active role in engaging in civic dialogue that helps frame laws and legislation that are fair for everyone.”

Both the Church and its members have a civic responsibility to be involved in protecting their own rights and the rights of others, Elder Rasband added, offering advice on how to do so.

“First, try to view others through a lens of fairness. … Second, let fairness guide your treatment of others. … Third, I would encourage you to stand up for fairness if you see another’s rights being impeded.”

The Church has recognized that there are areas of overlapping agreement with the LGBT community, and has worked with that community to address those issues.  I think we ought to likewise recognize and acknowledge the merits, the good parts, of the LGBT movement.  There are many.

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

Those pictures are a PERFECT representation of where it is all headed.  And the sooner naive members get their heads out of the sand and figure this out the better.  Naive members simply say "love is love", "be kind", "respect" and the enemy has simply used those words as an insidious injection of rot into the system and it will rot out the entire system.

You see it evident in the arguments made from the pro-LGBTQETC movement, how often they evade direct questions, how often they say things like well if someone wants to do it that's fine . . .it's okay as long as their is "consent". Which is a bull-crap way of saying, as long as we can CONVINCE someone to do it-it's okay.

No morals, no rules, nothing godly, just an entire circle of suck.  CB and the others simply do not want the deep dark underbelly exposed and they rage and nash with their teeth once it is exposed.

I don't think that is a fair characterization.  There are subsets of the LGBT community that, I think, are deeply problematic, but that is not necessarily an indictment of the overall "movement."  For example, the statistics about gay promiscuity are genuinely alarming and disturbing, but they are not fairly attributed to the entirety of the gay community.  See here:

Quote

Are gay men promiscuous? To answer this question properly, I have extracted data from different representative sample studies in three countries. This created an accurate set of statistics on the number of sexual partners homosexual men had per year and in a lifetime.
...
In summary: the median number of lifetime sexual partners for homosexuals fell between 10 and 22 sexual partners when accounting for all three survey-studies. Approximately 50% of gay men had just 0 or 1 sexual partner per year across all three studies. A minority of gay men had most of the sex.
...

As you can see, about half of gay men have had 10 or less sexual partners in their life. I also tested for correlation between age and number of sexual partners and it came up with a very weak association. This means there are many gay men who don’t have many sexual partners through their whole life (i.e. many men in the first column are both young and old). Other men seem to have a lot of sexual partners, with 27% having more than 30. I further analyzed the 10% who had more than 100:
...

...

...

Insights from the studies

First, across all three studies about half of gay men consistently fell into the 0 or 1 sexual partner in the previous year. It’s likely that quite a few of these men are in relationships.

In a lifetime, homosexuals typically had between 10 and 22 sexual partners when accounting for all three survey-studies.
...

It’s likely that the promiscuity stereotype emerges from the minority of gay men who have a significant amount of sex. It’s probable that highly sexually active men are more prone to boast, whereas more reserved gay men have less interest in telling the world about their sex life. In my opinion, the majority of gay men are not ‘promiscuous’, but at the extreme end they are and have much more accessibility to sex due to the sex drive of two men (and the absence of women) – but that’s entirely subjective. It’s likely that more reserved gay men feel more comfortable to come out of the closet nowadays, and their answers are being captured in research.

Perhaps these statistics surprised you, changed your beliefs or simply affirmed what you were already thinking. Just remember, any time you see a study on sexual behavior make sure to check that it relied upon a representative sample before you draw any conclusions.

By way of comparison, consider this article discussing statistics of heterosexual promiscuity:

Quote

Americans vary widely in the number of sexual partners they report over a lifetime. Few never have sex, while a non-trivial number report sex with only one person: those who have had only one sexual partner comprise 16 percent of adults ages 18-60. (Keep in mind that such an estimate can diminish as people age, but won’t likely rise.)

On the opposite end of the spectrum, very few people report high numbers of lifetime sexual partners: just two (2) percent of heterosexual³⁷ women and three (3) percent of heterosexual men report having had more than 50 opposite-sex sexual partners, while two (2) percent of self-identified lesbian women³⁸ have had over 50 female partners. Thus, the experience of large numbers of sexual partners is uncommon for the vast majority of the population. The exception to this is self-identified gay men. Indeed, 30 percent of gay men report over 50 male sexual partners in their lifetime

But what is typical? How many sexual partners does the average adult have?

The median heterosexual man or woman (age 18-60) reports somewhere between four and six opposite sex partners in their lifetime. Lesbian women, too, report about the same number of partners. Meanwhile, the median gay man has notably more partners—reporting between 16 and 20 same-sex sexual partners to this point in their lifetime.

While promiscuity amongst gay men is, overall, substantially higher than heterosexuals and lesbians, the graphs above indicate there are still substantial numbers of gay men who are not fairly characterized as wantonly promiscuous.  Meanwhile, heterosexuals have their share of hedonists as well.

There are many, many people in the "LGBT community" who strongly reject and oppose the sexualization/grooming/abuse of children.  Meanwhile, heterosexuals have their share of sexual predators as well.

So we need to be circumspect in attributing to the whole what is only seen in the few.  Back in 1985 Krister Stendahl,  a Swedish theologian and New Testament scholar, and a professor at Harvard Divinity School, formulated what has since been called the "Three Rules of Religious Understanding":

Quote

Stendahl is credited with creating Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding, which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His rules are as follows:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

I have long appreciated the wisdom of these words.  And in recent years I have been adapting these rules to apply beyond "religious understanding" and to apply to other social/ideological groupings/communities, such as the LGBT community. 

As an aside, I will here note that I think this is a "community" only in an increasingly loose and incoherent sense of the word.  I question the overall cohesion and commonality in the ever-lengthening acronym:

-

-

-
See also here:

Quote

LGBT – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender. ... LGBTQIA – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer and/or Questioning, and Asexual and/or Ally ... LGBTIQAPD – Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and/or Questioning, Intersex, Asexual and/or Ally, Pansexual, and Demi-sexual. ... LGBTIQA+/LGBTQ+ – Adding a “+” to the acronym is an acknowledgment that there are non-cisgender and non-straight identities that are not included in the acronym. This is a shorthand or umbrella term for all people who have a non-normative gender identity or sexual orientation. ... QPOC/QTPOC – Queer People of Color and Queer and/or Trans People of Color. QUILTBAG – Queer and/or Questioning, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans*, Asexual, Two-Spirit, Bisexual and/or Allied and Gay and/or Gender Queer.

Here:

Quote

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being mocked on social media after he published two posts that mention the latest woke iteration of an acronym for people with different sexual identities —  2SLGBTQQIA+ — which some likened to an encrypted password or “headbutting the keyboard.”
...

The number and letter ‘2S’ in 2SLGBTQQIA+ includes people who identify as “Two-spirit,” referring to someone who identifies as having both a masculine and a feminine spirit. It is used by some Indigenous North Americans to describe their sexual identity.

The acronym, which used to be most commonly known as “LGBTQ,” sparked confusion among social media users.
...

“Headbutting the keyboard is now a sexuality,” British rapper Nzube Olisaebuka Udezue, also known as ZUBY, replied to Trudeau. 

“Is that the actual acronym now or did his cat walk across the keyboard?” conservative commentator Matt Walsh tweeted.

A "community" is typically 

Quote

a social unit (a group of living things) with commonality such as place, norms, religion, values, customs, or identity. Communities may share a sense of place situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighbourhood) or in virtual space through communication platforms.

I just don't see much "commonality" any more, if there was any to begin with.  The acronym now goes well beyond defining the "community" by sexual attraction/orientation ("Gay," "Lesbian," "Bisexual," "MSM/WSW," "SGL,"), and now includes

• people who believe they are a man trapped in a woman's body, or vice versa ("Transgender," "FTM/F2M," "MTF/M2F"),
• people who lack sexual attraction/orientation ("Asexual"),
• people who are sympathetic to the cause ("Allies"),
• people who are not sure about these things ("Questioning," "Undecided,"),
• people with some form of a disorder of sexual development (DSD) ("Intersex"),
• variations on the "LGB" part of the acronym ("Pansexual," "Demisexual"),
• people who disclaim the gender binary ("Non-binary"),
• people claiming to have both a masculine and a feminine spirit ("2S" ("Two Spirit")), 
• racial categories ("QPOC/QTPOC – Queer People of Color and Queer and/or Trans People of Color"), and
• more and more and more.

As the acronym gets longer, the "commonality" becomes diluted (again, if there ever was any to begin with).  

I also question the logic and feasibility of creating and maintaining a "community" that centers on sexual attraction/behavior.  This is a very new thing, and it does not seem to be holding up well.

In any event, this lack of cohesion, of commonality, of shared ideals and fundamentals, demonstrates the risks of making broad characterizations.  The "community" as a whole . . . isn't.  

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

One day brother, one day, a reckoning is coming and do you know what that reckoning will be?

One day the deepest, darkest underbelly will be exposed about how 2 men (or 2 women) living together taking in children is really a high-powered mechanism for child sexual abuse.  The highest rates of incident of child abuse occur between non-blood related parental figures and children . . .

Heterosexual pairings of this sort can also mechanisms for abuse of children.

Emphasis on the word "can."

5 hours ago, YJacket said:

One day it will be exposed how much sexual abuse there is between the non-blood related partners in homosexual relationships and the children under their care. 

I don't think it is right to attribute to the entirety of the "community" the behaviors of an aberrant subset.  There are plenty of instances of heterosexual child abuse as well (though, again, I question the logic and utility of creating a group identity/community that coheres around sexual attraction/behavior).

Many years ago I came across this article: "Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth" by Dr. Judith Reisman.  It's pretty long (60 pages), but worth a read.  It was published in 2001, and I so far I have not been able to locate a substantive rebuttal or response to it.  It includes some pretty illuminating stuff about a "subculture" in the gay community whose conduct is being unfairly and improperly attributed to the entirety of the LGBT community.

Thanks,

-Smac