Update on Litigation Re: Title IX (BYU and other Religious Schools)

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

it is the behavior that is prohibited, not the person

Same with breastfeeding in public. 
 

Men are generally allowed to take off their shirt in public, so it seems like men could breastfeed in public if they were a rare case…though my guess is these days one would be assumed to be transgendered and people would get offended rather than just thinking it was an odd curiosity and wanting to look (which is the reaction I am guessing would be the most common if acceptance of the man’s sex was a given).

A man breastfeeding in public being a curiosity vs the reaction a woman would get…that would be an interesting discussion.

Edited November 6, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

It seems to me the argument that as long as no one can do something, it’s not discrimination could be used to outlaw many religious practices. 
 

A law that no religion can instruct their members to wear special clothing would eliminate not only the habib, but catholic vestments and garments, but that’s not religious discrimination since anyone, even atheists, can wear garments, etc if they wanted to.

No religion can build temples where proxy ordinances are performed is not discriminatory because any religion or even nonbelievers in the divine could build a temple and perform proxy work if they wanted to. 
 

I remember feeling very frustrated when my diabetic daughter was not allowed to test her blood in class under the rule no blood allowed…no one was allowed to prick their finger and distract the kids by bleeding so it wasn’t a big deal that my daughter couldn’t do it and instead was forced to walk down to the nurse’s office when she was possibly going to fall from low blood sugar.  It was a two story school and I was very worried about her safety on the stairs. She was new to diabetes at the time and hated testing, hated the idea of being singled out when she had to ask for permission to leave so she would put it off until she was in the danger zone.  But of course the rule was the same for everyone, so no discrimination. 

Edited November 6, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems to me the argument that as long as no one can do something, it’s not discrimination could be used to outlaw many religious practices. 

We are speaking of religious proscriptions, not secular ones.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

We are speaking of religious proscriptions, not secular ones.

 

And?  Discrimination is more than a legal term. 

Edited November 6, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nope.

Yep

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nobody can have a same-sex sealing.  Nobody.  Ipso facto, there is no disparate/discriminatory treatment.

See above.  Nobody can do these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sure. Thus such people are discriminated against by the church regardless of your ludicrous denial.

 

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am happy to collaborate with these folks on areas of common interest.  Doctrinal disagreement can be set aside at times.

Sure. But don't think at all that they respect the church other than how they can benefit from it.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Sure. But don't think at all that they respect the church other than how they can benefit from it.

Always a glass-half-empty perspective, eh?

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yep

Sure. Thus such people are discriminated against by the church regardless of your ludicrous denial.

The Church's doctrines re sexual behavior do not fit secular paradigms re "discrimination."  Plenty of heterosexual behaviors are likewise proscribed, but nobody claims "discrimination" there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

34 minutes ago, Calm said:

And?  Discrimination is more than a legal term. 

Teancum et al are speaking in secular legal terms, hence Teancum's comments re federal $.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Teancum et al are speaking in secular legal terms, hence Teancum's comments re federal $.

Et al?  
 

You have used this argument forever in all sorts of contexts.  I am not responding to a secular legal term argument, so feel free to deal with it the broader, general context of discrimination I am discussing.  Plus I am not speaking of any conditions being applied or not applied, but simply if it is a rational argument. I don’t see it as one.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Et al?  

You have used this argument forever in all sorts of contexts.  I am not responding in a secular legal terms, so feel free to deal with it that way.  Plus I am not speaking any conditions being applied but simply if it is a rational argument. I don’t see it as one.

In your view, does the Law of Chastity "discriminate" against unmarried people?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Plenty of heterosexual behaviors are likewise proscribed, but nobody claims "discrimination" there.

What same sex sexual behaviours are allowed that aren’t allowed for heterosexuals?

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is the rationale. If they can pass as the gender they are not born as they might try to get ordinances. In theory anyways.

We had a transgender man in my ward in Utah for a while (and then the boundaries changed) but he was just beginning the transformation and would never have passed as a woman.  I doubt he was any more sneaky than some nontransgender members are.  But probably not less sneaky either. 

The church is big on putting up safeguard to help keep members "honest".  Some safeguards are more foolproof than others of course.

[Tacenda]

On 11/3/2024 at 9:01 AM, Tacenda said:

When watching football I think I'm watching human sacrifice. These players sacrificing their brains and bodies for a sport that draws millions of viewers. It reminded me of a tour at Chichen Itza Mexico years ago where the guide mentioned that in the particular sport on a massive field they were decapitated during play. I think of it while watching football. Now I'll add soccer to the list. I hope they figure out a way to prevent these atrocities on young brains. And the college aged players and older. I knew someone in high school that dated a BYU football player who has a form of dementia stemmed from his days in football. 

Had to quote myself to show the steps I walked on to the top of the pyramid at Chichen Itza Mexico. I guess people aren't allowed to climb the stairs any longer. At the top there are rooms to see as well, I remember my sister in law had a panic attack and was stuck clinging to the stairs while sitting down halfway down the pyramid. She eventually made it down in one piece. 

These are stock photos. You wouldn't catch me on these stairs, I was young and dumb back then, lol. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

What same sex sexual behaviours are allowed that aren’t allowed for heterosexuals?

Overnight activities together?

It is how we spread the gay virus. Don’t tell anyone. It is a secret.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

In your view, does the Law of Chastity "discriminate" against unmarried people?

How does the definition of the word change when you put quotes around it? That might help to clarify things.

[MustardSeed]

You can intellectualize all you want to whether or not gay folks are “discriminated” against in the church but in truth, most people(imo) recognize that gay people are treated differently than straight people both by the rules and by the behavior and attitudes (probably justified by some due to the rules) - 

The way that gays are treated differently is considered hurtful and even immoral by some-especially by those who have gay loved ones that they truly care about.  
 

it feels pretty gaslightish (not my favorite pop word but here we are) to see someone dig in so hard to attempt to prove that there is no harmful behavior towards gay people in the church. 

[Calm]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

In your view, does the Law of Chastity "discriminate" against unmarried people?

In what way would you describe the Law of Chastity to make it appear to discriminate against unmarried people in the same way I see it as discriminating against those desiring same sex marriages?  What do unmarried people in general want to do that married people in general don’t care to do that is proscribed by the Law of Chasity.  Can’t be “have sex” since married people want to do that as well.  Can’t be “have sex outside of marriage” since married people often want to do that as well.

BTW, I am not against the discrimination as long as it is actual revelation the discrimination is based on and not cultural traditions because I assume if such is a revelation, God has a good reason for doing so whatever that might be.  I am currently accepting in faith this is so, but while I have had confirmation I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is a spiritually healthy path in general, I haven’t had a confirmation that same sex marriage that is truly monogamous (iow has the same standards as opposite sex marriage) is not spiritually healthy, so my views may change in the future.

But just because I accept this discrimination on trust as revealed by God doesn’t change it into non discrimination, nor does it change the fact that the Law of Chasity has a very different impact on heterosexual people who want to get married even if they can’t and homosexual, bisexual or others who attracted to someone of the same sex and desire to marry them since in the first case the Church accepts the potential, anticipated, desired marriage as legally and religiously acceptable and potentially eternal as well and in the second case with same sex marriage accepts it as only legally valid.  

And to hopefully avoid going to comparisons with discrimination for incest relationships, using what are viewed as non consensual relationships to compare to same sex relationships is invalid as nonconsensual same sex relationships would also be unacceptable even if consensual same sex relationships were accepted.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

see someone dig in so hard to attempt to prove that there is no harmful behavior towards gay people in the church. 

One doesn’t have to view the discrimination as harmful in the long run at least if it is an actual revelation from God, but it is ridiculous imo to view it as treating same sex attracted individuals in the identical way as opposite sex attracted individuals because for same sex relationships the LoC excludes the possibility of romance and marriage but it does not for opposite sex marriages.

It’s the equivalent, imo, of banning breastfeeding from chapels and claiming it isn’t discrimination because it bans men who would breastfeed as well.  It’s a ridiculous argument even if the ban may be appropriate at times.  There may be a good reason to ban breastfeeding in chapels ( though I see it as a cultural thing and therefore problematic in some ways, but I also believe one needs to work with culture at times to create what feels like safe spaces for people).  Added:  I don’t believe there is policy on this, but I have heard of local wards banning it, requiring women to go to the mother’s lounge.

I think it might even  be the equivalent of arguing that the Priesthood Ban didn’t treat Black men and women different because it applied to whites who had Black lineage as well, but I haven’t thought that completely through and need to go to sleep, so I am not sure.  Dismissing that comparison because same sex marriage is a choice and Black heritage is not ignores the fact that same sex attraction is not a choice even if nurturing and acting on attractions, same sex or opposite sex are.  A same sex attracted individual need not do anything to be impacted by the LoC restrictions differently than an opposite sex attracted person.  They are told their natural desires for companionship will never be able to accomplished if faithful in the Church where opposite sex attracted individuals are comforted by counsel that even if they don’t find the desired companionship in this life, they will in the next.  No such hope is given for homosexual desires. Instead the hope offered if the person will stop feeling those attractions.

I understand any concern with admitting that the Law of Chastity discriminates against same sex romance and marriage because of expectations that could open a door for legal pressure on the Church to change its policy, but if we can accept the pressure of refusing to allow nonmembers to enter the temple to have marriages performed or any access at all outside open houses, I don’t see why we shouldn’t be capable of accepting the pressure of refusing to allow same sex couples to solemnize their relationships in our chapels and temples as well.

If the Church and its members were willing to endure the social and legal pressure that was brought be the practice of plural marriage as well as the priesthood ban because of what they believed God commanded***, surely it’s not too much for members to accept there will be consequences for continuing to teach same sex relationships are not acceptable to God rather than to try and escape those consequences by pretending there is no discrimination involved. 

***I personally don’t believe the ban was commanded by God, but that doesn’t mean I can’t admire those who endure the consequences because they believed it was, especially those who still accepted the Gospel even when it meant they could not participate fully in the community of faith.

I do not admire those who used the Priesthood ban to justify discrimination based on bigotry. I do believe the reason for discrimination makes a difference in whether that discrimination is acceptable or not. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

One doesn’t have to view the discrimination as harmful in the long run at least if it is an actual revelation from God,

Justifying damage to others in the name of God is a special kind of brutality. It always looks awful when others do it but when I do it, that’s different. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Justifying damage to others in the name of God is a special kind of brutality. It always looks awful when others do it but when I do it, that’s different. 

I agree in one sense, but I also see the problem here is perhaps there is eternal or spiritual damage in our actions that we are unaware of because of our limitations, but God in his love for us has revealed the better way. I believe there is a God and if mortality is meant to help us progress than it seems logical to me that there would be aspects in our lives that appear to be okay or even good that actually impede eternal progress and the only way to know is for God to tell us.  How could limited mortal beings have sufficient insight into perfect eternal natures to know what is best for those eternal natures in every way?  If God’s revelations aren’t shaking us up, challenging us, disturbing us even, how can we be confident we haven’t created God out of our own desires?

There are many commandments imo that we take on faith that it is better to follow than not, such as requiring baptism to allow access to the temple and its ordinances. If we are wrong and we have been blinded by our own prejudices and fears and have harmed others unnecessarily, it is a tragedy, in some cases a very horrible tragedy. But it would also be a tragedy in my view if we harmed others by encouraging them to do things that were spiritually damaging because we couldn’t see the damage ourselves but God had given us direction to avoid it.

There are many hidden dangers out there in life.  For example, I cringe when I think of the lives that were and are being damaged by poor medical practices based on ignorance or coming to the wrong conclusions based on research.  Think of when doctors were promoting smoking as good for you, even in the treatment of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the use of opium (laudanum was widely prescribed for a variety of issues) and heroin (apparently it used to be used as a cough syrup for kids), etc.  There has been a lot of harm done in the name of good. 

But there are also things we know are good or at least assume are good that would appear horrible to someone not aware of all the implications, like surgery on infants.  We trust the doctors know best here even with new procedures and drugs because we can see the benefits that have been shown by medical efforts in other areas. We see many infants who survive and live normal or relatively normal lives, for example, after years of difficult surgeries and recoveries and we judge the suffering meaningful and worth it.

Are we always right to trust?  Hell no, my life and my daughter’s are massively harder because we trusted bad decisions of doctors made in ignorance.  But if we refused to trust any medical advice at all based on the fact that harmful mistakes have made in our lives by doctors, my daughter would be dead (she is diabetic) and I believe I would be too.

I think the same ‘rules’ apply to spiritual choices as medical ones, it is wise to follow the advice of leadership that overall I have found insightful unless there are solid reasons to doubt based on my overall spiritual experience within the context of the Church.

I believe it is of value to accept certain problematic revelations (male priesthood and leadership, restriction on same sex relationships, restrictions on the temple) where I don’t see a lot of obvious or even subtle positive benefit in the Church based on the overall positives I see happening in many people’s lives in the Church. I do not believe this chosen path has been smooth.  For example, I believe the Priesthood ban has caused great lasting harm.  I also believe the dominance of Pres Joseph Fielding Smith’s paradigm in the Church for several decades last century that overrided previous prophets’ acceptance of scholarship and science and replaced that acceptance with a fundamentalist view that condemned evolution and dismissed scriptural scholarship as unnecessary and even harmful really screwed up the Church and its members in ways we are still struggling to overcome.  But even with these massive missteps I still believe the net result is a huge positive in most of its members’ lives and that the Church receives revelation through its prophets and therefore it is better for those who have been drawn to the Church to follow prophetic counsel in general unless they believe they have received revelation that such ways are wrong.

But this is a position of faith and therefore I have no problem with those that reject it though it can hurt when they see my acceptance of such as based on bigotry and blindness. However, such challenges are good for me because they help keep me seeking the will of God and not just blindly accepting because it’s worked in the past for me.

Obviously not everyone operating from a spiritual paradigm in making choices can be correct. Maybe none of us are if there is actual no spiritual aspect to our existence.  But just because that reality that there are people making mistakes is there doesn’t justify imo rejecting all aspects of spirituality.  There is too great a sense of rightness (in the sense that things fit together for me, are better together in this way than they are separate or fitted together with a different paradigm).  
 

I think everyone has to make choices in every aspect of their life in judging the harm caused by our choices vs the good that comes from them because I don’t see a lot of meaningful choices that don’t harm in some ways.  Choosing to marry one person may result in another being deprived of the benefits of having a marriage relationship with you.  Someone getting accepted to a very good college means someone else is rejected in most cases.  Not smoking means tobacco farmers suffer.  Me and tons others eating Greek yogurt because it’s healthy is now creating pollution problems due to excess acid whey.  Hopefully this problem will be solved soon. Should we stop eating Greek yogurt until it gets solved?  A serious question for me..is the harm I do to others when doing something I judge good for myself right or wrong?

Edited November 7, 2024 by Calm

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

You can intellectualize all you want to whether or not gay folks are “discriminated” against in the church but in truth, most people(imo) recognize that gay people are treated differently than straight people both by the rules and by the behavior and attitudes (probably justified by some due to the rules) - 

The way that gays are treated differently is considered hurtful and even immoral by some-especially by those who have gay loved ones that they truly care about.  
 

it feels pretty gaslightish (not my favorite pop word but here we are) to see someone dig in so hard to attempt to prove that there is no harmful behavior towards gay people in the church. 

The church seems to be between a rock and a hard place on this one.

Currently with the changing of the government we might be set back quite a bit on the gay issues and it may even become illegal again. I know that sounds dramatic, but makes me worry especially with how the Roe v Wade was swiped off the face of the earth.

 

 

Edited November 7, 2024 by Tacenda

[Stormin' Mormon]

Edited to remove response.

I'm late to the party, and the point I made had already been made earlier in the thread.

Carry on.

Edited November 7, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church seems to be between and rock and a hard place on this one.

Currently with the changing of the government we might be set back quite a bit on the gay issues and it may even become illegal again. I know that sounds dramatic, but makes me worry especially with how the Roe v Wade was swiped off the face of the earth.

We are already hunkering down.

”Death before Detransitioning” is also a slogan being tossed around. I was in a dark place worrying about my transgender friends and then went and hung out with my mostly queer friend group. We were all in a black place but by the end of the evening after a lot of commiseration and hugs we were laughing it off. New organizations are being formed. Have a friend who is involved in a charity to fly people in red states to blue states for healthcare needs for pregnancy and transgender care.

Also a lot of people cutting off unsupportive family members. Going to be some lonely Thanksgivings and Christmases this year for some parents.

[MustardSeed]

39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church seems to be between and rock and a hard place on this one.

Currently with the changing of the government we might be set back quite a bit on the gay issues and it may even become illegal again. I know that sounds dramatic, but makes me worry especially with how the Roe v Wade was swiped off the face of the earth.

 

 

I agree the church is in an impossible situation.  I predicted this out loud about 25 years ago after watching a documentary about a member who was married to a man who contrived AIDS from his secret gay affairs and then died- (anyone know the name of that doc?) - It shook my world view and I told  my husband it would be a crisis for the church.  He thought I was nuts. 
 

I am sorry for how scary it is today for folks.  I don’t predict the same, but need to avoid politics here.