Sign in to follow this  
pam

News flash!! Press conference today.

Recommended Posts

Guest

Then why is non-discrimination obviously good toward men who want to have sex with other 18-year-old men, but obviously bad toward men who want to have sex with other 17-year-old men? Or obviously good toward women who want to have sex with their adult sons, but obviously bad toward women who want to have sex with their dogs? How is one sexual perversion something that should clearly be protected while the other sexual perversion somethat that clearly should not?

 

Not sure how the age-thing connects to "it takes a village".

 

But as far as the age-thing - that's not discrimination.  That's LAW.  When crafting laws, you have to make it specific.  So that, you can't just say Child.  You have to qualify what it means to be a Child.  So you end up with having sex with 17 years and 364 days old as illegal while having sex with 18 years old as legal.  The INTENT of the law is not to say having sex with 17 years and 364 days old is bad while having sex with 18 year olds is good.  The intent of the law is to say - it is not good to have sex with a person not capable of expressing mature consent.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort, I'm curious.  Why do you always go here when discussing these issues?  It doesn't further the conversation.  Shock value?  I'm baffled.

 

For clarification and understanding. The fundamental idea of "gay rights" is the legalized protection of sexual perversion. To some extent, most people today would agree with this, at least to the extent that government doesn't become invasive in the bedroom. But most people would also think there are limits to that, as for example in the case of sex with minors.

 

I see little difference between telling an apartment landlord, "You cannot refuse to rent to a woman that uses her apartment to have sex with other women" and telling the landlord, "You cannot refuse to rent to a woman that uses her apartment to have sex with her dog". There may be legalistic shades of distinction, but Eowyn suggested she was all for the proposed amendment because it was A Good Thing® and The Right Thing To Do®. So why is the one such an obviously good and moral thing but the other not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why is the one such an obviously good and moral thing but the other not?

I don't think it has much to do with one being morally good and the other not. It has to do with protecting an environment (within reason) so that people can choose between what is morally good and not. (or what they thing is morally good at least) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it has much to do with one being morally good and the other not. It has to do with protecting an environment (within reason) so that people can choose between what is morally good and not. (or what they thing is morally good at least) 

 

Agreed. So, there are those who advocate being able to have sex with animals. They are few, and they are marginalized, but they exist. And frankly, I find their reasoning just as convincing as that of the homosexual lobby.

 

There are also those who insist that adult siblings (or even parent and child!) should be allowed normal marriage and sexual relations. It's no one's business but their own. I agree with them. If homosex is legalized and protected, I cannot see any reason why so-called "incest" should not equally be legal and protected. Or sex with your dog, for that matter.

 

So picky legal arguments aside, what is the fundamental ethical/moral difference between the two? Why should I follow Eowyn's example and whole-heartedly support an amendment protecting homosexual liaisons, even to the point of requiring apartment owners to rent to homosexual couples without discrimination, yet withhold that same human right from "incestuous" adults or those who like sex with their pets? The line seems utterly arbitrary and dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. So, there are those who advocate being able to have sex with animals. They are few, and they are marginalized, but they exist. And frankly, I find their reasoning just as convincing as that of the homosexual lobby.

 

There are also those who insist that adult siblings (or even parent and child!) should be allowed normal marriage and sexual relations. It's no one's business but their own. I agree with them. If homosex is legalized and protected, I cannot see any reason why so-called "incest" should not equally be legal and protected. Or sex with your dog, for that matter.

 

So picky legal arguments aside, what is the fundamental ethical/moral difference between the two? Why should I follow Eowyn's example and whole-heartedly support an amendment protecting homosexual liaisons, even to the point of requiring apartment owners to rent to homosexual couples without discrimination, yet withhold that same human right from "incestuous" adults or those who like sex with their pets? The line seems utterly arbitrary and dishonest.

 

I wasn't aware there were laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with their dog.

 

But that aside, The news conference spelled it out and Eowyn is right.  We do not discriminate against any of God's children.  We are commanded to love everyone.  We are not commanded to love their sins.  Regardless of sexual orientation everyone is entitled to a place to live and a job.  And that was stated very clearly in the news conference today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No they aren't.

Did you hear the news conference?

 

Edit:  More than that have you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?  We are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness.  To me that means a home and a job and all the things a reasonable person would need to just live.

Edited by applepansy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take Vort's question.

 

I'll go with the idea that everyone has equal right to access food, clothing, shelter, etc. If you are wild about horses in an odd way, you should have still be able to seek out employment and shelter.

 

However, that should not mean you are free from any laws protecting horses. Have your two-bedroom apartment and your desk job, but don't break the law.

 

Yes, we should all have access to those items. We shouldn't break laws in place. They are mutually exclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware there were laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with their dog.

 

There are laws that make such sexual conduct illegal -- to the point that you go to jail for it! -- and thus effectively bar the sexual minority from societal interactions.

 

If you are an advocate of homsexual "rights", then I can think of no compelling reason that you should not be an equal advocate for the "rights" of other sexual minorities, including zoophiles and the incestuous. And if you favor equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for homosexuals, how can you be honest and consistent without also favoring equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for zoophiles and the incestuous?

 

But that aside, The news conference spelled it out and Eowyn is right.  We do not discriminate against any of God's children.  We are commanded to love everyone.  We are not commanded to love their sins.  Regardless of sexual orientation everyone is entitled to a place to live and a job.  And that was stated very clearly in the news conference today.

 

And this is fine. I agree with it, at least in principle. But how well do people live it? How much do they really believe it?

 

Do you really believe that the pedophile deserves exactly the same love and acceptance as the homosexual? Because he does. And if you do not support him, or the dog-lover, or the incestuous couple, you are acting hypocritically, pretending to a virtue you do not possess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you hear the news conference?

 

I think he was pointing out the very clear flaw in your statement...

 

If I do not have any skills or money... Being of a protected class does not mean I automatically have both a place to live and a job...  Those are valid reasons for a person not to have either one.

 

I think what you meant was that no one should be denied a place to live or a Job based solely or even mostly based on being a protected class.  That is what the church is saying.   And that is where your statement runs into problems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are laws that make such sexual conduct illegal -- to the point that you go to jail for it! -- and thus effectively bar the sexual minority from societal interactions.

 

If you are an advocate of homsexual "rights", then I can think of no compelling reason that you should not be an equal advocate for the "rights" of other sexual minorities, including zoophiles and the incestuous. And if you favor equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for homosexuals, how can you be honest and consistent without also favoring equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for zoophiles and the incestuous?

 

 

And this is fine. I agree with it, at least in principle. But how well do people live it? How much do they really believe it?

 

Do you really believe that the pedophile deserves exactly the same love and acceptance as the homosexual? Because he does. And if you do not support him, or the dog-lover, or the incestuous couple, you are acting hypocritically, pretending to a virtue you do not possess.

 

 

 

You are missing a very simple one (Compelling reason that is) Vort... The ability of both parties to consent to the act...  A lot of your examples (not all) fail when the parties involved must be capable of granting consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding villages, we need villages. Those are families in their own rights. Let's improve our villages instead of disregarding them. Satan is as much after communities as families.

I never said disregard the village.  We need to be very aware of the village and we have heard that over and over in General Conference.  We need to improve the village.  My argument is that it certainly doesn't take a village to raise a child.  And that's a reality.  Is the village raising children? Yes!  Is it good in today's world? No!  More and more families are having to protect their children from the village.  I am all for improving the village so families don't need to protect their children from the village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are laws that make such sexual conduct illegal -- to the point that you go to jail for it! -- and thus effectively bar the sexual minority from societal interactions.

 

If you are an advocate of homsexual "rights", then I can think of no compelling reason that you should not be an equal advocate for the "rights" of other sexual minorities, including zoophiles and the incestuous. And if you favor equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for homosexuals, how can you be honest and consistent without also favoring equal treatment under the law and under all civic matters for zoophiles and the incestuous?

 

 

And this is fine. I agree with it, at least in principle. But how well do people live it? How much do they really believe it?

 

Do you really believe that the pedophile deserves exactly the same love and acceptance as the homosexual? Because he does. And if you do not support him, or the dog-lover, or the incestuous couple, you are acting hypocritically, pretending to a virtue you do not possess.

 

I believe they have the same rights under the constitution.  I believe what was stated in the news conference.  I may personally consider all the extremes to be aberrant behaviors, but that doesn't give me the right to not rent to someone or give them a job.  

 

Yes I really do believe a pedophile who hasn't acted on his sexual desires deserves the right to a home and a job.  If the pedophile has acted on his sexual desires and has sexually abused children then he loses the right to live wherever he wants to and has to live where society can keep other children safe.  That's a consequence of acting on desires that are abusive and illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take Vort's question.

 

I'll go with the idea that everyone has equal right to access food, clothing, shelter, etc. If you are wild about horses in an odd way, you should have still be able to seek out employment and shelter.

 

However, that should not mean you are free from any laws protecting horses. Have your two-bedroom apartment and your desk job, but don't break the law.

 

Yes, we should all have access to those items. We shouldn't break laws in place. They are mutually exclusive.

 

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying: Any legal action must also be a protected action. That's what it means to be legal. Therefore:

  • If zoophilia is legalized, we and the Church and all decent people would decry those who refuse to rent to zoophiles.
  • If pedophilia is legalized, we and the Church and all decent people would decry those who refuse to rent to pedophiles.
  • If euthanasia is legalized, we and the Church and all decent people would decry those who refuse to rent to those who kill their aged parents.

This may indeed be a true principle. I just want to know if people championing the homosexuality non-discrimination laws accept these very obvious extensions to that support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I wasn't aware there were laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with their dog.

 

But that aside, The news conference spelled it out and Eowyn is right.  We do not discriminate against any of God's children.  We are commanded to love everyone.  We are not commanded to love their sins.  Regardless of sexual orientation everyone is entitled to a place to live and a job.  And that was stated very clearly in the news conference today.

 

There aren't any laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with the same gender either.

 

But that aside, yes, the news conference says they are entitled to a place to live and a job.  But, what the news conference doesn't say is that everyone is also entitled to a college education.  We are also commanded to love everyone including those who likes to drink beer and have sex before marriage but that doesn't mean that BYU have to accept them in their school.

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he was pointing out the very clear flaw in your statement...

 

If I do not have any skills or money... Being of a protected class does not mean I automatically have both a place to live and a job...  Those are valid reasons for a person not to have either one.

 

I think what you meant was that no one should be denied a place to live or a Job based solely or even mostly based on being a protected class.  That is what the church is saying.   And that is where your statement runs into problems

There wasn't a flaw in my statement.  I didn't say we have a right to live in a mansion or have any job we want regardless of our qualification.;  I said we have a right to a place to live and a job.    What that place to live or job looks like is very much determined by our qualifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

You are missing a very simple one (Compelling reason that is) Vort... The ability of both parties to consent to the act...  A lot of your examples (not all) fail when the parties involved must be capable of granting consent.

 

Dog advocates will not be happy with you if you imply that dogs are not capable of granting consent.  ;)

Edited by anatess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing a very simple one (Compelling reason that is) Vort... The ability of both parties to consent to the act...  A lot of your examples (not all) fail when the parties involved must be capable of granting consent.

 

This line of reasoning has always struck me as truly unconvincing. We kill animals, cut them to pieces, and eat their flesh. And we don't get their consent before doing so. We lock animals in cages, infect them with diseases, try experimental surgeries on them, cut out their brains, and sometimes even vivisect them -- all without procuring their consent beforehand. Why? Because they are animals, not people, and therefore they have no rights.

 

So we're really going to be concerned about the animal consenting to sex?! That is absurd beyond expression.

 

The reason sex with animals is illegal has NOTHING to do with "consent". That is a red herring. The reason sex with animals is illegal is because it's gross and disgusting, and generally believed to contribute to societal decay.

 

But hey, that's what most people thought about homosexuality up until the most recent generation. So where is the real difference? I maintain there is not one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you hear the news conference?

 

Edit:  More than that have you read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?  We are all entitled to the pursuit of happiness.  To me that means a home and a job and all the things a reasonable person would need to just live.

Nope . . . life, liberty, pursuit of happiness . . . . nothing about housing in there.

 

I can guarantee I've studied it way more than you have.  

 

Life, liberty, property, doesn't mean I have the right to force someone else to provide me with something.

 

Who owns the apartment complex, the government? Nope.  Whoever owns it has the right to pursue their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as they see fit.  The moment you claim they must provide you housing you have infringed on their pursuit of happiness. 

 

You are infringing on the owner's rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by making the claim that you are entitled to their housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't any laws that restricted you from renting to someone who likes to have sex with the same gender either.

 

But that aside, yes, the news conference says they are entitled to a place to live and a job.  But, what the news conference doesn't say is that everyone is also entitled to a college education.  We are also commanded to love everyone including those who likes to drink beer and have sex before marriage but that doesn't mean that BYU have to accept them in their school.

And I never said they were entitled to attend BYU.  A few here are reading that into my simple statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vort, in substance I agree with you.  I'm a libertarian, and if I'm running a hotel or boarding house or apartment complex--my house, my rules.  If I want to tell my tenants that they can't smoke, or cook meth, or run a telemarketing operation, or keep a dog, or sodomize each other, or use contraception, or have sex at all under my roof--by golly, I think I have a natural right to do so; because it's my property.  Irrational discrimination, I believe, is best dealt with by the market; and holding a gun to people's heads and telling them to "play nice" cannot, does not, and will not work in society any more than it works on the playground. 

 

I also acknowledge the immorality of a person's being denied housing or employment just because of the types of sexual intercourse that person find appealing (regardless of whether the person actually engages in said intercourse or not), but let's be blunt--nondiscrimination legislation is, at the end of the day, about legitimatizing and accepting practices, not people.

 

So, yes:  From a political standpoint, I think nondiscrimination legislation is generally wrong.

 

And yet the Church has endorsed it.  Why?  Have the Church leaders gone soft?  Have they decided, after the last twenty years since the Proclamation on the Family issued, that this Law of Chastity thing isn't such a big deal after all?

 

I rather think not.  The apostles that presented today have a combined two-hundred-odd years of life experience, and two of the finest legal minds (Oaks and Christofferson) in the Church today.  The quorum they represent, in conjunction with the First Presidency, has over a thousand years of life experience.  I sustain them all as prophets, seers, and revelators. 

 

Even so:  there have been many, many times in Church history that the Church acted in ways that I may not feel were per se right, but which turned out to be necessary.  For example: 

  • The Church currently denies baptism and other priesthood ordinances to millions of Hitler's victims, simply because they are Jewish.  I think that's wrong.  But it's also necessary because of external pressures on our family history program.
  • At the height of the Mexican war--which it's hard for me not to think of as a wholly unwarranted land grab--the Church sent five hundred volunteers to fight in that war, for the same government that had just allowed unspeakable horrors to be perpetrated against them.  I think that was wrong.  But it was also necessary, both because the US Army was paying in desperately-needed gold, and because the Church could sense where the political winds were blowing and needed to make sure it wasn't adverse to the guys who were ultimately going to come out on top.
  • Abandoning Jackson County was wrong.  We were supposed to build up that place.  But it was necessary, because of the armed opposition that was insistent on our leaving; and a later revelation approved the action.
  • I happen think the Church's policy on immigration undermines the United States' long-term sovereignty and is wrong.  But I also think it is necessary given the prophecies of what the Lamanites' descendants are going to do to the seed of the Gentiles in the last days with or without the Church's policies--so again, it may be best to adopt a "make ye friends of the mammon of unrighteousness" position.

Here, too:  I'm not completely comfortable with the Church's concession re nondiscrimination legislation.  I wasn't in 2009, and I'm not now.  But I have confirmation--just in this past hour--that the Church leadership is acting with divine sanction in order to forestall, or at least blunt the effects of, whatever fresh hell Babylon has in store for us.  If our leaders don't know exactly what they're doing, the Lord does; and so I'm content to let the matter rest there.

As a libertarian and even an American, I may well live to regret what the Church has done today.  As a Latter-day Saint I believe I will not.  My testimony and my hope is that at some point in the eternities, this curious decision will rank with Nephi's seemingly bizarre action of making a second set of gold plates.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This line of reasoning has always struck me as truly unconvincing. We kill animals, cut them to pieces, and eat their flesh. And we don't get their consent before doing so. We lock animals in cages, infect them with diseases, try experimental surgeries on them, cut out their brains, and sometimes even vivisect them -- all without procuring their consent beforehand. Why? Because they are animals, not people, and therefore they have no rights.

 

So we're really going to be concerned about the animal consenting to sex?! That is absurd beyond expression.

 

The reason sex with animals is illegal has NOTHING to do with "consent". That is a red herring. The reason sex with animals is illegal is because it's gross and disgusting, and generally believed to contribute to societal decay.

 

But hey, that's what most people thought about homosexuality up until the most recent generation. So where is the real difference? I maintain there is not one.

 

Honesty... I was focused more on your posts dealing with children

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this