Sign in to follow this  
pam

News flash!! Press conference today.

Recommended Posts

Guest

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

 

I thought you and Eowyn were supporting the notion that you can't deny them housing in your apartment complex because they are homosexual.  If that isn't correct, I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

If the church is saying that morally one shouldn't be denied a job or housing . . . then sure I can by that, possibly.  But maybe I'm an apartment owner and I find that SS individuals bring a host of issues that I don't want to deal with then they are wrong.

 

If the church is saying that legally one shouldn't be denied a job or housing, then they are flat out wrong.

 

edit: the above is made with the assumption of the absence of violence.  

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having Quote issues today.

 

In rely to Vort, I don't think we have business, in the legal sense, of worrying about people's oddities.

 

If they act out on those, that is another, legal matter. If you aren't acting on your illegal desires, I don't care what you do. I'm not going to brainscan everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

That's completely a matter of legal definition. We have the age of consent as 18 (or maybe 16 or 17, not sure). But a simple change in the law could drop the legal age of consent to 12. Or 8. Or 4.

 

I am 100% confident, and I expect you will agree, that there are many 18-year-olds who, though they can legally consent to sex, utterly lack the maturity to make that decision responsibly, while there are many 13-year-olds who, though unable legally to consent to sex, have the emotional and physical maturity to do so responsibly (or at least as responsibly as many 30-year-olds do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having Quote issues today.

 

In rely to Vort, I don't think we have business, in the legal sense, of worrying about people's oddities.

 

If they act out on those, that is another, legal matter. If you aren't acting on your illegal desires, I don't care what you do. I'm not going to brainscan everyone.

 

So again, this is purely a matter of legality, right? If rape were legal, we should be ashamed of ourselves if we refuse to rent to rapists. Right?

 

I don't know if I agree with that. It's not obvious to me. What is painfully obvious to me is that many who jump on the "nondiscrimination" bandwagon have not thought the issue through.

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 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 Chruch 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.

Thank you for saying this so well.  I failed.   :)

 

I would like to correct a misconception.  The church is not denying baptism, etc to Hilter's victims.  The rule in place is that you have to be a direct descendent to do the work.  If you are, go for it.  If not, leave it for their family to do.

Edited by applepansy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone has a right to housing and a job without being discriminated against due to their sexual preference.  And Vort I'm not talking about with animals and such.  The press conference was regarding the LGBT community. So I'm leaving it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

The church is big enough now that for better or worse it has to play politics to some extent . . . it's been that way ever since Utah became a state.  Polygamy would not have gone away had the US gov. not forced the issue.  God saw it was necessary for the church to give it up.  Polygamy is still part of God's plan . . . unfortunately too many members of the church believe it was wrong.

 

The same with this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[excellent post redacted]

 

JAG, I agree with every particular in your post*. I might even add Official Declaration 1 as something that was wrong but necessary (and, IMO, at least partially a result of the Saints' inability to live that commandment in a Godly manner, despite their honest efforts -- but that's another topic).

 

*[EDIT] Except for the libertarian bent. I am much less a libertarian purist than I might sometimes sound like.

 

I, too, support the Church. I, too, do not question the wisdom or inspiration (especially the latter) of our leaders. I, too, happily fall in line behind them.

 

But I think that anyone who voices full-throated support for homosexual nondiscrimination should (1) understand the ramifications and consequences of such legislation and (2) be able to present some sort of honest discussion of those issues -- or at the very least, freely admit that they can't reconcile the various positions.

 

It is telling to me that many of the same people who so whole-heartedly support nondiscrimination against homosexuals are also vocal in their condemnation of pedophiles, and zoophiles, and the incestuous, and other such sexual minorities. To me, that bespeaks a lack of consideration of both the issues involved and the principles underlying those issues. But when I try to bring those issues up for discussion, I get accused of pedantry and picking fights.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with JaG on the matter. I think the church is supporting non-discrimination as a bandaid (based on understanding as given by revelation from the Lord), rather than as a catch-all virtue that non-discrimination is the righteous path in every instance. I think viewing non-discrimination as right in every case is silly and destructive. I also believe that laws are meant to reflect morality, and the fact that society has morally accepted homosex as moral is sad. But the fact is, simply, that society HAS accepted it as moral. Therefore, to get along with society, we must accommodate their right to view morality different than us. In this case, that principle means advocating for non-discrimination. The church's stance, in my mind, is clearly an indication that being civil and allowing society to decay if they choose to do so is the overriding principle, and does not speak to the idea of non-discrimination as a principle of right/wrong at all.

 

In my thinking, discrimination is neither good nor bad in and of itself. Good discrimination exists. So does bad discrimination. The mere discriminatory act or thought does not self-define itself as inherently wrong. It is more complicated than that. To simply claim that we should not discriminate strikes me as a view that has not been fully considered. I believe that is the point Vort is trying to express with his questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that is the point Vort is trying to express with his questions.

 

You are perhaps giving me a bit too much credit. Though I agree with what you wrote, my intent was to bring these issues to light and generate some thought and discussion on the matters, not to cleverly tell people what you outlined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about this some more . . . I wonder if they are trying to get in front of this:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/16/supreme-court-to-hear-gay-marriage-cases-in-april/

 

If that is the case, I think we can know now how that will turn out.

 

How fast does society and whims change . . . 1986 to now . . .wow.

Edited by yjacket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are perhaps giving me a bit too much credit. Though I agree with what you wrote, my intent was to bring these issues to light and generate some thought and discussion on the matters, not to cleverly tell people what you outlined.

 

Fair enough. But intentionally or not, the ideas raised by the questions do outline just that. Is non-discrimination an overreaching principle, particularly in the case of sexual tastes, or is there a time and a place where discrimination is appropriate?  And, particularly in the case of sexual tastes and behavior, is it ever appropriate to discriminate on nothing but the, "that's disgusting" factor?

 

The point, ultimately, coming down to -- do those saying they support non-discrimination for sexual tastes and action REALLY mean it? Which I believe you not only implied, but straight-up said. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with JaG on the matter. I think the church is supporting non-discrimination as a bandaid (based on understanding as given by revelation from the Lord), rather than as a catch-all virtue that non-discrimination is the righteous path in every instance. I think viewing non-discrimination as right in every case is silly and destructive. I also believe that laws are meant to reflect morality, and the fact that society has morally accepted homosex as moral is sad. But the fact is, simply, that society HAS accepted it as moral. Therefore, to get along with society, we must accommodate their right to view morality different than us. In this case, that principle means advocating for non-discrimination. The church's stance, in my mind, is clearly an indication that being civil and allowing society to decay if they choose to do so is the overriding principle, and does not speak to the idea of non-discrimination as a principle of right/wrong at all.

 

In my thinking, discrimination is neither good nor bad in and of itself. Good discrimination exists. So does bad discrimination. The mere discriminatory act or thought does not self-define itself as inherently wrong. It is more complicated than that. To simply claim that we should not discriminate strikes me as a view that has not been fully considered. I believe that is the point Vort is trying to express with his questions.

. . . allowing society to decay.  Do we have a choice to not allow the decay?

 

We know the world will get worse.  We have been told its going to get worse.  It has to get worse.

 

My feelings are,  I hope it gets bad fast so it can be over sooner and 1000 years of peace can start.  I can't change anyone but myself.  As long as I can stand before my Savior and say I did my best to treat all Heavenly Father's children as best I could, then I'm doing my best to live the "love one another" commandment.

 

What I took from the news conference this morning was simply a declaration that the Church expects the same rights as the LCBT community is fighting for.  Everything else.... its just noise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.My feelings are,  I hope it gets bad fast so it can be over sooner and 1000 years of peace can start.

 

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Christ will come when he comes, and the wickedness of the world will not change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. . . allowing society to decay.  Do we have a choice to not allow the decay?

 

In this particular case I meant "allow" in the same sense as allowing others to worship how, where, and what they may. A general term that implies more than it might literally mean. We cannot truly allow or disallow these things, because they are based on agency which cannot be removed, but we can TRY to dis-allow them by advocating for legal restrictions and punishments and the like. I merely mean that the church is choosing to not TRY and dis-allow them by legal restrictions and punishment at this point in history. There are, clearly, other points in history where the "church" as led by revelation from God, distinctly dis-allowed moral decay by way of severe punishment, up-to-and-including death. And it is certainly worth noting that even these severe laws did not literally dis-allow wicked behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was already in support of this, as there is an exemption for those performing marriages and churches in general. No one should be denied a place to work, live, sleep, eat, shop, etc. because of their sexual preference or identity. Personally I'm glad to see the Church agree and this only strengthens my testimony.

If a person does not own the place where they wish to work, live, sleep, eat, shop, etc... then those who do own where a person wishes to work, live, sleep, eat, shop, etc... should indeed be able to deny them access to those areas if that is what they desire to do with their home/business/venture/interest/property/resources...

It may not be nice.

It may not be fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, it doesn't work this way. Christ will come when he comes, and the wickedness of the world will not change that.

I agree Christ will come when He comes.

 

I'm too tired and busy to look up all the GA talks about the wickedness that will occur before Christ comes.  :)  I really should be doing other things.

 

So . . . off to do other things. 

 

Have a great day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe the nonsense that it takes a village to raise a child.  What it does take is a Family!  Our family has been trying to protect our children from the village for a few decades now.   :(

 

At the risk of being contrarian, I actually agree with the adage -- despite its usage by Hillary Clinton. A healthy society will take a very strong collective interest in the children and will help with child-rearing. Clearly the family is and must be the central agent in rearing the child, but the role of "the village" should not be discounted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

San Antonio passed an LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 in the face of long and nauseating opposition from conservative Christian groups. It's refreshing to see the LDS church take a supportive stance on this issue.

And FYI, this isn't a change in Church policy. From the LDS Newsroom:

"This position is consistent with the Church’s support in 2009 for Salt Lake City ordinances that protected housing and employment rights for LGBT people and with statements the Church made against bullying and intimidation of gay youth in 2010. At the time of the Salt Lake City ordinances, the Church emphasized that its support was possible because the provisions also took account of religious liberties."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by estradling75, January 27, 2015 - dups
Hidden by estradling75, January 27, 2015 - dups

San Antonio passed an LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 in the face of long and nauseating opposition from conservative Christian groups. It's refreshing to see the LDS church take a supportive stance on this issue.

And FYI, this isn't a change in Church policy. From the LDS Newsroom:

"This position is consistent with the Church’s support in 2009 for Salt Lake City ordinances that protected housing and employment rights for LGBT people and with statements the Church made against bullying and intimidation of gay youth in 2010. At the time of the Salt Lake City ordinances, the Church emphasized that its support was possible because the provisions also took account of religious liberties."

Share this post


Link to post
Posted · Hidden by estradling75, January 27, 2015 - dups
Hidden by estradling75, January 27, 2015 - dups

San Antonio passed an LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 in the face of long and nauseating opposition from conservative Christian groups. It's refreshing to see the LDS church take a supportive stance on this issue.

And FYI, this isn't a change in Church policy. From the LDS Newsroom:

"This position is consistent with the Church’s support in 2009 for Salt Lake City ordinances that protected housing and employment rights for LGBT people and with statements the Church made against bullying and intimidation of gay youth in 2010. At the time of the Salt Lake City ordinances, the Church emphasized that its support was possible because the provisions also took account of religious liberties."

Share this post


Link to post

San Antonio passed an LGBT anti-discrimination ordinance in 2013 in the face of long and nauseating opposition from conservative Christian groups.

 

What was the nature of the opposition? Was it libertarian-based or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the nature of the opposition? Was it libertarian-based or something else?

 

Not really. They went with the much less subtle "It's our right to discriminate against people who don't share our values" approach. I understand and respect the need for religious institutions to practice according to their dogma without government interference, and I fully support the Church's desire to maintain its religious liberty on the issue of gay marriage. I think this is the one hurdle that's keeping more religious leaders from supporting anti-discrimination laws. SS couples aren't entitled to a church-sanctioned marriage the way that they're entitled to equality in the workplace, housing markets, and secular marriage.

Edited by Godless

Share this post


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