Sign in to follow this  
pam

News flash!! Press conference today.

Recommended Posts

Utah's legislature is in session (or about to be) (for those of you who aren't in Utah, our legislature only meets for about six weeks out of every year), and there's a bill in the works that would explicitly allow those who are legally allowed to solemnize marriages to decline to solemnize a particular marriage on religious grounds.  My guess is that the Church is going to make a statement about that and/or similar legislation.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The Idaho legislature is currently debating an "Add the Words" amendment, stating:

 

 

 

 

We support the addition of lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people to the Idaho Human Rights Act. Every Idahoan deserves to be treated with respect and dignity and enjoy equal protection under the law

 

 

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.

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.

 

Are you sure? If a man openly admits that he is sexually attracted to horses, or dogs -- or children -- do you think he should be granted the same access to housing, work, shopping, and so forth as anyone else?

 

I'm not saying he shouldn't be granted such access. I'm not actually expressing an opinion at all. I just want to know if you really believe that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even going to dignify that.

 

Sorry you took offense. My question was in earnest, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. If we say "It's bad to discriminate based on sexual preference!", do we mean it? Or do we mean only those sexual preferences that are currently being promoted by outside (immoral) interests as acceptable?

 

I also don't think there's an obvious correct answer. If the answer is, "No, I don't support horse lovers or child sex advocates having equal access to societal means", then the whole idea of "nondiscrimination based on sexual preference" is false. Isn't it? Seems obvious to me that it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Sorry you took offense. My question was in earnest, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. If we say "It's bad to discriminate based on sexual preference!", do we mean it? Or do we mean only those sexual preferences that are currently being promoted by outside (immoral) interests as acceptable?

 

I also don't think there's an obvious correct answer. If the answer is, "No, I don't support horse lovers or child sex advocates having equal access to societal means", then the whole idea of "nondiscrimination based on sexual preference" is false. Isn't it? Seems obvious to me that it is.

 

 

This is really more a question of balance - the balance between "it takes a village" and "discrimination".  Because, if "it takes a village" then I, for one, want to be able to control who gets to be in the village.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was speaking in support of the amendment, which specifies:

 

 

 

 lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people

 

No mention of pedophiles or horse lovers. 

 

Sorry if I'm not in the mood for the Vort Performs Microsurgery on Your Statements game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry you took offense. My question was in earnest, and I think it's perfectly reasonable. If we say "It's bad to discriminate based on sexual preference!", do we mean it? Or do we mean only those sexual preferences that are currently being promoted by outside (immoral) interests as acceptable?

 

I also don't think there's an obvious correct answer. If the answer is, "No, I don't support horse lovers or child sex advocates having equal access to societal means", then the whole idea of "nondiscrimination based on sexual preference" is false. Isn't it? Seems obvious to me that it is.

We should mean it.  Everyone is a child of our Heavenly Father.  They have a right to housing and work.  They have a right to live.   They also have a right to the natural consequences of their actions.  But as a society we don't have the right to say they can't live or work in our community.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really more a question of balance - the balance between "it takes a village" and "discrimination".  Because, if "it takes a village" then I, for one, want to be able to control who gets to be in the village.

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.  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is really more a question of balance - the balance between "it takes a village" and "discrimination".  Because, if "it takes a village" then I, for one, want to be able to control who gets to be in the village.

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm interested in the answer to Vort's question, too.  It's the concept of pushing an idea to an extreme to see if it still holds.

 

I have recently become more aware of this concept during a conversation i had with the hubby.  We were discussing a chapter we read together in a Christian book about forgiveness.  It reminded me of an unusual idea about forgiveness i had read in an LDS book.  I found the book and read the part i was thinking of to my hubby.  He said it was an interesting idea and held very well for the flippant example the author used but suggested we use a more extreme example to see if it still held.  We did, and the idea didn't hold very well for the more extreme example.  It was fascinating.  It doesn't mean the idea doesn't have merit at all, just that it maybe doesn't always hold for every situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

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.   :(

 

A village is a collection of families.  A family is an island when facing a sea of villagers.  The village, therefore, sets the culture that is the backdrop of family values.

 

Take an Amish family out of his community and see if you can keep his children Amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was speaking in support of the amendment, which specifies:

 

 

No mention of pedophiles or horse lovers. 

 

Sorry if I'm not in the mood for the Vort Performs Microsurgery on Your Statements game.

 

Are not horse lovers just as much children of God as "lesbian, gay bisexual and transgender people"?

 

I'm not playing games, Eowyn. This is called a "discussion list" because it's where we discuss things. That's all I'm doing. If you find me that unpleasant, feel free to do as others have done and ignore me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Key word here is "want":.... Wanting is not against the law.  Acting on the want against the law that states sex with underage children is wrong.  That's not discrimination in the sense we're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, people, it's not a batter of balance, it's a matter of whether or not a person belongs to a protected class.  Outside of that, the argument is kind-of mute.

 

Sorry, I can't tell whether you're being cynical, tongue-in-cheek, or serious.

Share this post


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