BYU & Equality Act


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fether said:

Maybe you can help me with this then. Today, Is there anything gained on accusing the LGBTQ movement of supporting pedophilia when they currently do not?

Define “supporting”?

I think that there’s been so much of tying homosexuality to pedophilia in the past, and it’s become such a sore topic with gay folk and they’re so hyper-defensive about it, that it’s dangerous to really invoke pedophilia in any context in these sorts of discussions.

But, I think LGBTQ advocates (and social progressives generally) haven’t put a lot of thought into developing a viable, comprehensive system of sexual ethics to replace the one they’ve rejected; and I think they should be challenged to come up with something if they think they can.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Shameless hypocrites. Of course pedophilia is a sexual orientation, just a much so as homosexuality. That they so openly reject it makes them openly guilty of doing exactly what they decry in others.

How is an adult taking advantage of a child the same as a gay relationship? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It might be interesting to take a moment to unpack the ethical presumptions that underlie the bolded portion above, and their origins. 

In this context I’d say taking advantage happens with the age disparity. If you have a gay relationship where the couple is close to the same age, I’d put that in a different category, but if you’re talking about a gay relationship with an 18 year old with a 55 year old, I would consider that pedophilia even if the law doesn’t.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, clbent04 said:

In this context I’d say taking advantage happens with the age disparity. If you have a gay relationship where the couple is close to the same age, I’d put that in a different category, but if you’re talking about a gay relationship with an 18 year old with a 55 year old, I would consider that pedophilia even if the law doesn’t.  

Which points out that your private definitions are irrelevant. Whether or not you consider some given relationship "pedophilia" is of no moment at all. It's purely a legal definition. And if we simply change the legal definition, guess what? Not illegal any more!

A child's "sexual rights" have been talked about by the same crowd that has driven the pro-homosexuality bus. Why do you suppose young teenage girls can get oral contraceptives, or even an abortion, without parental consent or even notification?

Why is the age of 16 (or 14, or whatever) the legal age of consent? Why not 30? Why not 3? Sure there are reasons given. You or I might agree with this or that reason, but ultimately it's a social construct. And our society is sexually libertine and perverse, as is demonstrated by the mere fact that saying "Homosexual relations are immoral" is now considered offensive and the speaker of this most obvious truth labeled a "homophobe".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, clbent04 said:

How is an adult taking advantage of a child the same as a gay relationship? 

Do you deny that some people are sexually attracted to children? How is that not a sexual orientation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, clbent04 said:

In this context I’d say taking advantage happens with the age disparity. If you have a gay relationship where the couple is close to the same age, I’d put that in a different category, but if you’re talking about a gay relationship with an 18 year old with a 55 year old, I would consider that pedophilia even if the law doesn’t.  

This is a start, but so far the reasoning is largely tautological—“it’s wrong because I say/everyone knows it is wrong”—which is where we were with homosexuality forty years ago.

So, let’s examine this more deeply.

What ethical principles tell us that an age disparity is potentially problematic in a sexual relationship?

How so we even define who’s taking advantage of whom?

If the animal kingdom doesn’t exalt notions of consent or age similarity or power balance between the letters—why should humans?

Why should someone mind “being taken advantage of”, as you call it; and why should the rest of us care even if they do?

Having disregarded the idea that nature’s god prescribes certain mores of sexual behavior (even if creation itself often flouts them)—on what, then, do we justify having any mores at all?  Why don’t we adopt a simple “might makes might” moral paradigm?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Define “supporting”?

I think that there’s been so much of tying homosexuality to pedophilia in the past, and it’s become such a sore topic with gay folk and they’re so hyper-defensive about it, that it’s dangerous to really invoke pedophilia in any context in these sorts of discussions.

But, I think LGBTQ advocates (and social progressives generally) haven’t put a lot of thought into developing a viable, comprehensive system of sexual ethics to replace the one they’ve rejected; and I think they should be challenged to come up with something if they think they can.

What's been happening is that groups which support pedophilia and beastiality have tried to get them classed under the LGBT "rainbow", essentially attempting to hijack the movement for their own ends. 

Not helping matters any is how often we have situations like what took place in Houston, where the people in charge of "Drag Queen Story Hour" at one of the city's libraries didn't do proper background checks on the drag queens who were coming in and so a convicted sex offender wound up being able to work with children. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2021 at 10:27 AM, mikbone said:

We can all agree that pedophilia, necrophilia, and polygamy are wrong or can we?

Do you really expect those frequenting a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forum to put polygamy on the same plain as "wrong" with pedophilia and necrophilia?

(And, yes, I just quoted the same thing as @mordorbund did above me...because that's when I saw the comment....so I found it to comment.)

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion that we can (and should) include science into our context of sexual behavior.  Contrary to what many seem to be thinking in our society - sexual attraction have been scientifically studied in many species - including the human species. Humans are the most intelligent species that we know of and have studied.  We define intelligence in a species as the ability learn and modify behavior.   

What does it mean to learn and modify behavior?  There are well defined terms for learning.  The lowest cognitive level of learning was first defined by Pavlov.  Most that study behavior are familiar with the famous Pavlov's dog experiment of teaching a dog to salivate when a light is turned on.  I would point out that in Pavlov's experiment that the dog did not choose to acquire the learned salivation behavior in what we normally think of as a choice of will.  Such choices are acquired through what we call the parasympathetic system.  If it is necessary for understanding in this thread I will explain in more detail the difference between the parasympathetic and sympathetic systems in humans (or someone else with knowledge can do it as well) but for the general understanding I will catalog one as logical and requires blood flow the the brain for logical thinking - the other being a gut response that literally requires that the brain receive less blood flow while the gut receives more. 

Scientific research tells us that sexual attractions are parasympathetic acquire responses.  I am not aware of a single scientific study to suggest otherwise.  I am sorry for those that are convinced otherwise about their individualized sexual attractions simply because they are ignoring real science making their assumptions unscientific or scientifically WRONG.   The truth is that regardless of someone's sexual perceptions - you were not born that way.  We know this as a scientific fact!

It is also well defined in science - in particular the science of evolution  that the only individuals in a species that are defined as "fit" are those that pass their specific genetic material onto a next generation.  The official term is "survival of the fittest".  As best as I can determine the entire LGBTQ+ demographic and anyone that sympathizes such (to any degree) are unscientific and very much mistaken as to what is fit for a species survival.    I will use the term that is contrary to intelligence (thought I understand that many feel it is insensitive but I believe that inability to think and act with intelligence is the very definition of stupid) - thus my term to describe such thinking is stupidity

I personally do not have a problem with individuals that insist on being stupid.  I have learned that no amount of intelligence can alter someone insistent on being stupid.   What I do have a problem with is when such individuals acquire political and social power and require that others accept their stupidity as intelligence or scientific.    Please note that up to this point - I have not said anything about religion or religious beliefs.  I believe it is possible that false religion is as oblivious to truth as false science.  It is obvious to me that science is more apt to intelligently understand truth than is religion.  But let us be clear - there are human exploits that are so self centered that the logic of truth becomes unacceptable.   We call this ego or an egomaniac.

But there is one other problem with what is defined as sexual relationships.  Sex can cause the release of chemicals that are easily addictive.   This can cause acquired sexual behaviors to be highly addictive which can interfere with the intelligent expression of will.  An so I understand that a very long list of acquired sexual behaviors that will render individuals "unfit" to propagate the species.  It is obvious to me that the LGBTQ+ community is well defined within this category.   However, I have acquired an intelligent religious bias that all individuals within the human species are divine intelligent offspring and capable of exercising their intelligent choice in what I understand as agency.  I have acquired great respect for individual intelligence and completely support individual agency.  But I will be honest - especially when it comes to sex and sexual relationships - I have no sympathy for those that reject the biological ability to be fit (fittest) and sire a next generation with sufficient intelligence to be biologically intelligently fit themselves.   In essence nothing is unless - it can always be used as a Bad example.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Vort said:

Which points out that your private definitions are irrelevant. Whether or not you consider some given relationship "pedophilia" is of no moment at all. It's purely a legal definition. And if we simply change the legal definition, guess what? Not illegal any more!

Only thing relevant is America's general attitude towards these topics. 

The day that parents become the minority voter and childless voters the majority, that's the day I'll start worrying. Should I be worrying right now? I gave up after 5 minutes of trying to find a graph of what percentage of American voters have kids.

As long as the majority of voters is composed of parents, I take some comfort in the innate parental instinct to protect our children.

1.jpg.72815f8a40f7a6aa2ffd24a5ff6984c4.jpg

Interestingly enough, I found this graph showing the percentage of women who have given birth is roughly the same as what it was in 1976 compared to 2016.

2.jpg.c9c797aa8dea75c0438e2ed0f0812a35.jpg

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Do you deny that some people are sexually attracted to children? How is that not a sexual orientation?

I don't see how you can make the slippery slope argument stating that pedophilia is just 3 steps away from homosexuality (assuming that's what you're suggesting).  If that's the case, I need to interview some of the town folk from Sodom and Gomorrah to see how kids were treated back then and question if the US is better or worse relatively speaking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What ethical principles tell us that an age disparity is potentially problematic in a sexual relationship?

BECAUSE

How so we even define who’s taking advantage of whom?

I

If the animal kingdom doesn’t exalt notions of consent or age similarity or power balance between the letters—why should humans?

SAID

Why should someone mind “being taken advantage of”, as you call it; and why should the rest of us care even if they do?

SO

Having disregarded the idea that nature’s god prescribes certain mores of sexual behavior (even if creation itself often flouts them)—on what, then, do we justify having any mores at all?  Why don’t we adopt a simple “might makes might” moral paradigm?

I don't have any good answers.  I'm glad I don't have to litigate this kind of stuff.  God speed to whoever does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you really expect those frequenting a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints forum to put polygamy on the same plain as "wrong" with pedophilia and necrophilia?

(And, yes, I just quoted the same thing as @mordorbund did above me...because that's when I saw the comment....so I found it to comment.)

You got me.  

Yes, occasionally I do use humor and sarcasm.  

This thread is about the Equality Act.  I can assure you that this legislation is not about equality.  You are being lied to.

The LGBTQ+ movement has definitely done much good for those who have alternative lifestyles.  Everyone should be able to feel safe in our society.  Jobs and opportunities should be based on merit without prejudice.  Nonetheless, Satan and his minions have an interest in the movement and will do whatever they can to exploit the innocent and make sin more palatable to everyone.

Pedophilia is wrong, no doubt.  And hardly anyone would profess their support (excepting the nimrods of NAMBLA).  But look at the numbers of people practicing pedophilia right now or enjoying child pornography.  It is heartbreaking!

https://cacjc.org/the-shocking-facts-about-child-pornography/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

From wikipedia - Incest

“Incest between an adult and a person under the age of consent is considered a form of child sexual abuse that has been shown to be one of the most extreme forms of childhood abuse; it often results in serious and long-term psychological trauma, especially in the case of parental incest. Its prevalence is difficult to generalize, but research has estimated 10–15% of the general population as having at least one such sexual contact, with less than 2% involving intercourse or attempted intercourse. Among women, research has yielded estimates as high as 20%.”

No one endorses necrophilia.  But, I'm sure if it was legally acceptable, and accessible.  You would find many people doing it.  I work in a hospital, I have witnessed some crazy stuff.  Guess what, all of our fellow human beings are not upstanding citizens.  

There has been an overwhelming disgust with polygamy in our society.  Everyone laughs at the "Mormons" and we watch TV shows of the Mormon Splinter groups to entertain us and make us feel better about ourselves.  Yet our society is totally ok with adultery and fornication.  Have as many mistresses or escorts as you want - as long as you don't get caught.  Polygamy will unlikely be legalized in our country because of the legal implications.  Health Insurance companies will lobby against Polygamy.  It would be abused by people wanting to work the system, health care, taxes, applying for citizenship by marriage, etc.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I don't see how you can make the slippery slope argument stating that pedophilia is just 3 steps away from homosexuality (assuming that's what you're suggesting).  If that's the case, I need to interview some of the town folk from Sodom and Gomorrah to see how kids were treated back then and question if the US is better or worse relatively speaking. 

Is pedophilia a sexual orientation or is it not? Just answer the question. It's really just yes or no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, clbent04 said:

I just can’t bring myself to tee this one up for you. You’re MLB, Vort, not tee ball.

45AB8DF7-10D1-4E8A-AC5D-DB5524EC1A39.jpeg.794807f3dff8c5901986267e4b533d15.jpeg

You object to me comparing pedophilia with homosexuality, ignoring the fact that both are real sexual orientations. The homosexual lobby has made a great deal over the past few decades about how homosexuality is perfectly natural and an immutable characteristic. Yet these hypocrites show no sympathy for pedophiles, who doubtless have every bit as much claim to an immutable sexual orientation as do the homosexuals. (The legitimacy of such claims are, of course, close to zero. But whatever glimmer of truth there is to that claim about homosexuality applies equally to pedophilia.)

That is quite obviously my central point, yet you keep avoiding it. I would rather you address it in an honest and straightforward manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, clbent04 said:

I don't see how you can make the slippery slope argument stating that pedophilia is just 3 steps away from homosexuality (assuming that's what you're suggesting).  If that's the case, I need to interview some of the town folk from Sodom and Gomorrah to see how kids were treated back then and question if the US is better or worse relatively speaking. 

I don't know how many steps away it is...BUT

10 years ago groups were fighting for Gay Marriage. 

One complaint against them was that if this was allowed, Transgendered rights would come up next and the demands that they be accepted as normal in society, that they use the bathrooms they choose, participate in sports (Men to Woman Transgendered being included in woman's sports), and many other things would occur if we allowed Gay Marriage.

This would never happen.  It's a far off dream they said.  This is not part of the agenda.  Just because we allow Gay Marriage does not have anything to do with anything dealing with Transgendered individuals.

They are not connected, they have no connection, there is no way such things will become a focus or a reality if the world allows Gay Marriage.

Flash forward to today...

 

Sometimes what they say is far off and will never happen due to allowing something in the present is NOT quite as far off as they may make it appear.

That doesn't mean any of the major conflicts we are discussing in this thread will ever become a reality, but it is something that makes me wonder at times.  The same arguments people have used to say other deviations on the spectrum would not become a common place item to be fought over because it's not something connected to the rights we are discussing have been used before...and those items they say would not become a common thing to be fought over are currently being fought over in less time than it took for Gay Marriage to even become an issue.

 

PS: As for Sodom and Gomorrah, WE ARE FAR past that point already.  Joseph Smith made several allusions to how wicked the people of his day were already.  I think I recall him stating they were as wicked as the days of Noah...and perhaps even referenced Sodom and Gomorrah.  If that is the case, then we are so far past how wicked they were that we are talking the point where evil is called good and good is called evil...

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Vort said:

That is quite obviously my central point, yet you keep avoiding it. I would rather you address it in an honest and straightforward manner.

I don’t see the point of me trying to scramble to find some conservative objectivity to a matter that’s entirely subjective which is how you want to debate me.

Only thing relevant is America’s general attitude towards these topics of sexuality, not any one argument.*

*In terms of how this country is going to vote

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

Only thing relevant is America’s general attitude towards these topics of sexuality, not any one argument.

Wrong its not the only relevant thing..  That is like sailors saying we do not need to pay attention to the lighthouse... because there are clearly no rocks were we are right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Wrong its not the only relevant thing..  That is like sailors saying we do not need to pay attention to the lighthouse... because there are clearly no rocks were we are right now.

*In terms of how this country is going to vote 

Edited by clbent04
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Only thing relevant is America’s general attitude towards these topics of sexuality, not any one argumen

It’s relevant, simply because it shows what it is accepted and what isn’t. Conservatives are, on the issue of gay marriage, fighting a battle they already lost. So let them. It’s their time and resources, after all. 
 

It’s the same with abortion too. They’ve been fighting to ban it/restrict it since the 70’s, and they haven’t been wildly successful.
 

I truly believe that somewhere, deep down inside, both sides like losing because it makes them feel noble. Liberals, when they lose, look down on the blue collar trash who vote republican and don’t talk about hip movies and restaurants. Conservatives, when they lose, look down on the horrible sinners who vote democrat. 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share