The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[tooblue]

What? that is quite a non-sequiter. it doesnt even make any sense at all. He or she can practice medicine by performing abortions or not.

How do you practice medicine by not performing an abortion if that is a fundamental aspect of the type of medicine you were trained to practice? I can understand not performing the abortion based purely on well informed medical opinion—to the benefit of the patient(s). But, we seem to agree that a moral objection is not sufficient reasoning to not performing the abortion. If I train to be a doctor and an abortion procedure is an essential part of that training then I should be prepared to perform abortions, regardless my convictions. It's insufficient to suggest I just don't perform the procedure because there is always some one else who will ... that's the non-sequiter here.

[tooblue]

So it stands to reason that if there is always someone else to perform an abortion, then there is always someone else to make the wedding cake or take the wedding photos.

[Solon]

Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

I think tooblue's next allies will be the poor folks of Iran & Pakistan & Niger & Russia & elsewhere who are upset that Charlie Hebdo still dared to publish those cartoons of Muhammad last week.

Their religious freedom is being compromised by Charlie Hebdo!

[concerned]

How do you practice medicine by not performing an abortion if that is a fundamental aspect of the type of medicine you were trained to practice? I can understand not performing the abortion based purely on well informed medical opinion—to the benefit of the patient(s). But, we seem to agree that a moral objection is not insufficient reasoning to not performing the abortion. If I train to be a doctor and an abortion procedure is an essential part of that training then I should be prepared to perform abortions, regardless my convictions. It's insufficient to suggest I just don't perform the procedure because there is always some one else who will ... that's the non-sequiter here.

That is not how medicine works, so give it up already. BTW, what have abortions got to do with gay marriage? It is pretty hard for a gay married couple of either gender to get pregnant by accident on a drunken Saturday night, they have to plan it, as Posner pointed out in his 7th Circuit decision. If a doctor performs abortions, he or she should not be able to refuse to perform them solely because the patient is gay, whether married or not.

[UTEopia]

I'm beyond debating this issue at this point. Do you think the church should have gone farther? I'm really just curious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not sure what to make of this press conference. On its face, it seemed like an effort was being made to support non-discrimination of LGBT. However, the more I listen, the more confused I become. If you read the 4 main principals listed by Elder Oaks, it appears that they are not really advocating non-discrimination.
"1. We claim for everyone the God-given and Constitutional right to live their faith according to the dictates of their own conscience, without harming the health or safety of others.
2. We acknowledge that the same freedom of conscience must apply to men and women everywhere to follow the religious faith of their choice, or none at all if they so choose.
3. We believe laws ought to be framed to achieve a balance in protecting the freedoms of all people while respecting those with differing values.
4. We reject persecution and retaliation of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief, economic circumstances or differences in gender or sexual orientation.”

No. 1 clearly takes the position that constitutional protection of religious freedom trumps everything, including other constitutional and legal protections, unless it harms the health and safety of others.

No. 4 stops short of rejecting discrimination.

Personally, I don't believe that there is anything in my religious practice of mormonism that requires or encourages me to discriminate against any person. However, I know too many who will read this to mean that because I believe God opposes LGBT conduct it is my religious obligation to oppose all efforts to legitimize LGBT conduct. More disturbing is the argument that those expressing anti-LGBT opinions should be protected from the consequences of such expressions. If a shopowner refused to sell to Mormons, should I be prohibited from picketing that business owner? No. If a CEO of a large public corporation expresses anti-Mormon opinions should I refrain from seeking to have that person removed? No.

Unfortunately, I don't believe the church did anything to address the issue of discrimination and may in fact have tacitly supported the position that if your actions are based on religious belief you should be allowed to discriminate so long is it doesn't harm the health or safety of others.

[tooblue]

That is not how medicine works, so give it up already. BTW, what have abortions got to do with gay marriage? It is pretty hard for a gay married couple of either gender to get pregnant by accident on a drunken Saturday night, they have to plan it, as Posner pointed out in his 7th Circuit decision. If a doctor performs abortions, he or she should not be able to refuse to perform them solely because the patient is gay, whether married or not.

I'm not the one who brought up abortions versus inseminations. I'm just following the logic of the thread that suggests there could be accommodations for moral objections on important social issues. But, based upon your post above, you (and the decision you cite) are saying that personal moral conviction is not sufficient grounds to refuse to perform a procedure such as abortion. Therefore the non-sequiter here is the idea that there is always someone else who can perform the abortion.

[tooblue]

I think tooblue's next allies will be the poor folks of Iran & Pakistan & Niger & Russia & elsewhere who are upset that Charlie Hebdo still dared to publish those cartoons of Muhammad last week.

Their religious freedom is being compromised by Charlie Hebdo!

I have worked with an artist from Pakistan. She tells a very moving story of being in a cafe with family and friends on 911-912. When the attacks were reported, the cafe—her family and friends included—erupted with cheers of elation. There were celebrations in the streets and in homes. She wasn't making an argument for or against the terrorist attacks or the celebrations. Just pointing out that there are always many perspectives to consider concerning controversial, social and moral issues. It's easy to say you are on the right side of history, when in fact you may only be on the right side of short-sighted thinking.

[tooblue]

Lol, toolblue is killing this thread, as usual. keep fighting the good fight, so that all those aspiring abortion docs don't have their dreams shattered by gay marriage.

I never thought traditional marriage fans would be standing arm in arm with those poor abortion doctors, demanding the right to abort fetuses according to the dictates of their conscience.

Really, really amazing work, toolblue.

To be fair Applejack, I'm not a caricature, except maybe in your mind. You assume I am on one side versus another (making an ass out of you and me: tee hee). But, maybe I've already lived the debate and been a first hand witness to how it evolves and what if any consequences (not making judgment of good or bad) follow.

Did you survive the storm of the century?

[Solon]

I have worked with an artist from Pakistan. She tells a very moving story of being in a cafe with family and friends on 911-912. When the attacks were reported, the cafe—her family and friends included—erupted with cheers of elation. There were celebrations in the streets and in homes. She wasn't making an argument for or against the terrorist attacks or the celebrations. Just pointing out that there are always many perspectives to consider concerning controversial, social and moral issues. It's easy to say you are on the right side of history, when in fact you may only be on the right side of short-sighted thinking.

what about this story is "moving?"
cheering at the news of the deaths of innocent civilians is a lot of things, but "moving" is not a descriptor that I would have anticipated. I really can think of no scenario where that response would be ethically justified.

extremist views can really mess people up.
this story doesn't really help the case for religious freedom.
It just reminds people how religion in the wrong hands can oppress as well as any tyrant or dictator

[tooblue]

what about this story is "moving?"
cheering at the news of the deaths of innocent civilians is a lot of things, but "moving" is not a descriptor that I would have anticipated. I really can think of no scenario where that response would be ethically justified.

extremist views can really mess people up.
this story doesn't really help the case for religious freedom.
It just reminds people how religion in the wrong hands can oppress as well as any tyrant or dictator

She is not religious. She certainly is not an extremist. She did not cheer. She merely recounted the anecdote in response to a larger discussion about terrorism and it was deeply "moving" because she was describing the emotions of real people. People which you so easily dismissed as "Pakistani" or "Iraqi," or as extremist. Real people who feel marginalized and helpless—pawns, pitted in a battle of ideologies between the extremists within their own country and the extremists without who demonize their faith and traditions ... and summarily deem their response to 911 as unethically justifiable.

[Applejack]

To be fair Applejack, I'm not a caricature, except maybe in your mind. You assume I am on one side versus another (making an ass out of you and me: tee hee). But, maybe I've already lived the debate and been a first hand witness to how it evolves and what if any consequences (not making judgment of good or bad) follow.

Did you survive the storm of the century?

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

[Rocker Ute]

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

Off-topic. I'm watching Bottlerocket right now.

[tooblue]

She is not religious. She certainly is not an extremist. She did not cheer. She merely recounted the anecdote in response to a larger discussion about terrorism and it was deeply "moving" because she was describing the emotions of real people. People which you so easily dismissed as "Pakistani" or "Iraqi," or as extremist. Real people who feel marginalized and helpless—pawns, pitted in a battle of ideologies between the extremists within their own country and the extremists without who demonize their faith and traditions ... and summarily deem their response to 911 as unethically justifiable.

Solon: have you figure out yet why they cheered? It wasn't due to extremism or desires for revenge. It wasn't for the death of thousands of innocent Americans. They cheered because maybe now, Americans would truly understand what it means to be terrorized. Maybe now Americans would be more empathetic.

Guess that was only a fools hope.

[tooblue]

Are you undecided on gay marriage? That is certainly surprising. Those poor abortion doctors need people like you to fight for their right to abort only those fetuses for which they feel morally justified in aborting. It would be a shame to lose such advocates.

And we did survive the blizzard! I even had to shovel/broom my walks.

It's not me that's undecided on the issue. It's the others in the thread that introduced the arguments about abortion doctors. Your questions are best directed at them. They seem confused, save concerned. He and I appear to be in agreement.

You need sons. Then you wouldn't have to do it yourself ;-)

[LA Ute]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not a perfect example. The problem is those who initially contested your ideas haven't considered the full ramifications of their position on that particular subject or on this one. Why should they? They are supposedly on the right side of history, and empathy of any kind is in short supply, so why bother? It's just easier to label someone a bigot or extremist and expect them to go away.

EDIT: Before it's pointed out, yes I am aware of the irony in calls for empathy. Especially considering the churches past ... Because, the church or any one of us can only ever be defined by our history.

[#1 Utefan]

Our children's children will look at at our generation and shake their heads at our bigotry for homosexuals, just as we look back at our grandparents with disgust for their racism.

Or not. Outside of the government officially sanctioning same sex marriage, what discrimination exists that prevent gay people from finding a good job, getting ahead in the workplace, living where they want to live, riding public transportation, etc, etc.?

The notion that the LGBT community's plight to legalize gay marriage is comparable to what American blacks faced as it pertains to civil rights is just going too far IMHO. I know that has been the rallying cry but if I were African American and had had to endure what many had to throughout the nations pre-civil rights history, I think I might find it somewhat off putting that this issue is being sold as the equivalent of that longstanding plight & issue.

I have no doubt some that are heavily invested in this debate will disagree but that is how I see it. Personally, I have grown weary of the entire discussion and debate. It is now in the Supreme Courts hands and will be decided soon enough regardless of where any of us fall on the issue.

[UTEopia]

I used the abortion example because it involves a right on one side and often, on the other, a religiously-based moral objection. It's not a perfect example. This is an unrewarding discussion, guys. Very little is actually being discussed by most here.

Look, the LDS Church is not going to say gay behavior is acceptable and it's not going to start marrying gays to each other, inside or outside its temples. Given the direction society is going on the gay marriage issue, the church is just trying to preserve a space for itself and is saying, "We're going to teach kindness and charity and against persecution of anyone. We ask you to respect our religious beliefs also." What else do you guys think they should do? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

[Two Utes]

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

This is an excellent analysis. The press conference was a huge fail.

[Two Utes]

Diehard, you know me personally but we've never discussed issues like this one. I don't live in a bubble. I've lived in L.A. for 32 years and have practiced law in large law firms that entire time. I've worked in the entertainment industry and so has my wife. I have a gay colleague right now who works with me every day. I fought for the firm to hire because she is such an excellent lawyer. She and her partner have been to my home for parties. She and I have agreed to disagree on these issues. My law firm receives awards every year for its approach to LGBT issues. We have probably a dozen gay attorneys in the firm in various offices. Two of them are my friends. I just finished a term on my firm's executive committee. So please stop.

You nailed it. This is exactly why the church's position should be so troubling to you. You love your religion and that is the ONLY reason you are defending the church's position. I have no doubt that you harbor no ill-will towards the gay community. But your love and belief of your religion is forcing you to defend a position that is ultimately going to marginalize you (and, even moreso, your children).

I find that absolutely unacceptable as I think you are a great guy. But if you are going to allow them to marginalize you, then it is your responsibility. WTF are they doing to their members? And do they even care? They might once it really affects their pocket book.

[concerned]

You nailed it. This is exactly why the church's position should be so troubling to you. You love your religion and that is the ONLY reason you are defending the church's position. I have no doubt that you harbor no ill-will towards the gay community. But your love and belief of your religion is forcing you to defend a position that is ultimately going to marginalize you (and, even moreso, your children).

I find that absolutely unacceptable as I think you are a great guy. But if you are going to allow them to marginalize you, then it is your responsibility. WTF are they doing to their members? And do they even care? They might once it really affects their pocket book.

LA Ute--exactly what are you saying--that you would not discriminate but that someone else in your law firm should have the right to do so because of a sincerely held religious belief?

[LA Ute]

LA Ute--exactly what are you saying--that you would not discriminate but that someone else in your law firm should have the right to do so because of a sincerely held religious belief?

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

[concerned]

I'm afraid I don't understand your question.

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.

[tooblue]

I expect the LDS Church to say that it is inconsistent with LDS Church doctrine for the Church or its members to discriminate against any person based on color, creed, religion, sexual orientation when the Church or its members are engaged in commercial activities not directly related to the operation of the Church. As such, I would expect Church owned businesses such as KSL to not engage in discrimination. I would expect the Church would teach Bishop Joe that he should not discriminate in the people he rents his apartments to. I would expect the Church to teach Sister Dr. Jane to not discriminate in providing medical services. I would expect that the Church would teach members to include Bill and Jim, their gay neighbors, in neighborhood functions where all neighbors are invited. I would expect the Church to promote inviting the boy of Jane and Nancy, their lesbian neighbors, to participate in cub scouts and other similar activities where non-members are typically invited.

I believe the Church's statement has fallen woefully short of doing any of the things I have mentioned and might have tacitly suggested that it is okay for the Church and its members to discriminate so long as it is based on a religious belief.

As with all beliefs and opinions, whether religious or not, I do not believe that people or institutions can reasonably expect to be immune from reasonable opposition to the expression of such beliefs. What is reasonable opposition? Personally, I believe that boycotting and picketing businesses are legitimate forms of reasonable opposition. The Church apparently believes that no opposition to the expression of such beliefs is appropriate.

The purpose of the press conference was for the Church to openly support legislation that would secure the rights of the LGBT community, in the State of Utah, in all of the above stated scenarios. Ergo, the church has now directly taught it's members what you suggest be taught to Bishop Joe. It's an indisputable matter of record. It's also a continuation of the implied teaching that has already been going on for several years through a variety of channels. These are also indisputable matters of record which exist in the form of Conference talks and First Presidency letters read from the pulpit.

Secondarily, and in conjunction with the direct support of the legislation, the Church would be remiss if it did not also assert support for the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. In conjunction with that assertion comes the tacit understanding that reasonable opposition could include boycotting and picketing, which the church has endured since it's inception.

[LA Ute]

Seems pretty straigtforward to me.

Looking at this more carefully I think I understand the question. (I was doing a fly-by of the board earlier.) I am in an airport now but promise to respond further later.

[UTEopia]

The purpose of the press conference was for the Church to openly support legislation that would secure the rights of the LGBT community, in the State of Utah, in all of the above stated scenarios. Ergo, the church has now directly taught it's members what you suggest be taught to Bishop Joe. It's an indisputable matter of record. It's also a continuation of the implied teaching that has already been going on for several years through a variety of channels. These are also indisputable matters of record which exist in the form of Conference talks and First Presidency letters read from the pulpit.

Secondarily, and in conjunction with the direct support of the legislation, the Church would be remiss if it did not also assert support for the constitutionally guaranteed right to free exercise of religion. In conjunction with that assertion comes the tacit understanding that reasonable opposition could include boycotting and picketing, which the church has endured since it's inception.

This may be clear to you from the press conference, but it is not clear to me and it appears to not be clear to many others commenting on the subject.

[tooblue]

This may be clear to you from the press conference, but it is not clear to me and it appears to not be clear to many others commenting on the subject.

OK, fair to a degree. But here is a list of individuals or organizations for whom the Press Conference was clear, and who went on record with their actual names to state such:

1. Rep. Brian King, D-Salt Lake City, House minority leader
2. Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams, Democrat
3. Sutherland Institute, conservative Salt Lake City-based think tank
4. Gayle Ruzicka, president of the Utah Eagle Forum
5. Sen. Jim Dabakis, D-Salt Lake City
6. Utah Democratic Party Chairman Peter Corroon
7. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
8. Spencer W. Clark, executive director of Mormons for Equality
9. Mayor Ralph Becker, Democrat
10. Mitch Mayne, board member of Mormons for Equality
11. Mormons Building Bridges, an outreach group between the LDS and LGBT communities
12. Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/fait...nnouncement-on

I think's it's disingenuous to suggest a lack of clarity on the purpose of the News Conference. Clarity isn't the problem.

[Solon]

Solon: have you figure out yet why they cheered? It wasn't due to extremism or desires for revenge. It wasn't for the death of thousands of innocent Americans. They cheered because maybe now, Americans would truly understand what it means to be terrorized. Maybe now Americans would be more empathetic.

Guess that was only a fools hope.

Yeah, because America had terrorized Pakistan so much before 2001. Sanctions, i guess, when Pakistan's gov't ramped up its nuclear program, but hardly terrorism.

Maybe the real reason they cheered was because a crazy version of a respectable religion f***ed them up.

Getting this discussion back on track: are you really going to advocate for a morally relativistic approach to all of the world's problems? Aren't human rights non-negotiable?
How can you possibly cast stones at gay marriage, then?

[tooblue]

Yeah, because America had terrorized Pakistan so much before 2001. Sanctions, i guess, when Pakistan's gov't ramped up its nuclear program, but hardly terrorism.

Maybe the real reason they cheered was because a crazy version of a respectable religion f***ed them up.

Getting this discussion back on track: are you really going to advocate for a morally relativistic approach to all of the world's problems? Aren't human rights non-negotiable?
How can you possibly cast stones at gay marriage, then?

To many rational, peace loving Pakistani's or Iraqis' you are an extremist. Failure to recognize this basic truth is a failure to empathize. Yes, US foreign policy has terrorized much of the world for a long time. The US is the ONLY nation to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The same justifiable ethics that paved the way for that decision has allowed modern US administrations the hubris to justify torture of enemy combatants. It's that same hubris that justifies the current administrations clandestine drone operations in sovereign nations, violating international law. So, clearly, according to the American school of ethics, human rights are negotiable, especially if you are on the right side of history.

Furthermore, I am not casting stones at gay marriage. I am casting stones at the arguments that aim to belittle individuals or an institution and summarily codify them as bigoted.

[Solon]

To many rational, peace loving Pakistani's or Iraqis' you are an extremist. Failure to recognize this basic truth is a failure to empathize. Yes, US foreign policy has terrorized much of the world for a long time. The US is the ONLY nation to have used nuclear weapons against an enemy. The same justifiable ethics that paved the way for that decision has allowed modern US administrations the hubris to justify torture of enemy combatants. It's that same hubris that justifies the current administrations clandestine drone operations in sovereign nations, violating international law. So, clearly, according to the American school of ethics, human rights are negotiable, especially if you are on the right side of history.

Furthermore, I am not casting stones at gay marriage. I am casting stones at the arguments that aim to belittle individuals or an institution and summarily codify them as bigoted.

So essentially you are making the argument that "might makes right"? (A lousy argument, but seemingly the one you are making -that different peoples construct their own moralities as they can, at the expense of those who can't)

Then you have no leg to stand on, as a cultural minority in North America, in demanding these so-called religious freedoms to avoid granting rights/privileges/services to gay people. The majority is going to take those claimed "rights" from you, and you can go complain about your lost religious freedoms with your friends in Boko Haram.

the fact is, there are in fact some absolutes in the world. Justice, rule of law, the right to life, etc. are among them. We don't always achieve them, but we should always try. Spinning out this relativist nonsense is the kind of crap I expect from a freshman, not from someone like you who is well educated. The world needs to speak out against the oppression that goes on under the guise of religious liberty, whether it is female circumcision, Sati, prohibiting girls from getting education, or whatever.

you're just pissed because there is no really good argument for forcing the public to be nice to people who espouse unpopular religious beliefs.