What's new

Are you guys completely cool with your kids dating/marrying someone of a different race?

Separate but equal is a myth, a convenient lie we allow ourselves to believe. Segregation is always based on the notion that one side is less trusted than the other.

Equality is over-hyped with liberals. In striving for some types of equality you dismiss individuality/uniqueness/diversity/innate differences.

There is such a diversity in personality, circumstances, physical attributes, skills, talents, interests, motivations in the human population that you are missing the mark if you value equality in role/position/outcome above all else.

Equality ain't important if you have different roles and purposes to fill in life. The polarity of the genders is the reason having both a mom and a dad is so important.

As for the topic of marriage. I think people should be required to have pre-marital counseling before they are allowed to get married, so they can discuss all the important issues...finances, in-laws, children, division of labor, religion. All these things can be more difficult to sort out when you come from different cultural backgrounds.
 
Thanks for clarifying.

Contempt for a gender would clearly disqualify the act from being categorized as "benevolent"

Prejudice is a bit trickier.

Let's say a mother asks her son to shovel the snow on the walk instead of doing the dishes because she feels that "boys generally have more fun outdoors" and "boys generlally like doing more phyiscal work." This shows prejudice, it is sexist, but it is not necessarily expressing misandry or misogyny. (benevolent)

Conversely, if she thinks it is "beneath" a man to do the dishes because men are fundamentally superior to women, she would misogynistic. (not benevolent)

So an expression of prejudice would not necessarily disqualify the act from being benevolent.

My understanding of the term "benevolent" is that if focuses on outcomes, not reasoning. So, laws that prevent women from entering combat roles, or household traditions that meant they never shoveled snow, would be classified as benevolent sexism, even they are based on a disdain for the possibility that a woman can adequately handle the work (aka contempt).

Generally, any time you separate one group based upon an assumption of natural preferences, inclinations, or abilities, you are expressing contempt for the other groups capabilities in that area. Segregation is inherently unequal.
 
Yeah... this is you seeing what you want to see.

Of all the people in this conversation, I'm the one with the least at stake. The degree of misogyny in Mormonism has essentially zero impact on my life. If Mormonism were not misogynistic, that changes the number of non-misogynistic religions I know about from 1 to 2. That's all the change I experience. So, you can keep talking about what I want to see, but it will remain nothing more than a poor attempt to justify why you are not being convincing.

I see you've been talking to Straw Bronco70 again.

I assume this is more ribbing that real complaint.

I'm guessing you're looking for something specific, but I don't know what that is.

I don't know, either. It might or might not exist.

In any case, as I said earlier, I don't see the LDS as anymore misogynistic than most other religions primarily composed of conservatives. So, it's not like I'm saying this is a Mormon issue, specifically.
 
So it's actually good of me to say the lack of belief in God is foolish and moronic. I would then be acting in integrity and not insulting you directly, but in a round about way.

Every human has beliefs, pratices, and habits that are foolish or moronic. I don't see why it's an insult to say I have a trait shared by every human.

It's better to insult and belittle everything around the person and everything that makes that person who they are, but it's bad manners to actually insult that person directly.

If you really believe that it's you're religion that is everything about you and makes you who you are, than you are insulting yourself far more than I would ever dream of doing. I think much more highly of you than that.
 
This next one gets more in depth, and could take a while line by line, but here goes.

Here are two. If two are too much, we can cut back to one at a time.

God is my spiritual Father.
God has a body and is in the "form of a man"... more like man is in the form of the Father.

We good?

So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?
 
So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?

Stop getting ahead of yourself. Trust me my friend. Those answers will be forth coming shortly if Spazz does this right.
 
Equality is over-hyped with liberals. In striving for some types of equality you dismiss individuality/uniqueness/diversity/innate differences.

There is such a diversity in personality, circumstances, physical attributes, skills, talents, interests, motivations in the human population that you are missing the mark if you value equality in role/position/outcome above all else.

Reasoning such as yours was used to justify Jim Crow laws. So, while I'm sure you have the most genuine intent, I'm not impressed with your reasoning.

Equality ain't important if you have different roles and purposes to fill in life. The polarity of the genders is the reason having both a mom and a dad is so important.

There is no good evidence that gender plays a significant factor in parenting role, and your gender polarizations are mostly cultural artifacts, not innate characteristics.

As for the topic of marriage. I think people should be required to have pre-marital counseling before they are allowed to get married, so they can discuss all the important issues...finances, in-laws, children, division of labor, religion. All these things can be more difficult to sort out when you come from different cultural backgrounds.

While 'required" might be a little too far, such counseling is a very good idea.
 
Stop getting ahead of yourself. Trust me my friend. Those answers will be forth coming shortly if Spazz does this right.

I have no problem with the answer 'I'll explain that later', if that is JazzSpazz's answer.
 
...you can keep talking about what I want to see, but it will remain nothing more than a poor attempt to justify why you are not being convincing.

Unfortunately, it is a formidable task to convince someone of something when they have already made up their mind to the contrary. My skills are nowhere near refined enough to meet this challenge.

I assume this is more ribbing that real complaint.

Somewhat. You formulated a full rebuttal for an argument that I may or not make. But, admittedly, I wanted to be cheeky about it. Funny, right? C'mon... it was funny.

In any case, as I said earlier, I don't see the LDS as anymore misogynistic than most other religions primarily composed of conservatives. So, it's not like I'm saying this is a Mormon issue, specifically.

I get that. And like I said, I'm willing to accept your assertion that the LDS church is misogynistic, according to your own definition. I just don't accept your definition as the absolute universal standard.
 
So, just to clarify: for you, God is specifically a male presence/being, as opposed to female or combining the traits you assign to both?

If you are talking physical traits, then yes, if I understand you correctly. God, as in our Father, is not a woman, and is not a mix of male and female.

1-God exists
2- God is my spiritual Father
3- God has a body of flesh and bone, and is male.

If you are still with me go to 4, if not we can clarify.

4- God loves me, and all of his children. (all people that have, or will live on the earth)
 
Back
Top