Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Droopy]

You mean to say that homophobia is a fear of homosexuality?

[_Droopy]

1. While I don't think Dart's criticisms of homosexuality are particularly sophisticated or penetrating, they were, at the end of the day, critiques. Where do you see some irrational fear of homosexuality in his posts?

2. You're own usage of the terms "homophobe" and 'bigot" in your posts are clearly debate circumventing tactics intended to avoid the issue by attacking motives. Even if the term itself has any substantive relevance to this issue (which is debatable as a matter of principle in any case), your use of it here is no different than the use liberals have been putting it to for over 20 years: to short circuit debate outright.

3. In its historical usage on the Left, "homophobe", whatever its meaning might actually be, has been used to impugn any criticisms of homosexuality whatever, no matter how principled or rationally articulated. The label will be attached to anyone who opposes homosexuality on principled grounds regardless of the depth of analysis or sincerity of motives.

[Guest]

There's nothing intellectual about his view (like there ever is). It simply makes him "squirm." Shocker!

That just goes along with the territory of being a heterosexual. I'm sorry if you can't relate. Just go to any movie containing a scene with two men macking out and you'll see virtually every guy in the theatre turn his head and/or make some gesture of disgust. That is why so many people were repulsed by "Broke Back Mountain." Not because it had gays in it, but because it caught people by surprise. The initial advertisement gave no indication that it was about two gay men falling in love in the mountains. Most people who went to see it the first week did so without any knowledge of its homosexual content. That is why it created such a controversy.

Of course there is such a thing as sexual attraction towards one gender, but it is also natural to be sexually repelled by the opposite. I am repelled by all men sexually. This is not because I am afraid of them or hate them. But the idea of sexual activity with them makes me want to puke, and to see two men getting it on in public repulses me as well. So yes, I can see how heterosexual children could easily become confused while growing up in a household where homosexual affection is often expressed, especially by their role-model parents. You want to make it seem like my attitude here is not natural. But who do you think you're kidding? It makes me sick now just as it would have when I was 10 years old.

Now the real question is, why does it make him squirm? Maybe it's because there's a part of him that likes it? It's becoming more and more clear all the time. This stuff always cracks me up. It's not the first time I've seen it, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Yea, Schmo cracked the mystery with his last shot at an intellectual remark. I'm gay! (rolls eyes)

Tell that one to my wife!

Incidentally, I just came across this online: http://www.narth.com/docs/RationaleBasisFinal0405.pdf

It is written by a neuropsychiatrist and professor of behavioral science. He is a Harvard trained expert in childhood development and he has a particular focus on gender identity in children. I was surprised to see him pretty much expressing the same concerns I had. In a nutshell, orphans tend to be more stressed than non-orphans. They have enough on them as it is. Putting them in a household with homosexual parents is just exposing them to more stressors. This isn't to say that children cannot cope with them. It is just saying they shouldn't have to.

Now I agree that it is better to have a kid raised in a homosexual household than to allow the government to raise them. But newborns find familys to live with rather quickly. There is a waiting list for newborns in most cases. The ones that are having a difficult time landing homes are the older children. I would be very interested to know how old these kids are when they are adopted by gay men.[/img][/url]

[_asbestosman]

Where in the New Testament or the Book of Mormon does it condemn the practice of masturbation? I know that there are several places in the Book of Mormon where it condemns the practice of Polygamy. However, I am Not aware of anywhere in the Book of Mormon or the New Testament where it condemns the practice of masturbation. Therefore, masturbation is Not a sin.

Not in the scriptures: check.
Now let's move to the words of the modern day prophets. What do they say? Oh yeah, masturbation is a sin. Modern prophets say to refrain and we promise to do so.

[_Jersey Girl]

Dart,

I want to ask you a question based on a previous statement that you made, but first, I want to say that I think you've taken an undeserved amount of mocking and abuse on this thread.

Here's my question and feel free to skip over it, if other posts are more important to you. In another post, you used an example of two men french kissing and then related it to what a child might witness who was being raised by a gay couple. Do you think that it's common for hetero couples to engage in french kissing in the presence of their children?

I'm just curious about that.

[_Jersey Girl]

Naturally hard wired that way? Interesting. It couldn't possibly be a learned behavior, could it? Oh no... that would take some punch out of the homophobic rationale.

Yes, homosexuality is a learned behavior. At least we have that out of the way.

Who is teaching it?

[_Some Schmo]

1. While I don't think Dart's criticisms of homosexuality are particularly sophisticated or penetrating, they were, at the end of the day, critiques. Where do you see some irrational fear of homosexuality in his posts?

I challenge you to show me an example of a single critique in what he's posted. I remember a lot of conjecture, but I don't remember any specific critiques. Oh wait… it makes him squirm. Now there’s a substantive critique.

*rolls eyes*

2. You're own usage of the terms "homophobe" and 'bigot" in your posts are clearly debate circumventing tactics intended to avoid the issue by attacking motives. Even if the term itself has any substantive relevance to this issue (which is debatable as a matter of principle in any case), your use of it here is no different than the use liberals have been putting it to for over 20 years: to short circuit debate outright.

Where have you been? How many times do I have to repeat the fact that I'm not here to debate before it penetrates your (or darte's, for that matter) thick skull? I can't even get you to understand this simple fact, let alone try to convince you of something through common sense.

Just because I choose not to debate doesn't mean I am unable. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Isn't that what you god fearers like to point out?

3. In its historical usage on the Left, "homophobe", whatever its meaning might actually be, has been used to impugn any criticisms of homosexuality whatever, no matter how principled or rationally articulated. The label will be attached to anyone who opposes homosexuality on principled grounds regardless of the depth of analysis or sincerity of motives.

Give me a single opposition to homosexuality that demonstrates any depth of analysis at all, and you might have something there.

[Guest]

Do you think that it's common for hetero couples to engage in french kissing in the presence of their children?

Probably not in Utah.

My parents did. My wife and I do it too. I even remember walking in on my parents as they were doing it. I was probably about 6 at the time, when we lived in Germany. They never knew I saw them, but I walked it in the middle of the night. The TV was on and they were going at it. That alone confused the hell out of me because I couldn't figure out if they were wrestling for fun or what.

I think most kids have at some point walked in on their parents doing it. I just think homosexual activity would present more of a shock because it sparks more questions and requires more explaining. Few kids react to explanations the way we want them to.

And even if the parents decided not to tell the kid about sex at a certain age, he is definately going to find out from the kids at school. They might make fun of the kid by saying something like, "your daddy's do it in the butt... that's why they walk that way." And without any prior education on this from his parents, he might choose to deny it. And then when the time comes that the kid really finds out the truth fromhis parents, he could rebel in a different way he'll realize what those kids had said all along, was in fact true.

There is an endless amount of scenario imagining that we could entertain here.

[_dartagnan]

Who is teaching it?

Society.

In another 10 or 20 years when the percentage of homosexuals in America has tripled, people will start to realize that culture obviously has an effect on this and that homosexuality is a learned condition and above all, a choice. But that isn't to say some are truly homosexual because they are born that way. I believe many are. But they do a good job of converting liberal minded people who are willing to experiment with anything.

You even hear about some gays competing with one another in their attempts to convert straight people. When living in Orlando, it didn't seem to matter how many times I told the gay people I knew I wasn't gay. They kept trying to convince me to give it a shot, and they promised I would never go back, etc. And with today's society celebrating homosexuality, this only makes it more attractive for those with existing gender identity issues.

[_asbestosman]

Has it completely escaped you, the fact that parents serve as role models for children? If it isn't broken, don't fix it. If a child is raised by gay men he would be more inclined to experiment with homosexuality. Which is fine for you I'm sure, because you can just say oh he was born that way. But I know for a fact that kids look up to their parents. They mimick them in many ways. When they see their daddy's loving one another, they might try experimenting with kissing boys at a young age, even though they weren't "born that way."

Assuming you're right, what's inherently wrong with boys experimenting even if they weren't "born that way"? Wouldn't using this to argue against homosexual adoption amount to a circular argument? Now, if you were to state that having boys experiement this way is psychologically damaging to them, then perhaps that could be an issue.

As for homosexual sex and excrement, don't forget that some do the oral thing too. Furthermore, condoms can help with the messy buisness. Also, keep in mind that many heterosexual couples try that stuff. I never asked my parents what sort of things they tried in their bedrooms. Would it be expected for the child of homosexual parents to inquire as to whether they did oral, anal, both, or something else? I'm not sure why.