DiscussMormonism.com

Read this Newsweek article about the "porning" of America. It tries to make a case that we as a society are now inundated by sex and porn culture, and that it's coming at us from every direction, right down to the marketing of porn-influenced dolls to toddlers.

Ok, so if all of this (heterosexual) sex exposure is going on in this country, how are there still any gay people left? Isn't exposure to a bit of sexuality or even the existence of sex supposed to convert people over to it? Ok, so why aren't the gay people converted to heterosexuality? You mean, bombarding them with heterosexual sex and culture from every angle, from the time their toddlers, doesn't convert them?

My obvious point is that I'm making fun of the line I hear quite frequently from my family and LDS aquaintences who are anti-gay that the reason some gay character was put into a sitcom, or as that "gay friend" in a movie, or Will and Grace, is to convert us all to homosexuality. Uhuh. Being bombarded with heterosexual images and themes from the time we're toddlers doesn't convert gay people to heterosexuality, but Will and Grace are going to convert heterosexuals into gays?

Anyhow, I'm just wondering if any of our resident homophobes want to take advantage of this thread to come explain to us all about the "gay agenda", which apparently is the gayification of America. I got three words for you guys: It won't work. It's a stupid conspiracy theory, but hey, come knock yourselves out.

by the way, there's another anti-gay marriage amendment on the ballot this year in Arizona. It's Prop. 102. I haven't been in church enough lately to know if the local Mormons are working hard to pass it or not. Didn't we just vote one of these down two years ago though? What the hay?

Porn leads to masturbation.
Masturbation leads to mutual masturbation.
Mutual masturbation leads to homosexual experimentation.
Homosexual experimentation leads to full-blown homosexuality.

Was that a reasonable summary of "The Miracle of Forgiveness"? I think I hit most of the key points, at least.

So the gay agenda is to "convert heterosexuals into gays?" Nice straw man. Knock it all apart. It should be very easy.

However, I think the real gay agenda is viewed by opponents to be this (from Justice Scalia):

Today’s opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

Your "obvious point" seems completely wrong when viewed in light of the real gay agenda. It sure seems that gay characters are put in TV shows for the precise purpose of eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.

As for the "porning" of America, I have no idea what your point is about how it relates to the gay agenda. Does porning of America only refer to heterosexual porning of America, as you seem to imply? Does looking at heterosexual porn change homosexuals? Perhaps you could explain what, if anything, this has to do with what you are trying to say.

Nice add for www.gaycupid.com :)

Constant exposure to homosexual icons, sex, and whatever can trigger the sexual appetites of 'closet' homosexual or unknowing homosexuals, just as pornography exposure can trigger otherwise dormant or ably repressed desires.

Sexual aberrations tend move from hidden places to the forefront of minds when given the opportunity. So a person who could otherwise live a happy heterosexual life without their sexual orientation as their primary identifier can easily be pulled to a point where repressing some originally minor homosexual desires becomes very difficult.

So its up to you to judge if that's bad or good. I'm certain that an awful lot of them would have rather been able to live in a happy marriage where their homosexual inclinations were insignificant enough to be suppressed in favour of a 'regular' life. I personally would rather see sex as a lower priority in people's lives, but the world we live in is too easy on us and we don't have to work as hard as we ought to. And, of course, idle hands.....

I think I get it. If sexual orientation is learned as many conservatives insist, then all this heterosexual porn in our society should be good for getting rid of homosexuals. On the other hand, if porn saturation isn't curing them, then probably nothing ever will and society should just admit that sexual orientation is something you are mostly born with. From there we seem obligated to accept the real gay agenda, which is to treat homosexual behavior with the same respect we treat heterosexual behavior. Meaning: we should stop giving such homage to heterosexuality in our porn institutions, and saturate our society with an equal dose of homo-porn??

If our society wasn't inundated with both homo and hetero porn I think this might mean something.

Yeah, I don't think they fear that people will turn gay by being exposed to those images (although I'm sure some are silly enough to really believe that) as much as they're afraid people will begin to accept it.

Of course, is that really any better? Heaven forbid we should be tolerant of what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom! Heavens, no! God made a rule, and it's up to us humans to enforce it by butting into other people's business. It's our god given right! We're on a mission from god!

It's absolutely religulous.

Some Schmo wrote:Yeah, I don't think they fear that people will turn gay by being exposed to those images (although I'm sure some are silly enough to really believe that) as much as they're afraid people will begin to accept it.

Of course, is that really any better? Heaven forbid we should be tolerant of what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom! Heavens, no! God made a rule, and it's up to us humans to enforce it by butting into other people's business. It's our god given right! We're on a mission from god!

It's absolutely religulous.

I think you're confusing toleration and acceptance.

Most people already tolerate it. The few that attack and violently persecute them can already be dealt with under the current legal system. They don't want toleration, they want approval and acceptance. This I won't give no matter how many laws they pass.

The Nehor wrote: I think you're confusing toleration and acceptance.

Most people already tolerate it. The few that attack and violently persecute them can already be dealt with under the current legal system. They don't want toleration, they want approval and acceptance. This I won't give no matter how many laws they pass.

This is an interesting point that got me thinking.

First off, I would draw the distinction between approval and acceptance, not tolerance and acceptance, since tolerating something basically shows you accept that it happens, but I think I know what you're getting at, and this is pretty much irrelevant to my point.

It got me asking myself, "Do I accept religion, and do I also approve of it?" Well, certainly I accept that it exists, and tolerate it, since I have no choice. The important question is whether I approve of it, and the answer to that is, "It depends on the day." Usually, I have no stomach for it at all, and wonder how on earth people can engage in that sort of magical thought process seriously. I have to admit; that doesn't demonstrate much approval. However, sometimes, I can empathize with the need to find comfort in that kind of thinking, and from a certain perspective, I suppose I do approve of it to a degree.

But for the most part, despite my lack of approval, I don't do anything about it except to voice my opinion around here. I'm certainly not going to march in anti-religion parades, or seek to enact laws forbidding people to act religious. That would be neither accepting nor tolerating. Obviously, I draw the line at religious motivated violence, and think people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for it, but that doesn't have much to do with religion as it does basic human rights.

So anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I shouldn't care if religious people don't approve of homosexual behavior as long as all they do about it is voice their disapproval. They’re entitled to their opinion. However, if they go beyond that (like sign petitions for laws forbidding this or that), well, I think they deserve all the criticism they've got coming to them.

Some Schmo wrote:So anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I shouldn't care if religious people don't approve of homosexual behavior as long as all they do about it is voice their disapproval. They’re entitled to their opinion. However, if they go beyond that (like sign petitions for laws forbidding this or that), well, I think they deserve all the criticism they've got coming to them.

I agree with you and I would think that criticism that comes our way is a lack of acceptance and if it doesn't turn to persecution is still toleration. I think on the whole Americans tolerate each other pretty well in all cases but accept less readily. I think this is healthy.