Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_asbestosman]

I disagree, psychology IS science. But it is a social science and anyone with experience in social science research will (or should--not all social scientists are reflective) that social science research is almost always tentative. No study or small collection of studies is sufficient to decide an issue, given, among other reasons, the inability of social science to create laboratory conditions that control for the myriad of factors that influence outcomes (and hence the inevitably large error term representing random noise unaccounted for by the model). It is only AFTER a large enough number of credible studies have been done that one can get a sense of where the preponderance of evidence is pointing.

The assertion that social scientists can adequately and accurately explain complex systems and phenomena is largely hubris.

I agree that psychology is science. Psychologists will do double-blind experiments from time to time to test a hypothesis. However, it is not always possible to set up controlled experiments for psychology. Even with double-blind experiments, it is not alwyas possible to control things. The drug industry is running into problems with human guinea pigs who are doing multiple trial drugs at once.

Anyhow, as far as complexity goes, I don't think psychology is inherently more complex than biology.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

What possesses someone who represents himself as a man of religion to say something so completely idiotic. To wit:

[quote=DispensatorMysteriorum]
Bravo! If I were a Californian, I would be ready to take out their supreme court by gun point. It's pure tyranny.

Will no believer call them on this kind of violent horsesh*t?[/quote]

They're no worse than atheists. Except for the fact that atheists don't threaten to take out religious leaders at gun point, and don't hope that natural disasters will take out churches. And most atheists don't live in trailer parks in the deep south and Utah. Other than that they're no different.

[_asbestosman]

There are three "kinds" of arguments against homosexuality and gay marriage.

1) It's against my personal religious veiws about the holy status of marriage.
My response: at least you can admit that religion is your basis. Fortunately, that doesn't and shouldn't dictate the actions of other people in a free society.

2) It creates many legal difficulties.
My response: so be it. Eventually we'll work it out for the better.

3) It is bad for the individual's physical and psychological well being. Here's a study that shows....
My response: garbage in, garbage out. There are counter-studies showing the converse, and none of them can really separate a given outcome from the pressures of a bigoted and unsupportive society. Why don't you just admit #1 is your real reason instead of pretending it's something else?

4) I don't think it should be the government's job to determine which relationships are legitimate--that goes for heterosexuals too. I would prefer the government grant civil unions to everyone including two siblings who live together and take care of each other. By the way, if the government can't discriminate againt gay couples it should not discriminate against incestuous couples. I do not use that to argue against gay marriage but rather to point out what I feel is an inconsistancy to highlight what I feel the government's role should be. And no, I'm not interested in an incestuous relationship any more than I'm interested in a homosexual one.

[_dartagnan]

3) It is bad for the individual's physical and psychological well being. Here's a study that shows....
My response: garbage in, garbage out. There are counter-studies showing the converse, and none of them can really separate a given outcome from the pressures of a bigoted and unsupportive society. Why don't you just admit #1 is your real reason instead of pretending it's something else?

Hey Dude, I can no longer fall into category #1, but I agree with this too. And I know others who aren't particularly religious, yet feel the same way. I always thought evolutionists would have issues with this as well. After all, it isn't "natural" is it? Having to clean out your rectum with a water hose before you have sex. How does adaptation expect to address that one? If homosexuals were really "born that way," then what is evolution telling us? Maybe homosexual men will eventually evolve with two assholes? One for excretion and the other for pleasure.

Something that struck me as "different" after being out of the country for four years, is that it seems the number of homosexuals in the Atlanta area has increased a lot. They aren't transplants from San Francisco either. They are people who grew up here and were exposed to modern culture that encourages experimentation in all forms. It seems like every other woman I work with is a Lesbian or bisexual. And the only reason I know this is because they can't shut the hell up about it. They flaunt and celebrate their sexuality to the world, as if I really want to hear about it. This strikes me as dysfunctional on a psychological or sexual level. Also, not a single one of them has a steady boyfriend/girlfriend. Every damn day they are talking about who they hooked up with the night before.

Should they get married? I don't care. I think it is ironic that they would want to get married since marriage is historically a religious concept, but so be it. Most want to get married formally because they can save money tax-wise. If they truly love one another, who cares if they are recognized by the government as a married couple? I know I wouldn't.

The only beef I have is when they want to start adopting children. I mean that is taking it beyond the privacy arena. In private quarters I don't care if you want to screw doughnuts and sheep. Two people can do whatever they want with each other sexually, as long as they both consent to it. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?

[_TrashcanMan79]

I think it is ironic that they would want to get married since marriage is historically a religious concept, but so be it.

Why is this ironic? You haven't met gay people with religious beliefs?

[_guy sajer]

3) It is bad for the individual's physical and psychological well being. Here's a study that shows....
My response: garbage in, garbage out. There are counter-studies showing the converse, and none of them can really separate a given outcome from the pressures of a bigoted and unsupportive society. Why don't you just admit #1 is your real reason instead of pretending it's something else?

Hey Dude, I can no longer fall into category #1, but I agree with this too. And I know others who aren't particularly religious, yet feel the same way. I always thought evolutionists would have issues with this as well. After all, it isn't "natural" is it? Having to clean out your rectum with a water hose before you have sex. How does adaptation expect to address that one? If homosexuals were really "born that way," then what is evolution telling us? Maybe homosexual men will eventually evolve with two assholes? One for excretion and the other for pleasure.

Something that struck me as "different" after being out of the country for four years, is that it seems the number of homosexuals in the Atlanta area has increased a lot. They aren't transplants from San Francisco either. They are people who grew up here and were exposed to modern culture that encourages experimentation in all forms. It seems like every other woman I work with is a Lesbian or bisexual. And the only reason I know this is because they can't shut the hell up about it. They flaunt and celebrate their sexuality to the world, as if I really want to hear about it. This strikes me as dysfunctional on a psychological or sexual level. Also, not a single one of them has a steady boyfriend/girlfriend. Every damn day they are talking about who they hooked up with the night before.

Should they get married? I don't care. I think it is ironic that they would want to get married since marriage is historically a religious concept, but so be it. Most want to get married formally because they can save money tax-wise. If they truly love one another, who cares if they are recognized by the government as a married couple? I know I wouldn't.

The only beef I have is when they want to start adopting children. I mean that is taking it beyond the privacy arena. In private quarters I don't care if you want to screw doughnuts and sheep. Two people can do whatever they want with each other sexually, as long as they both consent to it. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?

The same way heterosexual men have evolved two penis-holes, one for excretion and the other for pleasure?

Hate to say it Dart, but I just lost a good deal of respect for you. This post was disgusting and very disappointing.

[_dartagnan]

Why is this ironic? You haven't met gay people with religious beliefs?

Actually no. But that wasn't my point. I am sure religious gays exist.

But generally speaking it seems the "gay community" is anti-religion. Just listen to GoodK. It seems the religious attitude towards gays gives other anti-religious people another reason to side with gays. The enemy or your enemy is your friend.

Last year in San Francisco a bunch of transvestites invaded a Catholic church and caught the priest by surprise during services. The priest treated them as if they were fellow Catholics, and placed the bread in their mouths without a second thought. They were all dressed up with bright feathers and transvestite regalia. Their intention was to mock only.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

After all, it isn't "natural" is it? Having to clean out your rectum with a water hose before you have sex. How does adaptation expect to address that one? If homosexuals were really "born that way," then what is evolution telling us? Maybe homosexual men will eventually evolve with two assholes? One for excretion and the other for pleasure.

It seems like every other woman I work with is a Lesbian or bisexual. And the only reason I know this is because they can't shut the hell up about it. They flaunt and celebrate their sexuality to the world, as if I really want to hear about it. This strikes me as dysfunctional on a psychological or sexual level. Also, not a single one of them has a steady boyfriend/girlfriend. Every damn day they are talking about who they hooked up with the night before.

But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?

I never thought I'd say this, but ... you are a flaming homophobe.

[_asbestosman]

I always thought evolutionists would have issues with this as well. After all, it isn't "natural" is it?

Actually it is quite natural. Homosexuality is seen in other species. Interestingly, beatiality has also been observed between a seal and a penguin (see my thread in the telestial kingdom).

Edit: furthermore, natural is not necessarily best. death and disease are natural. Nature is actually quite harsh. If nature had it's way, I would have died at birth, a younger brother would have died soon after birth, and my mother would have died after having twins. Actually, she would have died after me because of some other complications. No, natural is a poor measuring stick for evolutionists. I think few if any biologists use nature as a standard for goodness.

The only beef I have is when they want to start adopting children. I mean that is taking it beyond the privacy arena. In private quarters I don't care if you want to screw doughnuts and sheep. Two people can do whatever they want with each other sexually, as long as they both consent to it. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with two Fathers and then expecting them to explain the birds and the bees to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are born "that way" and an adopted child wasn't born that way? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through trying to adapt to a romantic relationship they have never seen in their home?

I don't think homosexual parents are inherently worse than foster parents, single parents, or divorced parents.

[_dartagnan]

I never thought I'd say this, but ... you are a flaming homophobe.

LOL. Oh really?

What a cop out argument. This sounds a lot like MADB telling me I am a bigot or racist because I criticize Muslims.
I said I do not care if homosexuals want to be homosexuals. It doesn't bother me what they do in their private home. Not one bit. I don't even care if they get married officially.

Yet, even after saying this, you say I am not only a homophobe but a "flaming" one? I guess that means you're gay. But I don't care if you are.

"Homophobe" presumes I am afraid of them. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have yet to meet a gay or lesbian I feared on any level. As long as they don't want to adopt children, I'm fine with whatever they want to do with or to themselves, so long as they do it in private.

Actually it is quite natural. Homosexuality is seen in other species. Interestingly, beatiality has also been observed between a seal and a penguin (see my thread in the telestial kingdom).

In any other context, this exception to the rule would not be considered an establishment of the rule.

I don't think homosexual parents are inherently worse than foster parents, single parents, or divorced parents

Oh, I don't know that this is the case either. I was just referring to the psychological trauma that could fall upon an adopted kid when the time came for him/her to learn about the birds and the bees and develop as a mature, sexually driven teenager. Why would two gay men want to adopt a child anyway? Aside from the Mythbusters, I cannot think of two gay men who have stayed together long enough to raise a child anyway.