Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Jason Bourne]

I notice many of my fellow Mormons have been reacting quite negatively, at MAD and LDS Net, to the news
that the California Supreme Court has struck down the ban on Homosexual marriages in that state.
Frankly I am somewhat surprised at their anger. You would think that Richard Nixon had been impeached
all over again.

It really concerned me, that one poster even suggested there should be an earthquake coming in San Francisco.
Why such a reaction? The Church will not be forced to recognize such marriages and Utah is still free to put up
Gay-Free Marriage Zone poster at their borders.

I even suggested on another board, that the Church could hold a protest parade on Haight Street in San Francisco
if it would help them regain their sense of equilibrium.

My biggest problem with this is that four judges over rode the vote of the people. This seems flat out wrong. I imagine a referendum on adding something to define marriage to the state Constitution is next for those opposing this.

[_truth dancer]

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?

Wow... Kevin what is up with this?

:-(

I couple houses down from me live a great family... a lesbian couple and three children. These kids are incredible as are their parents.

These women went to Russia twice to adopt "high needs" children from an orphanage in Siberia. They are life long partners and have created a very loving home for their children.

I REALLY struggle when people think that somehow these amazing women are less capable of raising good children than a heterosexual couple. Or that these children would be better off in an orphanage.

What nonsense.

:-(

Homosexuality is natural.

Just like you don't choose your sexual preference, neither do children.

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

Are you thinking about gay children growing up in a home where homosexuality is taught to be of Satan? Yeah that is torture.

I think most homosexual couples don't go with this idea, in fact I think they make it clear to their children that whatever sexual preference they have is fine with them.

~dancer~

[_asbestosman]

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

I don't know about that either. We establish plenty of rules for handicapped humans even though they are the exception to the rule (help for the blind, deaf, those unable to walk, etc.).

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.

My understanding is that the children of gay parents (adopted, or from a previous marriage) are well-adjusted. I think you may overestimate the role of parents on a child's sexuality. While I agree that my parents played a role, I think I also learned lots from being a part of society (peers, books, health class, etc.). Furthermore, one could (and many do) argue that teenagers are held back in sexual development by religious parents who demand that the teenager refrain from masturbation. I disagree, but I would think that such is at least as influential to sexual development as the sexual orientation of one's parents.

[_Sethbag]

Anything in combination with homosexuality is dangerous and destructive.

Yes, with religious zealotry being a prime example.

They [homosexuals] are criminals. All who engage in the homosexual lifestyle are breaking the law of God.

Let God deal with it then. And if he doesn't do it the way you want, here in this world, then console yourselves that, just like he does with all the promised blessings that don't seem to materialize, he must have decided to deal with it in the hereafter instead.

There is something fundamentally dangerous and wrong-headed with the idea that God has deputized someone, or some group of people, and authorized them to enforce his "law" on the rest of us. It is delusional, and it's psychopathic.

If I were a Californian, I would be ready to take out their supreme court by gun point. It's pure tyranny.

I'm almost ready to call the men in the white shirts on this guy. He's literally batsh*t crazy.

These guys don't even realize - they can't even see it - that they are American Taliban in thought and intent, and only the lack of machine guns and willing stooges to go along with them stops them from acting just like little Mormon Mullah Omars.

F*ck em. For all you non-crazy, non-fanatical, non-bloodthirsty TBMs out there, these are your co-religionists. It's your problem - deal with it.

[_asbestosman]

F*ck em. For all you non-crazy, non-fanatical, non-bloodthirsty TBMs out there, these are your co-religionists. It's your problem - deal with it.

Uhh huh. And the Taliban is a Muslim problem so we should make them deal with it while ignoring it ourselves.

[_GoodK]

If I were a Californian, I would be ready to take out their supreme court by gun point. It's pure tyranny.

I'm almost ready to call the men in the white shirts on this guy. He's literally batsh*t crazy.

I think someone should forward it to the department of HLS.

[_skippy the dead]

My biggest problem with this is that four judges over rode the vote of the people. This seems flat out wrong. I imagine a referendum on adding something to define marriage to the state Constitution is next for those opposing this.

Sometimes the vote of the people is simply wrong. Just because a majority of people want something doesn't mean it's right or lawful - that whole protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority thing. I can point to a number of cases over the last two hundred years that have been intended to do exactly that, but I'm sure that with a little bit of thought you can think of them on your own.

[_guy sajer]

F*ck em. For all you non-crazy, non-fanatical, non-bloodthirsty TBMs out there, these are your co-religionists. It's your problem - deal with it.

Uhh huh. And the Taliban is a Muslim problem so we should make them deal with it while ignoring it ourselves.

Sadly true enough. The irrational religionists are our problem as well.

[_asbestosman]

Sometimes the vote of the people is simply wrong. Just because a majority of people want something doesn't mean it's right or lawful - that whole protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority thing. I can point to a number of cases over the last two hundred years that have been intended to do exactly that, but I'm sure that with a little bit of thought you can think of them on your own.

Where was this protection when the church was practicing polygamy? Probably on vacation for several decades waiting for the 1960's. *

* No, I don't like polygamy, but I don't see why it should be the government's buisness to prohibit it. Forced or underage marriages are, of course, different matters.

[_dartagnan]

TD and Asbestosman, I never once hinted or suggested that children living with gay parents are more likely to be "abused." I never questioned their ability to provide and treat the kids with loving care. I don't believe that to be the case, and that never had anything to do with what I was saying. I simply believe it is a psychological stumbling block for children growing up with gay parents. It doesn't mean they will become criminals or uneducated or anything of the sort.

I am surprised how many people here are reacting thsi way to my comments.

I guess there are more gay people on this forum than I realized.

My belief is not based on "homophobia," whatever the hell that means. Nor is it based on any scientific studies - I admit that too. It is something I believe to be true due to my own interaction with developing children, including my own. I taught middle-school and high school for three years. My wife is a child psychologist, so I am just working off of experience here. Kids have enough to be burdened with as it is. Teaching them about reproduction and sexuality and the purpose of sexual organs, throws them for a loop as it is. But to add the fact that Daddy1 and Daddy2 can't have kids of their own because they prefer to stick their penis' in each others rectum, only fosters more confusion and perhaps frustration.

I guess in time we will know for sure. Gays adopting babies is a relatively recent phenomenon. Right now there isn't much to study, but there will be eventually.