Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_The Dude]

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

Given the level of evolutionary understanding you have displayed recently, I'm not at all surprised to hear you make this leap of logic. I don't actually know a single person who opposes homosexuality because they mentally transform an evolutionary "is" into a moral "ought". (Not to mention there are many examples of homosexual behavior in nature, including our own species (duh!), so the bad logic even starts with a false premise.) The people who say this are generally skeptical of evolution anyway. It's a case-study in ignorance.

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.

Wow. You are beyond... beyond. A new low for you, Kevin.

[_guy sajer]

You appear to fit this definition to a T.

Then you're an idiot if you think I have an "irrational hatred and fear" of homosexuals.

Look how ridiculously you are all reacting.

I stand by my conclusion. It is warranted based on your response to this thread.

I am not reacting ridiculously. I am not the one who responded with an irrational, offensive homophobic rant. I'm merely pointing it out for what it was.

[_GoodK]

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.

Wow. You are beyond... beyond. A new low for you, Kevin.

But we are all reading Kevin wrong. He isn't homophobic.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Kevin,

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.

Neither Asbestosman nor I said anything that would hint or suggest that you think "children living with gay parents are more likely to be abused."

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

I don't think anyone has responded the way you seem to think.

What you did say was...

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 believe gay adolescents who grow up in an environment where they are taught that their sexual orientation is of Satan, is quite possibly akin to "psychological torture". At the very least we know of many, many young people who would rather die than live under this belief.

Unlike many believers who do actually believe the above, I know of no gay or lesbian couples who condemn heterosexuality in such a way.

Just clearing things up here.

:-)

~dancer~

[_dartagnan]

I am not reacting ridiculously. I am not the one who responded with an irrational, offensive homophobic rant. I'm merely pointing it out for what it was.

And I stand by my conclusion that you are an idiot if you think anything I said warrants your pithy bigot-baiting analysis.

[_The Dude]

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.

Wow. You are beyond... beyond. A new low for you, Kevin.

But we are all reading Kevin wrong. He isn't homophobic.

"Homophobic" is a cool sounding word, but as an empty label it doesn't have much use. On the other hand, Kevin is arrogant, offensive, and ignorant -- this is a plain description of his tone and content.

[_dartagnan]

I believe gay adolescents who grow up in an environment where they are taught that their sexual orientation is of Satan, is quite possibly akin to "psychological torture".

This doesn't address my question, but merely tries to justify it with another. Which tells me the whole idea is nothing more than an attempt to "get back" at religious homes. It also takes for granted the assumption that people are "born that way" and that all gay kids are told they are "Satanic." Give me a break. You know damn well this is not usually the case. More kids suffer from being discriminated against for handicaps than for their sexuality. And today, their homosexuality would be accepted as a cool thing.

As I said before, the rise in homosexuality correlates with the way it has been normalized in today's culture, which flies in the face of the claim that kids are just "born that way." Funny how homosexuals are rapidly being "born" into a more homosexual friendly culture. Coincidence? I don't think so. I believe some homosexuals are born that way because I know there are many ways a genes can be defective, and some people are born with both sexual organs. Some people are born that way. But today all I see is a bunch of attention needy kids who want to be accepted.
Kids are experimenting sexually because it is the cool thing to do.

At the very least we know of many, many young people who would rather die than live under this belief.

Oh give us a break TD. And how many religious people have died due to religious persecution? Not killed themselves, but have been killed. Far more than today's gay community has suffered. In fact today's society is extremely friendly to homosexuals if you consider the facts. They have more rights than perhaps any other country in the world. To say you're gay or that you have "experimented" is a cool thing to say. Saying this anywhere other than Church grounds, would not draw ridicule or persecution. Even if people felt that way, nobody today can afford to be accused of discrimination or bigotry.

Unlike many believers who do actually believe the above, I know of no gay or lesbian couples who condemn heterosexuality in such a way.

Yes, they are so tolerant because they are gay, aren't they? I just threw up in GoodK's mouth.

Just clearing things up here.

With more rhetorical fog.

[_guy sajer]

I am not reacting ridiculously. I am not the one who responded with an irrational, offensive homophobic rant. I'm merely pointing it out for what it was.

And I stand by my conclusion that you are an idiot if you think anything I said warrants your pithy bigot-baiting analysis.

Your definition of idiot appears to diverge from mine.

I stand by standing by my conclusion.

Your turn :-)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

My description was based on the more vulgar comments in your post.

"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 ...

But many want and do adopt children (70,000 in CA alone).

... I'm fine with whatever they want to do with or to themselves, so long as they do it in private.

Coulda fooled me, what with your two-rectum hole comment, etc.

I pity you, Kevin.

[_dartagnan]

"Homophobic" is a cool sounding word, but as an empty label it doesn't have much use. On the other hand, Kevin is arrogant, offensive, and ignorant -- this is a plain description of his tone and content.

Ignorant of what? Nothing has been demonstrated yet. I challenge you to provide an example of anything I have said in this thread that is demonstrably "ignorant."

And I am arrogant of what?

Offensive to whom? how?

Because I was graphic in describing how two gay men would love one another?

I am making the point that this is how it would have to be explained to children when the time comes to explain it to them. If you get offended by it, then that is enough to prove my point that kids would also have a hard time hearing it. We use diagrams to explain heterosexual intercourse, so why would it be any different for homosexual intercourse?

Your Daddy didn't marry a woman because he prefers men. He prefers to stick his penis where a man's excrement naturally comes out. Now tell me this won't have some kind of traumatic impact on a child? WIll a child be more or less likely to experiment, even if he had not already felt he was "born that way"?

People become products of their environment, and this is even more true for children.