Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Droopy]

Frankly, I think you're more worried about the evidence I posted that the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous.

Frankly, I think you're trying to embiggen your position with "science" because you know your religious judgements are not cromulent in a free society.

I'm not sure you'd know what a free society is if your life depended upon that judgment Dude. The evidence of this is the simple fact that you are apparently quite confused regarding the meaning of the term 'freedom' as applied to the concepts of the Declaration and constitution of the United States.

[_Droopy]

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.

In the first place, the court had no business ruling on this issue in the first place, and has no constitutional business so much as hearing any such case. The court is legislating again according to ideological predilections that direct leftists with unaccountable power to overturn the will of the people, expressed both as referenda and legislative actions, when such action runs afoul of the ideological and moral purity of The Anointed.

The California court is lawless, and that, of itself, is cause for substantial anger.

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.

Because the purpose of "Gay" marriage is not, as a practical political matter, to allow homosexuals to marry, as very few homosexuals, and especially male homosexuals, have ever been interested in this institution or ever will be. The entire function of such measures is to deprivilege the norms of heterosexual marriage as traditionally understood in western Judeo/Christian societies. Its about the drawing of equivalence between the two sexual and cultural paradigms, not that there is some gnawing desire among homosexuals to marry. There never has been. If homosexuals can marry and such marriages are legally and societally equivalent to heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage then, by definition, is of no greater value or substantive benefit to society than a legal cohabitation between homosexuals.

[_Droopy]

I bet you would have loved living under Taliban rule.

Can't you even try, Rollo, to debate an educated conservative with some degree of intellectual seriousness?

[_Droopy]

My wife is a child psychologist and she has to deal with kids feeling discriminated against for a wide variety of reasons, some of which deal with the parents. Last night I was watching another "reality show" and I don't know what it was called, but I saw enough of it to realize the mother was a former model and playboy pinup. Even though she was in her 50's, she was always dressing in tight shorts as if she were in her 20's. Her daughter was always embarrassed to be seen in public with her. Now assume she had to deal with two fathers. You don't seem to understand or appreciate the impact these kinds fo things have on children... unless of course they are gay children.

I cannot recall the name of the study (perhaps I will look it up later), but the largest sociological study done on the effects that gay parents have on children revealed some interesting results. (by the way: the study focused almost entirely--IIRC--on children being raised by two lesbian mothers.) What the study demonstrated is that the children raised by lesbian mothers are (arguably) better off in some respects. For example, boys tend to be less violent and aggressive, and girls tend to be less hamstrung by "traditional female roles." On the other hand, the study also showed that these kids, as they grew older, tended to be more tolerant of and willing to experiment with same-sex attraction.

I'm not altogether sure what you're arguing here, Kevin.... Are you saying that gays should be prevented from adopting, or that the children of gay parents are somehow worse off than the child of the ex-Playboy pinup you adduced above?

could you reference that study Scratch?

[_Some Schmo]

Because the purpose of "Gay" marriage is not, as a practical political matter, to allow homosexuals to marry, as very few homosexuals, and especially male homosexuals, have ever been interested in this institution or ever will be. The entire function of such measures is to deprivilege the norms of heterosexual marriage as traditionally understood in western Judeo/Christian societies. Its about the drawing of equivalence between the two sexual and cultural paradigms, not that there is some gnawing desire among homosexuals to marry. There never has been. If homosexuals can marry and such marriages are legally and societally equivalent to heterosexual marriage, heterosexual marriage then, by definition, is of no greater value or substantive benefit to society than a legal cohabitation between homosexuals.

Really? I'm assuming you're gay to be able to make such a claim, or have at least interviewed a substantial number of homosexuals and documented their response. Which is it?

[_Droopy]

Really? I'm assuming you're gay to be able to make such a claim, or have at least interviewed a substantial number of homosexuals and documented their response. Which is it?

No, but I've done a great deal of reading and study on the subject of the homosexual lifestyle and subculture, from both critical and pro standpoints. You might begin with "The Gay Tapes", a published series of interviews with practicing homosexuals done in the seventies regarding the core aspects of that lifestyle and its prime directives.

The work of Judith Reisman on the homosexual subculture and its media are also excellent.

[_Droopy]

What is interesting about Schmo's position here, is that, if taken seriously, would mean that no one who is not homosexual can possible, upon any rational, observational, or principled basis, have any credible critique of homosexual culture and behavior.

Extended to other areas, the consequences for philosophy, psychology, and history could be quite startling.

[_asbestosman]

(I was thinking about this and wondering if someone would point it out... ya crazy bastard).

heh heh

It was hard to pass up such a perfect setup for calling your manliness into question. I just couldn't resist.

(and of course, I only mean it as a good-natured joke).

[_dartagnan]

Dart - many, if not most, heterosexuals like to participate in activities where the man sticks his penis (where his pee comes out) into the other person's mouth, ejaculates, and the other person (wife, girlfriend, whatever) then swallows the semen.The women like it when a man licks her clitoris, which is like an inch from where her pee comes out, and three inches from where her excrement comes out. How is being graphic like this about heterosexual sex any less shocking or even disconcerting when told to a child, than is a description of homosexual sex?

Well, you are talking about foreplay, not the sexual activity required for procreation. The subject usually comes up in the context of "Where do babies come from?" Just curious, but are they teaching about oral sex in biologiy classes nowadays?

The thing is, you can't demonstrate that homosexuality is wrong

I never said it was wrong.

There's a good reason why most parents shield their children from the details of sex until they're older. And when people are older, they can presumably deal with it, or learn to deal with it.

Well I guess they will have to won't they? Because homosexual couples feel the need to adopt babies. And during the entire fiasco, everyone is talking about the rights of the homosexuals, and virtually nothing is said about the psychological development of the child. Have you tried adopting a kid? It is pretty difficult. If they think there is the slightest reason you might not be able to give the kid what it needs, they scratch you off. But usually what they look for is income stability. As if money is all that matters.

The aversion that you and I probably both feel for the idea of two men getting it on doesn't prove anything about the inherent rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.

Let me repeat. I never said homosexuality is wrong. Hell, I don't even believe it is.

And the bottom line is that the homosexuals seem to be OK with it, and they're the ones marrying each other. Nobody's forcing you to divorce your wife and go marry some gay dude.

Let me repeat again. I have no problems whatsoever with gay men or lesbians wanting to get married. More power to them as far as I am concerned. I don't know why my position seems to be escaping so many people who feel the need to comment.

I really think the religious zealots ought to calm down, learn to deal with the fact that some people aren't like them, and content themselves with the idea that if God is so seriously pissed off at homosexuals, it'll be up to him, personally (not through his self-appointed human deputies), to take care of it.

I think the religious zealots are a pain in the ass in more ways than one. But so what? That's life. They have to deal with gay radicals invading Catholic Churches and making a mockery of it without the slightest hint that the legal system gives a toot.
Incidentally, why is polygamy illegal? If we are really going to adopt this “F” whoever you want and marry whoever you want and don't let religion get in the way, then why is polygamy illegal? A few years ago I predicted that polygamy would have to become legalized if we keep going down this path.

This same excuse ("think how the kids will be made fun of!") was often used to discourage interracial marriage.

You mean like in the movie "Losing Isaiah," based on a true story? In that case it was a black baby who was adopted by a white family after the black mother threw it in a dumpster. The argument was that the baby would be better off with a black family, and they won the case!

by the way, Kevin, we're all dying to hear how your kids reacted when you told them they are the product of your semen coming out of your pee-pee hole and into your wife's vagina. Deeeesgusting.

Don't play dumb beastie. You don't look good with the dunce cap on. It doesn't fit you.
You know damn well there is a huge difference and that explaining one is much easier to explain as it is for the kid to understand.

If what really offends you is anal sex, then you're going to have to be less sloppy and condemn the many heterosexuals who also engage in the practice.

Where in the hell did I say anal sex offended me? You guys need to get your act together and your ducks in a row. The whole lot of you are jumping to conclusions about my position, which I never made. How many times do I have to say I don't care how people have sex as long as they both consent to it and it is done in the privacy of their home?

Yeah, homosexuality is the fear of homosexuals... LOL. So much for darte's English comprehension.

The word is "homophobia," moron. So much for Schmo's comprehension. And it is virtually impossible to be "afraid" of homosexuality without being afraid of homosexuals. But the word homophobia can refer to both.

[_Some Schmo]

What is interesting about Schmo's position here, is that, if taken seriously, would mean that no one who is not homosexual can possible, upon any rational, observational, or principled basis, have any credible critique of homosexual culture and behavior.

Extended to other areas, the consequences for philosophy, psychology, and history could be quite startling.

Wow, you're off to a great start, aren't you? Already acting like a dumbass. Obviously, one doesn't need to be gay to understand their culture. However, what you said was pure BS, so I decided to ask about your sources.

It seems to me that if we take you seriously, you are able to speak sweeping generalities about the entire gay subculture as though you're an authority on what their motives are, and I would think that if you're claiming to be that dialed in to what they're all about, you'd either have to be gay or have had extensive experience speaking with them about their personal ideologies and desires.

My own personal experience speaking with gay people and their relatives is entirely contradictory to what you seem to have gleaned reading a couple of books, so you'll have to forgive me when I can't help but LOL at your obvious ignorance and homophobia dressed up as informed political analysis.