Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_dartagnan]

Assuming you're right, what's inherently wrong with boys experimenting even if they weren't "born that way"?

The issue is gender identity confusion among children, which is an avoidable stressor that children shouldn't have to be exposed to. A hetero kid might experiment with another male and then after realizing he is not gay, blame his actions on his parents.

Wouldn't using this to argue against homosexual adoption amount to a circular argument? Now, if you were to state that having boys experiement this way is psychologically damaging to them, then perhaps that could be an issue.

That is precisely what I am suggesting.

As for homosexual sex and excrement, don't forget that some do the oral thing too.

Of course.

Furthermore, condoms can help with the messy buisness.

No, it just helps keep the mess off of the skin of the penis.

Also, keep in mind that many heterosexual couples try that stuff.

Of course they do. But I wouldn't suspect it to be the norm, and it certainly isn't something that a kid in a hetero family would be asking, since the obvious assumption would be sex as was learned in biology class.

I never asked my parents what sort of things they tried in their bedrooms.

Well you already know how they have sex as heterosexuals, and why they have sex as heterosexual.

Would it be expected for the child of homosexual parents to inquire as to whether they did oral, anal, both, or something else? I'm not sure why.

Because homosexual parents have no choice but to do oral, anal or both. It isn't the standard procedure as is taught in school so the kid has to wonder. Neither parent has a vagina, which is what is taught in school. And can you imagine that poor biology teacher who is asked by one of these kids to explain how his two daddys are doing it?

[_Some Schmo]

There's nothing intellectual about his view (like there ever is). It simply makes him "squirm." Shocker!

That just goes along with the territory of being a heterosexual. I'm sorry if you can't relate. Just go to any movie containing a scene with two men macking out and you'll see virtually every guy in the theatre turn his head and/or make some gesture of disgust. That is why so many people were repulsed by "Broke Back Mountain." Not because it had gays in it, but because it caught people by surprise. The initial advertisement gave no indication that it was about two gay men falling in love in the mountains. Most people who went to see it the first week did so without any knowledge of its homosexual content. That is why it created such a controversy.

Of course there is such a thing as sexual attraction towards one gender, but it is also natural to be sexually repelled by the opposite. I am repelled by all men sexually. This is not because I am afraid of them or hate them. But the idea of sexual activity with them makes me want to puke, and to see two men getting it on in public repulses me as well. So yes, I can see how heterosexual children could easily become confused while growing up in a household where homosexual affection is often expressed, especially by their role-model parents. You want to make it seem like my attitude here is not natural. But who do you think you're kidding? It makes me sick now just as it would have when I was 10 years old.

Yes, yes, we all know you're homophobic. Tell us something we don't know.

I can remember being uncomfortable about it as a young adult, but I also remember observing my dad and older brothers "squirming." Once I realized that the only tangible thing I had against homosexuality was my own negative feelings about it (all of them quite clearly hand-me-downs), I was free to actually grow up and realize, that's just what they do to express love to each other, and it doesn't bother me anymore. I never particularly liked the thought of the elderly having sex either, but I grew out of that adolescent reaction as well.

Perhaps it's time you grew up, little one. Your kids' lives are at stake.

Now the real question is, why does it make him squirm? Maybe it's because there's a part of him that likes it? It's becoming more and more clear all the time. This stuff always cracks me up. It's not the first time I've seen it, and I'm sure it won't be the last.

Yea, Schmo cracked the mystery with his last shot at an intellectual remark. I'm gay! (rolls eyes)

Tell that one to my wife!

Oh yes, marrying a woman absolutely proves you aren't gay! No gay man has ever done that to cover up his own secret desires. How could I be so foolish?

Are you really this naïve and ignorant, or are you just creating a characture of who you really are?

There is an endless amount of scenario imagining that we could entertain here.

Looks like you've been doing a lot of this. Tell your wife that one, indeed.

[_Droopy]

I challenge you to show me an example of a single critique in what he's posted. I remember a lot of conjecture, but I don't remember any specific critiques. Oh wait… it makes him squirm. Now there’s a substantive critique.

He is critiquing; he is criticizing. Show me the homophobia; show me the irrational fear of homosexuals in his posts. Demonstrate that he is not making principled criticisms of homosexuality based upon sincere intellectual convictions, regardless of what his psychological reactions to homosexual relations may be.

Where have you been? How many times do I have to repeat the fact that I'm not here to debate before it penetrates your (or darte's, for that matter) thick skull? I can't even get you to understand this simple fact, let alone try to convince you of something through common sense.

And I think the reason you won't debate is simply because you don't know how and don't have the intellectual temperament for it.

Just because I choose not to debate doesn't mean I am unable. An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Isn't that what you god fearers like to point out?

See above. Keep up the pose.

Give me a single opposition to homosexuality that demonstrates any depth of analysis at all, and you might have something there.

Since you're not here to debate, doing that would be a waste of my time, and yours.

[_asbestosman]

The issue is gender identity confusion among children, which is an avoidable stressor that children shouldn't have to be exposed to. A hetero kid might experiment with another male and then after realizing he is not gay, blame his actions on his parents.

Which "avoidable stressors" are significant enough that we should consider forbidding such parents from adopting? Obesity? Facial / other bodily deformities? How significant is "genter identity confusion"?

Do the homosexual children of heterosexual parents experience this and would it have been better if those children had homosexual parents? If not, why is the heterosexual child inherently worse off with homosexual parents than a homosexual child with heterosexual parents?


Lesbian parents can conceive their own children--they just need to head to a sperm bank. These parents do have their own uterises. Would the children of a lesbian parent be in worse shape than adipted children? If so, should we also look into banning lesbians from going to sperm banks? What of single women?

IVF children of heterosexual parents, are not conceived in the normal fashion. Does this place undue stress on the children which should be avoided?

Homosexual couples do have more choices than merely anal or oral. They can engage in manual stimulation as well as many other things (I do not intend to create a list or write a book on positions).

[_Droopy]

Yes, yes, we all know you're homophobic. Tell us something we don't know.

You would have made a great anti-Semite Schmo. You have all the requisite intellectual and psychological features.

I can remember being uncomfortable about it as a young adult, but I also remember observing my dad and older brothers "squirming." Once I realized that the only tangible thing I had against homosexuality was my own negative feelings about it (all of them quite clearly hand-me-downs), I was free to actually grow up and realize, that's just what they do to express love to each other, and it doesn't bother me anymore. I never particularly liked the thought of the elderly having sex either, but I grew out of that adolescent reaction as well.

This sounds like a poor man's Phil Donahue. Having dispensed with the admittedly arduous task of thinking, Schmo is free to roam the wilds of moral anarchism and cognitive masturbation at will.

Sad.

[_Gadianton]

You know, Kevin, even though I disagree with you, I will give you credit in that I think you've thought about your beliefs on this issue and aren't just spouting brain-washed Mormonism.

I will go as far as agreeing that the question can be raised over whether or not same-sex couples should be able to adopt. That one raises the question does not make them a homophobe.

I really do have a hard time giving any kind of serious consideration to homosexuality as a choice and one that can be taught to liberals. While I've never voted, I'm probably in spirit as liberal as they come. Believe you me, nothing, no nothing could make me attracted to another dude.

People who are very promiscuous, do drugs, push boundries, and so on may be candidates for experimenting or I guess wind up in prison and get used to it in order to survive, but that's about as far as I could ever see it as a "choice". No one is ever going to be "taught to be gay" out of normal cultural conditioning.

Think about it, about how difficult it is to condition a gay person to be straight. One of if not my best friend from my mission ended up revealing many years later to me that he was gay. This was one of the most spiritual-minded person I've ever met and one who even after many years of stradling the line and "giving in" could never really find his way out of the church and disbelieve the Book of Mormon. He'd tried most of the Mormon solutions, even spent time with one of the twelve apostles hoping to find a way to really change. Oh, every girl who met him wanted him, and he had girlfriends, cultural conditioning of Mormondom was all over him.

Cultural conditioning of liberal mindedness is all over me, but I still have trouble even watching hardcore porn as I just don't get how anyone can get into watching some other hairy dude.

[_Coca Cola]

In any case, Schmo has no intellectually substantive defense of his case, or rebuttal to my points, so another thread ends in a shambles...

Coggins...

Why did you go all green and droopy?

[_beastie]

Kevin, you said this:

Well, you're way off. As I said, I have taught kids at the elementary-high school level.

In what context? Church???

Your answer to me and subsequent comments lead me to conclude that your basic problem with gay men (since, as harmony pointed out long ago, you ignore lesbians) adopting children is that you think their children will become gay. You are skeptical of the idea that gay people are "born that way" (which is a whole other conversation... when did YOU choose to be heterosexual?), so you think that this is a learned behavior.

Kevin's earlier comments:

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.

This is Kevin's fear. Allowing gay parents to adopt children will result in a culture that will eventually be overrun by homosexuals, since they learned the behavior from their parents.

So if children learn sexual behavior and orientation from parents, how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of homosexuals were raised by heterosexual parents?

[_Some Schmo]

And I think the reason you won't debate is simply because you don't know how and don't have the intellectual temperament for it.

Give me a single opposition to homosexuality that demonstrates any depth of analysis at all, and you might have something there.

Since you're not here to debate, doing that would be a waste of my time, and yours.

What's funny is you actually think you can debate, so you attempt it, and you expose your ignorance and stupidity for all to see.

You're incredibly stupid to think I give a crap what people like you think. Now that's funny. darte seems to also be under that moronic assumption, which is why I continue to laugh and mock. I would actually be concerned with what I was saying if I sensed either of you were impressed with it because you're intellectual children. Anyone can see that.

I can sit here and watch you idiots make fools of yourselves all day.

[_Some Schmo]

You know, Kevin, even though I disagree with you, I will give you credit in that I think you've thought about your beliefs on this issue and aren't just spouting brain-washed Mormonism.

I will go as far as agreeing that the question can be raised over whether or not same-sex couples should be able to adopt. That one raises the question does not make them a homophobe.

Oh please... Don't confuse "thinking something through" with spending time rationalizing one's own bigotry. Seriously, you've been fooled by this?