Mormon forum lights up over California gay change

[_Droopy]

Of course, it is possible that the population pool Kinsey used for his studied tainted the results. But working with this, it would appear that 4% of males are "strictly homosexual". 50% of males appear to be strictly heterosexual. The others are in-between on the Kinsey scale and could, in my opinion, possibly be influenced by environment and culture.

Earth to Beastie: using Kinsey in this argument takes your intellectual credibility from zero deep into negative numbers. Kinsey's research on American sexual predilections has long been utterly discredited as the most egregious pseudo science (not to mention the likely horrendous criminal activities he and his henchmen engaged in to elicit some of there data in other areas).

The population of strictly homosexual males in this society tops out at about 3%, or perhaps somewhat higher. Kinsey's estimate of a 10% figure is pure junk science, created by his preposterous methodology, and his claims of vast numbers of average Americans, at that time, engaging in all kinds of bizarre sexual fetishes and perversions is nothing more than hokum, but important hokum upon which the "sexual revolution" was predicated, in part.

[_moksha]

Droopy, do you feel threatened by Gay people?

[_Moniker]

You do realize that you continue to make the same error in asserting this. This particular case IS a STATE case before a STATE court. In this instance, the people in the STATE of California passed a STATE law that was deemed to be in conflict with the STATE constitution. Under the checks and balances system of government, this is what happens.

1. The 10th amendment reserves all unenumerated rights to the states (legislatures) or to the people.

That's right -- and marriage is left up to the states!

It mentions nothing about the courts. Legislatures, in a constitutional sense, make and unmake laws, not courts. Public school seems to have done as much damage to your as it has done to some other folks here.

The courts are created by the state constitutions, Coggins! The courts RULE on the legislation and they can deem it unconstitutional! If the people of the state don't like it they can amend their constitution.

2. What features of the state constitution has anything to say, or imply, about homosexual marriage, or marriage of any kind?

Why don't you read the ruling? I'm about to! http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 147999.PDF

[_cksalmon]

CK

It's as if KG can't express a controversial opinion without being subjected to the bogus claim that he is merely expressing a facet of his own self-loathing.

Why is this your default?

Thanks CK. It looks like more and more people are starting to see this silly rhetoric for what it is, even if Schmo can't. There is nothing intellectual about this. There is no "working hypothesis" in his nonsense. It is just an attempt to dismiss via bigot-baiting, which is what we see all the time with race-baiters as well. This is the default position for most intellectually bankrupt minds.

What I find telling about this discussion is that you've been labeled a bigot, a homophobe, and it has been suggested that you might be a closet homosexual, all for expressing a dissenting opinion.

When GoodK posted his anti-religious comments--"I hate you all," "idiots," "shut up," "sick of it," etc.--I saw no one jump in and state that GoodK was a bigot, a "religiophobe," or that he might be a closet believer himself.

His comments were certainly more pointed, directed, and mean-spirited than anything you've written here.

I tolerate GoodK's rant, though his comments seem quite intolerant themselves. I say I tolerate them, because I disagree with them. In order for toleration to mean anything, it must have as its proper object something which with I disagree--perhaps even strongly. I questioned his comments. But, I never accused him a being a bigot, even though he stated that he "hates" people like myself and demanded that religionists shut up.

In other words, if GoodK's post had had the farthest-reaching effect he might have hoped for, it would have squelched the speech of those with whom he disagrees ("shut up!"). Yet, I don't believe anyone has really told him that his post demonstrates a desire to curb the speech of others. Certainly, no one has challenged his position or right to express himself by labeling him a bigot.

And, yet, when you expressed a dissenting opinion here (a minority opinion), almost immediately, it seems, forth spring the cries of "bigotry," "intolerance," "homophobe," etc., though your comments were far less vitriolic. Certainly, Schmo's comments about you have been intolerant--and, moreover, intolerant in the quest to ensure tolerance for homosexuals, which isn't at all at issue. Some folks seem to have a warped view of tolerance: if another's comments agree with theirs, they're fine, even if they're vitriolic, hateful, and plain rude. Tolerance is reserved for those with whom one agrees ideologically. That's, of course, not tolerance at all; that's agreement. Tolerance only comes in when I disagree with something--i.e., when I have to tolerate something that rubs me the wrong way.

Certain comments in this thread strike me as nothing more than efforts at thought policing.

But, as I'm a tolerant guy, I can deal with it.

Chris

[Guest]

I noticed the homophobe comments and found them slightly reactionary -- although a case could be made for them. Good people can disagree without being bigots. Yet, dart slung some, as well:

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

[_cksalmon]

I noticed the homophobe comments and found them slightly reactionary -- although a case could be made for them. Good people can disagree without being bigots. Yet, dart slung some, as well:

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

Waiting for someone to get in a tizzy that Coggins essentially called me a perv and a "liberal" (*gasp*) again. Yet, no thought police ever take issue with him being rude and demeaning to me. Ahhh, the hell of being the never-mo sinner that doesn't give a crap about any of this s*** and no one bothers to take issue with what I'm labeled. Oh, let me whine.... Oh, no, only the fellas do that. My bad! :)

I believe that if we had to respond to every instance when Coggins says something offensive, rude, or demeaning, we'd never get to do anything else here. And I think that's how he wishes to keep it.

;-)

CKS

[_Moniker]

I noticed the homophobe comments and found them slightly reactionary -- although a case could be made for them. Good people can disagree without being bigots. Yet, dart slung some, as well:

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

Waiting for someone to get in a tizzy that Coggins essentially called me a perv and a "liberal" (*gasp*) again. Yet, no thought police ever take issue with him being rude and demeaning to me. Ahhh, the hell of being the never-mo sinner that doesn't give a crap about any of this s*** and no one bothers to take issue with what I'm labeled. Oh, let me whine.... Oh, no, only the fellas do that. My bad! :)

I believe that if we had to respond to every instance when Coggins says something offensive, rude, or demeaning, we'd never get to do anything else here. And I think that's how he wishes to keep it.

;-)

CKS

Oh! I edited it 'cause I didn't want to drag Coggins back into it! Haha! :)

[_beastie]

Something that struck me as "different" after being out of the country for four years, is that it seems the number of Mormons in the Atlanta area has increased a lot. They aren't transplants from Utah either. They are people who grew up here and were exposed to modern culture that encourages religion in all forms. It seems like every other woman I work with is a Mormon. And the only reason I know this is because they can't shut the hell up about it. They flaunt and celebrate their religion to the world, as if I really want to hear about it. This strikes me as dysfunctional on a psychological or sexual level.

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 worship a sheep. People can do worship whatever they want. But what's the purpose of wanting to expose little children to that kind of lifestyle? I cannot imagine growing up with Mormon parents and then expecting them to explain rational religion to me. Don't most kids want to grow up and be like their parents? And what if people are inclined to believe Mormonism, and an adopted child isn’t? What kind of psychological torture would he or she be going through living life with a religion they didn’t really believe?

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

I guess there are more Mormons on this forum than I realized.

In another 10 or 20 years when the percentage of Mormons in America has tripled, people will start to realize that culture obviously has an effect on this and that religion is a learned condition and above all, a choice. They do a good job of converting liberal minded people who are willing to experiment with anything.

You even hear about some Mormons competing with one another in their attempts to convert other people. When living in Orlando, it didn't seem to matter how many times I told Mormons I wasn’t interested. They kept trying to convince me to give it a shot, and they promised I would never go back, etc. And with today's society celebrating conservative religion this only makes it more attractive for those with existing self- identity issues.

I know for a fact that Mormonism can be a learned behavior, the same as enjoying shoving gerbils up one's butt is also a learned behavior. I knew a guy who was Mormon as a teen but then became born again later. He attributed his Mormon experimentation with psychological issues he had to overcome as a kid. Ten years later he is saved, and he often gives talks on overcoming Mormonism.

Now I know this isn’t a completely smooth transition, but I wanted to try and demonstrate the tone of Kevin’s comments. It isn’t being worried about homosexual adoption, it’s using the emotionally laden negative tone he’s used. Shoving gerbils up one’s butt?? Come on. Whether or not he will ever admit it, his posts have been dripping with disgust and judgment.

[_Trevor]

I believe that if we had to respond to every instance when Coggins says something offensive, rude, or demeaning, we'd never get to do anything else here. And I think that's how he wishes to keep it.

Excellent insight.

[_asbestosman]

What I find telling about this discussion is that you've been labeled a bigot, a homophobe, and it has been suggested that you might be a closet homosexual, all for expressing a dissenting opinion.

When GoodK posted his anti-religious comments--"I hate you all," "idiots," "shut up," "sick of it," etc.--I saw no one jump in and state that GoodK was a bigot, a "religiophobe," or that he might be a closet believer himself.

I have labeled neither GoodK nor Dartagnan as a bigot. I'm not really interested in that kind of argument--at least not at this time. I'm far more interested in hashing out reasons for or against gay adoption / marriage.