Are homophobes born that way?

[_moksha]

I think Mormons would ask that those who disagree with Mormonism still be tolerant of them and accord them the same rights of other citizens. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we Mormons extended this same tolerance toward Homosexuals?

[_The Nehor]

I think Mormons would ask that those who disagree with Mormonism still be tolerant of them and accord them the same rights of other citizens. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we Mormons extended this same tolerance toward Homosexuals?

We do. There is no right to form civil partnerships with anyone of your choice. Some people want to invent it.

[_GoodK]

I think Mormons would ask that those who disagree with Mormonism still be tolerant of them and accord them the same rights of other citizens. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we Mormons extended this same tolerance toward Homosexuals?

You are too good for your religion, Moksha. If only they were all like you.

[_Droopy]

I think Mormons would ask that those who disagree with Mormonism still be tolerant of them and accord them the same rights of other citizens. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we Mormons extended this same tolerance toward Homosexuals?

What would the world be like without this kind of illimitable vacuity?

Boring, no doubt.

[_GoodK]

We do. There is no right to form civil partnerships with anyone of your choice. Some people want to invent it.

What a joke. The church has no tolerance for humans with alternative sexual preferences. Tell me again why Bishops and Stake Presidents are hitting up its membership for donations that are going to be used to lobby against homosexual rights.

[_Droopy]

We do. There is no right to form civil partnerships with anyone of your choice. Some people want to invent it.

Its the invention of "rights" and other cultural benefits, as opposed to the rule of law and the idea that there are perennial verities and principles that should not be meddled with frivolously to suit the ever changing and shifting plastic predilections and desires of a decadent and self absorbed populace that seems to at the crux of most of these political/cultural arguments.

That's the "living" constitution (read: whatever we decide the constitution says today) of the infamous ACLU.

[Guest]

We do. There is no right to form civil partnerships with anyone of your choice. Some people want to invent it.

What a joke. The church has no tolerance for humans with alternative sexual preferences. Tell me again why Bishops and Stake Presidents are hitting up its membership for donations that are going to be used to lobby against homosexual rights.

What rights? There are no rights in question. There is a legal attempt to alter the meaning of the fundamental unit of society because some people feel they're being left out. This is not Martin Luther King here. They're not forced onto the back of buses or shoved into menial jobs or denied higher education. They want a radical reinvention of a societal construct.

[Guest]

What a joke. The church has no tolerance for humans with alternative sexual preferences.

This is both a lie and a half truth. The Church (following God), has no tolerance for sexual perversion and moral decadence. We have all the compassion in the world for people who suffer from SSA.

Tell me again why Bishops and Stake Presidents are hitting up its membership for donations that are going to be used to lobby against homosexual rights.

Leaving aside your conceptual gaffe, they're trying to protect what's left of a morally coherent and ordered society for themselves and their children from cultural Morlocks like yourself.

[_Sethbag]

Hi GoodK,

What is the place (would write purpose but of course many evolutionary deny it) of homosexuals from an evolutionary perspective?

I don't know, but it's important to remember that evolutionarily a given trait or genetic influence can be selected on the basis of how it affects the larger population, not just the expression of it in a given individual. A set of gene combinations which sometimes, say, 3% or so, results in people whose sexual orientation reduces the likelihood of their reproducing, might still be selected by evolution if those same genes, in the rest of the population, either increase reproduction, or survival, or whatever.

Additionally, since we don't really know all of the factors that combine to produce some homosexual individuals, we can't say what other effects those same factors have on the rest of society, so it's not really even possible to assess what these factors' overall evolutionary balance sheet looks like. But it is very naïve to think we could just say "these two gay guys can't reproduce, so gayness could not have evolved naturally." I don't know if that's what you were going for, but thought I'd nip it in the bud.

Also, remember that evolution doesn't result in "perfect" results. Things only have to outcompete each other, not some theoretical perfect definition or concept.

[_Moniker]

I think Mormons would ask that those who disagree with Mormonism still be tolerant of them and accord them the same rights of other citizens. Now, wouldn't it be nice if we Mormons extended this same tolerance toward Homosexuals?

What would the world be like without this kind of illimitable vacuity?

Boring, no doubt.

What would the world be like without the Lord's soldier swooping down on unsuspecting internet posters and insulting them?

Heavenly, no doubt.