how are there still gays?

[_dblagent007]

So anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I shouldn't care if religious people don't approve of homosexual behavior as long as all they do about it is voice their disapproval. They’re entitled to their opinion. However, if they go beyond that (like sign petitions for laws forbidding this or that), well, I think they deserve all the criticism they've got coming to them.

Religious people are fighting for the status quo - not to enact laws forbidding sodomy, etc. The problem is that the status quo is being eroded by our robed judicial masters.

[_Some Schmo]

Religious people are fighting for the status quo - not to enact laws forbidding sodomy, etc. The problem is that the status quo is being eroded by our robed judicial masters.

Sometimes, the status quo needs to be eroded for the equitable treatment of everyone. I don't see that as a problem.

[_Mike Reed]

Here is a theory:

Given Premise: Homosexuality is Genetic
If homosexuality is genetic, we would expect to see an eventual decrease in the homosexual community.

But we aren't finding a decrease. Why?
Because gay people feel compelled to live "normal" heterosexual lifestyles, and as a consequence they pass on the gay gene.

Who are these people that compel gays to live heterosexual lifestyles? Religious Ultra Conservatives.
Therefore, Religious Ultra Conservatives become the main contributing cause of the "problem" that they are fighting.

Religious Ultra Conservatives, the problem of the "problem."

[_The Dude]

Because gay people feel compelled to live "normal" heterosexual lifestyles, and as a consequence they pass on the gay gene.

As I have mentioned before, there is a far more interesting and plausible way for so-called "gay" genes to be passed on. It doesn't mainly occur through the homosexuals themselves, but through their heterosexual mothers, sisters and aunts. First of all, we must recognize that a "gay" gene is really a gene for male-attraction (androphilia). In women, these genes provide tendencies that lead to more heterosexual intercourse and more babies, and that's how the genes survive and even increase in the gene pool. Sure, the men who get them are mostly a genetic dead end, but the women who get them make up the difference in offspring. Other genes could do the same in terms of gynophilia, influencing women who have them to be lesbians, but men who have them to simply be more attracted to women and produce more offspring than average. There is evidence for androphilia genes but for gynophilia it is pure speculation at this point.

[_Sethbag]

So anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I shouldn't care if religious people don't approve of homosexual behavior as long as all they do about it is voice their disapproval. They’re entitled to their opinion. However, if they go beyond that (like sign petitions for laws forbidding this or that), well, I think they deserve all the criticism they've got coming to them.

Religious people are fighting for the status quo - not to enact laws forbidding sodomy, etc. The problem is that the status quo is being eroded by our robed judicial masters.

Maybe the status quo isn't worth keeping? by the way, all the way up to the Emancipation Proclamation, the status quo was industrial-scale black slavery in the United States. That sure was one status quo that we're well rid of.

And by the way, if you don't remember Lawrence v. Texas, that dealt specifically with a legal prohibition against sodomy that was overturned by the Supreme Court only about five years ago - and the Christian Right folks went all ape**** over that ruling. So yeah, to some extent the attitude on that side really is about controlling what gay people do.

[_Mike Reed]

Because gay people feel compelled to live "normal" heterosexual lifestyles, and as a consequence they pass on the gay gene.

As I have mentioned before...

For the record. I am not saying that I believe this. I just find the argument interesting and clever.

[_Some Schmo]

Maybe the status quo isn't worth keeping? by the way, all the way up to the Emancipation Proclamation, the status quo was industrial-scale black slavery in the United States. That sure was one status quo that we're well rid of.

Funny you should mention slavery, Seth. It was exactly what I had in mind when I made my last post.

[_dblagent007]

So Sethbag, are you going to explain what on earth your point was with your original post?

Religious people are fighting for the status quo - not to enact laws forbidding sodomy, etc. The problem is that the status quo is being eroded by our robed judicial masters.

Maybe the status quo isn't worth keeping?

Exactly. Both sides have arguments that should be freely debated to let the people decide what to do through the legislative process. The problem is when the result is hoisted upon one side through the judiciary. If the gay marriage folks win in the legislature or in the voting booths (which may happen in California), so be it.

And by the way, if you don't remember Lawrence v. Texas, that dealt specifically with a legal prohibition against sodomy that was overturned by the Supreme Court only about five years ago - and the Christian Right folks went all ape-sh** over that ruling. So yeah, to some extent the attitude on that side really is about controlling what gay people do.

The problem most people had with Lawrence v. Texas is that it was another example of the judiciary inventing stuff whole-clothe. That is why most conservatives disagreed with it. There may have been some people that were truly upset because sodomy was legalized nationwide, but I am confident they were very much in the minority compared to those that felt this was just another example of rule by judicial fiat.

[_Sethbag]

So Sethbag, are you going to explain what on earth your point was with your original post?

I thought I made myself pretty clear on that. I know people who believe that the "gay agenda" includes the conversion to homosexuality of large swathes of America. It doesn't matter that you, or Justice Scalia, define the "gay agenda" as just being about tolerance, or even acceptance. A lot of religious anti-gay folks believe the gays want actually to convert people, and that putting gay characters in movies or shows, or books or whatever, helps foster that.

Remember the Alexander Pope poem, which I've heard recited in Conference at least a few times in my life:

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. "

And many Mormons of my acquaintence take that "then embrace" seriously. They literally think that homosexuals are out there trying to turn heteros into homos. I think that's absurd. If exposure to the existence of, or some of the themes of, a given sexuality, would influence people to embrace that sexuality, then how are there still gays, given the bombardment of heterosexuality they are exposed to?

Exactly. Both sides have arguments that should be freely debated to let the people decide what to do through the legislative process. The problem is when the result is hoisted upon one side through the judiciary. If the gay marriage folks win in the legislature or in the voting booths (which may happen in California), so be it.

You seem to be an advocate of naked democracy. I'm not. I am glad we have a set of fundamental principles that are assumed to apply in our relationship with our government that goes beyond just who has 51% of the vote at any given time. Pure democracy in action is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

The problem most people had with Lawrence v. Texas is that it was another example of the judiciary inventing stuff whole-clothe. That is why most conservatives disagreed with it. There may have been some people that were truly upset because sodomy was legalized nationwide, but I am confident they were very much in the minority compared to those that felt this was just another example of rule by judicial fiat.

If you would look up public statements by the religious right, and by conservatives in general, you would probably find 5 or 10 statements lamenting sodomy becoming legal nationwide, for every complaint about the legal theory the justices used in arriving at their decision.

As far my part, I very much support the notion that the government has no right to enter into and interfere with the private lives of the citizens without very good justification - and controlling the citizens' sex lives isn't enough.

[_dblagent007]

So Sethbag, are you going to explain what on earth your point was with your original post?

I thought I made myself pretty clear on that. I know people who believe that the "gay agenda" includes the conversion to homosexuality of large swathes of America. It doesn't matter that you, or Justice Scalia, define the "gay agenda" as just being about tolerance, or even acceptance. A lot of religious anti-gay folks believe the gays want actually to convert people, and that putting gay characters in movies or shows, or books or whatever, helps foster that.

Remember the Alexander Pope poem, which I've heard recited in Conference at least a few times in my life:

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace. "

And many Mormons of my acquaintence take that "then embrace" seriously. They literally think that homosexuals are out there trying to turn heteros into homos. I think that's absurd. If exposure to the existence of, or some of the themes of, a given sexuality, would influence people to embrace that sexuality, then how are there still gays, given the bombardment of heterosexuality they are exposed to?

You must know a very different group of Mormons (or any anti-homosexual agenda people) than I do because I have never heard that homosexuals are trying to turn the rest of us into homosexuals. I think you need to provide some actual evidence that Mormon's espouse this point of view.

Your original post also had some bizarre assertion that America was inundated with only heterosexual porn and that, somehow, should have made all gays straight??? Huh?

Exactly. Both sides have arguments that should be freely debated to let the people decide what to do through the legislative process. The problem is when the result is hoisted upon one side through the judiciary. If the gay marriage folks win in the legislature or in the voting booths (which may happen in California), so be it.

You seem to be an advocate of naked democracy. I'm not. I am glad we have a set of fundamental principles that are assumed to apply in our relationship with our government that goes beyond just who has 51% of the vote at any given time. Pure democracy in action is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

So the judiciary never oversteps its bounds? It never creates rights simply to further the political agenda of its decision makers?

The judiciary needs to be bound by the text of what the people actually said were fundamental rights. Right now the left is using the judiciary to create new rights all the time, which they, of course, think is wonderful. However, this could go the other way too. A judiciary that is unbound from textual constraints as ours is today could just as easily take away rights.

If the judiciary is some bastion free of the pressures of democracy, why does it only seem to create these rights when the minority reaches a certain critical mass? Maybe because the judiciary can't stray too far from the will of the people or it will get smacked down by the people. This is precisely why the judiciary didn't invent the right to homosexual marriage back in the 40s and the same reason the judiciary has not invented a right to polygamous marriage.

The problem most people had with Lawrence v. Texas is that it was another example of the judiciary inventing stuff whole-clothe. That is why most conservatives disagreed with it. There may have been some people that were truly upset because sodomy was legalized nationwide, but I am confident they were very much in the minority compared to those that felt this was just another example of rule by judicial fiat.

If you would look up public statements by the religious right, and by conservatives in general, you would probably find 5 or 10 statements lamenting sodomy becoming legal nationwide, for every complaint about the legal theory the justices used in arriving at their decision.

The key word in your post is "probably." You don't know, do you. I read a lot of conservative blogs, websites, listen to conservative media, etc., and I have never once heard anyone lament that sodomy is now legal nationwide. Everyone complained that this was just another example of the judiciary substituting its own judgement for the people's.

As far my part, I very much support the notion that the government has no right to enter into and interfere with the private lives of the citizens without very good justification - and controlling the citizens' sex lives isn't enough.

On the merits, I agree that sodomy should not be illegal. However, there is nothing in the constitution that prevents the people from making it illegal should they chose to do so.