Questions for Wade

[_asbestosman]

And just to avoid a possible strawman - I think it's possible to oppose gay marriage without being a bigot against gay people. Opposition to gay marriage, or even an obsession with the topic, is not what makes Wade a bigot. It is that he consistently associates the worst possible social traits with homosexuals that makes him a bigot.

Sure, but what proportion of Mormons who oppose gay marriage do you think are not bigots? I've pretty much stopped caring if everyone thinks I'm a bigot and I suspect Wade has too.

[_beastie]

Sure, but what proportion of Mormons who oppose gay marriage do you think are not bigots? I've pretty much stopped caring if everyone thinks I'm a bigot and I suspect Wade has too.

I suspect most of the Mormons who oppose gay marriage aren't bigots. My parents aren't, and neither is my sister.

You aren't a bigot, either, as far as I can tell. The fact that you put yourself in the same category as Wade tells me you really aren't familiar with his "body of work", are you?

Did you ever read his old website? I'm assuming not, since it's been quite a while since he took it down. Would you classify homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality? Wade did. If you think that homosexuality between two consenting adults deserves to be classed with other sexual behaviors that include predatory actions on nonconsenting individuals- animals, children, or dead people - I may revise my opinion about your bigotry, as well.

[_beastie]

No, I don't think it does. I think it entails the belief that stable heterosexual relationships are too-often considered undesireable. How many kids are being raised in a home without their fathers?

There's an important, but subtle, distinction that needs to be made.

I don't know a single person in my culture who thinks that a stable heterosexual relationship is undesirable.

Many people think that a stable heterosexual relationship is not within their grasp. But most would love to have one.

[_asbestosman]

I don't know a single person in my culture who thinks that a stable heterosexual relationship is undesirable.

Many people think that a stable heterosexual relationship is not within their grasp. But most would love to have one.

You bring up a good point. I think people want stable relationships. I just think that many aren't willing to pay the price (although some who don't succeed are). I think most people also want to be physically fit but many don't want to exercise to the necessary extent.

[_asbestosman]

Did you ever read his old website?

Well, I did make fun of his keys and locks analogies some time ago.

Would you classify homosexuality in the same category as pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality?

No, but I have brought them up to make points but have stopped (or worked hard to avoid it) because it almost always ends up missing my point by going into a tangent about how gays aren't pedophiles or whatever. I tend to prefer analogies with a (possibly) genetic component of cleptomania.

Wade did. If you think that homosexuality between two consenting adults deserves to be classed with other sexual behaviors that include predatory actions on nonconsenting individuals- animals, children, or dead people - I may revise my opinion about your bigotry, as well.

Did Wade, or was he trying to talk about why genes aren't a free pass on behavior? Does he also point out the oddness of forbidding bestiality while yet allowing animals to be slaughtered for food and clothing (since I'm sure animals don't consent to their slaughter)? And the children thing is also an interesting point for me. The line is somewhat arbitrary. None of that is an arguemnt from me that homosexual relationships are equivalent to the other perversions. My personal favorite is a comparison to adult consensual incest.

Quite honestly I'm getting kind of sick of the whole issue. It raises questions about the role and extent of government that somehow just don't sit well with me. I don't like the tactics that have been used on either side of California.

For a time I enjoyed the debate, but honestly it's at the point where I find it frustrating, sickening, and even maddening. I would never want my name associated with either (or any) side of the issue. If it weren't for anonymity, I'd probably never say anything about it except maybe occasionally playing devil's advocate to both sides.

[_beastie]

Wade wasn't talking about genetics. He simply lumped homosexuality along with those other disorders, which his so-called* center was going to address. Of course, the only one the so-called center addressed was homosexuality.

Look at it this way. If some anti-mormon Christian individual set up a website, and pretended there was a "center" behind the website, and called the "center" The Center Investigating Nonsensical New Religions - or CINNRS - and on the website's introductory website, the "center" proclaimed interest in investigating the following nonsensical new religions: Mormonism, David Koresh's group, Jim Jone's Group, Heaven's Gate, and Wayne Bent's group - what would your reaction be? And if that same person then visited a board for Mormons, and proclaimed his interest in working with Mormons for this center's study, and invited them to his website, and on the front page they saw Mormonism linked with religions that engaged in homicidal, suicidal, or sexually predatory behavior, what would those Mormons think? And if that same person put on a polite face on the LDS board, and then chastised the Mormons for reacting harshly and negatively to him, what would Mormons think? And how about if that same person spent many years talking about Mormonism on various boards, and consistently attached the worst traits to Mormonism and explained that he wasn't "obsessed" with Mormonism (despite no evidence he investigated any other new religion), and that he was simply concerned with the over-all trajectory of our society, what would you think?


*If there was ever an instance in which the term so-called was appropriate, this is it. The website was supposed to represent a "center", when in reality, the "center" consisted of one person - Wade.

[_EAllusion]

The center should also purport to study cultivated, uncritical laudatory temperament syndrome, or CULTS for short.

[_beastie]

The center should also purport to study cultivated, uncritical laudatory temperament syndrome, or CULTS for short.

Oh, snap!!!

You win!

[_EAllusion]

I think you could go further. Wade's use of people like Judith Reisman on the subject of homosexuality is akin to using Ed Decker on the subject of Mormonism. It's telling in of itself. In reality, the former is worse, but you get the idea.

I'd like to point out that I don't really have a problem with bestiality or necrophilia per se.

I'm Ok with people having sex with some animals. I don't see anything morally wrong with having sex with a chicken outside of some minor public health concerns. A chicken in this instance is just a biological sex toy. I would have a problem with having sex with a chimpanzee, but that's because I have much more respect for the notion of chimpanzee rights - given their cognitive capacities - than I do chickens. As a good rule of thumb, I think if it is morally Ok to eat it, then there's probably little wrong with having sex with it - assuming you aren't violating anyone else's property that is.

Sex with dead bodies is a little more complex, but the short of it is I'm OK with it so long as whomever has rightful say over how the body is used is OK with it. Again, that's minus some minor public health concerns.

Of course, both these activities strike me as very weird. But weirdness in of itself is not a reason to morally condemn a sex act. I don't condemn the practice of having sex through holes in magical underwear in order to ensure a better chance of the offspring developing into god-men.

Both these activities also strike me as kinda gross. I'm not one to morally condemn something I find gross, otherwise I'd be arguing that eating mayo is unethical.

[_asbestosman]

Beastie:

If Wade really did that, he's nuts. But then I'd probably need to hear his side of the story first.

I'm not one to morally condemn something I find gross, otherwise I'd be arguing that eating mayo is unethical.

Me too although I also have some minor health concerns with the use of mayo. Just imagine, banning it might help cut down on the obesity epidemic.