OtterPop

I think Frank Abagnale is a great example. You can read his philosophy on his website. He now runs a private consulting firm on security. He also says very clearly that he regrets his past actions, and that he strives to be the antithesis of what he was.

I just hope she's married to a really nice man!

I quoted directly from him, and I encourage anyone who is interested to read the piece for themselves. I linked to it above. He says very clearly that the LDS church does not have a position on the causes of homosexuality. He also says that it is the moral responsibility of gay LDS members to control their actions, and that such control is possible. I have neither misrepresented nor criticized the LDS church's statement. You made an accusation that is completely unfounded. I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that and apologize.

Omega, no who has actually read the literature would assert that genetics is the reason people are gay. It is unquestionably more nuanced than that. Science expects to get things wrong. It is about formulating hypotheses and testing them, and using data to formulate new hypotheses and testing them . . . I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but I think those of you who are LDS and are so sure of the causes of homosexuality really should read the statement of your own leaders on lds.org. They are a more open-minded about this question than what I'm seeing here.

Elphaba, thanks for the heads up. Fiannan, not once have I been dogmatic, and not once have I said that the likely root cause of homosexuality is genetic, because I actually don't think it is. Biological, yes, but not genetic. Nice introduction of a red herring on intelligence. I actually do think that raw intelligence is mostly inborn as well. Good to know that you have the causes of sexual orientation all figured out. Perhaps you should give Dallin Oaks a call and let him know. He seems unclear on it.

I'm not sure whether you're being facetious or not. Actually, our Constitution specifically says that the individual states have the right to legislate everything that's not provided in the Constitution, which at this point doesn't talk about marriage. Also, in this country, marriage in a contract. Animals cannot enter into contracts. Surely, this is the case in Australia as well?

Oskar Schindler

I'm genuinely surprised, then, that you can conclude there is "no compelling evidence" for the the idea that gay people are born gay. I think there are lots of compelling data that point to biological roots of sexual orientation. Not proof, but certainly evidence. I can go into as much depth as you want. I am perfectly willing and able to discuss situational homosexual behavior, but I believe that sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior. My guess is that you do, too, as this is an important distinction that the LDS church makes in its recent statements on homosexuality. I don't find it strange at all. Of course gay advocates have to be much more aggressive in promoting their agenda. They are working to overcome significant negative attitudes of long duration. I understand that to you -- and many others -- homosexual behavior is considered a grave moral transgression. To you, this is patently not a civil rights issue. I get that. However, I do see it as a civil rights issue. In my view, both homosexuality and heterosexuality are morally neutral in and of themselves. Gay marriage is the hot issue right now. Those who pooh-pooh how important it can be for committed same-sex couples underestimate the power of marriage. Right now, any man and woman for a small fee can instantly make each other their next of kin. To achieve that same result, same-sex couples typically have to spend thousands of dollars in legal fees. I don't think that people who want to limit rights according to gender or sexual orientation are inherently bad people -- but I do think they are wrong. Just as they think I am wrong. (And I strongly suspect that most of them don't think people like me are inherently bad, either.) If I understand you correctly, you assert that sexual orientation is not inborn. My reading of information on lds.org is that the LDS church takes a less definite stance on this issue. Quoting Dallin Oaks at Same-Gender Attraction - LDS Newsroom: What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. . . . [H]omosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. . . . We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. . . . No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. . . . The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on. I see this as a more measured and nuanced approach than what you have stated on this thread.

Jazzy, some people truly don't have a choice, and it's not about bigger houses, nicer cars, or electronic gadgets. Most single parents could not possible do home schooling. Some married couples live in poverty and truly can't afford to live on one income. Having a roof over your head and food on the table is a higher priority than home schooling your kids.

I don't think the LDS church is "vague" on this isssue. The fact that they don't have a black-and-white policy, I think, acknowledges that abortion is not murder and is a legitimate choice in some situations. I think it also shows that they assume that members are able to work through some important and complex issues for themselves. It reminds me of the scripture from the D&C that says something about those who need to be commanded in all things are slothful servants. (I don't feel like looking up the exact reference right now -- I'm a slothful servant to my argument in this case. But don't ever question that scripture chases in seminary aren't worthwhile. The only reason I remember that scripture 30 years later is that it was a scripture-chase reference!)

Fiannan, how much reading about gender and sexual orientation have you actually done? How many gay people have you actually talked to about their orientation? (And just to be clear, I don't mean their "sex life" when I say that.) You are certainly entitled to believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and unnatural, but your ideas about sexual orientation are outdated and based on ignorance. The LDS church endorses views about SSA that are a lot more nuanced. Maybe you should get a clue from them.

First, there is a vice versa. Gay people are often asked out by straight people. One's sexual orientation cannot usually be determined in a glance. I don't think it will every be considered wrong to reject someone romantically if you're just not attracted to them.

I'm not sure how much research you've done, but there certainly is some compelling evidence that sexual orientation has some biological (not necessarily genetic) roots. It's also a leap to say that it would have disappeared even if it were solely genetic. Lots of gay people have biological children the old-fashioned way. I used to work with gay support groups in Provo, UT (where BYU is located), and we had plenty of middle-aged Mormon men who had been married in the temple and had a "picture perfect" Mormon family trying to deal with their homosexuality and whether or how to come out. Of course, how to approach their kids was a MAJOR issue for these men. In addition, some biologists have theorized about why homosexuality might acutally be selected for. (Two references off the top of my head are On Human Nature by E.O. Wilson and Sperm Wars by Robin Baker.) BUT, even though I am unabashedly liberal -- and I have no horse in this race, as I don't have children -- I would rather see the teacher respond something like, "That's a controversial question that hasn't been settled, so I don't want to tell you how to think about it. How would you go about finding out information on both sides so you can come to your own conclusions?" And then go into a discussion of what fields a person might look at (biology, psychology, sociology, philosophy) and also pursue if and why the question even matters (which would bring in questions of differing ideas of standards and morality, legal issues, etc., etc.). We could all use better critical thinking skills. THAT would be education.

Pam, I do, too, and I doubt that this is really at stake. I was married in an Episcopal church, and we had to meet certain requirements that are part of Episcopal canon law: we had to get premarital counseling, at least one of us had to have been baptized a Christian, and we had to use the ceremony from the Book of Common prayer. (FYI -- there was no question or problem with my citing my baptism into the LDS church to meet that requirement.)

funkymonkey, Thank you for telling your story. I'm glad that prayer and faith pulled you back from the precipice. I also very much appreciate Bytor's post. In some other posts, I see a deep vein of judgment and of oversimplifying this issue. I work in mental health. I do think that sometimes people make suicidal gestures or attempts with questionable motivations (such as to manipulate others). Most of these people do not succeed in killing themselves, I believe because they're not serious about it. These are completely different situations from people who have serious and persistent mental illness. Not all illness responds to therapy or medication. I do think people should get treatment, and I wish psychiatric treatment were more predictable and straightforward than it is. One of the tricky things about mental illness is that it really does interfere with patients' ability to assess their own needs and to follow through with their own treatment. The posts that I recall do state that they believe some who completes suicide will be judged compassionately by a God who knows everything. I respect that.

Do you believe that illnesses continue beyond death? Do you believe that a spirit can be clinically depressed? Bipolar? Schizophrenic? I find it genuinely shocking that you believe that your Heavenly Father would bring judgment to bear upon someone with a mental illness who completes suicide. Is this what you truly believe?

Like I said, it was a comparison to show that the same tissue can be relatively meaningless in one situation, but hold great meaning in another. For myself, life obviously begins at conception. I think that legal personhood and the rights that go along with it should start at birth, as is the current policy. I don't think a zygote is a "baby" or should have the same rights as a human being. There are very few people, in my experience, who really do see a zygote as being the same as a human being. If you were in the proverbial burning building and you could grab either an infant or a canister holding 1000 frozen embryos, which would you rescue? (Let's assume for the sake of argument that you are not related to anyone in these scenarios.) Suppose you have a woman who is an unwieldy 8.5 months pregant and one who is not visibly pregnant, and you could help only one? I think most people would assist the pregnant woman, if only because she is less agile. Suppose you could assist a woman who is 8.5 months pregnant vs. one who is 4 weeks pregnant with twins? With triplets? I'm assuming that if you have to choose, you would save as many people as possible. Who do you choose? Or suppose the 8.5 months woman knows that her baby literally has no brain and will either not survive the birth process or will die hours after birth. Does that matter? Suppose you have two pregnant woman, both eight months, and you know that one is a heroin addict who does not know who the father of her baby is and is homeless, while the other is in a very stable and loving marriage. Suppose the heroin addict is pregnancy with triplets while the married woman is carrying one baby? In each of these scenarios, How many people are in the room? My point is not about being wrong vs being right on these questions. I'm only challenging the idea that these are black-and-white issues. They aren't.

Just because you define it as a black-and-white issue doesn't mean that other people don't see shades of gray. I don't think a zygote is a "baby human," but it does have that potential and is not the same as "unwanted biological material." Consider a comparison. Suppose you have a heart that is diseased and failing. While it's in your chest, it's not unwanted biological material. Imperfect though it is, you need it. But suppose you are notified that a heart has been harvested that matches you. Is a heart in an ice chest "unwanted biological material"? By the donor, yes. The donor is dead and doesn't need it. To you, it is biological material that is neither dead nor alive, but it is hardly unwanted. When your own diseased heart is removed, it becomes nothing more than medical waste. To be clear, I'm not comparing an embryo to a heart. Just illustrating that there are shades of gray in these issues.

christmasvalleyfarms, I didn't attack you or Christianity or conservatism. I challenged some of your assumptions and assertions. What on earth makes you think that if you speak of god with reverence, you will get hauled into court? When has that ever happened? I get that you don't like the ACLU, but if you think they wouldn't stand up for your right to practice your own religion, you really know nothing about the organization. Christianity doesn't need the ACLU, because Christianity is the powerful majority and assumed standard in this country. I'm surprised you can suggest otherwise. Hate speech is legal in this country, and I honestly hope that it always will be, because I truly believe in the principles of the first amendment. The only time I'm aware of that hate speech will get you in trouble legally is if it is paired with violence or destruction of property, or if it incites others to violence. Everyone is allowed to try to persuade others to their point of view. While I'm not a big fan of tossing around the words hate or hater (and to be clear, I do NOT think you've done that in this discussion), it is a legitimate tactic for gay advocates to try to paint their critics as intolerant -- just as it is a legitimate tactic for traditionalists to paint homosexuals as a threat to the sanctity of marriage. My point is that your "side" does exactly the same kind of stuff the other "side" does.

This simply isn't true. The ACLU takes on a number of cases/causes that have nothing to do with religion. Check out their website. I'm not saying you should like the ACLU, but don't misrepresent what they do. I'm not positive you're still referring to the ACLU, but I'm not aware of any group that wants to make the ten commandments illegal. I'm not even sure what that means. There certainly are groups/court cases concerning government sponsorship of displays of the ten commandments. Not wanting government support is not an attempt to make the ten commandments "illegal." You can read them, you can keep them, you can write about them. I'm not sure what else you want to do. I'm unclear on why you consider this a threat to you. The motto is still there on the coins, and it's still on our bills. I truly don't understand why this matters. The pledge didn't originally have the word God in it. Here in Utah a few years ago, they banned all clubs -- which had to include the Bible club, of course -- rather than permit a gay/straight alliance. (This policy has been changed since.) I know there have been some cases of Christian or Bible clubs being banned, but it's not accurate to say that any other type of club is welcomed "with open arms." And I'd bet it's still a lot easier to get a Bible club started in an American high school than a gay/straight alliance. Gay advocates do indeed do what they can to further their own agenda -- and so do religious groups. Shaming someone for their ideas is permitted in our society, and if gay advocates want to call condemnation of their choices "hate speech," they're allowed to. Gay advocates are allowed to criticize religious organizations for their negative opinions of homosexuality, and religious organizations are allowed to continue to say that homosexuality is immortal. Just because your ideas aren't popular doesn't mean you're being censored. Free speech does not guarantee that anyone will be free of the consequences of the ideas they express. Free speech cuts both ways. Do you really think gay rights advocates should let condemnation of homosexuality go unchallenged? And, for the record, no, I don't expect conservative Christians to keep quiet about their opinions, either.

I'm wondering if this is an accurate statement about traditional Christian beliefs. I grew up partly in the deep South (Alabama), and this is not generally what I heard Baptists say. I remember more a belief of either you're saved or you're not, and a rejection of the idea that there is such a thing as "greater Heavenly rewards." I'd like to see some non-Mormons weigh in on this question, because I'm not well versed in this at all.

Hey, I had to make my liberal status clear -- I'm in favor of the whole thing: more social programs, more income redistribution, a public safety net. Didn't want you to think I was one of those fake liberals who don't want to put up when they won't shut up.

Again, you are the one who wants to control reproductive choices, not me. I am not in favor of a policy that dictates who can and can't have kids. When I asked what Jazzy would do in regard to policy, he responded with a post about how he parents and presented his confidence that his daughter will be very responsible with her sexuality. I think he's right about his daughter, but I don't think this has much to do with the larger issue. I am liberal -- not sort of, not kind of, not "social liberal and fiscal conservative." I don't think that it's up to me or the state to decide who should or shouldn't have kids. I do think that kids should be removed from abusive situations -- not by secret police, but by the best and most open methods we can devise, which are always imperfect. Do you really not see any difference between a zygote and a child? Do you think birth control pills should be taken off the market? Are you willing to engage with the full implications of the public policies you favor? I am. And I can even do it without jumping to the most radical conclusions possible about other posters.

It sounds to me like you're the one who's invested in insinuating government into people's most intimate lives. That's not me. This discussion has been very civil. It would be nice if we kept it that way. Please don't mispresent what I say, no mater how much you disagree with it. You seem to be someone who does not draw any distinction between a fertilized egg and a living, breathing, independent human being. And by the way, when I say "not ready," I don't mean too young or too inexperienced. I mean people who don't have a clue what parenting is. I mean people who beat the hell out of their kids because they were taught that's what good parenting is. I mean people who are so insecure that they are afraid to set any limits for their child because their child won't like them anymore. You can make light all you want. I think this is a serious issue. I am interested in reducing the number of abortions, and I do and will continue to put my money where my mouth is. This is a systemic problem, one that isn't going to be addressed easily.

I wouldn't call it definitive, but this is what snopes.com has to say: Mormon Ownership of Coca-Cola.