[Great new holiday (probably unknown)]

It's like they're trying to say "Here, you throw this away."

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

The gay agenda is that they want to be accepted in all quarters and they do not want to be judged as sinners for the choices that they make. They want to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Their goal is to remove all opposition to their immorality. They feel they can move toward achieving that goal if they can be accepted as full members in good standing of churches which have historically condemned their actions.

My wife has a very good friend who we have known for decades. He claims that if the LDS Church were to change its stand on gays, he would return in a heartbeat. So basically what he's saying is that if we were to throw out all the sins concerning sexual morality then he would be willing to forgive God for calling such conduct a sin.

I'm sure that are some people with that agenda who are gay, but I don't think there are enough of them for it to be fair to call it the "gay agenda" any more than it is fair to call the extermination (by killing) of gays the "Christian agenda" because I have heard some Christians who strongly advocate that.

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

I have actually wrestled with this one myself. I am coming to understand that definitions, if changed, change the nature of the law. I am also learning that some definitions shouldn't change. Doing so changes the nature of things. In this case, we are talking about right and wrong. ( i know ... i know) Sometimes we must preserve the original meaning of things or we lose something that is very difficult to get back. Preserving the constitution is a prime example of what I mean. You change the original meanings, and you lose the power of the position and the protection it could have created.

Thank you. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I still don't agree on the topic of marriage, but that was a very insightful comment.

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

Well, I don't think everybody wants this. But I do think that their is a great need for forced acceptance, validation, etc and there are some that want achieve such approval even if they have to legislate to get it.

But as far as I know there is no precedent for legislating a religion has to "accept" certain members and even if that is what some people want, there is absolutely no way it could happen. Arguing against same sex marriage because it is a part of an imaginary slippery slope does not make sense to me.

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

:) Well yes, I suppose they could, but that would undermine the fidelity of the marriage vow, now wouldn't it?

One word... spermcicle. I'll leave it at that

Now we are getting into the definition of marriage. It works because marriage is between a man and a woman. If the partners are not of the opposite gender then it isn't marriage. It is something else.

Definitions of everything change over time (if you don't believe me, look at the entire history of the word marriage). Denying rights just to keep a specific definition of a word doesn't make much sense to me.

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

I actually don't have a problem with that kind of an arrangement. The problem with the things going on in the US is that gays want to call it marriage and I believe that the ultimate goal is to force religions to accept gays into their churches whether their beliefs condone gay unions or not.

I have heard that argument used as justification before but it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would a same sex couple even want to be a part of a church or be married by a church that thinks they are going to hell and committing a huge sin? Why do so many people perceive allowing same sex marriage as an "attack" on their religion?

I really do want to understand this point of view and I'm not saying this just for the sake of argument.

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

Alright. I will let you be a pain. But only this time. :)

Ok. Let me amend my statement. They need the help of heterosexual sex OR technology. But it ain't happening without the egg and the sperm. Know what I'm saying????

They could just as easily do it the "old fasioned" way if both couples really wanted a family, no "technology" needed

Would you care to comment on my other part of my statement?

[Gay and Lesbian Unions]

Same sex families can't happen without the help of heterosexual unions. It is the man and the woman and their ability to have children that keeps societies going. If every union were same sex, the society would die out. I mean, this is just the way it is. SS relationships, while meaningful for those involved just aren't the same thing as marriage. Legislation can't make it into something it is not.

Just for the sake of being a pain, I would like to point out that same sex families could happen without the help of heterosexual unions. If a gay couple and a lesbian couple both wanted a kid, the gay couple could artificially inseminate the lesbian couple fairly easily and then each of them keep a baby.

I would also like to point out that marriage is not just about procreation. If it is, should people who are sterile for any reason be allowed to get married? Every statement you just made could be just as eaily applied to a heterosexual couple where one or both are sterile.

[Do you believe in ghosts?]

I don't rule out the possibility of ghosts and spirits but in general I don't believe they exist because I have not seen any evidence of them, but I have seen many fraud "psychics" who exploit people's grief to make a quick buck.

I do really live sci-fi and shows that deal with paranormal stuff though because I think it would be cool if they did exist :)

[Prop 40]

I think that's the same model as the first computer my family owned :)

[Homosexuality...]

I am sure you are right that many hid the truth or tried to see if marriage would make it go away. I am sure that many have battled in silent suffering before telling the truth. And perhaps that does include the vast majority. I am still not convinced though that this means such things are genetic.

One thing I would like to clarify. I don't think sexual orientation is genetic either, but I also don't think it is a conscious choice. I don't know about you, but I didn't sit down one day and decide that I would like to be attracted to the opposite sex and I imagine it is much the same for most homosexual people (this is supported by every gay/lesbian I've asked about it).

[Homosexuality...]

I find it interesting that so many who find themselves in the G/L lifestyle have some story from their childhoods about "not fitting in" or perhaps being treated differently.

Ever since around Jr. High and probalby a bit earlier, talking about and pursuing the opposite sex has been a significant part of social interactions. If I did not feel the same way about the opposite sex as my peers, I can see how that would be awkward and easily lead to "not fitting in."

And I have heard that it is common for people with SSA issues to have some form of sexual or other kinds of abuse in their histories.

I would be really curious to see some statistics on that. It sounds more like a myth that people easily latch on to so they can explain homosexual behavior to themselves. But then again I am not an expert on the subject.

Why is that, Oligith? Do you think this is true or would you see a link at all between feeling "different" or left out and perhaps the adversary using that as a foundation for the temptation?

I've felt different all my life, not because of my sexual orientation though, but because of the way I look at and think about things. I haven't really noticed any temptation as a result. Maybe a bit of depression, but I know people deal with things in different ways.

I get a little confused when I hear arguments about being born gay. It seems that some don't discover their sexuality until they are older. Others experiment and have attraction to both sexes and then choose thru the experimentation process. Some are flip floppers. As a female, I know that I am attracted to men. I know what that feels like. I can't imagine having both feelings or having ONLY feelings for the same sex. I often wonder if homosexuality comes from preoccupation of thoughts because thoughts beget feelings and then feelings beget actions, etc.

I honestly don't know many gay people (or maybe I do, Utah is not exactly the most gay friendly place so they may not make it public), but I've never met anyone who "decided" to be gay later in life. I have known people who decided to make it public that they are gay even after having a wife and kids; they simply hid their sexual orientation for years because of the strong pressure to conform. From my personal experiences, the vast majority of people seem to either be attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex throughout their entire life starting at the point when kids usually start to notice the other sex.

I also get confused when I read, Oli in your story, how you identify with being homosexual yet you talk about it being a temptation and therefore something apart from you. If I am tempted with being angry.... do I then identify myself as an "angry person"? Saying you are tempted by something is one thing. But the labeling of oneself in such a way is confusing to me as well. If it is only a temptation, then how can it be part of ones identity?

Homosexuality generally refers to sexual orientation which is generally defined by which sex you find to be physically attractive and arousing. Anger is a temptation that everyone has to some extent, homosexuality is not. I don't think that calling yourself homosexual as a term to describe the sexual attraction you feel is the same as defining yourself by your temptations.

[LDS Church issues response to Prop. 8 vote]

"If same-gender attraction is legalized, pastors, ministers, bishops, and others who refuse to perform these marriages in their churches will face the possibility of discrimination charges. Churches will no longer be tax-exempt if they do not comply with this law. Religious liberty and religious rights will be devastatingly affected in the long-term if same-gender marriage is legalized to immediately appease liberal attention in the short-term."

I don't see how that has any basis in reality, and furthermore I don't even think that is what "liberals" want. Churches can (and do) refuse to perform marriages based on whatever criterea they want. Why would a homosexual couple even want to get married by a church who thinks they are going to Hell and commiting a horrible sin on a regular basis? Frankly, this whole slippery slope argument about how the government is going to force religions to change their views is pure paranoid fantasy that is used to justify things like prop 8. The only real reason churches are in danger of losing their tax exempt status is becoming a political tool of a certain party which many churches are already dangerously close to.

[Founding Fathers = Christian men?]

The founders of this country are long dead. People can post carefully mined quotes and research back and forth all day about how the founding fathers agree more with their particular theology (I've seen it in other forums), but the facts are that they founded a nation where people are free to practice whatever religion they choose and where people are free from the opression of any particular religion. Does it really matter how many of them were "Christian" and to what extent?

[Are you a racist!!]

Or it could be a cultural thing. People tend to think and choose to act based on socialization and cultural influences. Of course, culture is not something that we inherit biologically; it is something that is taught, whether directly or indirectly.

I think for the most part, people choose to act based on their upbringing/socialization/cultures, not race. While certain racial groups follow certain cultures, and it is tempting to believe that a person's racial make-up causes him or her to behave certain ways, it is more likely to be due to external influences. Race is biological; culture isn't. What if a boy of race A is adopted by and raised by a couple of race B, and grows up in an area that is predominantly of races B and C? Chances are, this boy would be more influenced by B and C, than of A. Would you, then, say that regardless of who raises him and where he grows up and learns the socialization process, he would still mostly think and behave like a "typical" person of his ethnic background/race?

For instance, while I was in Denmark and Sweden, I noticed that while the people were friendly, they were very reserved and only outgoing around their family members and friends, and even then, they were still reserved while in public. Would I, then, claim that these people were reserved because of their white race? Of course not! They were probably reserved because of their Scandinavian culture.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, but I think you stated it much better. A lot of people seem to confuse culture and race.

[My final thoughts on the election]

Sorry to be the first downer in this nice thread. Since the shoe is on the other foot we should now all play nice? I too support the President-Elect. I didn't vote for him but I hope for the best for our country that he does well for the majority.

That said, in reference to Traveler's post, President-Elect Obama's choice of Chief of Staff is a former board member of Fannie Mae. One of those you mentioned that now is truly in charge of the hen house.

Ben Raines

I sincerely hope that people will "play nice" and frankly I regret not playing nice in the past. That is all I was saying, feel free to ignore it and play however mean or nice you want it. I'm certainly not suggesting we all bow down and praise the new presdient elect or try to agree with him on everything, I disagree with him on a fair amount of issues as well. Criticism is good and healthy, but there is a difference between constructive criticism and some of the name calling and bitterness I've seen here in this forum (not from you specifically) that only serves to further divide the nation.

[Are you a racist!!]

saw a movie clip where these two black guys are standing on a street corner dressed and looking like they were up to no good, a well dressed white couple (looked like they had money) walk down the street and the woman clings tighter to the man's arm as they pass the two black guys.... one of the black guys gets upset at how she shuddered and declares her racist ... then they followed them down the block and mugged them....

I saw that movie... I remember the scene but can't remember which movie it was from, I want to say it was Snatch. In context, I laughed at it because of the irony of the situation and I think that was the desired response. I'm pretty sure the movie was not trying to condone their actions, but more trying to make fun of the situation.

[Are you a racist!!]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Let me put this out there, If you are walking down the street alone and a rather large black man, wearing a Raiders hoody that's 3 times too big for him, with the hood up, tattered jean, expensive basketball shoes, and his hands in his pockets. How many here would feel a little worried? I'll admit that I would. Does that make me a racist? If a large black man, wearing a business suit walks down the same street at he same time, how many would feel safer than the other scenario? I know I would. Does that make me a racist?

That's exactly what I was trying to get at :)

[Are you a racist!!]

DS...my wife is half hispanic too...and I am white. She might know ten spanish words.....but we love mexican food.

I like Taco Bell, does that count as Mexican food? :)

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying that I think you are racist, I was trying to point out that there is a big difference between making assumptions based on overall appearance and making assumptions based only on race. If I see a group of gangster looking young men walking towards me, I will go around them. It doesn't make a difference if they're black, white, brown or purple, they made their intent clear with their clothes and the way they walk and it is not racism to avoid them. On the other hand, if I saw a black man respectably dressed and minding his own business and I cowered away from him as if he were going to murder me, that would be racism in my opinion.

[Presidential Suggestion Box!]

I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was if I suggested that he reverse his decision on his tax plan do you think he would take me seriously? Of course not. I would be the first to applaud him, though, if he took a more moderate approach to his administration because of the suggestions of half the country. That would be the sign of a true leader. Only time will tell.

If you suggested he reverse his decision on the tax plan and provided compelling reasons why, I think he would take it into consideration espcially if he got enough heart felt feedback that it was a bad idea. I see no reason why he wouldn't seriously consider changing his mind if that is really what the people want.

I honestly think he is reaching out to see what exactly the American public wants and that he would seriously consider what people write, even people who disagree with him and especially if there are a lot of people who speak up. If I were in his position, that is something I would do.

Perhaps this is just a publicity stunt to get an early start on his approval rating, but it couldn't hurt to at least give it a try and give him a chance to live up to his promises before immediatly dismissing the whole thing.

[Are you a racist!!]

DS....I agree with most of your post. I am not certain that wanting your son or daughter to date and marry within one's own race is racist, and I am not sure that believing stereotypes makes one a racist.....if that is the only experience they have ever had with that racial group...ignorant perhaps. The Obama question......because he is bi-racial. Black father and white mother and also not from slave ancestory. Am I a racist......no, prejudiced sometimes against the unknown as most are, but not racist.

In my opinion, stereotypes are meaningless when it comes to race. I am half Mexican, but I know maybe 10 words of Spanish, nothing of Mexican culture, hate Mexican food, and I'm horrible at home improvement projects. Would you assume I am a "stereotypical" Mexican when you see me walking down the street cleancut and dressed in Banana Republic? Would you not want your daughter to date or marry me only because of my skin color? (I'm already married by the way, to a white woman)

I think a lot more can be inferred by the way people choose to present themselves than simply by the color of their skin they were born with.

[My final thoughts on the election]

It has been very interesting, to say the least, talking to people here about the election and politics in general. I personally think many of you have a few misconceptions about Obama (and even his wife), but I hope people can look to the future with an open mind and allow Obama to prove you wrong rather than look for every flaw and opportunity to dislike the man.

I admit that I did not have an open mind about Bush 8 years ago and looking at reactions I've seen in this forum over the last few days, I realize how wrong my attitude was. It has been somewhat of a wakeup call for me, looking in the mirror to see how ugly my attitude must have seemed to the other side. I wish I could go back and change my behavior, but all I can do is try to make the best of whoever our political leaders are in our future.

I see a growing divide in this country and it is holding us back. I used to think it was whatever politicians were in power that were simply failing to unite the nation, but now I see that it is the people who need to change, not the leaders. I think everyone needs to take a step back and realize that the other side loves America just as much as you and they are passionately doing what they feel is best for this country just as you are. Look for ways to come together and find common ground rather than point fingers and find faults.

I'm not looking to change anyone's mind or argue about political views, but it is my sincere hope that the people of this forum and moreover the people of this country will be able to get over this bitterness toward "the other side" and look for ways to work together and make the best of whatever the current political environment is.

Thank you all for the passionate discussions over the last couple days!

[Presidential Suggestion Box!]

Nor would Obama as he does not even pass for security clearence. Our Commander In Chief does not even pass the standards for a basic security clearence. If Obama was trying to apply for a job as even the garbage man at the White House, he would be turned down.

Source? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, there are some pretty weird things that can exclude you from security clearance, but I hadn't heard this before and would like a source for it.

[Are you a racist!!]

What is racism?

Making judgements (usually negative) about people based solely on race.

Are you a racist if you dislike a certain group of people because of the color of there skin?

Yes.

Because of there culture?

Not necessarily. I dislike certain cultures (for example, cultures that condone stoning people in this day and age), but I still don't judge a person entirely on what culture they belong to.

Can you dislike certain races and not be racist?

If you are disliking some races based solely on their race, yes you are racist... I don't know of anyone who dislikes all races, but I think that if that were the case they would simply be grumpy rather than racist.

What if you don't want your son or daughter to date or marry outside of your race.....is that racism?

Yes.

What if a sterotype is mostly true and you judge a race because the majority of that race seems to be that way.....is that racism?

If you are automatically applying that stereotype based only on the color of their skin, then yes it is racism.

Can you be a minority race and be considered a racist?

Absolutely.

Is racism dead in America?

It has certainly diminished quite a bit, but I wouldn't say that it is dead.

Does Obama transcend race?

What does that even mean?

Is the term racist or racism overused?

In my opinion, absolutely.

Used primarily as a political wedge to divide?

I don't think it is intentionally used that way.

Are you a racist by any definition? Be honest...:)

Quite honestly, no.

[Presidential Suggestion Box!]

I actually think it is a great idea, but seeing as half the population in the country didn't vote for him, do you think he will seriously consider their input?

Honestly, yes. Not everyone is vendictive toward anyone who doesn't unconditionally agree with them.