Gay marriage and public education

[rastler000]

I am not so sure people mostly got over mixed race marriages......I think some have adopted the idea of.."as long as it is not my son or daughter.." (that is not how I feel personally). In mixed race marriages, it is still a man and a woman. The controversy will continue regarding same sex marriage......for religious folks the moral issue can't simply be disregarded and treated as normal. I do wish the schools would stick to academics and leave social engineering alone. Teens and young adults seem more tolerant of "gay" people today and not as prone to "bully" or humiliate......and that's a good thing. Perhaps that is because they have been taught by pop culture(MTV) and TV sitcoms that people are born "gay".......and maybe they are...I don't know. I think the schools can insure a safe learning environment for our kids without teaching them about same-sex parents. By the time kids are in there early teens they are aware of the differences in people...race, religion and sexual orientation.......

A lot of these same arguments were made about mixed race marraiges decades ago. Other than within specific families, and perhaps some religions, mixed marraiges are not an issue. Gay marraige is trending the same way. It is probably about a decade or so away, but it is getting there. I realize for religious purposes you consider it a problem. But some religious people consider women not in burkas a problem, so I am not swayed.

FWIW, I am okay with the issue be resolved by virtue of civil unions with the same legal rights as marraige. I have mostly consigned marraige to being a 'religious thing', and have no intent on every marrying again.

[Hemidakota]

that's a good thing. Perhaps that is because they have been taught by pop culture(MTV) and TV sitcoms that people are born "gay".......

This line of reasoning mystify me when you ask a young child, are you gay and the response is no. Are born to be murderers? Are we born to be thieves? Are we born to be like Hitler? I expect the goal for any special interest is to first desensitize the people and push forward there line of agenda. Thinking it is a normal and acceptable.

[Hemidakota]

The same thing could have been said about mixed race marraiges. They used to be illegal in many places as well. That changed and people mostly got over it.

I never understood the reasoning behind this but people were racists. Even in the church. I grew up with a mixed divers group of ethnic kids as a child. I never thought twice in dating others who were not the same pigmentation as me.

[Moksha]

The same thing could have been said about mixed race marraiges. They used to be illegal in many places as well. That changed and people mostly got over it.

I think I heard something about this when I was studying state history.

[rastler000]

This line of reasoning mystify me when you ask a young child, are you gay and the response is no. Are born to be murderers? Are we born to be thieves? Are we born to be like Hitler? I expect the goal for any special interest is to first desensitize the people and push forward there line of agenda. Thinking it is a normal and acceptable.

Yet even your faith concedes there could be a component that may be genetic. We have a person on this board who is SSA and struggling partially as a result of that. Yet I have never had any sort of attraction to the same sex, and was raised in an atmosphere where is wasn't demonized or even considered bad, have a great many gay friends, a couple of gay family members. Given my luck with women if anybody should be influenced into being gay, it should be me. But it just doesn't work that way.

[abqfriend]

Sacred Scripture is clear on that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

In Genesis-if there only were two people-Adam and Adam-that would pretty much end things

If there only was Eve and Eve-the same end to things.

Fortunately for us-there was Adam and Eve.--thus life continues.

Carol

[rastler000]

Sacred Scripture is clear on that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

In Genesis-if there only were two people-Adam and Adam-that would pretty much end things

If there only was Eve and Eve-the same end to things.

Fortunately for us-there was Adam and Eve.--thus life continues.

Carol

Which is why I consider marraige a religious thing, and no longer plan on Marrying. Nor - given we are not particularly religious (an understatement! ;-)) - would it bother me if any of my family decided to forgo the marraige thing either.

[Hemidakota]

Sacred Scripture is clear on that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

In Genesis-if there only were two people-Adam and Adam-that would pretty much end things

If there only was Eve and Eve-the same end to things.

Fortunately for us-there was Adam and Eve.--thus life continues.

Carol

Caroll, we cannot apply 'common-sense' here.

[unixknight]

If there's one thing about this whole discussion that really irritates me it's the idea that somehow same sex marriage issues equate to interracial marriage issues. Gay=/=Racial minority no matter how often you try to force the metaphor.

Homosexuals are not a race unto themselves. To treat them as such is, on some level, a slap in the face for members of minority races who had to struggle (and sometimes still do) to be treated as equals. I once worked as an auto tech and the tech in the stall next to me was black. I asked him once how he felt about that little comparison and he said that it annoyed him, because if you're a member of a minority race, say black, there's no hiding it, you are who you are and everyone sees it instantly. You can never "turn it off" in order to sit at the front of the bus or use the same facilities as everyone else. Nobody has ever uttered the phrase "I didn't know you were black..." to someone they've met in person and not been joking. Mind you, even so, being black is no different than being white except for the culture you live in.

On the other hand, homosexuals are who they are by choice on some level. Do they choose who they're attracted to? I believe that they don't, in fairness... But how they act on those feelings is completely under their control. Most of the people in my life who are gay told the they were before I had any idea. So while it might be fair to say that being gay isn't a choice, living the gay lifestyle IS. That's an utterly different situation from racial predjudice.

Frankly, I think even those who use that argument are aware of just how thin it is, but use it anyway because nobody likes to be compared to a racist, and it throws them off.

[Fiannan]

Yet even your faith concedes there could be a component that may be genetic. We have a person on this board who is SSA and struggling partially as a result of that. Yet I have never had any sort of attraction to the same sex, and was raised in an atmosphere where is wasn't demonized or even considered bad, have a great many gay friends, a couple of gay family members. Given my luck with women if anybody should be influenced into being gay, it should be me. But it just doesn't work that way.

me on -- the Church merely states that they aren't taking a position towards what influences people to be homosexual. There are a lot of theories in psychology that attempt to explain homosexuality without in any way having to lean on any genetic or hormonal influences. I think this is where the Church would gravitate towards because, as I have stated in another post, it would be a sadistic god who would make someone desire an action that was once subject to capital punishment inthe Mosaic Law.

[Fiannan]

Oh, by the way, if by some far reach it was found that there was a gene or genes that make someone homosexual, and a geneticist came out with a way to measure a baby on the womb to see if it had those genes, who here would say that it should be okay for parents to check this out and if they have a kid with a high probability of being gay they can abort it and try again?

[Fiannan]

I’m curious. How do people here feel the teachers’ should address bullying? It’s not a trick question, I promise.

Uh come on Elphaba, the next thing you know there will be some that say that most school shooters go bizerk due to years of being picked on and school administrators not doing anything about it. We all know bad things are caused by listening to Goth and industrial metal bands and watching movies where the hero wears a trenchcoat and fires a gun a lot.

[rastler000]

Oh, by the way, if by some far reach it was found that there was a gene or genes that make someone homosexual, and a geneticist came out with a way to measure a baby on the womb to see if it had those genes, who here would say that it should be okay for parents to check this out and if they have a kid with a high probability of being gay they can abort it and try again?

Only if they had an issue with it. And the ones who seem to have the biggest issues with homosexuality are conservative religious folks, who tend to be pro-life.

[rastler000]

If there's one thing about this whole discussion that really irritates me it's the idea that somehow same sex marriage issues equate to interracial marriage issues. Gay=/=Racial minority no matter how often you try to force the metaphor.

Homosexuals are not a race unto themselves. To treat them as such is, on some level, a slap in the face for members of minority races who had to struggle (and sometimes still do) to be treated as equals. I once worked as an auto tech and the tech in the stall next to me was black. I asked him once how he felt about that little comparison and he said that it annoyed him, because if you're a member of a minority race, say black, there's no hiding it, you are who you are and everyone sees it instantly. You can never "turn it off" in order to sit at the front of the bus or use the same facilities as everyone else. Nobody has ever uttered the phrase "I didn't know you were black..." to someone they've met in person and not been joking. Mind you, even so, being black is no different than being white except for the culture you live in.

On the other hand, homosexuals are who they are by choice on some level. Do they choose who they're attracted to? I believe that they don't, in fairness... But how they act on those feelings is completely under their control. Most of the people in my life who are gay told the they were before I had any idea. So while it might be fair to say that being gay isn't a choice, living the gay lifestyle IS. That's an utterly different situation from racial predjudice.

Frankly, I think even those who use that argument are aware of just how thin it is, but use it anyway because nobody likes to be compared to a racist, and it throws them off.

Basically a homosexuals choice is to it is either partner up with a significant other, and live as a married couple, finding happiness with who and what they are..... or live lonely lives without a significant other for whom they are attracted to in 'that way'.

Now if you really really believe in a faith, that is against homosexuality, then I suppose you are stuck doing the celibate Priest like thing. Which means in this very 'family' oriented church, you feel (and are) truly out of place (I believe we have a thread going on just that). But most people who are SSA don't do that. When they are younger they are frustrated, depressed, often angry, and often hiding in a "closet". Why? Because there is a clear prejudice against them. They know darn well coming out as gay in the atmospheres of conservative religions is not a friendly atmosphere to say the least. As they mature they tend to find an equilibrium with being gay, move on in life, pretty much blowing off those religions of their birth, and/or religion all together. I don't blame them.

I know at least a dozen SSA couples for whom this descirption fits.

[OtterPop]

me on -- the Church merely states that they aren't taking a position towards what influences people to be homosexual. There are a lot of theories in psychology that attempt to explain homosexuality without in any way having to lean on any genetic or hormonal influences. I think this is where the Church would gravitate towards because, as I have stated in another post, it would be a sadistic god who would make someone desire an action that was once subject to capital punishment inthe Mosaic Law.

The Mosaic Law also calls for capital punishment for fornicators. By your logic, sexuality itself cannot be an inborn characteristic, because that would make god is sadistic.

You've accused others of misrepresenting the LDS church's position on the cause of homosexuality -- and here you are projecting onto them your person opinions. If they wanted to say that, don't you think they would? Fiannan, you are free to hold you opinion about the causes of homosexuality and ignore both the biological evidence and the statement of the LDS church, but why do you keep trying to legitimize your opinion through either religion or solid science? It's not working.

[OtterPop]

Oh, by the way, if by some far reach it was found that there was a gene or genes that make someone homosexual, and a geneticist came out with a way to measure a baby on the womb to see if it had those genes, who here would say that it should be okay for parents to check this out and if they have a kid with a high probability of being gay they can abort it and try again?

Even though I am pro-choice, I don't like this scenario at all, but I accept it as a possibility. This is not the only trait that people who are inclined to "design" their baby would select against. I've heard people talk about the desirability of aborting fetuses that have the "fat gene."

This is the ugly side of cutting-edge biology.

[OtterPop]

If there's one thing about this whole discussion that really irritates me it's the idea that somehow same sex marriage issues equate to interracial marriage issues. Gay=/=Racial minority no matter how often you try to force the metaphor. . . .

On the other hand, homosexuals are who they are by choice on some level. Do they choose who they're attracted to? I believe that they don't, in fairness... But how they act on those feelings is completely under their control. Most of the people in my life who are gay told the they were before I had any idea. So while it might be fair to say that being gay isn't a choice, living the gay lifestyle IS. That's an utterly different situation from racial predjudice.

I agree that sexual orientation is not the "equivalent" of race. However, I also believe that sexual orientation should be a protected class, like gender, race, ethnicity, religion, diability, etc.

If someone is looking for a good comparison, I think Jewishness is a better one. It's not chosen, it's not instantly recognizable, but it is, rightly, a protected class.

And I'm curious to know, what exactly is the gay lifestyle?

[MarginOfError]

Oh, by the way, if by some far reach it was found that there was a gene or genes that make someone homosexual, and a geneticist came out with a way to measure a baby on the womb to see if it had those genes, who here would say that it should be okay for parents to check this out and if they have a kid with a high probability of being gay they can abort it and try again?

Way to bring the discussion around to something entirely irrelevant. I know, let's tie all the issues we find unpleasant together. So now, because a person believes that same sex attraction could have an in-born cause, that person must also support the abortion of potentially homosexual fetuses. And you're calling the possibility of a gene (or sequence) that predisposes a person to same sex attraction a 'far reach.'

Let's clarify something here. The research into genetics is so far in its infancy that you might better say that genetics research's ancestors haven't yet been conceived. Genetics is trying to piece together what sequences have correlations to attributes, while adjusting these correlations for any interactions between these sequences. Trying to model these things requires an incredible amount of computing power. With the amount of computing power we now possess, we are only able to scratch the surface of genetics. We need so much more to do it. Furthermore, the current statistical methods can theoretically handle this complexity, but it's never really been put to the test, and we aren't entirely sure how well the results can be interpreted.

To give you an idea of the complexity of the models that would be involved, to consider four genes and their interactions, a model would require 16 factors. Now try to build a model for 1,000 genes and their interactions. (There are millions of factors this way). To say it isn't possible is a pretty audacious assumption.

Finally, the comments about only a sadistic God allowing the birth of an individual with same sex attraction are worthless. We have plenty of evidence that God doesn't interfere with natural developments of the human body that cause depression, various psychoses, hormonal imbalances, hermaphrodites, autisms, and predispositions to addictions, etc. The Church is clear that there may be natural predispositions to same sex attraction, but such predispositions do not excuse immoral behavior. I second OtterPop's request that you not cast your opinions as the view of the Church, but make it clear that they are your opinions and conclusions, however misinformed they may be.

Edited October 16, 2008 by MarginOfError
Incorrectly applied counting principles.

[rastler000]

And I'm curious to know, what exactly is the gay lifestyle?

Well since most of the gay folk I know are in their 30's to 50's here is what I have seen. They share a house with their significant other. They get up in the morning... shower, etc... then they go to work. After work it is shopping, work around the house, eat dinner, watch TV, maybe go to the gym and get a work out in. Stuff like that. Some of them have kids so a lot of the after work freetime revolves around the kids. On weekends it is yard work, maybe go somewhere for the weekend. A movie. A night out. A ball game. A day at the park, or beach, that sort of thing. Usually at some point during the year they will take a vacation together.

It is a pretty scary lifestyle.

[Moksha]

I know from one of the gay posters at Beliefnet, who has been together with his partner for 33 years, that they take great vacations together.

[unixknight]

Basically a homosexuals choice is to it is either partner up with a significant other, and live as a married couple, finding happiness with who and what they are..... or live lonely lives without a significant other for whom they are attracted to in 'that way'.

Now if you really really believe in a faith, that is against homosexuality, then I suppose you are stuck doing the celibate Priest like thing. Which means in this very 'family' oriented church, you feel (and are) truly out of place (I believe we have a thread going on just that). But most people who are SSA don't do that. When they are younger they are frustrated, depressed, often angry, and often hiding in a "closet". Why? Because there is a clear prejudice against them. They know darn well coming out as gay in the atmospheres of conservative religions is not a friendly atmosphere to say the least. As they mature they tend to find an equilibrium with being gay, move on in life, pretty much blowing off those religions of their birth, and/or religion all together. I don't blame them.

I know at least a dozen SSA couples for whom this descirption fits.

Fine, none of which makes it reasonable to compare this to racism.

I agree that sexual orientation is not the "equivalent" of race. However, I also believe that sexual orientation should be a protected class, like gender, race, ethnicity, religion, diability, etc.

If someone is looking for a good comparison, I think Jewishness is a better one. It's not chosen, it's not instantly recognizable, but it is, rightly, a protected class.

Protected from what? Discrimination? Agreed. Treated like a race? Absolutely not agreed.

And I'm curious to know, what exactly is the gay lifestyle?

Having sex with people of the same sex. (I know what you meant, I'm just not willing to go on a tangent.)

[OtterPop]

unixknight,

How exactly do you know who is having sex with whom?

[bytor2112]

This line of reasoning mystify me when you ask a young child, are you gay and the response is no. Are born to be murderers? Are we born to be thieves? Are we born to be like Hitler? I expect the goal for any special interest is to first desensitize the people and push forward there line of agenda. Thinking it is a normal and acceptable.

Ahh....I didn't say it was normal or acceptable.....but it has become more accepted by the public at large.......I think....because of pop culture/MTV......and it is mystifying. But less bullying is a good thing....wouldn't you agree?

[rastler000]

Fine, none of which makes it reasonable to compare this to racism.

Well okay.... if this is a "I want to win the debate and you (meaning me) are bad and evil type of thing"... then I will concede. I mean I have been called a satanist, and a murderer, on this very board before, so why not. But you will have to excuse me if I pass on suggesting these values for my family. I will however mention that people consider as as horrible because we disagree with them if you do not mind. :)

[Fiannan]

The Mosaic Law also calls for capital punishment for fornicators. By your logic, sexuality itself cannot be an inborn characteristic, because that would make god is sadistic.

You've accused others of misrepresenting the LDS church's position on the cause of homosexuality -- and here you are projecting onto them your person opinions. If they wanted to say that, don't you think they would? Fiannan, you are free to hold you opinion about the causes of homosexuality and ignore both the biological evidence and the statement of the LDS church, but why do you keep trying to legitimize your opinion through either religion or solid science? It's not working.

Heterosexual sex itself was not a capital offense -- only adultery (fornicators were required to marry if caught and men who were cheating with a single woman -- and caught -- were required to take the woman as an additional bride).

And again, as for the Church, the official position does not suggest that humans are born homosexual -- or for that matter heterosexual. It states that marriage is the ideal and that one who engages in homosexual sex is commiting a sin. The ideal presented by God is male-female marriage.

And why do you insist on quoting Elder Oaks and twisting his statements around to sound as if the Church is becomming more accepting of homosexuality? That is not what he said. Also, we could also make references to Elder Packer's statements on the subject as well as turing to the Proclaimation on the Family. SO why doesn't the Church make statements in black and white terms on things? Who knows, I mean you have General Conference talks in the late 1990s that were totally opposed to birth control and dozens of statements from latter day prophets that made it clear that the Church is not accepting of family limitation yet some grab onto statements in the General Handbook that sound as if the Church is not as much against it now. Perhaps it's like a friend of mine who is a professor of Political Science who said that any LDS person with faith knows what the Church is saying and only those who are looking for a loophole will interpret a more worldly position. And then we have to consider that Jesus used parables to teach and actually stated that the faithful would know what he was talking about and the ones closed off to the truth would be confused.