Dallin Oak'S Remarks At Ces Fireside

[Loran Blood]

Where is your proof of the fact that "nobody is born gay"?

So do you care to prove your fact?

I think it should be enough to point out that there is not a shred of scientific evidence pointing to such a possibility. Absence of evidence may, indeed, be evidence of absence, though it does not prove it to be so. If that debate is ultimately one confined to the brain sciences and genetics, then the question rests in limbo, where it was decades ago.

[Loran Blood]

The problem with most Mormons is precisely that they don't use good reasoning, plain and simple. If critical thinking and philosophy were to be taught rigorously to Mormons, my prediction is that about 95% of Mormons would leave the Church based on my personal experiences of people who learn and understand about these topics.

That's really quite fascinating, as I have long felt the precisely same way about apostates from the Church, anti-Mormons generally, and people holding certain ideological/philosophical views.

Is one of us right and the other wrong, are we both right, or are we both wrong?

[Loran Blood]

Such a conflict is impossible. Rights do not and cannot conflict. In every case where there seems to be a conflict, one of the persons is not seeing his rights correctly.

I'm afraid I'll have to respectfully disagree on this point. Even the most fundamental of the "unalienable rights" bequeathed to us by the Founders exist in a perpetual state of tension with each other. This is why Dr. Thomas Sowell has termed the vision and perspective of the world outside that of the "Anointed" the "tragic" vision. For our rights to be absolute, it would appear that the mortal condition itself would have to allow for, or be capacitated to support absolute, pure expressions of abstract principles. While the gospel certainly makes it possible (through being "born again") to be pure and absolute as to our own motives and desires, it is quite another thing to claim that the dynamics and limitations of the human condition as given allow "absolute" political/social balance of this kind between countless individuals with heterodox views, motives, and aims. This more severe libertarian view appears to make the same mistake as the "vision of the Anointed" in that it posits that ultimate solutions are possible in the mortal sociopolitical sphere and that we are not fundamentally limited to trade offs.

Virtually any rights, including the most fundamental, are in tension with other rights in a complex interplay of give and take in which distinct limitations (the classic not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, for example) must be observed such that our liberty is, while exactly and precisely liberty, an ordered and coherent liberty in which the structural integrity of the social fabric is preserved by the internal impulse control and willingness to see that our own liberty does not overflow its banks of the individual operating in an open and free society. This points to the fundamental importance of the statements of that only a religious and moral people can ultimately handle the responsibilities and disciplines attending the maintenance of a Republic.

While collectivism has and always will be a clear and present danger to a representative, open social order, democracy, and especially when conjoined with a ethos of self focused, atomistic individualism (part of the late sixties social paradigm) is an equally sinister and destructive force that is ever present in a society within which the concepts of liberty and "freedom" attain the status of unmediated absolutes.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Pahoran]

An embarrassing statement that of Mr. Oaks.

The principle under which he is working here seems to be that what isn't compatible with the "Gospel culture" should not be allowed.

Not to anyone who can read, it doesn't.

Any Mormon, through a little bit of reflection, should be able to see why this rule is ludicrous and against the most basic of freedoms.

Any adult, through a little bit of reading, should be able to see why you have chosen to misrepresent Elder Oaks' very reasonable statement as something almost the exact opposite of what he actually said.

Elder Oaks said that the laws should permit believers to practice the requirements of their faith. He did NOT say that the laws should compel unbelievers to practice as believers do.

Did you not actually read his statement?

Having sex before marriage with another consenting adult is immoral (the worst sin after murder - a ridiculous position, btw)

Your straw man is certainly ridiculous.

But then, that's what it's for, isn't it?

and goes against the "Gospel culture"... should Mormons be in favor of making premarital sex illegal?

That is not what he was arguing for.

Here, again, is the portion of his statement that was quoted in the OP, and which you are so brilliantly misunderstanding:

believers should not shrink from seeking laws to maintain public conditions or policies that assist them in practicing the requirements of their faith where those conditions or policies are also favorable to the public health, safety, or morals.

I've highlighted the relevant portions, since you so obviously missed them before.

If not, then his statement is worthless and should be discarded.

Actually it is your opinions that are worthless. When do you plan to discard them?

Really, people? Should we really take this guy seriously?

If it's a choice between him and you?

Sorry, Crazy Glove; you're not even in the hunt. No contest.

You can vote in any way you want, but we are discussing whether or not a certain principle Oaks uses is right or wrong. I think what I've said shows that he is wrong... very wrong.

If only you'd made even the slightest attempt to get it right, your opinion might actually be worth something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LeSellers]

Where is your proof of the fact that "nobody is born gay"?

So do you care to prove your fact?

The fact is that, were there a "homosexual gene" as hypothesized, it would act in exactly the same way in everyone afflicted with it who sahred the same genetic and upbringing, but it does not. Identical twins, whether separated at birth or not, do not always exhibit homosexual behavior in tandem. . It happens about half the time that twin Albert is normal, while his brother, Barney, is homosexual.

According to the “best” (advocate) research:

Bailey and Pillard (1991): occurrence of homosexuality among

brothers

• 52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
  
• 22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  
• 11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
  

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.

Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among

Sisters

• 48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
  
• 16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
  
• 6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual
  

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

The essential genetics may not directly code for homosexuality at all, but something correlated with it. Something that’s advantageous [sic]. What is it? We don’t know. The alternative idea is that it’s simply darned hard for biology to guarantee heterosexuality every time, that it’s not a stable system. The problem with that [theory] is that if it’s hormones that set sexual orientation, they don’t seem to have much problem guaranteeing that men get penises. So, why can’t they keep sexual orientation straight? On the other hand, homosexuality is very rare…in other words, we don’t know.

http://abouthomosexu...y-org-twins.pdf

Michael Bailey is a hard-core advocate for homosexuality’s being “normal” (which it is not). If he can’t find it with is years of looking, it is a safe bet that it’s simply not there. It isn’t just hormones (his focus of late), but the “queer gene”, too.

Twins, whom we might assume have it in common, don’t both catch it every time, even if they are not separated at birth and, conceivably have nearly identical upbringing. At the very least, they ate the same food, and bathed in the same maternal hormones, heard the same language, shared the same room (or house). Something else affected them, something that came after birth, ergo, they were not “born that way”.

Lehi