Could We Discuss The Podcast In My Post After Listening With Open Minds?

[USU78]

That would, at least, bring it into the realm of reality. Otherwise, these kinds of "slippery slope" arguments are just fantasy and a diversion from the real issue.

Perhaps it would be useful if you could articulate a principled basis for SSM that credibly prohibits the offending forms of marriage or the imposition of SSM upon Mormons in their temples.

[Libs]

Let me know when they have found the gay gene.

No gay "gene" has yet been discovered, but they are working on this issue, still. It's pretty clear, from studies done, that gays are ss attracted from a very young age; most from the moment they first have an awareness of their attractions. It is also very clear that this attraction does not go away, even when a person has a strong desire for change.

[Libs]

Perhaps it would be useful if you could articulate a principled basis for SSM that credibly prohibits the offending forms of marriage or the imposition of SSM upon Mormons in their temples.

Not sure I understand what you're asking.

Legalizing ss marriage has not affected Mormon Temples or any other church that does not wish to participate. The legalization is for civil marriages and whichever churches want to participate. That's not going to change, due to 1st Amendment rights.

[USU78]

Not sure I understand what you're asking.

Legalizing ss marriage has not affected Mormon Temples or any other church that does not wish to participate. The legalization is for civil marriages and whichever churches want to participate. That's not going to change, due to 1st Amendment rights.

The issue people keep trying to explain is that there is no guiding principle upon which to base SSM that cannot under any circumstance be used to compel us to accept polygamy [all kinds], incest, and MBL.

Articulate such a guiding principle . . . and articulate it in such a way that the court rulings we've seen compelling people to support SSM in their professional lives cannot be extended to compel SSM upon us in our religious lives, and maybe you'll get a better hearing.

No one has yet done so.

Are you up to the challenge?

[wenglund]

I didn't say change their minds just see the other side, not change their opinion. I don't get this black and white thinking. Even the church shows that much, for crying out loud, why am I not communicating well?

You are communicating just fine.

It is just that, since this is a discussion board, and after our seeing the other side (or at least what was reported here about the other side) as you wished, we have gone on to discuss and analyze the other side--in part, at your prompting (you asked for my "feelings" on a bolded portion of your transcription from the podcast).

You, yourself, even went beyond seeing the other side, to making a request to stop stigmatizing gays, which naturally prompted reasonable discussion, on this discussion board, about your request. You, also, were to some extent a party to that discussion in multiple posts.

Later, you explicitly extended your intent to get people to see the other side, and went on to ask us: "to take the approach that the church has and be careful how you speak about God's children." In other words, you not only wanted us to see the other side, you wanted us to do or be as the other side (as you see things). In fact, you clearly declared your ultimate intent: "It's all about destigmatization of the gays."

If that weren't enough, you went on to ironically stigmatize our opposing views as "hatefulness" and to conjecture that our views may "stem from misconsceptions from childhood on up" and perhaps even as an attempt to substantiate our alleged bullying of a "poor gay kid."

So. It isn't that you aren't communicating very well. You are doing just fine speaking your mind. Rather, you may have forgotten that this is a discussion board, and may have forgotten what you, yourself, have discussed on this thread.

The good news is that many of us are capable of following the line of discussion and are more than happy to remind you of things you may have said but failed to remember.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2012 by wenglund

[Tacenda]

No gay "gene" has yet been discovered, but they are working on this issue, still. It's pretty clear, from studies done, that gays are ss attracted from a very young age; most from the moment they first have an awareness of their attractions. It is also very clear that this attraction does not go away, even when a person has a strong desire for change.

I've often wondered if some gays are transexuals. Where they feel like they were born with the wrong sex. I recall a news story years ago with a girl that was born that way. She never felt like a girl. Always felt awkward in a dress or doing girl things like playing with dolls etc. She just wanted to play with the boys toys etc. She later became a "he". And has been so happy ever since. Also Cher's daughter Chastity is now Chaz after he had transgender surgery.

In this case are they forgiven, when marrying the opposite sex (after surgery) in your opinions? Though I've heard they aren't allowed to be baptised members of the church.

Could it be where the gays are transexuals in some cases but haven't made the leap to change physically? I'm sure many have noticed that gay couples usually wear clothing and hairstyles to differentiate the two. In your opinions do you give gays the benefit of the doubt in this situation? Or the benefit of doubt that this particular situation is inborn?

Edited August 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Damien the Leper]

Of course. We are all sinners and hopefully feel shame and repentance for any real sin.

Homosexuals sin and make mistakes just like the rest of us. But, being born gay is not a sin (and I'm sure you agree with that, at least). I would take it a step further and say, neither is acting upon that natural orientation, if the "action" is with good intent, in a committed relationship...in other words, if it is coming from genuine love and caring. There is nothing shameful in that. Homosexual or heterosexual, if the relationship is uncommitted and coming from lust or other unrighteous feelings/behavior, then of course shame would be and should be a part of it.

I think the Apostle Paul would agree with you.

[USU78]

I think the Apostle Paul would agree with you.

The Apostle Paul would have been among the mob stoning the man found lying with another man.

Don't kid yourself.

He was frying completely different fish than you seem to think.

[Damien the Leper]

I don't know that anyone is born gay.

I don't know that anyone is born straight. I think being straight is and always has been a choice.

[Tacenda]

You are communicating just fine.

It is just that, since this is a discussion board, and after our seeing the other side (or at least what was reported here about the other side) as you wished, we have gone on to discuss and analyze the other side--in part, at your prompting (you asked for my "feelings" on a bolded portion of your transcription from the podcast).

You, yourself, even went beyond seeing the other side, to making a request to stop stigmatizing gays, which naturally prompted reasonable discussion, on this discussion board, about your request. You, also, were to some extent a party to that discussion in multiple posts.

Later, you explicitly extended your intent to get people to see the other side, and went on to ask us: "to take the approach that the church has and be careful how you speak about God's children." In other words, you not only wanted us to see the other side, you wanted us to do or be as the other side (as you see things). In fact, you clearly declared your ultimate intent: "It's all about destigmatization of the gays."

If that weren't enough, you went on to ironically stigmatize our opposing views as "hatefulness" and to conjecture that our views may "stem from misconsceptions from childhood on up" and perhaps even as an attempt to substantiate our alleged bullying of a "poor gay kid."

So. It isn't that you aren't communicating very well. You are doing just fine speaking your mind. Rather, you may have forgotten that this is a discussion board, and may have forgotten what you, yourself, have discussed on this thread.

The good news is that many of us are capable of following the line of discussion and are more than happy to remind you of things you may have said but failed to remember.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I understand where you are coming from and see the error of my ways. And thanks for the smiley, and not the squiggly eyed smiley!

Edited August 15, 2012 by Tacenda

[Libs]

The issue people keep trying to explain is that there is no guiding principle upon which to base SSM that cannot under any circumstance be used to compel us to accept polygamy [all kinds], incest, and MBL.

Articulate such a guiding principle . . . and articulate it in such a way that the court rulings we've seen compelling people to support SSM in their professional lives cannot be extended to compel SSM upon us in our religious lives, and maybe you'll get a better hearing.

No one has yet done so.

Are you up to the challenge?

Again, religion is protected by the First Amendment. Public businesses have no such protection. So, I would say, this is an unwarranted fear (that churches will be expected to accommodate ss marriages, against their will).

I have to go to music class, but will be back to try and answer other questions, later.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No gay "gene" has yet been discovered, but they are working on this issue, still. It's pretty clear, from studies done, that gays are ss attracted from a very young age; most from the moment they first have an awareness of their attractions. It is also very clear that this attraction does not go away, even when a person has a strong desire for change.

There are several people I know who seemed to have developed their "gayness". They dated women and seemed to turn gay the 2nd they started working at Disney. I don't buy into this sorry. No gay gene = not born with it.

[CASteinman]

I don't know that anyone is born straight. I think being straight is and always has been a choice.

You might be right. I do not know. I am pretty sure I was not born with an attraction toward females. Fortunately if it is a choice, I have chosen the path that involves far less other mental health issues and possible choices.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[CASteinman]

I'm wishy washy, I wanted to be a believing LDS, but too many things keep holding me back, true history does that alot.

I do not believe true history does this. I accept that some people's ideas of what are true in history might do this, but not true history.

[CASteinman]

I've often wondered if some gays are transexuals.

I consider transexuality (excluding birth defects) to be generally a form of Body Integrity Identity Disorder.

Read this article and see just how much a person who wants to have a leg amputated sounds like a transexual.

http://www.slate.com..._and_a_leg.html

Once they lose their limb, then they are happy and feel "complete". Yet, in fact, this is perverse by the standards of the Gospel.

Edited August 15, 2012 by CASteinman

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You might be right. I do not know. I am pretty sure I was not born with an attraction toward females. Fortunately if it is a choice, I have chosen the path that involves far less other mental health issues and possible choices.

I would liken it unto my first experience with Tomatoes. My mom gave me some cottage cheese and tomatoes when I was bout 4. I remember really really not liking it. If I let that one experience stop from enjoying other products that have large amounts of tomatoes I would have missed out. Sometimes I think there are things in our lives that might steer us in a certain direction such as child abuse, sexual abuse or a bad relationship. Some of the my gay friends did not become gay until after a really bad divorce.

They just said, in essence, that I don't like tomatoes so I will go eat something else.

Was I born not liking tomatoes? No. There was a a reason I did not like them. I think most of this boils down to tastes. All of the people that I know personally who are gay now were not always gay. Most were married and had kids. That tells me right there that they clearly were attracted to the opposite sex.

[USU78]

Again, religion is protected by the First Amendment. Public businesses have no such protection. So, I would say, this is an unwarranted fear (that churches will be expected to accommodate ss marriages, against their will).

I have to go to music class, but will be back to try and answer other questions, later.

Find me a case where free exercise of religion has withstood an attack by an individual on liberty clause or other grounds and I would accept your conclusory statement as an argument. As it stands, however, you have said nothing more than "'cause I think so." Help me out here.

[Damien the Leper]

What is a real concern and may well be the next in line is legalizing adult - child relationships.

Why not? Didn't JS marry a 14 year old? If the prophet of the Restoration can do it then so can we.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Valentinus

[wenglund]

I would liken it unto my first experience with Tomatoes. My mom gave me some cottage cheese and tomatoes when I was bout 4. I remember really really not liking it. If I let that one experience stop from enjoying other products that have large amounts of tomatoes I would have missed out. Sometimes I think there are things in our lives that might steer us in a certain direction such as child abuse, sexual abuse or a bad relationship. Some of the my gay friends did not become gay until after a really bad divorce.

They just said, in essence, that I don't like tomatoes so I will go eat something else.

Was I born not liking tomatoes? No. There was a a reason I did not like them. I think most of this boils down to tastes. All of the people that I know personally who are gay now were not always gay. Most were married and had kids. That tells me right there that they clearly were attracted to the opposite sex.

As an alleged super taster, I have always had an aversion to things like broccoli and cauliflower cabbage and particularly brussel sprouts (which seems real odd given that I am 1/4 German). Yet, I willingly choose to eat these foods because, like with Joshua in his FAIR presentation, I have a desire to be healthy.

Does this analogy translate to SSA? I believe to an extent and in some ways it does, though not necessarily fully in every respect for all who have SSA.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

This is false.

This is also apparently false. I believe you made this same claim before and when challenged... failed by not producing a slippery slope argument.

From Wikipedia:

1) In the classical form, the arguer suggests that making a move in a particular direction starts something on a path down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it will continue to slide in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction, hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).

2) Modern usage includes a logically valid form, in which a minor action causes a significant impact through a long chain of logical relationships. Note that establishing this chain of logical implication (or quantifying the relevant probabilities) makes this form logically valid. The slippery slope argument remains a fallacy if such a chain is not established.

What is apparent is that no one on this board has been able to appropriately apply the second example from Wiki. If this is what you are attempting to apply then you have failed.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Valentinus

[CASteinman]

I would liken it unto my first experience with Tomatoes. My mom gave me some cottage cheese and tomatoes when I was bout 4. I remember really really not liking it. If I let that one experience stop from enjoying other products that have large amounts of tomatoes I would have missed out. Sometimes I think there are things in our lives that might steer us in a certain direction such as child abuse, sexual abuse or a bad relationship. Some of the my gay friends did not become gay until after a really bad divorce.

They just said, in essence, that I don't like tomatoes so I will go eat something else.

Was I born not liking tomatoes? No. There was a a reason I did not like them. I think most of this boils down to tastes. All of the people that I know personally who are gay now were not always gay. Most were married and had kids. That tells me right there that they clearly were attracted to the opposite sex.

And then there was the case of the two homosexual rights advocates -- on a man and one a woman -- both absolutely committed to their 100% pure, unadulterated homosexuality. Who, after working together for a year or so began to have an affair and decided to get married and have a life together.

Could you call this a choice, exactly?

[USU78]

Why not? Didn't JS marry a 14 year old? If the prophet of the Restoration can do it then so can we.

IOW: Complete deflection and unworthy of mein lieber Valentin.

Edited August 15, 2012 by USU78

[CASteinman]

From Wikipedia:

Have you ever noticed that wikipedia does not consider itself to be a good source? Moreover that the section you cite has no reference and is even marked as "dubious"?

What is apparent is that no one on this board has been able to appropriately apply the second example from Wiki. If this is what you are attempting to apply then you have failed.

This cannot be apparent as I have done just that.

[CASteinman]

Why not? Didn't JS marry a 14 year old? If the prophet of the Restoration can do it then so can we.

Not exactly.

[wenglund]

What is apparent is that no one on this board has been able to appropriately apply the second example from Wiki. If this is what you are attempting to apply then you have failed.

This is incorrect. Earlier in the thread TAO provided just such an example (see post #186).

One of the best, logically strong slippery slope arguments on the subject of SSM may be found in the amuci brief filed with the Supreme Court by 15 States that Zeta-Flux mentioned yesterday in another thread.

Besides, as noted earlier, some people on this thread are confusing arguments by analogy with slippery slope arguments.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 15, 2012 by wenglund