Music For Marriage Equality Campaign

[wenglund]

I thought this passage was interesting because of the contrasts he makes between homosexuality and issues Christianity once accepted but now rejects. One could easily argue that SSM could be such an issue in our near future.

I question whether it could be reasonably argued at all, let alone easily, particularly since there are various rational secular cases against SSM, and none really for it. Just because it can be shown that there has been a religious shift over time on a couple of positions, doesn't mean that there will be future shifts on all religious positions. The noted shifts that have alread occurred made sense and were in everyone's interest. Whereas, laxical changes in sexual standards and legalizing SSM is not in everyone's interest, and may be argued to the contrary.

Besides, I think it is a gross mistake and highly offensive to compare SSM to slavery and the like. They are worlds apart on a number of levels. To me, it is absurd to suggest that governments not irrationally extending legal marital status to homosexual couples is in the same universe as kidnapping people of color, putting them in shackles and shipping them from their homeland to foreign countries, subjecting them to harrowing deprivations, putting a paltry price on their heads while considering them less than human, and in a supposedly free country, forcing them to labor against their will for pittance and oft at the crack of a whip, and sentencing them to a life of subjugation, degradation, and rank bigotry.

I mean have we as a society become so gullible to gay propaganda, so numbed by pop culture nonsense, and have taken such leave of our senses, that, shockingly, not only do some of us fail to register even the slightest objection to such comparisons, but go so far as to buy into the absurdity.

Amazing!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

You've your right to your opinion. I just see their reasoning to seal the deal. I don't see these marriages making that big of dent among procreating couples. I think the dent has already been made by heterosexual couples limiting the number of children they have already. What if these SSM couples took the parentless children in foster care and gave them a family that they might never have had otherwise? Maybe these children just want to fit in just like the SSM couple. That would create a bond right there.

Yes, people are entitled to their opinions. However, it is hoped that their opinions would be informed, take a beneficial and progressional perspective, and make at least some sense.

Please forgive me, but I am struggling mightily to find any of these things in what you just said.

Assuming that there is a serious problem finding homes for parentless children, I don't see that the best solution is for to us as a people to arbitrarily and capriciously discriminate in the favor of gay couples by extending the government's stamp of approval for their non-reproductive, devolutionary, deleterious (in various ways), sinful, sexual relationships and non-ideal familial structures. I would think that changing adoption laws would make much more sense. It would make even more sense to adjust marital and family laws in such a way as to minimize the chances of procreative couples giving birth to children and leaving them parentless, rather than extending marriage to homosexual couples who, as a group, are far more notorious than heterosexual in terms of promiscuity, infidelity, domestic violence, mental and emotional problems, and health issues. The later seems more to be a part of the problem than the solution.

There really is no rational reason to do violence the legal definition of marriage. Certainly, as iterated and reiterated, whatever propagandistic excuses that may be put forward for doing so would unavoidably defy the rationale for the government getting into the marriage business to begin with.

And, as also indicated previously, if there are social ills that need to be addressed by the government, and if there are aspects to homosexuality that may be in the people's interest to assist, there are rational and viable solutions for each that don't include inanely placing the same social value on non-reproductive, sinful, devolutionary relationships and inferior family structures as we do on sacred, edifying, procreative relationships and the godly family structure.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

For someone who claims to endorse critical thinking you seem to fail miserably concerning your own rhetoric. Time and again you fail consistently provide an argument that is not "Holy Hetero" bent. Your arguments and insults are presumptuous at best because you fail to look beyond your narrow worldview. Because of this your logic fails and your dogmatic assertions burn up faster than kindling.

I really get a kick out of your projective huffing and puffing. The resulting belly chuckles do my soul good. At least in this sense you are adding some value to my on-line experience, though some real substance from you would be nice for a change--assuming that is even possible. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

I question whether it could be reasonably argued at all

It can be argued quite easily. Since there is a precedent for change, it could be reasoned that there is a possibility for change now as well as in the future. Dramatic changes in the way Christians approach the rights and privileges of their fellow man is possible.

Just because it can be shown that there has been a religious shift over time on a couple of positions, doesn't mean that there will be future shifts on all religious positions.

Of course.

The noted shifts that have alread occurred made sense and were in everyone's interest.

I doubt slave owners would agree that abolition was in their interest morally or economically. In fact, when dealing with slavery we are not dealing with an issue that concerned itself with the moral and economic conditions a few but of most of the population.

Whereas, laxical changes in sexual standards and legalizing SSM is not in everyone's interest, and may be argued to the contrary.

Nothing is in everyone's interest. As far as arguing to the contrary I think you're doing a fine job.

Besides, I think it is a gross mistake and highly offensive to compare SSM to slavery and the like....

In terms of gross human rights violations there is no comparison between slavery and SSM. However, from the perspective of a SSM advocate (not necessarily me at this point), there lies at the core of both issues the ugly presence of hate and bigotry. Therein lies the appropriateness of the comparison.

I mean have we as a society become so gullible to gay propaganda, so numbed by pop culture nonsense, and have taken such leave of our senses, that, shockingly, not only do some of us fail to register even the slightest objection to such comparisons, but go so far as to buy into the absurdity.

Wade since that last part (including the word "absurdity") was written in response to my post may I ask for a little bit more patience and empathy? I'm using the limited intellect and faith I have to understand this issue as best I can. Perhaps I'm just not as quick on the uptake when it comes to the legislative issues and equally slow to recognize and respond to the relevant gospel principles....but I'm making an honest and passionate effort.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited October 11, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

If the government removed itself entirely from marriage do you think the "familial structure" of the family would disintegrate?

Yes—because those who govern the government (the people) would have already indicated their personal lack of interest in preserving the family structure and then remove the government from the issue. The societal portfolio requires “controls” over tradition, politics, economics, religion, government, etc., and institutions thrive where all these forces or influences intersect. Another way the government could be removed from the issue is if people remove themselves sufficiently from this or any of the other influences.

Is there any empirical data that supports the idea that SSM or less familial structures would have a negative impact on those things the government is promoting through legislative means? If yes, which "things" are going to be negatively affected and how?

It is all controversial and inconclusive, especially in the face of all the factors supporting traditional marriage. Science plays only a small role in the art of being human in human communities.

[wenglund]

Perhaps you can actually address my post concerning Blooit's rather than singling out a sole sentence to further your agenda. If you don't want to appropriately respond to my post then perhaps you should not address any of my comments.

If you are concerned about appropriate responses, it may interest you to read the board rules, particularly the sections on board nannying, derailing threads, personal insults, and use of the term "bigot," to name just a few things to which you seem oblivious.

And, if interested, please note that there is nothing in the rules suggesting that one must respond to an entire post or not at all, and this because it is entirely appropriate for grown adults to freely pick and choose which posts and which portion of post they deem warrant a response.

I understand that these rules and liberties may not comport with your seemingly controlling proclivities, but I trust you will find an appropriate way to deal with it.

Now, unless you have something of relevance and substance to add to the on-topic discussion, I will bid you a good day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

Posted by Joanna Brooks today on her FB page.

A Catholic, a Muslim, and a Mormon (SSM)

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

It can be argued quite easily. Since there is a precedent for change, it could be reasoned that there is a possibility for change now as well as in the future.

Yes, people can easily argue whatever they want. The challenge is in arguing rationally. As explained, it is fallacious (the fallcy of composition and fallacy of possibilities) to assume that what may apply to select parts, also applies, and may invariably apply to the whole. In other words, just because religionists have changed their views on slavery, doesn't mean they will change their views on sexual sins and marriage.

Keep in mind that religious views on slavery weren't pertinent to their soteriology (their fundamental principles of salvation), whereas sexual sins and marriage are.

Dramatic changes in the way Christians approach the rights and privileges of their fellow man is possible.

Yes, most anything is possible. Certain Christians may someday view evil as good and up as down and dysfunctional as healthy, and may even conflate sins with rights and privileges. The prospect of such inane dramatic changes, while possible, isn't a rational argument for such change, and may even work to argue rationally against it.

I doubt slave owners would agree that abolition was in their interest morally or economically. In fact, when dealing with slavery we are not dealing with an issue that concerned itself with the moral and economic conditions a few but of most of the population.

Exactly. My point about certain changes making sense wasn't a statement of absolutes, but rather a matter of general rule that allows for the kind of circumstantial exceptions you just mentioned. For the most part, the Christian population has come to see that it is in everyone's interest to eschew slavery and to pragmatically promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all our fellow citizens.

Nothing is in everyone's interest. As far as arguing to the contrary I think you're doing a fine job.

I appreciate that.

In terms of gross human rights violations there is no comparison between slavery and SSM. However, from the perspective of a SSM advocate (not necessarily me at this point), there lies at the core of both issues the ugly presence of hate and bigotry. Therein lies the appropriateness of the comparison.

It might be appropriate were the level of hate (quantitatively and qualitatively) of each in the same universe. It is inappropriate to compare Wasatch mountains to pimples.

And, besides, while there may be a modicum of hate and bigotry disposing a few people against SSM, such rarefied motivation is entirely irrelevant to the legal rationale for governments getting involved in marriage, let alone whether or not it is in people's interest to warp the legal definition of marriage and promote sinful and devolutionary relationships and inferior family structures.

Wade since that last part (including the word "absurdity") was written in response to my post may I ask for a little bit more patience and empathy? I'm using the limited intellect and faith I have to understand this issue as best I can. Perhaps I'm just not as quick on the uptake when it comes to the legislative issues and equally slow to recognize and respond to the relevant gospel principles....but I'm making an honest and passionate effort.

Point well taken, and request happily granted. Please don't take it personally. There is a dense fog of disinformation swirling around this issue, which at times may require a clarion blast to pierce through it or a solid and unwavering hold of an iron rod. My intent isn't to demean, but to lovingly wake people up and alert them to dangers and illusions. Please know that I have always, and continue to hold you and your mind in the highest regard, and I am oft humbled by your desire for kindness and charity to others and your strong inclination towards progression. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

If you are concerned about appropriate responses, it may interest you to read the board rules, particularly the sections on board nannying, derailing threads, personal insults, and use of the term "bigot," to name just a few things to which you seem oblivious.

And, if interested, please note that there is nothing in the rules suggesting that one must respond to an entire post or not at all, and this because it is entirely appropriate for grown adults to freely pick and choose which posts and which portion of post they deem warrant a response.

I understand that these rules and liberties may not comport with your seemingly controlling proclivities, but I trust you will find an appropriate way to deal with it.

Now, unless you have something of relevance and substance to add to the on-topic discussion, I will bid you a good day.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I really get a kick out of your projective huffing and puffing. The resulting belly chuckles do my soul good. At least in this sense you are adding some value to my on-line experience, though some real substance from you would be nice for a change--assuming that is even possible. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whatever you say, Wade. I'm tired of engaging in some bastardized form of dialogue with you. We continue to talk past each other. You're not correcting me in any way and vice versa. Let's call this what it is...a waste of time. I kindly ask that you not attempt to discuss or correct me concerning things you disagree with. I have no desire to address anything more you have to say. I will respect you by not replying to your posts and I respectfully ask that you do the same. I honestly just want nothing to do with you.

Take care, Wade.

[William Schryver]

While that is true of a majority of people, about 90-95%, who are simply attracted to the opposite sex, it is also true that a large percentage of the rest (the other 5-10%) have attractions to both genders.

I would be interested in examining some of the studies that have established that 5% - 10% of humankind is innately sexually attracted to both genders.

[Daniel2]

Posted by Joanna Brooks today on her FB page.

A Catholic, a Muslim, and a Mormon (SSM)

Big UP!

Lamanite

Thanks for posting this, Lamanite! A moving piece--great stuff!

Daniel2

Edited October 11, 2012 by Daniel2

[Lamanite]

Thanks for posting this, Lamanite! A moving piece--great stuff!

Daniel2

You're very welcome!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[RobertAC]

Sorry Lamanite for further derailing your thread, but I have been reading the pdf book "Preach My Gospel" which is used to train missionaries. The book was provided by another poster on another thread in response to my questions about the training of missionaries. It is a very interesting book!

One section concerns questioning baptismal candidates. It reads:

Question 4 in the baptismal interview asks if a person has been involved in a serious sin,

such as an abortion, a homosexual relationship, or a serious crime. What should I do if

someone confesses such a sin?

1.

Instructions for teaching missionaries. Sometimes investigators may volunteer information

about such sins as you teach about the commandments and invite them to make

commitments. However, if they do not say anything but you think they may have a problem,

prepare them for the baptismal interview by asking them if they have been involved in any of

these sins. If you become aware of a serious sin, do not ask about the details of the sin. Do

not schedule a baptismal date or make any promises about whether they will be cleared for

baptism and confirmation. Express your love and review the principle of repentance. Kindly

explain that these sins are serious and that a person with more maturity and experience (your

mission president or someone he assigns) will talk with them and help them with these

matters. Then send a baptismal interview request directly to the mission president.

I can understand how abortion and a serious crime would be considered "serious." But a "homosexual relationship" seems out of place among the three. From my understanding, if two unmarried heterosexual people are living together and having sex, this is just as bad as the gay relationship. The issue is that sex is outside of marriage. Am I reading too much into this statement? Would compulsive lying, use of pornography, alcoholism also require that the mission president interview the baptismal candidate?

[Calm]

I can understand how abortion and a serious crime would be considered "serious." But a "homosexual relationship" seems out of place among the three. From my understanding, if two unmarried heterosexual people are living together and having sex, this is just as bad as the gay relationship. The issue is that sex is outside of marriage. Am I reading too much into this statement? Would compulsive lying, use of pornography, alcoholism also require that the mission president interview the baptismal candidate?

More than likely, it might depend on if such were ongoing or recent experiences though.

And any unmarried couple would need to be interviewed.

Edited October 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Zeta-Flux]

I would be interested in examining some of the studies that have established that 5% - 10% of humankind is innately sexually attracted to both genders.

I never said "innately".

It is a fact, that about 90-95% of the US population is attracted to the opposite gender. Among the other 5-10% a large number are attracted to both genders. I didn't take a guess as to the causes.

[Lamanite]

Sorry Lamanite for further derailing your thread, but I have been reading the pdf book "Preach My Gospel" which is used to train missionaries. The book was provided by another poster on another thread in response to my questions about the training of missionaries. It is a very interesting book!

One section concerns questioning baptismal candidates. It reads:

Question 4 in the baptismal interview asks if a person has been involved in a serious sin,

such as an abortion, a homosexual relationship, or a serious crime. What should I do if

someone confesses such a sin?

1.

Instructions for teaching missionaries. Sometimes investigators may volunteer information

about such sins as you teach about the commandments and invite them to make

commitments. However, if they do not say anything but you think they may have a problem,

prepare them for the baptismal interview by asking them if they have been involved in any of

these sins. If you become aware of a serious sin, do not ask about the details of the sin. Do

not schedule a baptismal date or make any promises about whether they will be cleared for

baptism and confirmation. Express your love and review the principle of repentance. Kindly

explain that these sins are serious and that a person with more maturity and experience (your

mission president or someone he assigns) will talk with them and help them with these

matters. Then send a baptismal interview request directly to the mission president.

I can understand how abortion and a serious crime would be considered "serious." But a "homosexual relationship" seems out of place among the three. From my understanding, if two unmarried heterosexual people are living together and having sex, this is just as bad as the gay relationship. The issue is that sex is outside of marriage. Am I reading too much into this statement? Would compulsive lying, use of pornography, alcoholism also require that the mission president interview the baptismal candidate?

Any fornication typically has to be cleared up through a priesthood leader.

As for why the emphasis on homosexuality? Because Mormons like other Christian churches are afraid of it because it is abnormal. Straight people having sex is nothing new.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Whatever you say, Wade. I'm tired of engaging in some bastardized form of dialogue with you. We continue to talk past each other. You're not correcting me in any way and vice versa. Let's call this what it is...a waste of time. I kindly ask that you not attempt to discuss or correct me concerning things you disagree with. I have no desire to address anything more you have to say. I will respect you by not replying to your posts and I respectfully ask that you do the same. I honestly just want nothing to do with you. Take care, Wade.

I will respectfully reply to your posts if I think they warrant a response. You are free to respectfully do whatever you deem best for yourself. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As for why the emphasis on homosexuality? Because Mormons like other Christian churches are afraid of it because it is abnormal. Straight people having sex is nothing new.

When I was a missionary over three decades ago, in terms of baptismal interviews, homosexuality barely registered on the radar, if at all. I suspect that the emphasis nowadays has less to do with Churches allegedly being afraid and far more to do with the emphasis on homosexuality within popular culture. Gay activist have been very successful in putting their sexuality more in our faces and drawing public attention to their cause and to homosexuality itself. They have made homosexually more of an issue.

It should also be remembered that homosexual behavior is not only a sin of promiscuity and in some cases adultry, but also a sin against the divine order of things procreative (commonly referred to as the sin against nature). This is why it makes no sense to do violence to the definition of marriage by legalizing so-called SSM. Doing so not only profanes the sacred and makes a pretense of eliminating the sin of promiscuity for relatively few homosexual couples, but it leaves in tack the sin against nature.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 12, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

A Catholic, a Muslim, and a Mormon (SSM)

I can see how marching in gay pride parades and expressing public support for torturing the legal definition of marriage may have emotional appeal for certain members. It visibly gives them an air of uncommon magnanimity, tolerance, and acceptance, and shows solidarity with a trendy cause and is adored and celebrated by pop culture. Some people derive value from openly conforming with the fashionable.

This emotional appeal is further heightened when these "in" folks are booed by "out" folks, because it may be perceive as cloaking these "in" folks with some measure of martyrdom that evinces the remarkable strength of their convictions--they dare brave the arrows slung by the opposition.

The drama can have an intoxicating affect for those so inclined...but at what cost or real benefit?

And, with so many significant causes in the world (poverty, disease, war, etc.) one wonders if championing the cause of governments inanely giving their seals of approval to sinful, devolutionary, and deleterious sexual relationships, is a hill worth symbolically dying on, though to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 12, 2012 by wenglund

[Lamanite]

When I was a missionary over three decades ago, in terms of baptismal interviews, homosexuality barely registered on the radar,

Agreed

BIg UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

I can see how marching in gay pride parades and expressing public support for torturing the legal definition of marriage may have emotional appeal for certain members. It visibly gives them an air of uncommon magnanimity, tolerance, and acceptance, and shows solidarity with a trendy cause and is adored and celebrated by pop culture. Some people derive value from openly conforming with the fashionable.

This emotional appeal is further heightened when these "in" folks are booed by "out" folks, because it may be perceive as cloaking these "in" folks with some measure of martyrdom that evinces the remarkable strength of their convictions--they dare brave the arrows slung by the opposition.

The drama can have an intoxicating affect for those so inclined...but at what cost or real benefit?

And, with so many significant causes in the world (poverty, disease, war, etc.) one wonders if championing the cause of governments inanely giving their seals of approval to sinful, devolutionary, and deleterious sexual relationships, is a hill worth symbolically dying on, though to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, I admittedly make a lot of my decisions based on emotion. As I've grown older I've been able to incorporate my intellect into a more balanced approach by using emotion and Intellect.....faith and reason, I find I'm constantly striving for these types of balances. But I generally fall on the side of emotion.

Without intending offense, it seems as if your arguments and opinions on homosexuality and SSM have been cold and detached. Almost completely void of empathy or understanding. I'm sure I'm wrong but can you tell me how emotions play a role in this issue for you?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

Wade, I admittedly make a lot of my decisions based on emotion. As I've grown older I've been able to incorporate my intellect into a more balanced approach by using emotion and Intellect.....faith and reason, I find I'm constantly striving for these types of balances. But I generally fall on the side of emotion.

Without intending offense, it seems as if your arguments and opinions on homosexuality and SSM have been cold and detached. Almost completely void of empathy or understanding. I'm sure I'm wrong but can you tell me how emotions play a role in this issue for you? Big UP! Lamanite

As explained in another thread, I have been exploring the issue of homosexuality ever since I was first repellingly propositioned on several occasions by several homosexuals in my mid teens. And, over the years, I have had several people close to me who were raped by homosexuals, one of whom I needed to assist through suicide watch. And, while I don't judge the entire homosexual community based on those few extreme cases, my explorations of homosexual issues and my interactions with homosexuals have since left me sensitive, cautious, and somewhat put off, though I have had a few favorable encounters with gays.

Even still, I didn't want my own biased emotions to cloud my analysis, nor did I want to be irrationally influenced by the biased emotions on either side. Instead, I thought it best to hear people out and to give them adequate chance to make their case. I have done this for multiple decades, and I have found during that time that there is little that is reasonable to understand, and very little to rightly empathize with. Sorry. In my experience, their isn't a rational case to be made for SSM, and I have seen far too many good people be dis-beneficially duped by the propaganda, and I now think it best and more efficacious to offer solutions and corrections in matter-of-fact terms rather than chancing further cementing people in their misguided views through empath.

I also learned over the decades that because this issue tends to counter-productively engender such strong emotions from most everyone, I could increase the chance of productive interactions through conversing in more reasoned and less emotive ways.

This doesn't mean that my gut doesn't wrench each time I see people unwittingly choosing bad fixes and embracing and promoting behaviors and relationships that from a spiritual perspective, and through secular research, seems evident to me to be harmful to those engaged in the behaviors as well as their loved ones and communities at large. It does. I have to really resist misbehaving like Biden did during last nights VP debate, though as you can attest, I am not always successful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

As explained in another thread, I have been exploring the issue of homosexuality ever since I was first repellingly propositioned on several occasions by several homosexuals in my mid teens. And, over the years, I have had several people close to me who were raped by homosexuals, one of whom I needed to assist through suicide watch. And, while I don't judge the entire homosexual community based on those few extreme cases, my explorations of homosexual issues and my interactions with homosexuals have since left me sensitive, cautious, and somewhat put off, though I have had a few favorable encounters with gays.

Even still, I didn't want my own biased emotions to cloud my analysis, nor did I want to be irrationally influenced by the biased emotions on either side. Instead, I thought it best to hear people out and to give them adequate chance to make their case. I have done this for multiple decades, and I have found during that time that there is little that is reasonable to understand, and very little to rightly empathize with. Sorry. In my experience, their isn't a rational case to be made for SSM, and I have seen far too many good people be dis-beneficially duped by the propaganda, and I now think it best and more efficacious to offer solutions and corrections in matter-of-fact terms rather than chancing further cementing people in their misguided views through empath.

I also learned over the decades that because this issue tends to counter-productively engender such strong emotions from most everyone, I could increase the chance of productive interactions through conversing in more reasoned and less emotive ways.

This doesn't mean that my gut doesn't wrench each time I see people unwittingly choosing bad fixes and embracing and promoting behaviors and relationships that from a spiritual perspective, and through secular research, seems evident to me to be harmful to those engaged in the behaviors as well as their loved ones and communities at large. It does. I have to really resist misbehaving like Biden did during last nights VP debate, though as you can attest, I am not always successful.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you for helping me to understand your approach to the issue a little better. I do appreciate that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Damien the Leper]

My approach to understanding human sexuality isn't solely based on the consensus of any majority of similar stories. That would cause anyone to become disillusioned and void the individual experience of its sanctity.

A great source for my understanding and approach to sexuality was a class I took several years ago, Psychology of Human Sexuality. What I took from the class is that our sexual orientations are not just influenced by physical, emotional or mental factors. It is also shaped by human experience that is not just that of our own but that of others. I believe that Wade honestly alluded to this in a previous post.

What cannot be discounted in trying to understand is that our emotions are very real. Religion aside, as it really isn't relevant concerning sexual orientation, our identities and how we understand and perceive ourselves is deeply rooted to our emotions. This is why many, myself included, have had to undergo therapy to make sense of what seemed so senseless. Many suffer in solitude and silence and others suffer openly because of public oppression. No matter the circumstances our emotions are very real.

Wade was right when he said that it is appropriate to approach the subject from a less emotive perspective. This requires suppression of emotion to promote logically sound thinking. While I more often than not disagree with Wade's perceptions and conclusions, I cannot altogether discount them as ridiculous (even though my emotions would like to) because I do believe to an extent that he has honest inquiry.

It is unfortunate that sexual abuse of any kind can influence our sexual proclivities. Sexual predators come in from all sexual orientations and no one is worse than the other. Abuse is abuse and it must be treated. A few years ago, I observed (with the patients permission for a school paper) a homosexual male who was sexually abused by his mother and her sister for many years as an adolescent. What does this say about some of our conclusions as to the cause of certain sexual orientations? It says that not many cases are as black and white as some psychotherapists have concluded. I also know of homosexual women who have been sexually abused by men even after the fact that they accepted their sexual orientation. This situation is far from simplistic.

Now regarding the actual topic of the thread...there is not substantial evidence to support the theory that homosexual relationships will in any way affect the relationships of heterosexuals, the lives of children who have either hetero or homosexual parents, etc. Homosexuality is not going to be the downfall of Western Civilization nor will it bring marriage and family fundamentals to their knees. That is presumptuous and often used as a fear tactic that has no real logical or reasonable basis.

Marriage equality is a movement to legitimize loving relationships (minus the slippery slope arguments regurgitated ad nauseum). "Normal" and "status quo" are more psychological delusions rather than facts of reality. Some people within my "camp" may consider me a traitor because I am also content with civil unions that grant all the same rights as a marriage. Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is over a word. In fact, let traditionalists keep their 'sacred' word and the rest of us can move on. I don't consider it selling out or settling as some acquaintances may argue. So long as the American people keep a good head on their shoulders and fight Federal Marriage Amendment that does not legitimize loving relationships we will continue to progress beyond archaic ideologies that worked for past societies but are no longer sufficient for both the modern and post-modern worlds. Religion no longer has the final say on matters of morality as there are more than a billion non-believers worldwide.

I know many, especially Wade, may disagree with what I have said in that post but that is because our worldviews are so different and influenced by we each consider to be legitimate values. More than likely I will get into more heated discussions on this subject but I'm going to try to do better and being civil as I do so.

[Cobalt-70]

It should also be remembered that homosexual behavior is not only a sin of promiscuity and in some cases adultry, but also a sin against the divine order of things procreative (commonly referred to as the sin against nature). This is why it makes no sense to do violence to the definition of marriage by legalizing so-called SSM. Doing so not only profanes the sacred and makes a pretense of eliminating the sin of promiscuity for relatively few homosexual couples, but it leaves in tack the sin against nature.

How could gay sex is a "sin against nature," if it is nature that makes some people gay? Maybe you don't believe that, but that there is some genetic or fetal-environmental component to homosexuality has been borne out pretty well by science. Plus, just in this last General Conference, Neil Anderson portrayed "same sex attraction" as a trial of faith given by God. Does God create that which is unnatural? Actually, refraining from gay sex is a fight against nature for gay and lesbian Mormons.