Ender's Game

[Garden Girl]

I am sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about.  You are trying to project your own values and what you want things to be on others.  Participating in a gay act does not make you gay any more than participating in a heterosexual act does not make you straight.  I was married for many years mostly because my church leaders told me that if I would just get married, then the same sex attraction would disappear or at least diminish.  Sorry but it doesn't work that way.

I don't really know if I was born gay or if something caused me to be gay.  Frankly what difference does it make.  Is all I can tell you as God is my witness, is that I knew I was attracted to the same gender since I was 12 years old, and spent the next 30 years trying to pretend to be straight.  

 

 

Hello California Boy... 

I think you are aware that I lived in San Francisco for 14 years... and worked in an environment where 90% of the people were LGBT... My best friends were gay... I'm still in touch with one man though I've been retired 23 years.  

I agree that people who believe that being gay is a "choice" don't know what they're talking about... There may be a very small percentage who choose to live a gay lifestyle, but IMO that is verrry small. 

In my years of interactions with, and observations of, my co-workers as well as my close friendships, it is clear to me that they did not choose to be gay or lesbian, anymore than I chose to be straight.  And I observed their very real physical attributes... involuntary mannerisms, walk, voice, gestures, even natural looks... innate traits.

But more, in conversations with my best friends, they expressed similar stories as yours... it was just always something they knew from an early age. 

 

GG

[Mystery Meat]

 

 

 

I read your link.  It is a bunch of (trying to think of a polite name here).  I have no doubt a "lesbian" can claim to have made the choice to be gay.  Please reread my post.  Just because I chose to be married NEVER made me straight.  Just because a straight person chooses to be with a woman NEVER makes them gay.  There is an old saying, Just because you are in the garage does not make you a car.  

 

 

I am sure it won't make much difference, but the woman who wrote that piece is a well respected and frequently published professor at UC Riverside. I was intrigued by what she had to say and so I have read some of her other stuff. Basically what she says is that people are born as blank slates, that life starts to happen, and at some point their orientation is set. For a lot of people that may be at a very young age making it seem like they were born that way, and, therefore it is for all intents and purposes a subconscious event. To me, this seems to blur the lines between choice and innate. 

 

 

 

Maybe you can tell me why somone would devote an entire web site to try and convince you that being gay is a choice?

 

To your second point, that website was not created just to espouse that people chose to be gay. Professor Ward (a self-described lesbian by choice) contributed to the blog I believe as a guest contributor. She is not secretly trying to undermine the LGBT cause. And as you well know, many if not most of the gays and lesbians who commented agreed with her theory. Anecdotal evidence I know, but evidence nonetheless.

 

 

 

Do you really think they will convince a gay person that they are mistaken and beng gay is all just a choice?

 

You asked if I thought this website will convince anyone that they chose to be gay. I don't know the answer to that. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that because of the arguments that have to be made at the Supreme Court to qualify for equal protection, the debate on the root cause of "gayness" was intentionally manipulated. The analysis is whether the person being deprived of equal protection under the law (the right to marry in this case) was born that way, or it is a trait that they could not change (the textbook examples of this are race and gender). I also said that I reject that legal analysis. I think it is man made drivel (However, because of people like Professor Ward and those who do agree with her, if a case reached the Supreme Court, you are going to have a hard time proving that homosexuality is immutable. Race is easy to prove. 99% of the time so is gender. But you have active gay and lesbian voice now who argue that they made the choice. The legal analysis no longer works all that well, and in my somewhat qualified opinion, the Court could easily rule that homosexuals are not being denied equal protection on the grounds that there is evidence to support the notion that it is not immutable). So I guess my long answer to your question of if I think Professor Ward is going to change minds is some, but maybe not a whole lot because are whole society (gay and straight) has been prejudiced on the issue.

 

 

 

Or do you think they write this kind of crap to convince straight people it is ok to discriminage against gays because, after all, it is their fault they have made the "choice" to be gay.

 

Finally, no I do not think Professor Ward wrote this to give straight people a justification to discriminate. She is a well documented lesbian. She is also very intelligent and has been published numerous times. If you are trying to find some sinister motive you may be disappointed. In fact, I think the very fact that you are insinuating that there may be one is an indicator of how the debate has prejudiced you. You won't even allow for there to be another possible answer. Maybe, just maybe, you weren't born gay, but your combined experiences at a very young age had a subconscious effect on your orientation thereby making it seem as if you were born gay? Is that a possibility? 

[Rob Osborn]

Maybe I can help you understand what I am saying by telling you what I do agree with in your position.

 

1. I don't know whether someone is born gay or what causes someone to be gay.  I don't think anyone really knows.  But what is indisputable is that for most gay people, it is not a choice.  This btw is the same position as the church.

 

2.  Yeah I agree, satan wants immorality in this world for both straight people and gay people. 

 

3.  You are wrong on satan tempting people into homosexuality.  At least in the sense that it is satan that is "changing" people into being gay.  Please refer to point number 1.

 

4.  No homosexuality is not "triggered" like pornography and cheating on spouse.  Please see statement 1.  To demonize being gay like this is both against the churches position and absolutely not true.  I am not gay because satan tempted me.  If it is satan that leads someone to be gay, then how come a celibate Mormon, faithfully serving a mission, praying and fasting to God to take this away, is faithful in every single calling God asks him to do is still gay.  Does that really sound like the same kind of thing as a man cheating on his wife or looking at pornography?  One is participating in sin, the other is not, yet they are still gay.  Can you be addicted to pornography if you have never looked at it?  Can you cheat on your wife if you have never had sex outside of your marriage covenants?  Yet you can be gay and remain gay your entire life, even if you have been celibate your entire life.  Do you still think it is satan that makes a person gay?  Rob, I am only asking you to open your heart a little and really think about how you view gays.  

 

5.  Yes I agree, a straight person can have a homosexual experience in the same way a gay person can have a straight experience.  And yes, it is probably satan encouraging that immorality to take place.  I was married.  I had many straight experiences.  It never made me straight.  Do you think satan was tempting me to act in an immoral way by having sex with my wife?  It certainly was against my nature.  At the time, I thought marrying was what God wanted me to do.  Certainly that is what my church leaders told me to do.  Now I am not so sure.  When the vast majority of such marriages fail, I have a hard time believing that is from God.  This is the one case that I agree gays are destroying the family.  Oddly enough, people encourage this kind of destruction because they think that is what God wants. How many lives have been hurt and destroyed because of this kind of thinking.  Marriage is not therapy.

 

When you espouse that someone is gay because of satan tempting them, then you are making war against gays.  Why don't you think about what you wrote.  Choose the parts that are true and within keeping of the gospel.  Discard the rest.  They are of no value.  Pursue your crusade against gay sex if you feel it is something God has asked you to do.  Tell gays they are being tempted by satan when the commit gay acts if you feel that need to do so.  But drop the notion that someone is gay because of the influence of satan.  Or that being gay is just like being addicted to pornography.  The church does not teach this, and you shouldn't either.  It is not true.

As I see it, the church aknowledges that same sex attraction isnt a sin and what the causes of it are to be unknown. However, that is not what makes a person a homosexual. A homosexual is someone who acts upon those attractions and thus- sins. This can even be lusting aftaer another person in ones mind- its all sin. I honestly do believe that there are triggers in everyones mind according to the "natural" man that can cause homosexual behavior, even widespread homosexual behavior as was seen in places like ancient Greece. These triggers are in part cultural and society  influences, past experiences, and even temptations brought on by Satan. Physical feelings and how they effect the feel good sensors of the body and brain can be brought on by anyone including the own individual through self stimulation. We may not know every aspect of how or what causes us to be more attracted to one sex more than the other but we do know from history that "culture" and what is determined as "acceptable" goes along way in shaping a persons sexuality from a very early age. Once a person committs to a homosexual relationship they have sinned and it is absolutely no different than a man who cheats on his wife.

 

I cant speak for homosexuals in this matter and what exactly it is they are feeling but I do know that it is Satan and his works that have created the homosexual society that we have today. This is no different than also saying- that I do know that it is Satan and his works that have created the pornography addiction problem we face today. I would just bet that if one were to destroy the works of Satan from society you wouldn't have homosexuals just as you also wouldnt have people who cheat on their wives.

 

Like I have always maintained, people are not born homosexual, its a choice just as it is also a choice for people to cheat on their spouse or stay faithful. Cheaters are not born that way. they may have what I like to call sexual attraction to people outside of their marriage but they do not "act" upon it even if it would cause a huge rush of endorphins. We are all born with attractions to one degree or another towards other people. Cultural and other influences early in ones life can and does have a drastic effect on how we "act" out our natural man needs of wanting pleasure. But, its not attractions themselves that shape or are what causes us to act out, its what we end up choosing, accepting and learning to have desire for that ultimately shapes our sexual identity. I know of several people who married a person they werent immediately really sexually attracted to but because that was their path they "chose" over time that person became everything that they desired and were very sexually turned on to them because of other influence, events, time, etc. They have done studies on the mind and how a persons brain can and does get programmed subconciously to desire certain things when parts of the brain are triggered or as we say- persuaded. I did this myself after reading some material from books about positive thought. I decided I wanted a more "fulfilling" intimate relationship with my own spouse. By convincing my mind that is what i wanted, I started acting upon that not even truly knowing that I was changing how I acted around her and viewed her. Over time I started to realize parts of her mind and body that I had nerver noticed that I was really attracted to. I fell in love with her all over almost as a completely different person that I had married! In hindsight I realized a very important lesson about love, intimacey, attraction and persuasion that I had never before realized.

 

I had found that the power of the mind to be influenced was extremely powerful and that almost everything in life that we end up "choosing" begins with small but powerful persuasive events that we adhere to or are even forced to adhere to. Take pornography and sex for example- We see it more and more in our everyday lives. It has gotten to the point where we see it almost whenever we watch TV, look at a magazine, etc. Those subtle persuasions cause people to want sex more whether they realize it or not. They also see the images over and over and slowly are persuaded to look just a little longer the next time, etc. Slowly, people get attracted to images and other stimulas other than their spouses which lead them into immoral behavior and bad thoughts. It is a problem. Our brains and bodies can be programmed and trained to desire just about anything if we allow it or it is forced upon us as children without our knowing. We need to re-evaluate the real cause of the constant immoral behavior in society. We are getting worse as a society not better. there are not more and more people just "born that way", that i sthe excuse. the real problem is that there is more and more bad influences that cause people to make bad decisions leading to immoral behavior and that as it becomes accepted and part of culture and society it steamrolls out of control.

[california boy]

I am sure it won't make much difference, but the woman who wrote that piece is a well respected and frequently published professor at UC Riverside. I was intrigued by what she had to say and so I have read some of her other stuff. Basically what she says is that people are born as blank slates, that life starts to happen, and at some point their orientation is set. For a lot of people that may be at a very young age making it seem like they were born that way, and, therefore it is for all intents and purposes a subconscious event. To me, this seems to blur the lines between choice and innate. 

 

 

To your second point, that website was not created just to espouse that people chose to be gay. Professor Ward (a self-described lesbian by choice) contributed to the blog I believe as a guest contributor. She is not secretly trying to undermine the LGBT cause. And as you well know, many if not most of the gays and lesbians who commented agreed with her theory. Anecdotal evidence I know, but evidence nonetheless.

 

 

You asked if I thought this website will convince anyone that they chose to be gay. I don't know the answer to that. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that because of the arguments that have to be made at the Supreme Court to qualify for equal protection, the debate on the root cause of "gayness" was intentionally manipulated. The analysis is whether the person being deprived of equal protection under the law (the right to marry in this case) was born that way, or it is a trait that they could not change (the textbook examples of this are race and gender). I also said that I reject that legal analysis. I think it is man made drivel (However, because of people like Professor Ward and those who do agree with her, if a case reached the Supreme Court, you are going to have a hard time proving that homosexuality is immutable. Race is easy to prove. 99% of the time so is gender. But you have active gay and lesbian voice now who argue that they made the choice. The legal analysis no longer works all that well, and in my somewhat qualified opinion, the Court could easily rule that homosexuals are not being denied equal protection on the grounds that there is evidence to support the notion that it is not immutable). So I guess my long answer to your question of if I think Professor Ward is going to change minds is some, but maybe not a whole lot because are whole society (gay and straight) has been prejudiced on the issue.

 

 

Finally, no I do not think Professor Ward wrote this to give straight people a justification to discriminate. She is a well documented lesbian. She is also very intelligent and has been published numerous times. If you are trying to find some sinister motive you may be disappointed. In fact, I think the very fact that you are insinuating that there may be one is an indicator of how the debate has prejudiced you. You won't even allow for there to be another possible answer. Maybe, just maybe, you weren't born gay, but your combined experiences at a very young age had a subconscious effect on your orientation thereby making it seem as if you were born gay? Is that a possibility? 

Well obviously you 

 

I am sure it won't make much difference, but the woman who wrote that piece is a well respected and frequently published professor at UC Riverside. I was intrigued by what she had to say and so I have read some of her other stuff. Basically what she says is that people are born as blank slates, that life starts to happen, and at some point their orientation is set. For a lot of people that may be at a very young age making it seem like they were born that way, and, therefore it is for all intents and purposes a subconscious event. To me, this seems to blur the lines between choice and innate. 

 

 

To your second point, that website was not created just to espouse that people chose to be gay. Professor Ward (a self-described lesbian by choice) contributed to the blog I believe as a guest contributor. She is not secretly trying to undermine the LGBT cause. And as you well know, many if not most of the gays and lesbians who commented agreed with her theory. Anecdotal evidence I know, but evidence nonetheless.

 

 

You asked if I thought this website will convince anyone that they chose to be gay. I don't know the answer to that. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that because of the arguments that have to be made at the Supreme Court to qualify for equal protection, the debate on the root cause of "gayness" was intentionally manipulated. The analysis is whether the person being deprived of equal protection under the law (the right to marry in this case) was born that way, or it is a trait that they could not change (the textbook examples of this are race and gender). I also said that I reject that legal analysis. I think it is man made drivel (However, because of people like Professor Ward and those who do agree with her, if a case reached the Supreme Court, you are going to have a hard time proving that homosexuality is immutable. Race is easy to prove. 99% of the time so is gender. But you have active gay and lesbian voice now who argue that they made the choice. The legal analysis no longer works all that well, and in my somewhat qualified opinion, the Court could easily rule that homosexuals are not being denied equal protection on the grounds that there is evidence to support the notion that it is not immutable). So I guess my long answer to your question of if I think Professor Ward is going to change minds is some, but maybe not a whole lot because are whole society (gay and straight) has been prejudiced on the issue.

 

 

Finally, no I do not think Professor Ward wrote this to give straight people a justification to discriminate. She is a well documented lesbian. She is also very intelligent and has been published numerous times. If you are trying to find some sinister motive you may be disappointed. In fact, I think the very fact that you are insinuating that there may be one is an indicator of how the debate has prejudiced you. You won't even allow for there to be another possible answer. Maybe, just maybe, you weren't born gay, but your combined experiences at a very young age had a subconscious effect on your orientation thereby making it seem as if you were born gay? Is that a possibility? 

You obviously did not read any of my other posts on this page.  So obviously you have absolutely no interest in trying to understand this issue.  Your mind is made up because you have been able to find a professor who has chosen to be a lesbian.  Good for you.  Obviously this is the one piece of the puzzle you needed to make the judgements that you so desperately want to make..  This despite the fact that I could list literally hundreds of professors that would disagree with this professor, including a professor from BYU.  

 

Sorry but you are completely wrong about the whole legal reasons for being born gay.  Religion is a protected class, and what religion you choose is completely a choice and not immutable.  Being pregnant is a protected class, and that is also a choice.  Being a veteran is also a protected class.  You don't have to be "born that way" to qualify for being a protected class.  The Supreme Court did not make their decision to dismiss DOMA based on whether a person is born gay.  There is nothing in the ruling that indicates that is the reason.  If you really care about educating yourself on this issue, I suggest you at least do a little Goggling to see at the very minimum the definition of what a protected class is.  Or perhaps reading the Supreme Court decision to see exactly why they ruled to dismiss DOMA.

 

And finally, if you do read my previous posts, you will, much to your surprise, find that I do agree that sometimes a straight person can choose to be in a homosexual relationship.  You will even find that I personally was in a heterosexual marriage for many years.  But the whole time I was in that relationship, I still knew I was gay.  So your well published professor is not saying anything that anyone will not agree with.  Is all she is saying is that she chose to be in a homosexual relationship.  That obviously is NOT proof that everyone who is gay has just decided to be gay because it is so much better than being straight.  She offers NO PROOF that we are all born neutral and then later decide whether we are gay or straight.  If as all it takes for you to believe something is for a "well respected" professor to publish something, then , brother, you are going to have to believe a lot of crazy ideas.  And you still have not answered my question of why you think that this website even exists or more importantly, why you think it is the definitive web site on how a person becomes gay.  

[california boy]

As I see it, the church aknowledges that same sex attraction isnt a sin and what the causes of it are to be unknown. However, that is not what makes a person a homosexual. A homosexual is someone who acts upon those attractions and thus- sins. This can even be lusting aftaer another person in ones mind- its all sin. I honestly do believe that there are triggers in everyones mind according to the "natural" man that can cause homosexual behavior, even widespread homosexual behavior as was seen in places like ancient Greece. These triggers are in part cultural and society  influences, past experiences, and even temptations brought on by Satan. Physical feelings and how they effect the feel good sensors of the body and brain can be brought on by anyone including the own individual through self stimulation. We may not know every aspect of how or what causes us to be more attracted to one sex more than the other but we do know from history that "culture" and what is determined as "acceptable" goes along way in shaping a persons sexuality from a very early age. Once a person committs to a homosexual relationship they have sinned and it is absolutely no different than a man who cheats on his wife.

 

I cant speak for homosexuals in this matter and what exactly it is they are feeling but I do know that it is Satan and his works that have created the homosexual society that we have today. This is no different than also saying- that I do know that it is Satan and his works that have created the pornography addiction problem we face today. I would just bet that if one were to destroy the works of Satan from society you wouldn't have homosexuals just as you also wouldnt have people who cheat on their wives.

 

Like I have always maintained, people are not born homosexual, its a choice just as it is also a choice for people to cheat on their spouse or stay faithful. Cheaters are not born that way. they may have what I like to call sexual attraction to people outside of their marriage but they do not "act" upon it even if it would cause a huge rush of endorphins. We are all born with attractions to one degree or another towards other people. Cultural and other influences early in ones life can and does have a drastic effect on how we "act" out our natural man needs of wanting pleasure. But, its not attractions themselves that shape or are what causes us to act out, its what we end up choosing, accepting and learning to have desire for that ultimately shapes our sexual identity. I know of several people who married a person they werent immediately really sexually attracted to but because that was their path they "chose" over time that person became everything that they desired and were very sexually turned on to them because of other influence, events, time, etc. They have done studies on the mind and how a persons brain can and does get programmed subconciously to desire certain things when parts of the brain are triggered or as we say- persuaded. I did this myself after reading some material from books about positive thought. I decided I wanted a more "fulfilling" intimate relationship with my own spouse. By convincing my mind that is what i wanted, I started acting upon that not even truly knowing that I was changing how I acted around her and viewed her. Over time I started to realize parts of her mind and body that I had nerver noticed that I was really attracted to. I fell in love with her all over almost as a completely different person that I had married! In hindsight I realized a very important lesson about love, intimacey, attraction and persuasion that I had never before realized.

 

I had found that the power of the mind to be influenced was extremely powerful and that almost everything in life that we end up "choosing" begins with small but powerful persuasive events that we adhere to or are even forced to adhere to. Take pornography and sex for example- We see it more and more in our everyday lives. It has gotten to the point where we see it almost whenever we watch TV, look at a magazine, etc. Those subtle persuasions cause people to want sex more whether they realize it or not. They also see the images over and over and slowly are persuaded to look just a little longer the next time, etc. Slowly, people get attracted to images and other stimulas other than their spouses which lead them into immoral behavior and bad thoughts. It is a problem. Our brains and bodies can be programmed and trained to desire just about anything if we allow it or it is forced upon us as children without our knowing. We need to re-evaluate the real cause of the constant immoral behavior in society. We are getting worse as a society not better. there are not more and more people just "born that way", that i sthe excuse. the real problem is that there is more and more bad influences that cause people to make bad decisions leading to immoral behavior and that as it becomes accepted and part of culture and society it steamrolls out of control.

Sorry, but I am not going to argue with you on this subject.  I laid out some very solid flaws in what you believe which you completely blew past so that you could restate your position that Satan has made everyone gay.  Evidently you have an incredible need to label everyone who is gay as being that way because Satan talked them into being gay. And inventing your own definition of what a homosexual is, doesn't help your cause either.

 

 

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

   •  

      

noun

 

1. 1.

   a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

   synonyms:

   gay, lesbian;

    

Do you see anything in that definition that talks about a person is only a homosexual if they act upon sexual attraction?

[Stone holm]

I read your link.  It is a bunch of (trying to think of a polite name here).  I have no doubt a "lesbian" can claim to have made the choice to be gay.  Please reread my post.  Just because I chose to be married NEVER made me straight.  Just because a straight person chooses to be with a woman NEVER makes them gay.  There is an old saying, Just because you are in the garage does not make you a car.  

 

Maybe you can tell me why somone would devote an entire web site to try and convince you that being gay is a choice?  Do you really think they will convince a gay person that they are mistaken and beng gay is all just a choice?  Or do you think they write this kind of crap to convince straight people it is ok to discriminage against gays because, after all, it is their fault they have made the "choice" to be gay.

 

But its not a life of deceit, its a life of keeping a secret.  Its really a DADT type thing.  Extremely painful, I am sure -- but if a gay person is going to stay in the Church, its really the best advice I can give.  The minute that genie gets out of the bottle, well you just cannot put it back in -- it will swing like a wrecking ball destroying relationships, trust, friends, probably the likelihood of holding callings that involve social interaction....just trying to tell it like it is.  It just doesn't work, period end of story.

[Mystery Meat]

CB, I am sorry you don't like respectful dialogue. I get that this is a touchy subject in our society and I tried to approach it with respect to you and others. In response, you basically called me stupid and ignorant. As such, this is my last response to you on the matter. I am not an idiot nor was I wrong on the legal analysis employed by the Supreme Court. Comments like the ones contained in your last paragraph are insulting and demonstrate your inability to engage in a respectful, not to mention helpful, discourse. You are right to cite DOMA. Just read the case and you will see that sexual orientation did not get full fledged suspect class treatment, even though the law was overturned. 

 

With that I will let things be. 

[california boy]

CB, I am sorry you don't like respectful dialogue. I get that this is a touchy subject in our society and I tried to approach it with respect to you and others. In response, you basically called me stupid and ignorant. As such, this is my last response to you on the matter. I am not an idiot nor was I wrong on the legal analysis employed by the Supreme Court. Comments like the ones contained in your last paragraph are insulting and demonstrate your inability to engage in a respectful, not to mention helpful, discourse. You are right to cite DOMA. Just read the case and you will see that sexual orientation did not get full fledged suspect class treatment, even though the law was overturned. 

 

With that I will let things be. 

I am sorry if you felt I was not treating you respectful.  I am probably a bit emotionally irritated by some of the comments you and Rob have made.  But you made the claim that the reason gays want to convince everyone they were born that way is because they want it to be an immutable characteristic for legal reasons.  I am just saying, that is not the criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine if a minority is a protected class.  Acknowledging that fact would have been a respectful dialogue.  Acknowledging that one professors beliefs without ANY scientific basis does not make something true would also be respectful dialogue especially when I agree that a straight person can choose to be in a homosexual relationship as she has chosen.  

 

I admit I have little patience for people using antidotal evidence and misrepresenting what a protected class is in order to make their case.  It seems to me that so many people want so desperately for being gay to be a choice and not allowing them equal protection under the laws of this country that they are willing to gravitate to anything someone might say to justify their position.  I have a feeling those are the more likely reasons why you wish to not make any further comments.  If I am wrong, and I have truly offended you or treated you poorly, I apologize.  It was not my intent.

[Mystery Meat]

I am sorry if you felt I was not treating you respectful.  I am probably a bit emotionally irritated by some of the comments you and Rob have made.  But you made the claim that the reason gays want to convince everyone they were born that way is because they want it to be an immutable characteristic for legal reasons.  I am just saying, that is not the criteria the Supreme Court uses to determine if a minority is a protected class.  Acknowledging that fact would have been a respectful dialogue.  Acknowledging that one professors beliefs without ANY scientific basis does not make something true would also be respectful dialogue especially when I agree that a straight person can choose to be in a homosexual relationship as she has chosen.  

 

I admit I have little patience for people using antidotal evidence and misrepresenting what a protected class is in order to make their case.  It seems to me that so many people want so desperately for being gay to be a choice and not allowing them equal protection under the laws of this country that they are willing to gravitate to anything someone might say to justify their position.  I have a feeling those are the more likely reasons why you wish to not make any further comments.  If I am wrong, and I have truly offended you or treated you poorly, I apologize.  It was not my intent.

 

You are wrong on immutability. It absolutely is part of the equation of a suspect class. And for the record, I have said over and over again that I don't like the current equal protection analysis. I am not somebody who is against equal rights for gays under the law. Just because I have a different opinion than you on what makes someone gay, doesn't mean I want to discriminate against gays. I know full well what a protected class is. Immutability is a big part of the analysis. 

 

The California Supreme Court said immutability does not matter anymore. So did the Second Circuit Court. I agree with those decisions. But the Supreme Court of the United States has said nothing on it, even in DOMA. An article found here, http://www.bostonreview.net/blog/sexual-orientation-immutability-and-law, explains immutability in evaluating a suspect class:

 

 

The U.S. Supreme Court did not directly address the immutability question in either of June’s same-sex marriage cases. The Court simply dismissed the Proposition 8 case because its defenders had no standing to appeal. (Hollingsworth v. Perry, 2013 WL 3196927) In striking down the federal portion of the Defense of Marriage Act,  Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key decider, did not directly address the question of whether sexual orientation should be deemed a suspect class. (Instead, he focused on the importance of marriage and the fact that states traditionally determined who could be married.) (United States v. Windsor)

 

The Court has thus left open the question of whether sexual orientation is entitled to heightened scrutiny under the U.S. Constitution. This issue undoubtedly will return to them, perhaps as part of the question of whether a state can ban same-sex couples from fostering children or whether a person can be denied the right to serve on a jury because of sexual orientation. These cases may then force the Court to decide how important the immutability of sexual orientation really is, legally. Until it does, the question of the actual immutability of homosexuality will remain fodder for consideration in legislatures, lower courts, and among the American public.

 

So yes, immutability is important from a legal standpoint. You may not like it. I don't like it. But that's the way the law is in the United States. When they overturned DOMA, they found a technicality (and it was a dangerous technicality to justify the decision on, namely standing), precisely because they didn't want to decide the very debate we are having right now...immutability. If/when they can no longer put if off any more, I repeat it as my opinion that people like the Professor will do a lot to undermine the immutability issue.

 

You also brought up religion as a suspect class and evidence that it doesn't need to be immutable. Religion is specifically a suspect class because the Constitution explicitly says as much. It is one of the few instates where a group was awarded protected status in the Constitution. Most (if not all) others had to get it via the judicial analysis. That is fact. So like it or not, the same rules do not apply to religions as a suspect class. 

 

I said I was out, but I had to defend my earlier legal assertions. I spent a good deal of time on this issue in law school. It's been a while so I may have been a little rusty. But what I have laid out in this post is correct.

[california boy]

You are wrong on immutability. It absolutely is part of the equation of a suspect class. And for the record, I have said over and over again that I don't like the current equal protection analysis. I am not somebody who is against equal rights for gays under the law. Just because I have a different opinion than you on what makes someone gay, doesn't mean I want to discriminate against gays. I know full well what a protected class is. Immutability is a big part of the analysis. 

 

The California Supreme Court said immutability does not matter anymore. So did the Second Circuit Court. I agree with those decisions. But the Supreme Court of the United States has said nothing on it, even in DOMA. An article found here, http://www.bostonreview.net/blog/sexual-orientation-immutability-and-law, explains immutability in evaluating a suspect class:

 

 

So yes, immutability is important from a legal standpoint. You may not like it. I don't like it. But that's the way the law is in the United States. When they overturned DOMA, they found a technicality (and it was a dangerous technicality to justify the decision on, namely standing), precisely because they didn't want to decide the very debate we are having right now...immutability. If/when they can no longer put if off any more, I repeat it as my opinion that people like the Professor will do a lot to undermine the immutability issue.

 

You also brought up religion as a suspect class and evidence that it doesn't need to be immutable. Religion is specifically a suspect class because the Constitution explicitly says as much. It is one of the few instates where a group was awarded protected status in the Constitution. Most (if not all) others had to get it via the judicial analysis. That is fact. So like it or not, the same rules do not apply to religions as a suspect class. 

 

I said I was out, but I had to defend my earlier legal assertions. I spent a good deal of time on this issue in law school. It's been a while so I may have been a little rusty. But what I have laid out in this post is correct.

Do you want to make a comment on the other protected classes that are not immutable that I mentioned besides religion? Or are you now agreeing that a protected class does not have to be immutable?

 

 

Protected class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

In United States Federal anti-discrimination law, a protected class is a characteristic of a person which cannot be targeted for discrimination.^[1] The following characteristics are considered "Protected Classes" by Federal law:

• Pregnancy – Pregnancy Discrimination Act
• Familial status – Civil Rights Act of 1968 Title VIII: Housing cannot discriminate for having children, with an exception for senior housing
• Veteran status – Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 and Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

 

 

I might also add, that it was you, not I that tried to make the claim that the reason for the push by the gay community "born this way" was a legal manover insinuating that it had nothing to do with reality.  You have clearly pointed out that DOMA runing was not based on protected class.  So maybe you could be more clear why you made such a statement in linking it to a judicial reason.

[Mystery Meat]

 

Do you want to make a comment on the other protected classes that are not immutable that I mentioned besides religion? Or are you now agreeing that a protected class does not have to be immutable?

 

 

Protected class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Sure. A protected class and a suspect class, while related, are two different things. A protected class is a group of people who are protected under federal discrimination laws based on a particular characteristic. This can be race (Civil Rights Act), Pregnancy (The Pregnancy Discrimination Act), or Veterans (see the Acts referenced above in your post). Those acts constitute the basis of what is a protected class under discrimination laws. You will note on Wikipedia, that there is not protected class for LGBTs (lack of real anti-discrimination laws at the federal level). These laws are enforced by the Justice Department and in most cases apply to private individuals and companies.

 

A suspect class analysis is typically used when the federal, state, or local government is depriving a right, such as same sex marriage. Becoming a suspect class is much, much trickier. Race, religion, and nation origin are the only suspect classes right now. Not even gender is a suspect class. And it is in this analysis that the characteristic being immutable is a big deal. So we have probably been talking past each other because we have been talking two different things. That is my fault. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, suspect class under equal protection analysis is the one you want.

 

 

 

I might also add, that it was you, not I that tried to make the claim that the reason for the push by the gay community "born this way" was a legal manover insinuating that it had nothing to do with reality.  You have clearly pointed out that DOMA runing was not based on protected class.  So maybe you could be more clear why you made such a statement in linking it to a judicial reason.

 

Happy too. The judges that decided the DOMA ruling did not decide the case on the merits of the law. They basically wussed out. Yes the law was overturned. But they were chicken. As I mentioned before, they found a way out of issuing a ruling on the law, by saying that the people didn't have standing to contest the lower court's ruling. By default then, the law was overturned. Eventually, however, the time will come when the Supreme Court will have to decide if homosexuals are a suspect class and by rule, therefore, if gayness is immutable or is it a choice. My comment on the judicial problems of making this determination relate to this not so distant future case before the Supreme Court. I therefore stand by my postulation that the "born this way" arguments arose as a legal manouver (I suspect it has a lot to do with reality for a lot of people as well, and if I insinuated otherwise I was wrong to do so). I also stand by my statement that because there are LGBT voices who claim it is a choice, at least for them, that it will be near impossible to get suspect class status under the current makeup of the analysis. 

 

But as anyone who has gone to law school knows all to well, Supreme Court Justices like to talk a lot about how important stare decisis is until they disagree with the old case law. If the Court is made up of 5 firmly liberal judges, then that will be enough to get suspect class status, even if it means getting rid of the immutable necessity. 

 

Edited for spelling.

Edited November 16, 2013 by lvjd66

[Rob Osborn]

Sorry, but I am not going to argue with you on this subject.  I laid out some very solid flaws in what you believe which you completely blew past so that you could restate your position that Satan has made everyone gay.  Evidently you have an incredible need to label everyone who is gay as being that way because Satan talked them into being gay. And inventing your own definition of what a homosexual is, doesn't help your cause either.

 

 

ho·mo·sex·u·al

ˌhōməˈsekSHo͞oəl/

adjective

• 1.

  (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

  •  

     

noun

• 1.

  a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

  synonyms:

  gay, lesbian;

   

Do you see anything in that definition that talks about a person is only a homosexual if they act upon sexual attraction?

I apologize if I do not sound sincere. I am trying to understand the issueme intos of SSA. I wish to come into some consensus in regards to the matter with you but I do feel that society should not accept homosexual "acts" as normal nor should there be special protections afforded to gay couples, etc that are reserved for traditional families. I do find that the homosexual community is pressing society to come into acceptance of their practice- their behavior, and that I find offensive o moral law. Just in the church itself there are various movements right now which are testing moral law. The mormon gay community is pressing the church not only for acceptance but for full fellowship while they practice immoral behavior. Mormonsandgays.org was set up to confront and bring to the table just where the church stands in regards to SSA. They were very careful in their wording however not to open a door into the belief that homosexual practice is in anyway acceptable before the Lord. In recent response to comments made by Harry Reid the church officially stated-

NEWS RELEASE— 7 NOVEMBER 2013 Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday,

SALT LAKE CITY —

Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.

As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage

I am curious to know why gay people keep pressing this agenda of acceptance of their lifestyle in society? If we know sexual immorality is wrong and goes against natural law and Gods laws why the need to gain acceptance? We dont do this with pedophiles nor spouse cheaters or other sexually immoral acts that people get caught up in.

I see the gay agenda as mostly people doing Satans bidding. The church itself is in a precarious position to really hammer down and take issue with it and so it has taken a slightly different path. I am in full agreement with what the church is teaching on their mormonsandgays.org website. i feel for those who have SSA. But you also have to aknowledge that I also have compassion for those who are addicted to pornography, cheat on their spouses, get caught up in rape, incest, etc. I have seen all of it firsthand in my extended family. I have friends and family members who are in jail/prison right now because their actions led them down into addictions that caused them to break moral law. I love them and have compassion on them and their families- I feel for them. But, and here is the big BUT, I cannot love their practices because I know it is against Heavenly Fathers plan for our happiness. SO, I do take a side with the gay agenda because they seek to instill legitimacy of immorality into society which not only weakens society, but it destroys the family. I take the same side as to be against all forms of organizations or movements that seek to corrupt moral law.

[california boy]

Sure. A protected class and a suspect class, while related, are two different things. A protected class is a group of people who are protected under federal discrimination laws based on a particular characteristic. This can be race (Civil Rights Act), Pregnancy (The Pregnancy Discrimination Act), or Veterans (see the Acts referenced above in your post). Those acts constitute the basis of what is a protected class under discrimination laws. You will note on Wikipedia, that there is not protected class for LGBTs (lack of real anti-discrimination laws at the federal level). These laws are enforced by the Justice Department and in most cases apply to private individuals and companies.

 

A suspect class analysis is typically used when the federal, state, or local government is depriving a right, such as same sex marriage. Becoming a suspect class is much, much trickier. Race, religion, and nation origin are the only suspect classes right now. Not even gender is a suspect class. And it is in this analysis that the characteristic being immutable is a big deal. So we have probably been talking past each other because we have been talking two different things. That is my fault. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, suspect class under equal protection analysis is the one you want.

 

 

Happy too. The judges that decided the DOMA ruling did not decide the case on the merits of the law. They basically wussed out. Yes the law was overturned. But they were chicken. As I mentioned before, they found a way out of issuing a ruling on the law, by saying that the people didn't have standing to contest the lower court's ruling. By default then, the law was overturned. Eventually, however, the time will come when the Supreme Court will have to decide if homosexuals are a suspect class and by rule, therefore, if gayness is immutable or is it a choice. My comment on the judicial problems of making this determination relate to this not so distant future case before the Supreme Court. I therefore stand by my postulation that the "born this way" arguments arose as a legal manouver (I suspect it has a lot to do with reality for a lot of people as well, and if I insinuated otherwise I was wrong to do so). I also stand by my statement that because there are LGBT voices who claim it is a choice, at least for them, that it will be near impossible to get suspect class status under the current makeup of the analysis. 

 

But as anyone who has gone to law school knows all to well, Supreme Court Justices like to talk a lot about how important stare decisis is until they disagree with the old case law. If the Court is made up of 5 firmly liberal judges, then that will be enough to get suspect class status, even if it means getting rid of the immutable necessity. 

 

Edited for spelling.

 

Now this is a post I can come much more closer to agreeing with most of what you said.  The problem I had is that you were posting that protectec class had to be immutable.  Here is your quote from post 184

 

You are wrong on immutability. It absolutely is part of the equation of a suspect class. 

 

So you were disagreeing with something that really wasn't true, when in fact you were talking about suspect class.  For me, that is where the confusion started. I agree that suspect class is a much more difficult ruling to reach.  But would you not agree that suspect class does not need to be conferred on gays in order to affirm that they have the right to marry?  The Supreme Court can rule that gay marriage is consistent with America's belief in equality under protected class?  And if that is the case, then gays claiming to being born that way is not essential to the legal ruling on same sex marriage.  Am I wrong??

 

Even with this legal analysis, I still strongly disagree with you that gays claim to be born gay for judicial purposes.  I mean how many gays understand the difference between protected class and suspect class and the significants of either one.  Do you really believe that the majority of gays claim they are born gay simply because they understood the importance of these two classifications under the equal protection clause?  Doesn't it really seem more logical that the vast majority of gays believe they were born gay is because they have had same sex attraction since puberty?  It is really the only attraction almost all of them have experienced.  A poll by the Advocate in 1997 showed that 90% of gay men make the claim that they were born gay.  Do you really think you can make the case with a straight face that 90% of gay men decided they were born this way because it would help the judicial case for gay marriage that doesn't even require an immutable reason to pass under protected class?  You seem like you are a pretty logical guy.  What do you really think on this position?

 

I completely agree with you analysis of DOMA.  The courts did wimp out.  Most people believe that the courts don't want to get too far ahead of public opinion and wanted this issue to be debated by the public more before they make their ruling on this subject.  It is a shame that the courts choose to wait for public opinion before making these kinds of rulings, but that is reality. While the gay community was disappointed that the court  took the easy way out , perhaps it is a wise decision.  In the past two weeks, three more states have legalized gay marriage.  There is little reason not to believe that this trend will continue.  When the supreme court does rule on gay marriage, the American public will probably be better prepared for such a ruling.  

 

Now if I could just get you to understand that your professor in Riverside who is probably straight, but chose to live in a gay relationship is no different than a gay Mormon choosing to live in a heterosexual marriage does not mean that most gays choose to be gay.

[Stone holm]

Sure. A protected class and a suspect class, while related, are two different things. A protected class is a group of people who are protected under federal discrimination laws based on a particular characteristic. This can be race (Civil Rights Act), Pregnancy (The Pregnancy Discrimination Act), or Veterans (see the Acts referenced above in your post). Those acts constitute the basis of what is a protected class under discrimination laws. You will note on Wikipedia, that there is not protected class for LGBTs (lack of real anti-discrimination laws at the federal level). These laws are enforced by the Justice Department and in most cases apply to private individuals and companies.

 

A suspect class analysis is typically used when the federal, state, or local government is depriving a right, such as same sex marriage. Becoming a suspect class is much, much trickier. Race, religion, and nation origin are the only suspect classes right now. Not even gender is a suspect class. And it is in this analysis that the characteristic being immutable is a big deal. So we have probably been talking past each other because we have been talking two different things. That is my fault. But when it comes to same-sex marriage, suspect class under equal protection analysis is the one you want.

 

 

Happy too. The judges that decided the DOMA ruling did not decide the case on the merits of the law. They basically wussed out. Yes the law was overturned. But they were chicken. As I mentioned before, they found a way out of issuing a ruling on the law, by saying that the people didn't have standing to contest the lower court's ruling. By default then, the law was overturned. Eventually, however, the time will come when the Supreme Court will have to decide if homosexuals are a suspect class and by rule, therefore, if gayness is immutable or is it a choice. My comment on the judicial problems of making this determination relate to this not so distant future case before the Supreme Court. I therefore stand by my postulation that the "born this way" arguments arose as a legal manouver (I suspect it has a lot to do with reality for a lot of people as well, and if I insinuated otherwise I was wrong to do so). I also stand by my statement that because there are LGBT voices who claim it is a choice, at least for them, that it will be near impossible to get suspect class status under the current makeup of the analysis. 

 

But as anyone who has gone to law school knows all to well, Supreme Court Justices like to talk a lot about how important stare decisis is until they disagree with the old case law. If the Court is made up of 5 firmly liberal judges, then that will be enough to get suspect class status, even if it means getting rid of the immutable necessity. 

 

Edited for spelling.

Although I agree with much of your reasoning, you have confused the Prop 8 ruling which indeed was based on standing with the DOMA ruling which was not. The DOMA ruling was a plurality decision. Four justices were willing to find it unconstitutional on discrimination grounds, four were willing to uphold it against such claims, the deciding vote, however , and hence the opinion of the Court because he was Chief Justice was based on a Federalism argument that the federal government could not upset State determinations of this type.

[california boy]

noun

•  

• 1.

  a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

  synonyms:

  gay, lesbian;

   

   

Do you see anything in that definition that talks about a person is only a homosexual if they act upon sexual attraction?

I apologize if I do not sound sincere. I am trying to understand the issueme intos of SSA. I wish to come into some consensus in regards to the matter with you but I do feel that society should not accept homosexual "acts" as normal nor should there be special protections afforded to gay couples, etc that are reserved for traditional families. I do find that the homosexual community is pressing society to come into acceptance of their practice- their behavior, and that I find offensive o moral law. Just in the church itself there are various movements right now which are testing moral law. The mormon gay community is pressing the church not only for acceptance but for full fellowship while they practice immoral behavior. Mormonsandgays.org was set up to confront and bring to the table just where the church stands in regards to SSA. They were very careful in their wording however not to open a door into the belief that homosexual practice is in anyway acceptable before the Lord. In recent response to comments made by Harry Reid the church officially stated-

NEWS RELEASE— 7 NOVEMBER 2013 Church Responds to Inquiries on ENDA, Same-Sex Marriage

Media outlets are reporting that in an informal press gathering Wednesday,

SALT LAKE CITY —

Senator Harry Reid made comments about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and gay rights.

As the Church has said before, elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position.

On the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the Church has not taken a position. On the question of same-sex marriage, the Church has been consistent in its support of traditional marriage while teaching that all people should be treated with kindness and understanding. If it is being suggested that the Church’s doctrine on this matter is changing, that is incorrect.

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to God’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. As such, traditional marriage is a foundational doctrine and cannot change.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-inquiries-on-enda--same-sex-marriage

I am curious to know why gay people keep pressing this agenda of acceptance of their lifestyle in society? If we know sexual immorality is wrong and goes against natural law and Gods laws why the need to gain acceptance? We dont do this with pedophiles nor spouse cheaters or other sexually immoral acts that people get caught up in.

I see the gay agenda as mostly people doing Satans bidding. The church itself is in a precarious position to really hammer down and take issue with it and so it has taken a slightly different path. I am in full agreement with what the church is teaching on their mormonsandgays.org website. i feel for those who have SSA. But you also have to aknowledge that I also have compassion for those who are addicted to pornography, cheat on their spouses, get caught up in rape, incest, etc. I have seen all of it firsthand in my extended family. I have friends and family members who are in jail/prison right now because their actions led them down into addictions that caused them to break moral law. I love them and have compassion on them and their families- I feel for them. But, and here is the big BUT, I cannot love their practices because I know it is against Heavenly Fathers plan for our happiness. SO, I do take a side with the gay agenda because they seek to instill legitimacy of immorality into society which not only weakens society, but it destroys the family. I take the same side as to be against all forms of organizations or movements that seek to corrupt moral law.

 

You know Rob, I completely understand your religious reasons for being against gay marriage.  I fully understand the churches position on gay marriage.  I also fully understand that the church looks upon homosexual behavior as being immoral.  I also know that the church draws a line between someone being gay, (not immoral or following Satan) and that gay person acting in an immoral way. (something you are having difficulty seperating)   And I have no problem with the church having such a belief.  They are fully entitled to teach anything that they want to their members.  That is the nature of relgion, and they are protected under the constitution to have those beliefs. I fight just as passionately for the rights of any religion to teach what they want to teach as I do for equality under the law for gays. 

 

The problem I have had with your posts is when you have not drawn the distinction between someone being gay and someone acting on those feelings.  In this you are out of sync with the church. You are out of sync with your belief that a person simply chooses to be gay and the churches position that being gay may very well be a condition some people will have to live with while here on earth through no choice of their own.  When your personal belief that people solely choose to be gay, you are going against all evidence on this matter as well as the churches stated belief.  Do you understand the difference and what I am trying to point out to you?  It is this statement that I am passionately countering.

 

Most gay people are not born gay, its a choice they made just as it is with straight people who try gay things- they choose it.

 

 

The church has no such position.

 

Now can we talk about what I beleve is the core of your belief.  This statement you make here.

 

I do feel that society should not accept homosexual "acts" as normal nor should there be special protections afforded to gay couples,

 

 

Just what do you expect a gay man to do when he is not a member of the church and doesn't have your shared belief on what is immoral or not?  Do you expect society or the law to force such people to be celibate?  Do you think the church has a legal or even moral right to force gays to be celibate?  Wouldn't you agree that most humans want to have a sexual relationship with the person they are in love and committed to share their lives with?  Wouldn't you also agree that the church strongly encourages the young men to marry rather than live a single celibate life unless you are gay?  Is it hard for you to understand why a gay person also wants to marry especially when they do not share the same religious beliefs as you. Do you think that desire to marry comes from Satan?  

 

I know that you believe that sex outside of marriage is immoral.  But do you appreciate the position that the church puts gay people in?  Is everyone who does not believe the same religious teachings as you do Satanic?  To label all gays as following Satan is a bit harsh don't you think?  And just what "special protections" is society placing on gays?  Because that is what you are asking when you have the position quoted above.

 

I hope that you would answer all of the concerns I have addressed with you rather than your tendency to answer broadly to avoid some of the tougher issues you bring up.  If you choose to ignore all of the questions, the one question I would wish that you not ignore is "Should society expect all gays to be celibate even when they do not share your religious bleifs?"

[Rob Osborn]

I wonder if you took a poll on people who continually and habitually cheat on their spouses and asked them if they were born that way. I wonder if it too would be like 90% would agree with that, especially if it deprived them of some apparent lost civil right to say no?

[Hestia]

This conversation has become personal.