The church has spoken...

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Actually, it was about denying a private organization its constitutional right to freedom of expressive association.

Wait, I thought it was about stopping gays from forcing their deviant lifestyle into the mainstream?

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Nevertheless, I believe one becomes gay by choice. Again, I am not a sheep. I don't blindly follow dictates from SLC. I accept the counsel, I ponder it, pray about it, and then make a choice. How I came to the conclusion that being gay is a choice is the result of experiences I have had counseling with individuals struggling with same sex attraction. These experiences by no means makes me an authority on this subject, they have however, helped me reach a conclusion at this point in my life.

Why would anybody choose to be gay? We heterosexuals have no first-hand knowledge of this, but most gay people say they were always gay. And I believe them because choosing to be gay makes no sense. There are so many faithful LDS kids who want to be heterosexuals in order to fulfill all of their hopes and dreams and stay in the Church, but they ARE homosexual. They didn't choose it and they would choose to be hetero if at all possible.

I think the experience of most Bishops is that if they previously thought that being gay was a "lifestyle choice", after members who are gay tell them about their story, they change their mind. They realize that being gay is the last thing these members would ever choose.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Fair enough, you disagree with my position. But don't dismiss my point that many of the people that voted in favor of prop 8 did so because they find gay sex disgusting.

Oh, I am not denying that it was probably a primary factor. I just don't believe it is a legitimate or persuasive reason to deny them marriage rights.

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

To be honest, I don't recall reading the Church's position on whether one is born gay or chooses to be gay. So you may be right, I am not caught up with the times. Nevertheless, I believe one becomes gay by choice.

Aha... Here we have the crux of the issue. This is just plain ignorance.

And yes, you would do well to read up on the church's latest position. They have backed away from the "gay by choice" line of thinking.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Why would anybody choose to be gay?

For those who insist this is a choice, I always ask them to tell me about when they decided to be straight.

[Facetious interlude] For me, the answer is easy: it was when Stephen Boyd got to tear the antibodies off of Raquel Welch's scuba suit in Fantastic Voyage. And no, it wasn't Stephen Boyd who stirred my manhood, although [drifting farther off topic here] he wrote later that when, as Messala in Ben-Hur, he met Charlton Heston in the armory, he played the scene as a gay man stoked with desire. When you watch the scene with that explanation in mind, it's both creepy and hilarious, as Heston was clueless.

Back to the point, I think the Church has pretty much accepted the idea that homosexuality, at least in most cases, is not a choice, although the behavior is. Am I mistaken?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Wait, I thought it was about stopping gays from forcing their deviant lifestyle into the mainstream?

I can't tell if you're deliberately being difficult, but it's two sides of the same coin. Dale wanted to force the Boy Scouts to accept his lifestyle for the purposes of their organization, and the Scouts defended on their right of association.

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Why would anybody choose to be gay?

Talk about unpersuasive. Of all the arguments for gay-from-birth, this is the least convincing. Why does a man choose to engage in adultery? or theft? or murder?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This is just plain ignorance.

And yes, you would do well to read up on the church's latest position. They have backed away from the "gay by choice" line of thinking.

You might do well to read up on it as well. I don't want to answer for cougarobgon, but there's a big semantical difference between having the weakness of SSA, and "being" gay for the purposes of normalization. I know you don't see it that way, but it's consistent with the church's position.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Talk about unpersuasive. Of all the arguments for gay-from-birth, this is the least convincing. Why does a man choose to engage in adultery? or theft? or murder?

There is nothing analogous between sexual orientation and adultery, theft or murder. What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I can't tell if you're deliberately being difficult, but it's two sides of the same coin. Dale wanted to force the Boy Scouts to accept his lifestyle for the purposes of their organization, and the Scouts defended on their right of association.

We have debated this ad nauseum, Tex. The BSA policy is based on orientation, not behavior. I agree with the right of association. I also agree that private organizations should be able to discriminate based on race. That doesn't mean that those who oppose either type of discrimination have a radical, evil agenda.

Originally Posted by Tex

Talk about unpersuasive. Of all the arguments for gay-from-birth, this is the least convincing. Why does a man choose to engage in adultery? or theft? or murder?

I can't believe you just posted that. Wow.

Originally Posted by Tex

You might do well to read up on it as well. I don't want to answer for cougarobgon, but there's a big semantical difference between having the weakness of SSA, and "being" gay for the purposes of normalization. I know you don't see it that way, but it's consistent with the church's position.

Nonsense. That's just a silly game of semantics you invented in order to wiggle your way out of a logical dead-end.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

There is nothing analogous between sexual orientation and adultery, theft or murder. What the hell are you talking about? That makes no sense.

I don't find the logic "why would someone choose this" compelling. People choose all kinds of illogical things.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

We have debated this ad nauseum, Tex. The BSA policy is based on orientation, not behavior. I agree with the right of association. I also agree that private organizations should be able to discriminate based on race. That doesn't mean that those who oppose either type of discrimination have a radical, evil agenda.

I don't know about "evil" and "radical" but the lawsuit against the Boy Scouts was a definitely agenda driven, which is why it was in my list. Dale enlisted the help of Lambda Legal, a gay activist group who has just filed a lawsuit over Prop 8's passing.

I don't care if you agree with me.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Nonsense. That's just a silly game of semantics you invented in order to wiggle your way out of a logical dead-end.

Why is it nonsense? Just because you say so?

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

No, I am in denial that every thing that happens relative to gays is part of a vast, evil conspiracy. I think the term "gay agenda" is a cheap prop used by the wacko religious right to demonize gays and to promote fear-mongering.

agreed

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree they aren't the "spawn of Satan" and certainly there are those on pro-marriage side who overreact. But to pretend there's no militant gay movement is just ostrich-head-in-sand stuff.

Gay Days at Disneyland, 1997
Dale vs. Boy Scouts, 2000
MA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2003
Gavin Newsome flaunts state law, 2004
CA Supreme Court overturns gay ban, 2008

And those are just the ones off the top of my head. Don't tell me there isn't a planned, concerted effort to force gay lifestyles into the mainstream.

all of those things are somehow "militant"?