cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board  

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Current Events

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2006, 03:54 PM   #1
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Natural Urge Apologetics

Natural urge apologists argue people with aberrational sexual behavior should follow the urge cuz nature made them that way.

Although I do not believe the scientific evidenc is conclusive, because of the motivations extant by the researchers, I wondered if the general faith that hormonal imbalances in utero are the cause for aberrational sexual behavior extended to cures.

For example, if we were able to diagnose the imbalance, would these proponents support abortion of that fetus?

Furthermore, if hormone treatments could be developed, thereby eliminating the imbalance and possibly the aberrational behavior, would apologists support that?

Amongst an LDS environment, my guess is the answer would be more uniform in support of a cure, as opposed to a more cosmopolitan group. It would be revealing to hear their answers.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2006, 07:40 PM   #2
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,363
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I think the Nazis did research in this arena. (I'm not kidding).
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2006, 08:14 PM   #3
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I have no idea what Nazi scientists may or may not have done. German scientists have typically been good, dependable researchers and theorists. It wouldn't surprise me that they made forays into this area, but when genetic research being very primitive at that time, I would imagine they didn't get far.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2006, 11:40 PM   #4
outlier
Junior Member
 
outlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 180
outlier is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Natural urge apologists argue people with aberrational sexual behavior should follow the urge cuz nature made them that way.
Not sure how we're defining apologists here, so maybe I'm not one, but my main contention isn't that Everyone Should Be Carnal, but rather that Mormons should stop being jackasses toward people who are different from them. Including those who think acting gay is a-okay.

I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content".

There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities.

Tja.

o
__________________
Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt.
-J. W. v. Goethe
(OTOH, just because you screw up, that doesn\'t mean you\'re getting somewhere.)

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
- W. Churchill
outlier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2006, 11:50 PM   #5
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by outlier
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Natural urge apologists argue people with aberrational sexual behavior should follow the urge cuz nature made them that way.
Not sure how we're defining apologists here, so maybe I'm not one, but my main contention isn't that Everyone Should Be Carnal, but rather that Mormons should stop being jackasses toward people who are different from them. Including those who think acting gay is a-okay.

I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content".

There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities.

Tja.

o
Your comments are sensible, but you have to remember from whence we came. Prior to AIDS, gay bashing was almost the norm and quite acceptable within society.

I grew up nonLDS with many redneck friends. I'm told, but can't verify it, because I did not participate, some of them went to gay bars to pick fights with them, because "it was fun."

All of a sudden there is this social acceptance of something previously kept silent and hidden, to a nouveau acceptance, yeah a parading of something previously thought an embarrassment.

Many of us still harbor the embarrassment part. It's something we can't understand. I can't see the point of it.

And, I imagine, most of us are pragmatic, in that as far as we associate with gays for non-sexual purposes, we treat them based on their merits. However, I don't see anything positive to be gained by treating the gay aspect with respect. Treat them as physicians, accountants, engineers and other aspects with the respect earned for that position. But gay sex is not worthy of respect. It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.

Even if one were to eliminate all religious componetry from the intellectual discussion, can you imagine how a man would ever become sensitive to another's needs if he didn't have a woman? The very neurological and emotional differences of the female are completely necessary for a man to become unselfish in sex. Two men? Yikes, it's unworkable and unimaginable to even think of. It's probably urban legends such the gerbel in your ass arose.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 12:01 AM   #6
Jeff Lebowski
Charon
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the heart of darkness (Provo)
Posts: 9,564
Jeff Lebowski is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Your comments are sensible, but you have to remember from whence we came. Prior to AIDS, gay bashing was almost the norm and quite acceptable within society.

I grew up nonLDS with many redneck friends. I'm told, but can't verify it, because I did not participate, some of them went to gay bars to pick fights with them, because "it was fun."

All of a sudden there is this social acceptance of something previously kept silent and hidden, to a nouveau acceptance, yeah a parading of something previously thought an embarrassment.

Many of us still harbor the embarrassment part. It's something we can't understand. I can't see the point of it.
Ah yes, the good old days. When fun-loving Americans could go out and kick the shit out of a bunch of queers without fear of retribution from that dang PC crowd. Yes, indeed.

You crack me up, Archea.
Jeff Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 12:24 AM   #7
outlier
Junior Member
 
outlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 180
outlier is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Your comments are sensible, but you have to remember from whence we came. Prior to AIDS, gay bashing was almost the norm and quite acceptable within society.
I know you're not saying it was right back then, but to me it was absolutely *wrong* back then too. To me, it's very much like the kids I grew up with in church. There was a boundary shift in our ward and so this kid with a learning disability came into our quorum (I was like 15). The other kids in the quorum hated him and made fun of him constantly. Why? Because he was different and because mocking him helped them feel (a) better than someone and (b) socially more unified. I think the reason for animosity toward gays is based on the same things.

Quote:
It's something we can't understand. I can't see the point of it.
I don't see the point in most of what humanity does. Seriously, all of you (NS excluded) seem utterly irrational to me and the stuff y'all think and do just seems odd to me. But just because everyone else is different and completely inexplicable to me, doesn't mean it'd make sense to disparage humanity. (Um, any more than I already do.)

Quote:
However, I don't see anything positive to be gained by treating the gay aspect with respect.
I totally understand that -- I don't care to hear about gay exploits. OTOH, I really don't want to hear about anyone else's hetero exploits, either (let alone their autosexual explorations). So, I'm not sure that's a universally great differentiator. (Although gays tend to be far more open and insistent about sharing their sexuality than do straights, so I'm happy to ding 'em on that one.)

Quote:
It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.
I know what you're saying, but OTOH, someone who *is* SSAttracted doesn't inherently understand what it's like to be attracted to women. So, is it okay for them to disparage straights as a result?

Quote:
...can you imagine how a man would ever become sensitive to another's needs if he didn't have a woman?
You're speaking purely from a sexual POV? If so -- but I sort of don't understand why that's particularly relevant. From a purely humanist standpoint, who cares whether we understand how to satisfy each other's sexual needs? What does that matter in the grand scheme of the universe?

If we're not limiting this to sex, then I'm not sure I understand how heterosexuality is necessary in order to understand the (non-sexual) needs of others.

My real problem in watching the debate is that I don't understand why it's okay to "be mean" to people because they're different, and that seems to be what's happening (and it's not like that practice is the sole domain of the political/religious right). So long as a subset of humanity isn't getting in the way of my (or others') pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, I don't feel like it's any of my business to criticize what it is they're doing. Guy-on-guy sex does not have any impact on me whatsoever. I own a gun which other people find repulsive, but so long as they don't have to be exposed to that, it's completely wrong of them to care.

o
__________________
Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt.
-J. W. v. Goethe
(OTOH, just because you screw up, that doesn\'t mean you\'re getting somewhere.)

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
- W. Churchill
outlier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 02:25 AM   #8
Archaea
Assistant to the Regional Manager
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
Archaea is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

[quote="outlier"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Quote:
It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.
I know what you're saying, but OTOH, someone who *is* SSAttracted doesn't inherently understand what it's like to be attracted to women. So, is it okay for them to disparage straights as a result?

Quote:
...can you imagine how a man would ever become sensitive to another's needs if he didn't have a woman?
You're speaking purely from a sexual POV? If so -- but I sort of don't understand why that's particularly relevant. From a purely humanist standpoint, who cares whether we understand how to satisfy each other's sexual needs? What does that matter in the grand scheme of the universe?
Because learning it at the sexual level, teaches it another level and it transcends into a sacrament covenanting with God. Sex, in proper confines, is very spiritual and moving. Outside of that, it's just getting your rocks off. I'm not very sympathetic about a gay's "need" to get his rocks off. Do it on his time but don't claim any rights to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by outlier
My real problem in watching the debate is that I don't understand why it's okay to "be mean" to people because they're different, and that seems to be what's happening (and it's not like that practice is the sole domain of the political/religious right). So long as a subset of humanity isn't getting in the way of my (or others') pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, I don't feel like it's any of my business to criticize what it is they're doing. Guy-on-guy sex does not have any impact on me whatsoever. I own a gun which other people find repulsive, but so long as they don't have to be exposed to that, it's completely wrong of them to care.

o
Being mean? Let's intellectually rejecting their bullshit arguments is being mean? If so, then I'm a mean man. If you mean, I reject a plebiscite whereby they garner costly rights. If a man were generally a nice guy, but was a cannibal, a la the guy in Germany, should I feel comfortable around him? I know the apologists will argue there is no comparison, but for me there is. i don't know what's on the pervert's mind and really don't want to know. If we can act civilly for economic benefit, so be it. Socially we have nothing in common. I don't club, I don't do drugs, I don't look at porn, I don't have anything in common with most gay men. So the opportunities to mean or nice is not there.

What do you mean by "being mean"? I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex.

Being mean, that sounds like something my eight year old would say. The world is a mean place, and making nice is no longer vogue.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα
Archaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 05:45 AM   #9
SoCalCoug
Senior Member
 
SoCalCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 3,059
SoCalCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by outlier
Not sure how we're defining apologists here, so maybe I'm not one, but my main contention isn't that Everyone Should Be Carnal, but rather that Mormons should stop being jackasses toward people who are different from them. Including those who think acting gay is a-okay.

I'm totally with you on the standpoint that morality exists and just because you *want* to do something, that doesn't mean you necessarily should. OTOH, most of the comments I ever hear from LDS isn't that "gays are in a tough situation and we should try to help them out where possible", but rather "gays are WRONG and should be mocked and shunned and considered as though they're completely devoid of worthwhile human content".

There are more than two ways to address the issue and it bugs me that people seem to want to choose up sides and form teams around the two extreme positions rather than address reasonable realities.
I couldn't agree any more with you. I think you have laid out my feelings on the subject exactly. LDS people don't realize how destructive and alienating the constant gay-bashing is to LDS members who struggle with homosexuality. My sincere hope is that all those who have contributed to driving homsexual LDS members away from the church are someday held accountable for their sin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
Sex, in proper confines, is very spiritual and moving. Outside of that, it's just getting your rocks off. I'm not very sympathetic about a gay's "need" to get his rocks off. Do it on his time but don't claim any rights to it.
I'm having a hard time understanding the hatred by church members of homosexuals. I think you kind of highlight what I think is the inconsistency in the prevailing LDS attitude. The hate is all about the sacredness of sex. Homosexuals are "unnatural" and "perverted". Yet, the homosexual "movement" (of which Mormons are so terrified) isn't about allowing men to hump each other freely on the city streets. The social changes that I see happening (i.e., domestic partnerships, gay marriages, gay adoptions) are aimed at allowing homosexuals enjoy the social benefits to this point permitted only to heterosexual couples.

Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homsexuals are saying, "Let us get married and have committed relationships and families," while Mormons are saying, "Keep your sexual perversions to yourself!" It's not the right to have gay sex in the privacy of their homes that they're trying to get - they'll do that regardless, just like unmarried heterosexuals will do it, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
And, I imagine, most of us are pragmatic, in that as far as we associate with gays for non-sexual purposes, we treat them based on their merits.
But you don't, because you continually reference their sexual orientation. Face it - if you've got a gay file clerk, he's not the "file clerk" - he's the "gay file clerk." Why do LDS homosexuals uniformly feel ostracized if we're treating them based on their merits, rather than based on their sexual orientation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
But gay sex is not worthy of respect. It is intellectually repugnant to common sense, rejects the physical marital sacrament for which it is, and ignores the blessed differences communing betweeh the very delightfully different sexes.
Do Mormons generally feel the same way about anal heterosexual sex? I bet (if you work with non-LDS) you work with heterosexuals who participate in anal sex, too. I know what you're thinking: "But they don't flaunt it!" Seriously, have you ever had a gay man come up to you and say, "Hey, know what? I just banged my boyfriend in the ass, and boy was it great!" No, I'd bet my house that you've never had that happen. You simply know that's how it's done - if someone's gay, you assume they're having anal sex with another man. (I'd also bet that you've had a heterosexual man come up to you and say something similar about a woman - were you horrified and nauseated?)

Is anal sex between an unmarried man and woman any less of a sin than anal sex between two unmarried men? What about anal sex between a married man and woman? Between two married men? It's only the homosexuals who receive the derision and scorn. Simply because it's easier to discern that they must be doing it. Is that really fair or reasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship. I sense a lesbian relations is less about sex and more about a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs. That part makes sense. I don't agree with it, but it makes a little bit of rational sense. You could have that without the sex.
You imply that there is tension between you and homosexual men. The fact that you don't have the same problem with lesbians suggests to me that the difference lies in your own prejudice and distaste for male homosexual sex. If a male homosexual seeks "a relationship with somebody who emotionally anticipates another's needs," do you have a problem with that? Or do you believe that with homosexual men, it's just all about the anal sex? Could the "sense" you have about lesbians as compared to gay men be more a function of your own prejudices (not meant to be used in a pejorative term) rather than any true feeling conveyed by them?

You can tell I have strong feelings about this - I have a gay brother, and I've seen the difficulties he's gone through as a direct result of the LDS attitude toward homosexuals - it's actually acted to drive him farther away from the church. It's destructive and un-Christlike, and I hate it.
__________________
Get your stinking paws off me, you damned, dirty Yewt!

"Now perhaps as I spanked myself screaming out "Kozlowski, say it like you mean it bitch!" might have been out of line, but such was the mood." - Goatnapper

"If you want to fatten a pig up to make the pig MORE delicious, you can feed it almost anything. Seriously. The pig is like the car on Back to the Future. You put in garbage, and out comes something magical!" - Cali Coug
SoCalCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2006, 12:54 PM   #10
outlier
Junior Member
 
outlier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York City
Posts: 180
outlier is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Natural Urge Apologetics

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea
What do you mean by "being mean"? I do have interactions with lesbians, which has been most pleasant, as no sexual tension there, it was professional and we discuss matters of general interest. I render professional service, they pay and we move on. A great relationship.
Then maybe the way you're coming across here on CG isn't how you intend to come across. Your rhetoric sounds like one of general contempt for all gay people with no willingness to respect them as fellow children of God. OTOH, it sounds like your actual interactions with them are not at all contemptuous or mean-spirited.

Quote:
Being mean, that sounds like something my eight year old would say.
Glad you inferred my implication -- my point there being that most people are the same as they were when they were six years old. We want to have friends and feel like we belong and are willing to disparage others in order to have that sense of social togetherness. Or: we're mean to people we don't like and nice to people we do like. It's "childish" behavior, but at the same time all too adult.

Quote:
The world is a mean place, and making nice is no longer vogue.
Forgive me for dealing in ideals and what *ought* to be. I'm very rebellious that way. In this one case.

o
__________________
Es irrt der Mensch solang er strebt.
-J. W. v. Goethe
(OTOH, just because you screw up, that doesn\'t mean you\'re getting somewhere.)

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.
- W. Churchill
outlier is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.