Photos from today's protest

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Plus, if you think everytime God says something, it is exactly what he means, you obviously haven't read where God told Isacc to sacrifice his son but he really didn't mean it.

I am quite sure exie hasn't read that yet.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is tough to have open and real conversations between groups when one group or the other is bound up in ignorant assumptions.

Like a Priest they can choose to abstain, but they can't choose to be attracted to a feemale over a male.

What about those that are attracted to both males or females? I posted that in a separate thread and it was ignored and rightly so, by then we had hashed and rehashed the issue. But my question is a legitimate one, were these guys born gay or straight?

Ignorant assumptions? Come on, you can't dismiss my beliefs as ignorant assumptions...

[creekster]

Originally Posted by BYU71

It is tough to have open and real conversations between groups when one group or the other is bound up in ignorant assumptions.

Like a Priest they can choose to abstain, but they can't choose to be attracted to a feemale over a male.

Well both sides here seem guilty, to me. Suggesting it is all about choice seems disingenuous to me. Likewise crtiiczing Tex for pointing out that some reasoning in support of 'born that way' is unscientific is similalry disingenuous.THe whole debate grows tiresome.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by BYU71

I am not going to reread the proclamation nor do I have it memorized. Does it sasomewhere in the proclamation that being gay is a choice and they aren't born that way?

Plus, if you think everytime God says something, it is exactly what he means, you obviously haven't read where God told Isacc to sacrifice his son but he really didn't mean it.

You don't have the read the entire thing.

"solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God"

"We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

I guess God just isn't with it yet or the 1st Presidency just made it up to discriminate.

What's your take?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I am quite sure exie hasn't read that yet.

I guess I read that story in the wrong context. What other things has God said that he really didn't mean?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by creekster

Well both sides here seem guilty, to me. Suggesting it is all about choice seems disingenuous to me. Likewise crtiiczing Tex for pointing out that some reasoning in support of 'born that way' is unscientific is similalry disingenuous.THe whole debate grows tiresome.

Yeah, you said that a few times. Rather than continuously griping about the debate, how about if you enlighten us for a change?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yeah, you said that a few times. Rather than continuously griping about the debate, how about if you enlighten us for a change?

I think creekster made some good points along the way. (Sorry, creekster, my endorsement is probably the kiss of death).

But I agree with him, the discussion is fast approaching blacks/priesthood level of Dead Horsedom. The emotional anger and personal attacks aren't helping either.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

What about those that are attracted to both males or females? I posted that in a separate thread and it was ignored and rightly so, by then we had hashed and rehashed the issue. But my question is a legitimate one, were these guys born gay or straight?

Ignorant assumptions? Come on, you can't dismiss my beliefs as ignorant assumptions...

Those that go both ways may be have been born that way or an aquired taste. What I am saying is that anyone who claims that "NO" gays are born that way are speaking from ignorance. I thought you said that, but maybe I misunderstood you.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by exUte

I guess I read that story in the wrong context. What other things has God said that he really didn't mean?

I believe it was God telling Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and then doing "you thought I was serious?" later. I cannot recall Isaac being told to sacrifice his son.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yeah, you said that a few times. Rather than continuously griping about the debate, how about if you enlighten us for a change?

No. I have already said my piece. We long ago had a very lengthy discussion of nature vs. nurture. In my mind there is a continuum of orientation and I have spelled this out bepore. We have been babbling about this for YEARS on this site. It is like an obssession and I for one am tired of it. When I see someone like ER cougar, who is bright and well-educated, claim Tex was worked after Tex points out that one portion of ER's reasoning was not very rational or scientific (and Tex was spot on in that particualr conclusion), then there is no doubt in my mind that this is not a discussion, it is a bunch of entrenched blowhards refusing to consider the topics honestly or with an open mind, punctuated by SU's carping about my idiocy. (And ER and TEx are just the most recent example, I odn't mean to pick on them.)

Your point that I am being repetitive and non-contributory is valid, however. I iwll do my best to refrain from commenting further on this topic.