Photos from today's protest

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Case in point:

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488/1121

I can't imagine they would allow a lecture like this in today's climate. It's a pity.

Bill Bradshaw was my favorite professor at BYU.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Sophistry. Pure and simple. You intentionally obfuscate the discussion by waffling on a meaningless distinction between SSA vs. gay. And after denying ER's point, you concede the point (see bold), but reduce the argument to a debate over "most" vs. "some". Argh.

I think it's an important distinction. You've offered no reason why it's obfuscation, sophistry, or meaningless, except your say-so.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

None of which you have demonstrated consistently in this debate. See the next point.

Pardon me if I don't accept your judgment on the matter. That's like asking Obama to rate McCain's performance in a debate.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There are countless studies in the scientific/academic literature to this effect. The overwhelming body of evidence points to SSA being innate, and not a choice for the majority of gays. But I love how you cleverly inserted that last sentence. This gives you a convenient out in case someone bothers to give you citations. The ultimate cop-out.

I have not denied that SSA is innate--the distinction I make above, however, matters.

The last point is also legitimate. If someone says "I'm gay," what means are available to me to verify or not verify? None. The best studies that might be available on people who say why they are gay are nothing more than surveys asking for folks' opinions.

But don't ignore the reason I brought it up: even a flawed survey of homosexuals would provide some point-of-reference for ER to criticize cougarobgon. Instead, ER is himself guilty of what he accuses.

Lastly, if you cannot respond without calling me a sophist, ignorant, a bigot, or some other name, please: just don't respond.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think it's an important distinction. You've offered no reason why it's obfuscation, sophistry, or meaningless, except your say-so.

Pardon me if I don't accept your judgment on the matter. That's like asking Obama to rate McCain's performance in a debate.

Funny you keep using that line. When I post something on an internet message board, I am stating my opinion. I would have figured that much is obvious.

Originally Posted by Tex

The last point is also legitimate. If someone says "I'm gay," what means are available to me to verify or not verify? None. The best studies that might be available on people who say why they are gay are nothing more than surveys asking for folks' opinions.

Again illustrating your ignorance of the scientific literature on the topic, or scientific literature in general. They do more than just ask opinions. You are dismissing the entire body of work a priori without any investigation.

Originally Posted by Tex

Lastly, if you cannot respond without calling me a sophist, ignorant, a bigot, or some other name, please: just don't respond.

?? I didn't call you a name. I commented on your logic.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Again illustrating your ignorance of the scientific literature on the topic, or scientific literature in general. They do more than just ask opinions. You are dismissing the entire body of work a priori without any investigation.

This is what I asked for:

Do you have any studies as to how many people say they choose to be gay vs. say they are born that way?

If you have an example of that, I'm all ears.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by exUte

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?

I thought only a Temple marriage was ordained of God.

I also think that if gays marry, the power to procreate would still only be between a man and a woman.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by exUte

LOL

Give me your 'interpretation' on what they really meant? Or what God really meant assuming they were merely the mouthpiece? This I gotta hear!

My interpretation is for me. I don't interpret what the brethern say for others, unless someone sincerely asks for my opinion on something specific.

I know you don't care about my opinion except as an opportunity to espouse your interpretation as "the word".

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

In other posts I have mentioned that I have never known a gay individual that I would consider to have been born gay or at least that they expressed to me that they were born gay. I have interacted with gays in the work place, neighborhood kids I grew up with, church counseling. I will admit, my experience has been limited and the sample pool is minute, but, that interaction and my belief in the creation of man and the existence of God, has led conclude that gay people choose to be gay.

I will acknowledge that our bodies are complex and our genetic make up I am sure can affect how we think, what we feel, etc...the environment can also affect how people choose to live their lives. However, the bottom line is that an individual still has to make a choice to live a gay lifestyle, a lifestyle that is not consistent with God's teachings.

Prop 8 was not about deciding whether or not one was born or chose to be gay. It was about gay marriage. I was in favor of prop 8 not because of my belief that people choose to be gay, rather, it was that I did not want to legitimize behavior that I consider to be contrary to God's teachings. Marriage is the "crown jewel" for homosexuality and the debate is not over.

I am done with this topic.

I too am pro Prop. 8. Just like a heterosexual who is not married, the gay person has a choice to be sexually active or not and suffer the consequences.

There are a lot of things I can't begin to sort out in my mind. The fact that some folks are born attracted to members of their same sex is one of them. I don't even try to sort them out.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

In other posts I have mentioned that I have never known a gay individual that I would consider to have been born gay or at least that they expressed to me that they were born gay. I have interacted with gays in the work place, neighborhood kids I grew up with, church counseling. I will admit, my experience has been limited and the sample pool is minute, but, that interaction and my belief in the creation of man and the existence of God, has led conclude that gay people choose to be gay.

My brother is 13 months younger than I am. We grew up in the EXACT same environment, subject to virtually the same environmental factors. Growing up, there was nobody I was closer to.

He did not choose to be gay. Period.

Yes, there may be people who "choose" the gay lifestyle. But a position on homosexuality that is based on a premise that all homosexuality is a choice fails.

If you want to fall back on your limited experience with people you have known or worked with, I can trump you with mine. I've got 39 years of experience behind my conclusion.

This is the biggest frustration I have with the issue. People drawing on their "experience" to support an erroneous premise in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with the realization that at least many homosexuals did not "choose" to be gay.

Why do so many LDS work so hard to argue that homosexuality is a choice? Because that is the premise that is most consistent with the LDS bar against homosexuality. When you start to recognize that it isn't, that's when the issue gets more difficult and muddled.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

My brother is 13 months younger than I am. We grew up in the EXACT same environment, subject to virtually the same environmental factors. Growing up, there was nobody I was closer to.

He did not choose to be gay. Period.

Yes, there may be people who "choose" the gay lifestyle. But a position on homosexuality that is based on a premise that all homosexuality is a choice fails.

If you want to fall back on your limited experience with people you have known or worked with, I can trump you with mine. I've got 39 years of experience behind my conclusion.

This is the biggest frustration I have with the issue. People drawing on their "experience" to support an erroneous premise in order to avoid the cognitive dissonance that comes with the realization that at least many homosexuals did not "choose" to be gay.

Why do so many LDS work so hard to argue that homosexuality is a choice? Because that is the premise that is most consistent with the LDS bar against homosexuality. When you start to recognize that it isn't, that's when the issue gets more difficult and muddled.

I don't know that playing Anecdote Poker really gets us anywhere in the conversation. Obviously there are some who claim to have chosen to be gay, and many who claim that it is innate. I don't pretend to know the proportions (which is why I asked for some evidence), but the very existence of any who say it was their choice tends to undermine the Absolutist gay-from-birth crowd.

Creekster has suggested it's a continuum, and that seems to be the best approach since there is such a variety of cases. Some, for whatever reason, are more afflicted with this particular temptation than others.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't know that playing Anecdote Poker really gets us anywhere in the conversation. Obviously there are some who claim to have chosen to be gay, and many who claim that it is innate. I don't pretend to know the proportions (which is why I asked for some evidence), but the very existence of any who say it was their choice tends to undermine the Absolutist gay-from-birth crowd.

Creekster has suggested it's a continuum, and that seems to be the best approach since there is such a variety of cases. Some, for whatever reason, are more afflicted with this particular temptation than others.

Nice straw man, Tex. Unless I missed something, nobody has claimed the complete absence of a continuum. The argument is about the typical case. To turn your overly simplistic logic around, the very existence of any who say it was not their choice tends to undermine the Absolutist gay-is-a-choice crowd.

As for your request for "evidence", I gave you a link to an article about a BYU prof. who summarizes research in this area. Why did you not comment on that? But either way, you have already indicated that you are inclined to dismiss such evidence out of hand. Why bother?