Natural Urge Apologetics

[tooblue]

Archaea, do you not see the inconsistency? Homosexuals 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.

That’s not what homosexuals are saying, their ultimate goal is to gain acceptance, to force others to see the world from their perspective, to belittle and tear down faith and label religious expression as hate. Homosexual marriage cannot be confined to the little bubble you have constructed; acceptance of the practice has far reaching consequences that will alter all individuals’ right to freedom of expression.

I understand that you live with a brother who is gay and suffer watching his social anguish, and I am sorry for the hate he has and will continue to face in his lifetime. Regardless his lifestyle is now a part of the above stated agenda.

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?

The agenda is real, powerful and significant in our society –I have first hand experience with its influence. I attended college where a significant number of the population is gay. I studied, created art, ate lunch and dinner and interacted with homosexuals on a daily basis. I listened to and read the homosexual agenda virtually every week of my four years … I have since returned to school for advanced degrees and as a FUNDAMETAL part of the curriculum I must now study and report on the homosexual agenda.

Each time I attend class and open my mouth I am assailed for my beliefs, the condescension is ruthless and degrading. I am always referred to as the straight, religious, American, married with four kids (which is always accompanied by rolling eyes and copious amounts of ‘what an idiot’ attitude) white guy. The hate that has been directed at me is REAL and unnerving. For every time I have labeled a person gay, I in turn have been labeled intolerant and stupid. My thought process, belief system, upbringing is always portrayed as WRONG and unfortunate.

It’s easy to play the victim –a role that ALL homosexuals relish. I do not hate homosexuals, but I am well aware of the tremendous disdain most homosexuals have for me, my CHOICES, belief system and lifestyle.

[Robin]

Archaea's views on homosexuality are terrifying.

Really really really really terrifying.

[MikeWaters]

Homosexual marriage cannot be confined to the little bubble you have constructed; acceptance of the practice has far reaching consequences that will alter all individuals’ right to freedom of expression.

What does this mean?

[tooblue]

It speaks to my many previously voiced arguments against same sex marriage -from the Hoyacoug political string:

I am not a lawyer but such legal maneuverings in the fight to legalize gay marriage do not remain in the neat little bubble you have constructed. The ramifications for legalizing same sex marriage are far reaching and will affect future efforts to legalize polygamy.

Precedence in such cases will in fact be relied upon as momentum to drive any argument in favor of any other type of government sanctioned marriage.

The ultimate question is at what point do the rights of one group usurp the rights of another group? This will become an issue of free speech … is it possible for a government to sanction gay marriage and at the same time sanction the freedom of religious worship to vocally condemn it? You are naïve if you believe that the fight is truly about the right to marry!

Ultimately two factions of our democratic society, who are diametrically opposed to one another, eventually will be pitted against one another in a court of law wherein homosexual rights will play a central role. The arguments will essentially be centered on free speech and religious expression, calling into question whether condemnation of homosexual practices from a pulpit may be considered hate speech.

I realize such sentiments are the foundation of a slippery slope argument … more often than not we find ourselves slipping and sliding down that slope only to greet ruin and our demise at the end!

[JohnnyLingo]

Archaea's views on homosexuality are terrifying.

Really really really really terrifying.

Fear monger.

[MikeWaters]

people condemn legal things all the time.

shirley you can't be serious that civil unions imperil free speech.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by outlier

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.

This is a weird comment. If I understand you correctly, in order not to be "mean", I must intellectually accept something which intellectually cannot be.

I accept people, usually no matter their baggage, for some it might be homosexuality, for others it might be porn. However, I don't spend all my time or actually any time that I know of, with porn addicts, or coke addicts, or anything of the sort. If I see one or meet with one, I doubt I'd make any comment, keeping mostly to myself.

However, when the marajuana legalization guys came through, I was of the opinion, it wasn't a great idea, and if asked, expressed my opinion as so.

You do not articulate a clear definition of "accept." If you mean I must agree with somebody else's opinion, then you're smoking serious sh...

If it means that I should acknowledge as a legitimate point of view? Why? It's illegitimate in my view.

If you mean that legally, people have a right to argue it, yes that is true. The law allows the argument to be made.

If you mean I must like it, then hell will freeze over.

If you mean that my views impact my daily life, no way. This is argument, or entertainment.

I don't know what you mean. Do I accept murderers, alcoholics, porn kings, fat people, skinny people, mean people, nice people, short people, tall people, educated people, uneducated slobs?

Your use of the word "accept" is sloppy and non-definitive.

Being mean, that sounds like something my eight year old would say.

Originally Posted by outlier

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.

Disparaging people or traits or orientations is tantamount to being "mean".

How have I "disparaged" people by stating I don't agree with the legal and philosophical arguments raised by them in support of laws or philosophies espoused by them?

"Gayness" is a negative quality. It has no benefit to society or life.

Some people can operate without it destroying their lives and can still produce. Some might not. I dunno.

So you are saying, in a dishonest way, that anybody who doesn't intellectually accept gayness as a positive aspect is mean? Strange logic, but it is a form of ad hominem attack. Novel, I give you that.

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[/quote]

Oh how noble of you!

I really have never seen anybody since high school, demonstrate meanness to somebody, except from a gay to a straight, on the basis of sexual orientation. I'm not naive enough to think it doesn't happen, but this is a major red herring.

Where are all the LDS gayphobes? They don't exist. We might ask that the definition of marriage be preserved so that the few straight, monogamous folk out there. We might be the few who care about our blood supplies not being tainted. But perhaps we are in the minority and society wishes to ultimately add so many vices that it no longer can suppor them.

Let's see what society wishes to support.

Free love.

Open marriages.

Marajuana legal.

NAMBLA.

gay marriages.

No industry to save the planet.

No rich people.

No poor people as supported through taxes.

If in Holland, free drugs.

and on and on and on.

You're not advocating that, but the rubric that LDS people are mean to gay people is a LIE.

We might not let them marry in the temple, we don't encourage the activity, but we're not malicious or mean, simply doing what we interpret our Father to have us do. If we are wrong, He will hold us accountable.

We may be judged for many faults, but being "mean" to gay people will not be one of them.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

people condemn legal things all the time.

shirley you can't be serious that civil unions imperil free speech.

Firstly, I would like to establish the idea that there is NO such thing as true freedom of speech in either the US or Canada.

It is not too far a reach to suggest that at some point the freedom I currently have to condemn homosexuality from the pulpit will be labeled hate, as such it will become prosecutable. Ergo, my right to free speech will be severely prohibited, or in your terms imperiled.

The above stated possibility will be an inevitable consequence of protecting Homosexual rights.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

people condemn legal things all the time.

shirley you can't be serious that civil unions imperil free speech.

Oh, and don't call me shirley!

[Cali Coug]

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.

Ah yes, the good ol' days. What are your poor redneck friends to do for fun now?