The crux of the gay marriage issue is immutabilitiy or not - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

SeattleUte · 11-11-2008, 11:26 PM

I challenge anti-gay marriage folks like Tex and LA Ute to convince me that being gay is a choice. If it is, I grant you your gay marriage ban. On the other hand, gay marriage proponents must make immutability the crux of their case. This is where their moral authority derives. Being gay is not a choice.

I don't believe it's a choice, and the reason is simple. It is two fold: First, Why would someone choose to be gay? Why would someone choose to be hated by at least half the world, indcluding their own families and churches, and a life of rejection and isolation? Second, I didn't choose to be heterosexual. Based on my persona experience I can't fathom sexual perference being a choice (even for bisexuals it's not a choice).

You anti-gay marriage folks, show me I'm wrong. My mind is open.

P.S., I'm not interested in arguments that immutability is not the issue. The way I see it, people who argue this way are just conceding my second point but still looking for a rationalization for discriminating against gays.

TripletDaddy · 11-11-2008, 11:30 PM

Based on the unbiased way you have presented this challenge, and your already expressed aversion to anything outside the parameters with which you have personally set, I expect there to be a slew of serious responses to your question.

Good luck!

Indy Coug · 11-11-2008, 11:38 PM

I'm looking for a compelling reason to alter the definition of marriage as Western Civilization has defined it for millenia.

BlueHair · 11-11-2008, 11:39 PM

Would you have asked Joseph and Brigham the same question?

Indy Coug · 11-11-2008, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Would you have asked Joseph and Brigham the same question?

They had a compelling reason: REVELATION.

BlueHair · 11-11-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

They had a compelling reason: REVELATION.

Link? I need proof. Not just them saying so.

Indy Coug · 11-11-2008, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueHair

Link? I need proof. Not just them saying so.

I think there's something on Youtube...

ERCougar · 11-11-2008, 11:48 PM

Immutability is not the issue, at least not the sole one, nor is the presence of a "gay" gene. For one, there are examples of people who have "switched teams", so it's not 100% immutable. For another, no matter how you slice it, even if one is gay, whether they have gay sex or marry is really up to them. An alcoholic may be predisposed to drink, but that doesn't require us to ignore the consequences that may result.

I'm playing devil's advocate here as I suspect we agree on Prop 8. I also agree that in the vast majority of cases, being gay was not a choice. I can't imagine going through a life without being able to express my sexuality. However, these arguments are going to ring rather hollow with a group of people who revere Sherri Dew.

The two reasons behind my opposition to Prop 8 are:
1) The awarding of benefits in society is a secular not a moral issue. Religious arguments (and organizations) have no place in this debate.
2) From a secular point of view, gay couples in committed relationships benefit society more than gay couples in uncommitted relationships.

Nothing to do with immutability.

Mormon Red Death · 11-11-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

The two reasons behind my opposition to Prop 8 are:
1) The awarding of benefits in society is a secular not a moral issue. Religious arguments (and organizations) have no place in this debate.
2) From a secular point of view, gay couples in committed relationships benefit society more than gay couples in uncommitted relationships.

Nothing to do with immutability.

Render things that are Ceasar unto Ceasar
Render things that God unto God

Indy Coug · 11-11-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERCougar

2) From a secular point of view, gay couples in committed relationships benefit society more than gay couples in uncommitted relationships.

Is marriage required for someone to be committed to each other?

11-11-2008, 11:26 PM	#1
SeattleUte fairlds.org Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 10,665	The crux of the gay marriage issue is immutabilitiy or not I challenge anti-gay marriage folks like Tex and LA Ute to convince me that being gay is a choice. If it is, I grant you your gay marriage ban. On the other hand, gay marriage proponents must make immutability the crux of their case. This is where their moral authority derives. Being gay is not a choice. I don't believe it's a choice, and the reason is simple. It is two fold: First, Why would someone choose to be gay? Why would someone choose to be hated by at least half the world, indcluding their own families and churches, and a life of rejection and isolation? Second, I didn't choose to be heterosexual. Based on my persona experience I can't fathom sexual perference being a choice (even for bisexuals it's not a choice). You anti-gay marriage folks, show me I'm wrong. My mind is open. P.S., I'm not interested in arguments that immutability is not the issue. The way I see it, people who argue this way are just conceding my second point but still looking for a rationalization for discriminating against gays. __________________ Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster

11-11-2008, 11:30 PM	#2
TripletDaddy Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 9,483	Based on the unbiased way you have presented this challenge, and your already expressed aversion to anything outside the parameters with which you have personally set, I expect there to be a slew of serious responses to your question. Good luck! __________________ Fitter. Happier. More Productive. "Everyone is against me. Everyone is fawning for 3D's attention and defending him." -- SeattleUte

11-11-2008, 11:38 PM	#3
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	I'm looking for a compelling reason to alter the definition of marriage as Western Civilization has defined it for millenia.

11-11-2008, 11:39 PM	#4
BlueHair Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Utah Posts: 1,148	Would you have asked Joseph and Brigham the same question?

11-11-2008, 11:48 PM	#8
ERCougar Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,589	Immutability is not the issue, at least not the sole one, nor is the presence of a "gay" gene. For one, there are examples of people who have "switched teams", so it's not 100% immutable. For another, no matter how you slice it, even if one is gay, whether they have gay sex or marry is really up to them. An alcoholic may be predisposed to drink, but that doesn't require us to ignore the consequences that may result. I'm playing devil's advocate here as I suspect we agree on Prop 8. I also agree that in the vast majority of cases, being gay was not a choice. I can't imagine going through a life without being able to express my sexuality. However, these arguments are going to ring rather hollow with a group of people who revere Sherri Dew. The two reasons behind my opposition to Prop 8 are: 1) The awarding of benefits in society is a secular not a moral issue. Religious arguments (and organizations) have no place in this debate. 2) From a secular point of view, gay couples in committed relationships benefit society more than gay couples in uncommitted relationships. Nothing to do with immutability.