Photos from today's protest

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by cougarobgon

Tex does a good job defending himself, so mine is just an observation, he did not get worked over by anyone with an opposing view. We are just not going to agree on this issue.



I believe being gay is a choice, I have no fecal matter on my shoes, and yes my IQ is greater than 50.

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.

[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...

[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.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by BYU71

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.

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.

[ERCougar]

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'm assuming you're talking about your interactions with members as a bishop. In these cases, no, I don't doubt that they're going to claim to be born that way--they're hoping to change. This is not a representative sample of gay people.

I'll agree with you that it's a choice to live the lifestyle. But that's not the question. The question is can they fundamentally change their sexuality at their core. In most cases, I doubt it.

Whether or not they have gay sex isn't what makes them gay. Would you have considered yourself neutral up until the point you had sex?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

When did you choose to be heterosexual? Was it a tough decision? Did you make out a table with pros and cons? What if the prophet told you to turn gay? Could you do it?

Or, with Tex's example of being gay akin to just giving in to a weakness, do you struggle with these inclinations often? When a hot guy walks by, do you just sing a hymn?

I usually appreciate your responses, but to make the blanket statement that being gay is a choice is just beyond ignorant. I don't doubt there are exceptions out there, but they are exactly that--exceptions.

I honestly can't believe we're having this discussion in the year 2008. Even church leaders have accepted this.

"When did you choose to be a heterosexual" vs "homosexual" is a poor analogy. It sounds very clever, but is really based on the false premise that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal and co-normal sides of the same coin. They aren't.

Hetereosexuality is a normal, God-given, innate trait of humanity that, within the bounds the Lord has set, is encouraged to be given full expression. Homosexuality is a deviant form of sexuality, the full or partial expression of which is always sinful. I accept that there are some people who seem innately afflicted with this temptation through no fault of their own. This does not mean we should normalize it.

As to the question of choice, you're misrepresenting both the church's position, and the status of the question in society. The insistence that "the debate is over," when it really isn't, strikes me as reflective of a position with a weak foundation. It'd be like John McCain walking on to the 1st Presidential debate stage, announcing "clearly I'm the better candidate and Barack and his supporters are ignoramuses," and then walking off the stage.

Debates are won by solid logic, evidence, and reasoning, not by blandly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant."

Also, you keep talking about exceptions and "representative samples" as though you have some evidence to that effect. Do you have any studies as to how many people say they choose to be gay vs. say they are born that way? If such studies exist, do we have any way to verify their claims one way or the other?

Again, you assume evidence where none exists, and you castigate cougarobgon for drawing conclusions on anecdotes when that appears to be exactly what you have done.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

"When did you choose to be a heterosexual" vs "homosexual" is a poor analogy. It sounds very clever, but is really based on the false premise that heterosexuality and homosexuality are equal and co-normal sides of the same coin. They aren't.

Hetereosexuality is a normal, God-given, innate trait of humanity that, within the bounds the Lord has set, is encouraged to be given full expression. Homosexuality is a deviant form of sexuality, the full or partial expression of which is always sinful. I accept that there are some people who seem innately afflicted with this temptation through no fault of their own. This does not mean we should normalize it.

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.

Originally Posted by Tex

Debates are won by solid logic, evidence, and reasoning, not by blandly calling everyone who disagrees with you "ignorant."

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

Originally Posted by Tex

Also, you keep talking about exceptions and "representative samples" as though you have some evidence to that effect. Do you have any studies as to how many people say they choose to be gay vs. say they are born that way? If such studies exist, do we have any way to verify their claims one way or the other?

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.

[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.

[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.