(Im)mutability of cross-gender attraction?

[BYUHoopster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

It matters inasmuch as determining how to treat or cope with same-sex attraction.

Sure and I guess my comment was a little broad but it was made in the context of the other posts which it appeared were arguing over whether homo or hetero sex was right or wrong based on their immutability. Perhaps I have simplified their arguments.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by BYUHoopster

I agree with Dan, here, and have noticed that his post has been conveniently overlooked. Why does it matters what desires or urges or whatever you want to call it people are born with? Are we not taught to put off the natural man or in otherwords control those natural desires? Just because I want to have sex with a man or a woman doesn't make it right because I was born with that desire. The argument that homosexuality is immutable or not has never made sense to me because it doesn't matter.

That line of reasoning works if giving in to those desires or urges are detrimental to the well being of society. The urge for me to punch somebody in the nose if they bug me is natural, but allowing and protecting such behavior would have a demonstrable negative effect upon society. Opponents of homosexual marriage argue that allowing for that definition of marriage would have dramatic political, social, and economical effects, but I'm not so sure such has been demonstrated to be the case.

At any rate, mutability is important to the issue because it addresses the point of what becomes of gays if homosexual activity is deemed detrimental to society (whether such a determination is correct or not). What recourse is left to those who are denied full expression of what they feel is a significant part of who they are? Does it mean that some who would have been gay if society had allowed it would not be? For how many would such be impossible? Are they then to live out an ascetic existence? And what is the cost to society of any of the above?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BYUHoopster

I agree with Dan, here, and have noticed that his post has been conveniently overlooked. Why does it matters what desires or urges or whatever you want to call it people are born with? Are we not taught to put off the natural man or in otherwords control those natural desires? Just because I want to have sex with a man or a woman doesn't make it right because I was born with that desire. The argument that homosexuality is immutable or not has never made sense to me because it doesn't matter.

This formulation is convenient for a heterosexual because it is a cop out. We are talking about fairly high stakes here. We are talking about not only the chance to be fulfilled in romantic love, but formaion of families or not. You are acting like this is a comparable issue to whether a city should add lanes for bcycles and provide financial incentives for people to bike to work. It's not the same.

Do you honestly think you could live a life of celibacy, live as a bachelor and have no children? How would you respond to coersion from authorities that you had to take a gay lover?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

That line of reasoning works if giving in to those desires or urges are detrimental to the well being of society. The urge for me to punch somebody in the nose if they bug me is natural, but allowing and protecting such behavior would have a demonstrable negative effect upon society. Opponents of homosexual marriage argue that allowing for that definition of marriage would have dramatic political, social, and economical effects, but I'm not so sure such has been demonstrated to be the case.

At any rate, mutability is important to the issue because it addresses the point of what becomes of gays if homosexual activity is deemed detrimental to society (whether such a determination is correct or not). What recourse is left to those who are denied full expression of what they feel is a significant part of who they are? Does it mean that some who would have been gay if society had allowed it would not be? For how many would such be impossible? Are they then to live out an ascetic existence? And what is the cost to society of any of the above?

Good post. It's too bad these quesitions need still be put to some people, but apparently they do.

[creekster]

But we should not forget that in California, where the prop 8 debate is taking place, the issue is NOT whether gays can live together, adopt children, have sex, enter civil unions, be romantically connected, receive insurance beneifts, etc., as those are all allowed whether or not prop 8 passes or fails. The only issue is whether their union is deemed a marriage.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by creekster

But we should not forget that in California, where the prop 8 debate is taking place, the issue is NOT whether gays can live together, adopt children, have sex, enter civil unions, be romantically connected, receive insurance beneifts, etc., as those are all allowed whether or not prop 8 passes or fails. The only issue is whether their union is deemed a marriage.

is it?

if the issue is purely semantics, why is everyone freaking out about the end of the world, indoctrination of our youth, and the weakening of democracy? changing the definition of one word will result in all the things being alleged?

maybe I am misunderstanding your statement.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

But we should not forget that in California, where the prop 8 debate is taking place, the issue is NOT whether gays can live together, adopt children, have sex, enter civil unions, be romantically connected, receive insurance beneifts, etc., as those are all allowed whether or not prop 8 passes or fails. The only issue is whether their union is deemed a marriage.

I was responding to hoopster's and Dan's specious reasoning, which could be used to ban gay unions, per the LDS Church's position. Adding the official title of marriage to the unions has a different purpose we've discussed ad nauseum here.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

But we should not forget that in California, where the prop 8 debate is taking place, the issue is NOT whether gays can live together, adopt children, have sex, enter civil unions, be romantically connected, receive insurance beneifts, etc., as those are all allowed whether or not prop 8 passes or fails. The only issue is whether their union is deemed a marriage.

as mentioned above, church is against civil unions. so that's a specious argument.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

is it?

if the issue is purely semantics, why is everyone freaking out about the end of the world, indoctrination of our youth, and the weakening of democracy? changing the definition of one word will result in all the things being alleged?

maybe I am misunderstanding your statement.

You tell me, as that cuts both ways, doesn't it?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

as mentioned above, church is against civil unions. so that's a specious argument.

What is a specious argument?