How does this make you feel?

[UB]

She's butt ugly. I could care less about her sexual orientation or lifestyle. Has anyone ever noticed that fudgepackers and ****** are butt ugly? People like Ellen couldn't get a man even if they paid'em.

Maybe they "become" gay because they completely fail at attracting members of the opposite sex? Maybe they should recruit some better looking players for their baseball team to make me a believer that they're "born" with their "condition."

Now this is nice (she's straight)... Audrina Patridge is fine!

Hey bro, I've flagged your post for inappropriate language. If you want to have a discussion, speak like an adult. If you want attention, do this kind of thing on an innernat msg board.

 

[One Brow]

The point is modern science isn't always right. And in this case there is nothing that has really been proven. One person's beliefs are just as valid as another's. I'm not even religious but it's ****ing annoying when the people bitching about intolerance are the most intolerant themselves.

I am unaware that "modern science" has declared a single cause of homosexuality, nor are they likely to, since it probably has no sngle cause.

However, talking about science "proving" anything is ignorance itself. Science is an empirical process. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers.

Even though you've said this multiple times, it's still nothing more than a ******** argument seeking to silence freedom of speech. Just say what you mean and move on. You want to silence all speech that doesn't agree with your agenda. Nothing more.

The concept of freedom of speech is *very* dependent on holding others accountable for their speech. It's about the free *exchange* of ideas, not just expression of them.

Are you really suggesting that Mormon children in, say, California are not harrassed and treated poorly because of their beliefs? That's pretty damn silly.

You mean, by radical Trnitarian Christians, on general principals? I have no doubt they get mistreated regularly. Religious peple are vicious.

Or, do you mean mistreated by the people they (or their parents) want to deny a fundamental freedom to? People who act to deny freedoms in America often get mistreated, and sometimes their kids suffer as well.

If you aren't then are you arguing they won't commit suicide for being treated as social outcasts [because of their beliefs]? That's pretty damn silly.

Do Mormons have higher teen suicide rates than the general population? If not, your whole argument seems rather trite. Being part of a small, close-knit religious community that teaches its kids to expect persecution might increase or decrease the suicide rate. I'm not really sure.

We should extend that logic and make religion illegal across the board. Then people who vote won't be influenced, and we'll all be better off.

That seems extreme. Why not just expect churches to respect the divide?

Packer didnt lie. Homosexuals can reverse their feelings. If Anne Heche can do it, anybody can.

What makes you think she reverse anything? You have heard of "bisexual", have you not?

So Elder Packer is forcing gay youth to kill themselves!

Are you really confused by the difference between "complicit" and "forcing"?

"The government should stay out if the business of the Saints and let us worship according to the dictates of our own conscience. If there ever comes a day when the Saints interfere with the rights of others to live as they see fit, you can know with assurance that the Church is no longer led by a Prophet, but a mere man."

--Brigham Young

Bravo!

 

[moevillini]

If Anne Heche can do it, anybody can.

now THAT belongs on a t-shirt!

 

[moevillini]

I am unaware that "modern science" has declared a single cause of homosexuality, nor are they likely to, since it probably has no sngle cause...

I'm a little surprised to see a statement like this from One Brow. It's about the same as saying "heterosexuality" has no single cause. Well duh!

Just because something becomes a cause doesn't necessarily mean it has a cause.

 

[Duck Rodgers]

Didnt Ellen's old girlfriend Anne Heche reverse her homosexuality?

Don't we all know loads of people like that? In Japan, it was fairly common for me to meet such people. In Utah, it's a little bit more veiled but I can think 5 people that I know here off the top that have flipped fully to one side and the other and claim no attraction to the previous side. Many of them would go ape **** if you called them bi-sexual. Are they all nuts or can sexual appetites go from one extreme to the other? It's very easy for me to believe the latter.

 

[One Brow]

I'm a little surprised to see a statement like this from One Brow. It's about the same as saying "heterosexuality" has no single cause. Well duh!

Just because something becomes a cause doesn't necessarily mean it has a cause.

Not having a single cause means only that there are multiple causes. I agree heterosexuality also has multiple causes. Some things are simple enough you can track down an origin to a single gene/development change/etc., but it seems unlike that sexual orientation will be one of them.

 

[One Brow]

... but I can think 5 people that I know here off the top that have flipped fully to one side and the other and claim no attraction to the previous side. Many of them would go ape **** if you called them bi-sexual.

Many closeted homosexuals used to vehemently object to being called gay. I find it much more likely that they are simply suppressing some of their desires through an act of will.

 

[Bronco70]

That seems extreme. Why not just expect churches to respect the divide?

"The government should stay out if the business of the Saints and let us worship according to the dictates of our own conscience. If there ever comes a day when the Saints interfere with the rights of others to live as they see fit, you can know with assurance that the Church is no longer led by a Prophet, but a mere man."

--Brigham Young

The LDS church is not trying to outlaw homosexuality, it's practice, or partnerships. It is not trying to limit the rights of homosexuals. It is trying to protect something that it values on a different level than everyday society. It is trying to protect an important element of its doctrinal construct. It doesn't care if a homosexual couple has every right, privilege, and responsibility of any other couple. It isn't trying to force anyone to live differently than they see fit.

But some people are too wrapped up in DISAPPROVAL = HATE to take a deep breath and look at it calmly.

The HATE argument is an excuse.

 

[One Brow]

It doesn't care if a homosexual couple has every right, privilege, and responsibility of any other couple.

That statement makes it sound as if the only important thing is that the word "marriage" not be used. In order to avoid the word "marriage" being used, the LDS chiurch is willing spend millions of dollars. Is that what you actually belive is going on? Do you support that position?

 

[Archie Moses]

Thank you unlucky and franklin. Archie I'm not going to argue this with you. I've made myself clear. Other people seem to get it, yet you refuse to drop it..

OK, unlucky jumped the gun and defended you. It was clear he hadn't read either of the threads or the talk, so his opinion doesn't really matter. I'm still not sure why franklin (He said something like you were mistreated. I don't think that's the case. You posted your "hate" agenda and links with lies. I called you out for it multiple times and all you had to say was, I stand by what I said. If you have a beef that's one thing, but to rub lies in the face of LDS people and post anti-LDS hate agenda links is another.

Also, I do think there are posters in this thread now, that are mistreating you, and for that I apologize.

 

[Archie Moses]

How does this make you feel?

-

-

If you want to have a discussion, speak like an adult. If you want attention, do this kind of thing on an innernat msg board.

 

[Scat]

It's Hurting The Kids!!

This seems to be the most recent battle cry of the gay movement. I've heard Skellington/Katie say it several times here on the boards and just today I was reading a movie review by a gay critic saying how we're hurting kids,

"I was sitting in a movie theater over the weekend and there was a preview of a movie, and in it, the actor said, 'That's so gay,' and I was shocked that not only that they put it in the movie, but that they put that in the preview. They thought that it was okay to put that in a preview for the movie to get people to go and see it... We've got to do something to make those words unacceptable cause those words are hurting kids.

"Someone else I talked to recently," Anderson continued, "said that the words people use and the things people say about other kids online, it enters into their internal dialogue. And when you're a kid, it can change the way you see yourself and the way you think about yourself, and the worth that you give to yourself. I think we need to really focus on what language we're using and how we're treating these kids."

I'm hearing it more and more. You're hurting the kids with your hateful language. Good grief, it's the rallying cry against the LDS church and Packer's speech last Sunday.

So liberals laugh when conservatives use the argument, "It's for the kids" to define subjects such as the war on drugs, fighting pornography and other moral issues but it's OK to use the term when fighting for gay rights?