|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2006 16:33:22 GMT -4
Looks like I struck a nerve.
Yes, and I'm sorry for the knee-jerk. Please forgive me for making this a mudslinging contest. I think you're misrepresenting me, but I may also be misrepresenting you. Neither of us is justified in this course of action. The point here is not to strike nerves but to come to an understanding and appreciation for each other's point of view.
You're the one making the claim that the church's stated motives are not their real motives, Jay. The burden of proof lies on you...
Motive can't be proven either way, which is why motives are a poor basis for an argument. And why I was reluctant even to open my mouth at all. But because you can never prove a motive, it has to be an inductive argument on which two people might have to agree to disagree. That is what I propose we do.
I'm saying that the church's actions can be explained by a number of motives, the official one included. Whether some speculated motive better or worse fits the observations is ultimately something each person has to decide for himself. And motives do not have to be exclusive; they can be combined (and usually are). In this sort of argument it is possible that the truth lies somewhere between your polarized position and mine, that the problem is neither as serious nor as trivial as either of us has believed.
In retrospect I may have conveyed the impression that the church's motive is political and not at all moral. That is not accurate. Clearly the church has a moral objection to same-sex behavior. I believe its actions, however, have additional motives relating to membership retention.
...and all you've provided to this point are "I seem to remember someone saying something about that a few years ago"...
I'm reasonably sure of what I heard. And I might be able to find some reference to it, but frankly I don't want to take the time to do it. It's literally not that important to me to find it and beat you over the head with it. It's simply easier to face the truth and admit that all I have right now is a memory.
And as for the Hawaii nonsense, I remember a few things I read here and there when it happened. There was a big splash for about a week and then it faded into history. I remember the name of the company involved and what generally had been done, but that's about it. Again, it's not important to me to be able to beat you over the head with references. I'd rather not have to dig through ancient notes or do hours of research just to advance a silly debate one more step in my favor. Again, it's easier for me to retract the point and admit all I have is a memory.
These memories and recollections affect my belief. How can they not? But are they grounds for you to change your belief? No, not until you're convinced they are actually real. I haven't convinced you of that, so I cannot ask you to change your belief.
...and your personal opinion.
Well, it's not as easy as that.
First, I have personal observation that you seem not to have. You and I associate with different people, and I believe my associations give me more insight than you into the actual social and behavioral conditions that apply to the question of same-sex marriage and to the now-forgotten topic of the interaction between religion and government. I believe it is irresponsible to exercise democratic authority over people whose condition you do not know -- or worse, that you know only through an agency that has a moral objection to that condition.
Second, I have personal knowledge that you seem not to have. I study LDS doctrine and history not according to church-approved syllabi but from a variety of scholarly sources. (No, I don't read anti-Mormon literature -- I detest it vehemently.) I also study what other churches believe and teach so that I can make defensible comparisons. Am I better informed than you on Mormonism? Probably not, but I am differently informed. There are likely some isolated points of doctrine and history on which I have more detailed knowledge than you, but in general I naturally consider you the authority on official Mormon thought in this discussion.
And in the 1990s I was dating a non-religious geneticist who decoded for me a lot of the rhetoric on the matter of same-sex attraction. Yes there is FUD on both sides of the debate.
Third, some of this is unabashedly my personal opinion and can really never be more than that. All I can do is give the reasoning behind my opinion, but I cannot compel anyone to adopt it. If I interpret some particular action as more explicable by a political motivation than by a religious one, then that's my interpretation. That's largely what history is. You can disagree, and you get to write your piece. A reader may agree with you, with me, or with neither of us. You have a perspective that I don't, and I have one that you don't. Our interpretation of the same observations is very likely to differ, and not in a way that makes either of us dishonest.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 4, 2006 16:35:10 GMT -4
Let's call a truce Jay. I apologize unreservedly if I have offended or made you uncomfortable with anything I've said. We should probably just let the subject lie and move on to something else. I apologize too. This was a poor decision on my part. You and I ought to be allies. I wrote the above before reading your note here; I don't intend to continue this debate.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 4, 2006 17:11:19 GMT -4
Well, a quick wrap-up on a few of the points you made, perhaps as a peacemaking gesture.
I believe you may be correct that a number of motivations are behind the church's opposition to same-sex marraige, my objection was to the idea that the primary or only motivation is political expediency. A combined motive, as you say, is probably the most correct view.
My personal associations are not as closed as you might imagine - I have had any number of close non-member friends, just not any homosexual ones (as far as I'm aware). Yes you probably do have a more accurate view than I of the attitudes and opinions of homosexuals towards the LDS church.
I agree with you that it would be irresponsible to exert influence without knowledge. My counterpoint is that it is also irresponsible to not exert your influence when you believe you have knowledge that people will be harmed by your inaction, and this is what I feel is the primary motive behind the Church's actions.
I also have studied other churches and their doctrines, and not merely with the intent to disprove them in my own mind, but with genuine curiosity. I'm fairly certain that I know more than the average Mormon of what the Jehovah's Witnessess believe, for instance. However, I made it a point of studying their own books and asking their own representatives to discover what they believe, not by studying what third parties have said they believe. The accuracy of the history of a particular movement may benefit by involving a third party (or it may not, depending on who the third party is), but for clarity on doctrinal points I think there's no substitute for going straight to the horse's mouth.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 14, 2006 12:21:45 GMT -4
Well, we still have points on which we disagree, but it's good to see that we actually agree far more than it appears we do.
A point on which we continue to disagree is when inaction is motivated. I don't know if the engineer's approach is valid for social situations, but generally when you don't fully understand a situation inaction is the best policy. You tend to do more damage going off half-cocked than by letting situations unfold to a point of clearer understanding. Now that policy may translate to any number of different policies touching on the matters we've discussed, so in the spirit of renewed mutual respect I'll refrain from rendering my opinion in terms any more concrete than that.
BTW, I have since learned that the former vintner's house on the corner is occupied by the stake patriarch for my neighborhood. I really do love Utah.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 26, 2006 3:29:47 GMT -4
Jason, let me assure you that you do know gay people. However, they may not feel comfortable talking about it because of the whole "hate the sin" thing, etc. For heaven's sake, look what George Takei's early childhood experience in the internment camp did to his perception of his sexuality!
Jay, you may regret having gotten into the conversation, but I found it fascinating, even coming at it long after it's over.
Oh, and sex between two unmarried people isn't adultery. It's fornication.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2006 11:25:53 GMT -4
I'm not familiar with George Takei's story and not particularly interested either. I attended a convention where he was the guest in the mid-nineties and discovered at the time that he seemed to have a little bit of an ego problem.
I don't know anyone who is inherently homosexual because I don't believe such a person exists. In my view it is a lifestyle choice, not an inborn attribute.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Aug 28, 2006 11:47:55 GMT -4
Nice to know that mice, shrews, wallabies among others are capable of a "lifestyle choice"
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2006 13:36:48 GMT -4
Give me some links if you have some evidence I'm wrong. Unsupported statements by random individuals on internet forums are unlikely to change my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 28, 2006 14:16:19 GMT -4
I don't know anyone who is inherently homosexual because I don't believe such a person exists. In my view it is a lifestyle choice, not an inborn attribute. Then you haven't known enough people. Two college friends of mine come to mind - I'll call them Mike and Tim, not their real names. We threee are all of an age, which was considerably more than the undergraduates around us. Tim and I were roommates, and Mike "came out" to us one evening. He was intensely unhappy, and trying to end some of his unhappiness by exploring a deep inner conflict, so he started going to a local gay bar, trying out a "lifestyle choice" to see if it was where he needed to be. After a few years, he wasn't happy with casual encounters, but was comfortable that if he were to meet the right man he could settle down and have a nice relationship. Tim, on the other hand, was jealous that Mike was getting sex, since Tim wasn't. His unhappiness was very different, and he's still single and surly. He's said more than once he wishes it were a choice, as there seem to be so many more available gay men in that college town than available women. All this came about in the context of the university theater department where we all had friends and teachers that were openly gay or lesbian. I'm still friends with a lesbian couple whose names are not Lisa and Karly. Lisa is one of those women who have to shave. Karly is a real hotty. They met in college and are still together, living like a normal married couple. They own a house, Lisa has tried once or twice to start a small business, and Karly teaches, using her college degree, unlike most of the rest of us. Also consider the example of Tennessee Willams, gay, closeted, celibate and deeply tormented by conflict. If it's a choice, then what was his problem? Some gay men live sinful lives of casual sex, but that's because that's what our society offers them. Open and honest relationships are not validated, so are not bothered with by some. The reality is that when we (meaning our primate ancestors) started to walk upright habitually, the visual signals of female fertility lost importance in the feedback loop, and the intellectual/emotional attraction parts of our minds evolved along with the rest of our complex mental growth. There is not one "gay gene," because there are several different kinds of "gay." It's a complex set of interrelated and unrelated genes and psycological effects. We no longer reproduce exclusively due to "going into heat," as chimps still do. Like the Bonobo, we incorporated sex into the pallete of communications possibilites, and as we evolved from being just another one of the great ape species to being sentient beings, the relationship and attraction possibilites that led to band/tribe success were not limited to just reproduction. People getting along in groups was one of the feedback loops that allowed Homo habilis and H. erectus to explore the planet. We are attracted to more than just red, swollen 'nads and that undefinable smell. We are attracted to a face, a shapely butt, (remnant of the older cues), and also to interesting minds and verbal interaction. That's why goofy looking scientists are in the gene pool - being smart has reproductive success, too. Same-gender attraction is an effect of losing the strictly biological attraction set, and part of a set of species-wide success strategies that brought us from the forest to the moon. Anyone who thinks being gay is a choice should try making that choice and seeing how difficult it is to change yourself.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2006 14:46:13 GMT -4
Doesn't your example of "Mike and Tim" show that Mike learned to engage in homosexual behavior through his visits to gay bars? Did Tim make any attempts to do the same, therefore proving that he could not learn to become gay, or did he just conclude he wasn't gay to begin with and not make any such attempts?
Does "Lisa and Karly"'s example prove anything at all, or is it just an anecdote that there are people who appear to enjoy a homosexual lifestyle? Aren't there equally valid accounts of people who claim to have changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?
I'm not very familiar with Tennasee Williams' story, so I won't comment on it.
I don't believe that mankind ever evolved from apes in the first place, so comments about leftovers of more primitive instincts make little impression on me. Unscientific of me, perhaps, but it is my opinion.
I believe that I could "become gay" if I chose to do so, however since I believe it to be immoral I have no intention of making any attempt to do so.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2006 16:03:48 GMT -4
How about penguins? Seriously. Try Googling "gay penguins." I see one site that claims a female split 'em up, but it's Fox News, so that's how much I trust that.
I want you to think very seriously about something you said.
You are saying that it is your (incorrect) belief that keeps you from knowing anyone inherently gay. Now, you may not have meant to say this, but I think you're right. You are prejudging people, and it keeps them from opening up to you. I wouldn't want to tell you I was gay, either. (For the record, I'm not, but a lot of people I know are.)
As to George Takei, he's the only celebrity in whose sexuality I've had the slightest interest. Why? Because he was locked up in an internment camp through his childhood because he was different. This meant that he didn't come out for, oh, sixty years. How can a loving God justify hurting people so much? Also, isn't it arrogant to claim to know the Mind of God?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2006 16:24:44 GMT -4
Actually I'm saying that it is my correct belief, but in order to be tactful and to acknowledge that I'm not infallible and there is at least a small possibility that I could be wrong I have labled it a belief rather than a fact.
If you mean "I prejudge anyone who has engaged in homosexual behavior as having behaved immorally in the past" then you are correct. I prejudge those people the same way I prejudge a murderer, fornicator, or adulterer to have behaved immorally. That doesn't mean I couldn't still be their friend. None of my friends are perfect, and I don't expect them to be. It just happens that none of my friends have claimed to be a homosexual and I doubt any will.
Is it God hurting these people, or are they hurting themselves by refusing to accept that their immoral behavior is wrong? Does God give us all our obstacles or does he merely allow those obstacles to exist? Is God punishing a drug addict when he wakes up one morning and realizes that his addiction has destroyed his life?
I don't claim to know the mind of God. I do claim, however, that his authorized spokesmen have said that homosexuality is immoral on every occasion they have spoken on the subject.
As I don't believe God will judge someone for something they could not have avoided in the first place I therefore do not believe that homosexuality is unavoidable.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Aug 28, 2006 16:54:10 GMT -4
How about penguins? Seriously. Try Googling "gay penguins." I see one site that claims a female split 'em up, but it's Fox News, so that's how much I trust that. About the "gay" penguins. The articles that came up by googling that term all referred to animals in zoos. I would be slow to accept any behavior shown by animals in zoos as "natural".
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 28, 2006 18:42:07 GMT -4
Try bonobos. Much lesbian behavior observed in the wild in bonobos.
I think it's arrogant for anyone to claim to be God's chosen representative, too.
Edit: Oh, and I'm a fornicator. Long term. I don't see anything wrong with that, either, given the legal/monetary implications that currently prevent me from getting married. Besides, I don't believe that God has a problem with it.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Aug 28, 2006 19:10:56 GMT -4
Doesn't your example of "Mike and Tim" show that Mike learned to engage in homosexual behavior through his visits to gay bars? Yes, with the amount of information given, you could legitimately come to that conclusion. I'm sorry, that's my fault. The real story is that he had experienced attractions and "crushes" over the years that he was unable to understand and finally had to confront the question. The three of us talked about this a lot. I admitted that I could see other men as attractive, in a "gee, I wish I was that hot, I'd get all the girls" way, but had never been attracted to one. Tim could not see other men as attractive or not - it was just not part of his head. There is no "learning to become gay" involved, there's learning to accept one part of yourself and reject someone else's NO answer. Everything is an anecdote. Nothing on the web proves anything in the real world. Are you suggesting that these women only appear to enjoy their life? My point in bringing up this anecdote is twofold - first, Karly is a good looking woman, not an ugly dog who needs to be a dyke to find love. In fact, she's very un-dyke-like. Lisa, on the other hand, has some very distinct hormonal/physiological differences from most women. Yet both find other women attractive, and are not attracted to men even a little bit. Second, they live a life like any other married couple: get up, go to work, come home, feed the dog and pay bills. Normal socially responsible, not "sinful" in any way. They don't even dodge their taxes. Accounts, but not valid. They all come from religious organizations like "focus on the family." I haven't read any long-term studies on the psychological effects of such changes, but the technique is similar to cult-indoctrination brainwashing, which doesn't always last, and is seldom healthy to the washee. Then I give you a failing grade on your american cultural knowledge. Frankly, I detest it when people dismiss part of an argument by claiming ignorance on the subject, with the implication that no further learning is desired or possible. Spell it correctly "tennessee williams" to google and larn ya sumthin'. I don't belive that mankind was invented out of whole cloth in six days in the first place, so comments from creationists make little impression on me. Uncharitable of me, but in my opinion creationists are gullible, uneducated peasants unfit for the 21st century. Well, okay. As an agnostic I feel that "believers" put unreasonable limits on reality and unhealthy pressure on themselves to be "moral." I don't "believe" things, I learn facts and extrapolate from them. So heres a few facts. Surveys suggest that 10 percent of the human population world wide has some degree of same-sex attraction, either exclusive or inclusive of other attractions. Cultures widely separated in space and time have had homosexuals, countering the idea that it's exlusively a learned cultural behaviour like base-ten numbering or perspective drawing.
|
|