Mormons are homophobes?

T

tweetjj

CAGiversary!
Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.



I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.

Tom in Vegas
 
They might be, I think they, as a collective, chipped in a huge contribution $1 million+ to help pass Proposition 8 - the banning of gay marriages last November election
 
Okay, I didn't listen to the podcast, but FYI, Card is absolutely a homophobe. Severely so, and very open about it. He'd be the first to tell you.

People that are "against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights" are ignorant fools who have stupid hangups about particular bits of vocabulary, like the word "marriage," like that word is reserved for them only.

People who believe this ARE still homophobes. You're afraid that they'll taint your term or institution, or something. Supporting unions instead of marriages (SAME fuckING THING, JUST A DIFFERENT fuckING WORD) is still homophobic, and completely stupid.
 
Applying the term "homophobe" to anyone who isn't in complete lockstep with the, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda is a misnomer. People who use that term need to understand what defines a phobia and then realize they shouldnt just apply it to anyone who disagrees with their opinion. Regardless of my opinion (whatever it may be) on certain matters, that term is a strong overstatement much of the time it is used and tends to be a lazy crutch that many lean on.
 
It stems from ignorance and fear, so no, "homophobes" is a perfect term. I'd say let's call them retards but I wouldn't want to classify those people in the same category as the mentally ill. Those people don't deserve it :(
 
You can't know for a fact that every person who disagrees with you is motivated by "ignorance and fear" so you shouldn't apply a generalized term to said people. That would be stereotyping, which is hardly the act of an open-minded person. You are open-minded, aren't you?
 
Let me put it this way, Orson Scott Card is a homophobe and has written about his views plenty of times.

It also just so happens that he's a mormon. Now I'm sure not all mormons are homophobic, or racist, but when you have a representative of the mormon church talking about his homophobic views it makes the entire church seem homophobic to an outsiders view.
 
[quote name='neocisco']Applying the term "homophobe" to anyone who isn't in complete lockstep with the, for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda is a misnomer.[/QUOTE]

What is this homosexual agenda of which you speak? Please enlighten me.
 
Now I'm sure not all mormons are homophobic, or racist, but when you have a representative of the mormon church talking about his homophobic views it makes the entire church seem homophobic to an outsiders view.
Click to expand...


Actually, Card isn't a representative of the mormon church at all. If a catholic person says "homosexuality is a sin" would an outsider immediately assume catholics are homophobes? You're making a gross generalization when you speak for ALL of the "outsiders" in the world.

The only reason there was a dispute to begin with is over the civil obligations and privileges provided by the government to married couples. The government allows a husband or wife visitation rights in the hospital. The government allows a married couple certain tax benefits, and benefits for having children. The government provides provisions for a married couple's property inheritances in the event of the death of one of the partners.

Do I believe that gay couples should be entitled to these benefits? Yes. Which is why I support civil unions that provide these provisions for gay couples. However, as a religious person myself, I believe marriage is a union created by God to be between a man and a woman - and the fact that such a union, when carried out properly (with proper treatment of spouse and children) creates a safe environment for the continuance of the human species tells me that it's a good thing.

That's how I feel, and that's how I'm going to vote, and I encourage you to do the same, whether you agree or not. Cause, ya know, democracy and all.


Mormon is just a typo for Moron.
Click to expand...


This was just so insightful and full of well-thought-out literary device.
You're such a winner.
You should pat yourself on the back.
Now perhaps you could enlighten us with a derogatory comment about Blacks, Jews, Muslims, or Gays.

Yeah, generalizations pretty much make you look like a total ass.
 
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Actually, Card isn't a representative of the mormon church at all. If a catholic person says "homosexuality is a sin" would an outsider immediately assume catholics are homophobes? You're making a gross generalization when you speak for ALL of the "outsiders" in the world.[/QUOTE]
Mormons are not the same as Catholics.

Mormonism is a very small religion, and is more akin to Scientology then it is Catholicism. Therefore it is completely valid to say that Orson Scott Card counts as a representative of the mormon church when he speaks. I also think that the Osmonds count as representatives of the mormon church as well as Mitt Romney. While they may not hold any official positions with in the church itself, they are famous and they do speak about their beliefs in public, so they do count as representatives of their religion.

This is different from a famous catholic person talking about their views because Catholicism is a much bigger religion. Is this fair? No but that's just how it is.
 
Mormonism is a very small religion
Click to expand...


Not according to a little something I like to call "facts".

13.5 million members worldwide (found on the right side panel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Compare to Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Mormonism is in the same ballpark as Judaism when it comes to numbers. I wouldn't exactly call that "very small". Smaller than the Catholic church, yes. But not "very small."



This is different from a famous catholic person talking about their views because Catholicism is a much bigger religion. Is this fair? No but that's just how it is.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but your saying so does not make it fact. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.
 
Generalizations are certainly not the way to go, sure. Without a doubt you can't say something like "All ____ are ____" without incurring the wrath of the vocal minority, or righteous majority. However, some of my best friends are mormons, and I have met many a mormon in my life time, and I can tell you that I have never met a practicing mormon who isn't against homosexuality. You yourself have admitted to an anti-gay bias (separate but equal is not equal), further illustrating the point. Getting offended because someone calls it a phobia instead of a widely held belief is a pointless semantic argument.

Let's have a quick lesson in self-incrimination, while we're at it.

"...for lack of a better phrase at the moment, homosexual agenda..."

Right there. Homosexual Agenda. The idea that you could type that phrase in a non-ironic way is what would make me think of you as homophobic. Don't hide behind the supposed lack of a better phrase, because there's any number of other things you could have said. The idea that people of the same sexual orientation have a mass agenda is reactionary and absurd. Swap out "Homosexual" with "Jew" or "Colored" and try not to feel like a jerk. I dare you.

Yeah, right wing jargon pretty much makes you look like a total ass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='sanderdaniels81']Not according to a little something I like to call "facts".

13.5 million members worldwide (found on the right side panel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

Compare to Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_religious_groups
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html


Mormonism is in the same ballpark as Judaism when it comes to numbers. I wouldn't exactly call that "very small". Smaller than the Catholic church, yes. But not "very small."[/quote]

It's more comparable to Judaism in the united states, but world wide there's a difference of 5 million to 12 million in favor of Judaism based on the sources your provided. I'm going by the numbers on wikipedia and the most recent numbers on adherents.






I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but your saying so does not make it fact. Sorry to be the one to break the bad news.
Click to expand...
I never said that was fact, I just said that's the way it is based on how I have seen people who look at the mormon religion. I should've made that more clear and I'm sorry for the confusion.

But hey, when I see people talk about members of the mormon church they don't talk about Thomas S. Monson, they talk about Orson Scott Card and Donny Osmond.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, I didn't listen to the podcast, but FYI, Card is absolutely a homophobe. Severely so, and very open about it. He'd be the first to tell you.

People that are "against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights" are ignorant fools who have stupid hangups about particular bits of vocabulary, like the word "marriage," like that word is reserved for them only.

People who believe this ARE still homophobes. You're afraid that they'll taint your term or institution, or something. Supporting unions instead of marriages (SAME fuckING THING, JUST A DIFFERENT fuckING WORD) is still homophobic, and completely stupid.[/QUOTE]

This.
 
My wife has interacted with dozens of Mormons at her job and every single one of them was a big, fat homophobe. Some were more vocal than others, but they all opposed it. The religion, as a whole, STRONGLY opposes gays period, not just gay marriage. Many of them stopped talking to her and two even requested transfers, which they were granted, after she told them she supported gay marriage. Are all mormons homophones? No, probably not. Are most of them? Most likely. Are they, as a religion, opposed to gay sex? Ab-so-fucking-lutely. OSC is a big flaming homophobe. Read, oh, basically any opinion piece he has ever written. For the record, most homophobes are closet homosexuals, so take that for what you will...

"I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates."

Wow, this is just about the dumbest fucking statement ever. Hitler's conscience certainly fucking dictated that it was ok to exterminate all jews. Does that make it ok?

And you're right, being opposed to gay marriage doesn't make you a homophobe. -phobe implies fear. That means you simply discriminate against them and think you are better than they are and should be given rights that should be denied to them, without even the excuse of fear to motivate you. Yep, that's so much better...

And one more comment (maybe) then I'll shut the fuck up: Most stereotypes exist because they are usually true. People just don't want to admit that. For example: it's kind of hard to argue that jews don't highly value money when, among many other things, the Blazing Saddles commentary is basically 45 minutes (he couldn't be bothered to talk through the whole movie apparently) of Mel Brooks saying how important the movie is to him because it still makes him money. I kid you not, and he certainly wasn't joking. Are stereostypes always true? Of course not, but if they weren't often true, they wouldn't exist. Seriously, can you name a single stereotype that is never true? Ok, I lied, one more: While I certainly don't agree with "Mormon is just a typo for Moron.", I did find it pretty funny. To each his own, I suppose.

Ok, one more. I mean it this time. Okie, Mr. "I'm opposed to gay marriages" what, exactly, do you base that belief on? If it is a religious basis, and it is because, according to your little book, marrige is only a same sex institution, and thus this implies you believe that marriage is a religious joining, why are you only opposed to gay marriage? Why should hindus be allowed to marry? They don't acknowledge your god. Or buddists? Or shintos? etc etc. Anyone else of the opinion that anyone opposed to gay marriage probably isn't married? I'm all for gay marriage. They should have to suffer too... :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='tweetjj']Frankly I was offended that Cheapy in the most recent podcast labeled Mormons, specifically Orson Scott Card, as homophobes. I would like to know if Cheapy has such stereotypical opinions toward all religions. I would also like to know if Cheapy bases this negative opinion on an actual conversation with a real life Mormon.[/quote]

I'd like to know if you base your ideology as a Mormon with the teachings of the LDS church itself:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/same-sex-marriage-and-proposition-8

CoffeeEdge has already covered Card.

Are you even a Mormon of just pretending to be one? I may be an "Easter and Christmas Catholic" but I at least understand the tenets of my faith. Wondering if the LDS Church is homophobic is akin to wondering if they wear funny underwear, convert the dead to LDS, abstain from alcohol, or spend two years on mission as young adults. OF COURSE THEY DO WHAT KIND OF WEIRD JUJU MORMON CHURCH ARE YOU ATTENDING THAT DOESN'T DO THIS

I think that we should all be entitled to have any opinion we want without fear of being labeled homophobic because our opinions differ. But according to Cheapy, since I am against gay marriage, but in support of partner rights I must be a homophobe as well. This hateful speech toward me and the religion I cherish really turned my stomach.
Click to expand...

Wait wait wait. You're entitled to your opinion, this is true. But if you opinion is homophobic (i.e., you're against gay marriage and therefore support treating an entire group of Americans as second-class citizens and depriving them of the rights that you possess), then you're going to be called a homophobe.

You get to have the opinions, but you also take the responsibility of the consequences of your actions. You don't get to have strong, bigoted opinions and then get upset that someone is upset that you're a bigot.

I consider the CAG cast to be one of my top three favorite podcasts. In spite of my disagreement of Cheapy's opinion of Mormons I will continue to download and listen because I can respect that his opinions differ from mine. I just hope that Cheapy will agree that all groups, religions and people should be allowed to live, think, act and vote as their conscience dictates.
Click to expand...

It's not Cheapy's opinion, it's the official stance of the LDS church. Do you even know your own faith?

I would also recommend you do a little leg work and find out about how much money the LDS church shuffled into California in 2008 to defeat Proposition 8.

Here's a starter for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin

Tom in Vegas
Click to expand...

Get out of Vegas and get up to Temple Square, toots. You know shit about your faith.
 
Actually, straight people, we get our our 2010 Homosexual Agenda books in November this year! I can't wait! I have so much to do next year.
 
Wow...I don't know my own religion. Wow...I am a homophobe because I want the definition of marriage to mean a man and a woman. Wow... I am a bigot because my opinion differs than yours. Wow... I never thought this post would turn into personal attacks.

I know my religion and I love my religion. I know what a marriage is. I am not a bigot, but I am not upset that some of you think I am. I can accept the fact that others think differently than me without resorting to personal attacks.


It is my opinion that this whole argument is about a word. A word that I feel does not apply to everyone. And because it does not apply to everyone there are cries of "foul" "homophobe" and "bigot" by those who do not fit within the definition of that word. But what if those who do not fit into the criteria of the word came up with a different word. A word that will give ALL members of society the same rights and privileges of the original word. Thereby allowing the meaning of the original word to stay the same, creating a word that can encompass everyone and ALL segments of society receiving the same rights and privileges.

This hatred lobbed at me and my religion is because of how we define a word: marriage. It is not about rights, privileges, equality, or freedom. Its about one segment of society forcing another segment of society to change its definition of a word. Why? Why is a word more important that rights? Why is time and energy being wasted on redefining a word?

Tom in Vegas, but I will be going to Temple Square this October.
 
[quote name='tweetjj']This hatred lobbed at me and my religion is because of how we define a word: marriage. It is not about rights, privileges, equality, or freedom. Its about one segment of society forcing another segment of society to change its definition of a word. Why? Why is a word more important that rights? Why is time and energy being wasted on redefining a word?[/QUOTE]

Realize that, to non-religious people (and a good portion of religious people as well), this sounds absolutely absurd. Like, so absurd that it is almost unfathomable what mental processes you undergo to come to your conclusion.

Mietha brings up a good point. If you feel that marriage is something that your god instituted as a special union between a man and a woman exclusively, that's fine. But what about those who don't get married under a religious context? As Mietha pointed out, what about Hindus and Buddhists and athiests? Catholics and Mormons (and others opposed to gay marriage) don't OWN marriage, so it's rather offensive that they feel obligated to bar others from marriage, especially when it is on semantic grounds. SEMANTIC GROUNDS!!!
 
Mormons aren't homophobes, exactly. It is true that Mormon...ism does not endorse homosexuality. But this shouldn't really be surprising. Neither do Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.

I know this will probably piss off any Mormons around here, but most of the major religions don't recognize Mormon...ism as an actual religion. We consider it to be a cult. This is a matter of semantics, but it gives some insight into the attitude most other religions adopt to the Mormon "faith." The biggest difference for us between Mormons and the Church of Scientology is the abscence of any Science-fiction writers.
 
Who gets dibs over the word "marriage?" Even if some Abrahamic faith could lay claim to saying it was "theirs first," under no circumstances could LDS be that faith.

If you can't figure out that differential treatment is bigoted, that's not my problem, dude, that's yours.
 
The squabble over the term "marriage" is just a legal issue, it isn't actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. After all, people who don't follow any defined faith are still able to get "married." Whether a particular religion endorses their marriage or not is immaterial to your average citizen. In terms of modern relevance, the institution of marriage is defined and regulated by the government. And this isn't due to any moralistic consideration, it is a matter of civic regulation, and an attempt to support the traditional family structure.

Married couples gain certain financial advantages that single individuals don't enjoy. This is an attempt on the government's part to support couples who are attempting to raise children. Raising children has always been an expensive proposition, and giving married couples a leg up in this department supports the development of stable families.

Of course, if this is the primary reason for the government to endorse and regulate the institution of marriage, it stands to reason that the government would object to homosexual marriage. Why? Homosexuals can't naturally reproduce on their own. This isn't rocket science. The entire reason for having two genders is reproduction. Homosexuality by its very nature prevents the growth of a stable family structure. The use of medical science or the adoption of children produced by a heterosexual relationship are the only possibilities for a homosexual couple to have a family.

So homosexual marriages can be seen as an institution that would be parasitic for society as a whole.
 
That argument falls apart because "marriage" is the proxy for social benefits, not "parenthood."

childless heterosexual marriages are as parasitic, then, but still permissible legally.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']The squabble over the term "marriage" is just a legal issue, it isn't actually pertinent to the discussion at hand. After all, people who don't follow any defined faith are still able to get "married." Whether a particular religion endorses their marriage or not is immaterial to your average citizen. In terms of modern relevance, the institution of marriage is defined and regulated by the government. And this isn't due to any moralistic consideration, it is a matter of civic regulation, and an attempt to support the traditional family structure.

Married couples gain certain financial advantages that single individuals don't enjoy. This is an attempt on the government's part to support couples who are attempting to raise children. Raising children has always been an expensive proposition, and giving married couples a leg up in this department supports the development of stable families.

Of course, if this is the primary reason for the government to endorse and regulate the institution of marriage, it stands to reason that the government would object to homosexual marriage. Why? Homosexuals can't naturally reproduce on their own. This isn't rocket science. The entire reason for having two genders is reproduction. Homosexuality by its very nature prevents the growth of a stable family structure. The use of medical science or the adoption of children produced by a heterosexual relationship are the only possibilities for a homosexual couple to have a family.

So homosexual marriages can be seen as an institution that would be parasitic for society as a whole.[/QUOTE]

so your saying that married couples without children should have those rights removed. What about women and men who medically can not have children, should they not be allowed to marry? How many married couples in the US currently do not have children vs the amount of Gay couples that want to marry? What about Lesbian couples who use a sperm bank? Or Gay couples that want to adopt?
 
I'm glad that you understand the difference between "marriage" the private social construct and "marriage" the legal/state institution, Richard. Few opponents seem to.

But your argument about parenthood is still no less barbaric than the idiots who oppose gay legal marriage because they think that it would force their church to perform gay wedding ceremonies. It falls apart as soon as you introduce the millions who can't, refuse to, or don't plan on having children.

So, do you oppose all the countless other "parasitic" institutions, as well? Please don't tell me that you are a Randian or something.

Also interesting that you seem to more or less claim that adoption precludes the possibility of "a stable family structure." Or is that just adoption by homosexuals?
 
[quote name='Wombat']so your saying that married couples without children should have those rights removed. What about women and men who medically can not have children, should they not be allowed to marry? How many married couples in the US currently do not have children vs the amount of Gay couples that want to marry? What about Lesbian couples who use a sperm bank? Or Gay couples that want to adopt?[/QUOTE]


(shrug) You're bringing up examples that are the exception to the rule. And there are exceptions to every rule, especially when dealing with people. For instance, there are some homosexual couples where one of the pair will "bite the bullet" and get it on with a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.

If the government wanted to, they could remove benefits from married couples who don't have children. You would have to inquire of your congressman about that. Preventing people who are not medically able to reproduce from marrying is a slippery slope, because most of them don't find out about that condition until they actively attempt to have kids.

At the moment, the people who have it the easiest are married couples who do not have children. They reap all of the social and financial benefits of marriage, and yet are under no obligation to raise or nurture offspring.

Please note that I am not actually bringing up my personal opinion on this, I'm just pointing out the legal ramifications as specified by the U.S. government. Any and all of these laws can be changed through public outcry. If you object to the way things are, write your congressmen. (I understand written letters usually get the most attention)
 
[quote name='Richard Kain'](shrug) You're bringing up examples that are the exception to the rule. And there are exceptions to every rule, especially when dealing with people. For instance, there are some homosexual couples where one of the pair will "bite the bullet" and get it on with a member of the opposite sex for reasons of reproduction.

If the government wanted to, they could remove benefits from married couples who don't have children. You would have to inquire of your congressman about that. Preventing people who are not medically able to reproduce from marrying is a slippery slope, because most of them don't find out about that condition until they actively attempt to have kids.

At the moment, the people who have it the easiest are married couples who do not have children. They reap all of the social and financial benefits of marriage, and yet are under no obligation to raise or nurture offspring.

Please note that I am not actually bringing up my personal opinion on this, I'm just pointing out the legal ramifications as specified by the U.S. government. Any and all of these laws can be changed through public outcry. If you object to the way things are, write your congressmen. (I understand written letters usually get the most attention)[/QUOTE]

Gay couples can start families, and many gay couples want to get married for that very reason. If was shown that the majority of Gay couples planned on having children, either through adoption or surrogates, would you agree that they should be covered under the law?
 
[quote name='Wombat']Gay couples can start families, and many gay couples want to get married for that very reason. If was shown that the majority of Gay couples planned on having children, either through adoption or surrogates, would you agree that they should be covered under the law?[/QUOTE]


Who demonstrated this? What was their sample size? In what locations did they make these inquiries? You can't just throw around statements like "It was shown." Who did the showing, how did they do the showing, and exactly what was "it?"

I instinctively distrust all statistics.

How easy is it for homosexual couples to adopt a child? How stable do homosexual families tend to be? What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

I can't answer most of those questions any better than you, or anyone else on this forum. There are two many factors, the most important being the individuality of the people involved in the equation. For all we know, a particular homosexual couple will be wise and understanding, and will raise their adopted child well despite any difficulties that may arise. Or it could all absolutely go to pot. You can draw whatever generalities you like, but the ultimate outcome is based on individual people, not trends.

But a democratic government is not based on individuals, but on large groups comprised of individuals. And it doesn't make much sense for a large number of exceptions to be made in favor of a minority group whose approach to gender is self-destructive to their own species.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']The biggest difference for us between Mormons and the Church of Scientology is the abscence of any Science-fiction writers.[/QUOTE]

ummm Orson Scott Card?
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']
How easy is it for homosexual couples to adopt a child? How stable do homosexual families tend to be? What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?

I can't answer most of those questions any better than you, or anyone else on this forum. There are two many factors, the most important being the individuality of the people involved in the equation. For all we know, a particular homosexual couple will be wise and understanding, and will raise their adopted child well despite any difficulties that may arise. Or it could all absolutely go to pot. You can draw whatever generalities you like, but the ultimate outcome is based on individual people, not trends.

[/QUOTE]

:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Who demonstrated this? What was their sample size? In what locations did they make these inquiries? You can't just throw around statements like "It was shown." Who did the showing, how did they do the showing, and exactly what was "it?"[/quote]

he said "if," and phrased the rest of the sentence in terms of a question seeking your opinion. it's a hypothetical.

I instinctively distrust all statistics.
Click to expand...

Two things:
1) he didn't list any statistics.
2) only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.
 
[quote name='lilboo']:rofl:

I am gay.
My parents are straight.
So, how did this happen???[/QUOTE]

obviously one of your parents is hiding something
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']But a democratic government is not based on individuals, but on large groups comprised of individuals. And it doesn't make much sense for a large number of exceptions to be made in favor of a minority group whose approach to gender is self-destructive to their own species.[/QUOTE]

If you want to start alluding to biological selection, you should know that selection happens on the level of the individual, not the species. That's why biological organisms have selfish tendencies. In fact, you would stand to benefit from homosexuals in that, by not reproducing, more resources are left in the environment for your own offspring. I know this statement in itself is ridiculous, but I'm just trying to show that your biological approach is pretty flawed. I can get more into this if you want.

Also, this is a site about video games - an entertainment product. You know, for leisure. If you're gonna call out gays for being detrimental on the basis of not being productive for society, you might as well call out all the people on this site who play video games in their spare time as opposed to volunteering or helping orphans.
 
If there are exceptions to every rule, then why does all hell break loose when a gay couple wants to get married? It's just another exception to the "rule".

And implying children raised by a gay couple will be impaired because of it, for lack of a better word, is crazy ignorant. Have you ever drove through a trailer park?..or watched an episode of COPS?..or attended a NASCAR event?? Lots of people there raised by herterosexual parents.

Ok I kid..I kid.

well..not really ;)
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']What if their adopted offspring turns out straight? How will being raised in an openly homosexual household affect their development?[/QUOTE]

What about gay and lesbian individuals who grew up in a heterosexual household? Fair is fair.

Honestly- a homosexual couple who want to adapt, probally make far better parents then the sleezy 17 year old who got knocked up.

Homosexual's should have the same rights as anyone else, no matter what your fucked up logic tells you.
 
Ahhhhh...hot topics. I'm always amazed by the ire they inspire. I can't help but feel that most of you didn't even bother reading the posts you quoted. Most of you are attempting to argue points that I made.

I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents. Obviously, on a case-by-case basis, no evidence exists for either position. So there is only one thing we can be sure of, and that is...

Homesexuals can't be heterosexual parents.

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers. The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender. Given that human anatomy is geared toward heterosexual reproduction, this is a significant omission.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.[/QUOTE]

The same can be said about a stright couple. Also, think about this: if a homosexual couple has to jump through hoops to raise a child, I feel like they will be great parents. I won't say better, because who am I to judge- but compared to the 17 year old who got knocked up in high school... yeah I am sure they will be significantly better parents. I also think it will be more stable of an environment, than something like a single parent.

[quote name='Richard Kain']If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)[/QUOTE]

Flip the situation. What about the homosexual who grows in in a stright household? How do they learn to behave? Friends, family (the parents are not the only ones that are family), media, and whatnot.

Your view of things is veryyyy close minded.
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']Mormon...ism as an actual religion. We consider it to be a cult. [/QUOTE]

I can't believe you're singling out mormonism as a cult. All religions are cults, some cults are just more profitable than others. All people are people regardless of where they do with their genatalia, some people just like to be pretend they're sheep.
 
myke and coffee nailed it for me

Isn't it true that Mormons shy away from letting Africa-Americans into their church?

To some Mormonism is truly explained by South Park. Now if someone was to do research on Joesph Smith...

I've had good and bad interactions with Mormons, if you preach to me or push your religion on me it usually reflects badly as whole...
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']I never said that homosexuals would make bad parents. I just asked if there was any sort of evidence that they would inherently make good parents.[/quote]
Of course not, but what the fuck sort of question is that? You know that, and you also know damn well that there is no such guarantee for heterosexual parents, either. Since when have proving that a couple would make guaranteed good parents been a requirement for state/legal marriage?

Be honest with me: are you intentionally trying to pointlessly obfuscate the issue here by bringing up pointless bullshit arguments and questions that you already know the answer to?

The traditional family structure is to have male and female caregivers.
Click to expand...
Traditional =/= only valid.

I doubt I'll live to see it, but I really look forward to a time when people stop using "tradition" as a shallow argument to stall progression.

The significance of this is not limited to reproduction. Males and females are fundamentally different. If you have a family unit with only male, or only female parents, the child is denied the experience of having a parent of the gender that is left out of the equation. For better or worse, they are forever denied the experience of having a parent of the absent gender.
Click to expand...
So are millions of children with single parents.

If a child is raised in a homosexual family, and grows up to be straight, will he/she have the necessary example of how a heterosexual couple ought to behave with each other? Or will their only examples be dictated by the mass media. (a very poor teacher on the subject, if modern society is any example)
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, children DO learn things from places other than their parents and the mass media. Like, ya know, personal experience. Seriously dude, how do you explain any behaviors or qualities that a child has, that their parents don't?

I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.

Seriously, man, I can hardly quote a single sentence from you where I can't read bigotry and homophobia just beneath the surface.



[quote name='chakan']ummm Orson Scott Card?[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
Oh man this post was hilarious, high five, dude.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It all comes down to equality and you my mormon friend are not better than anyone else because of their sexual preference. Apparently you find it convenient to stand against other people receiving government issued rights that are currently afforded to yourself. Some of us find it convenient to think that you're kind of an asshole.
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I also didn't have to read into this much to see that you seem to have a belief that heterosexual couples and homosexual couples always behave with each other in inherently different ways, and that children would need to be taught to treat an opposite-sex partner fundamentally differently from a same-sex one.[/QUOTE]


Ah, thank you for highlighting the crux of my argument. A homosexual relationship IS inherently different from a heterosexual relationship. In order to invalidate that argument, you would have to prove that men and women are analagous, and that they behave exactly the same way with each other.

Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.
 
First a quick note, in order for a religion to be considered a cult, it must have few followers, that is what technically makes it a "cult." LDS has a lot of followers and churches all over the place, so its a bit large to be called a cult.

Second, I understand this is a heated topic, but I have to ask all those against gay marriage: What difference does it make to you if a same-sex couple wants to get married? If gay marriage was passed tomorrow, how does that affect you in any way? Why do you care if someone else gets married? If you say its against God's will, I'm sure you can name several other things you did this week personally that were against God's will too. Why worry about someone else?

If its the fact that you don't want equal rights, you are a bigot.

Seriously, think about it this way..if gay marriage passed tomorrow and you are not gay or thinking about getting married, how does your life change in any way? I just think its funny that there are so many that argue against this when it has no direct effect on them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']Okay, Rich, I'll humor you on that. In the context of accepting your statement, I will reply with:

Sure, it's "inherently different." So are interracial marriages, and partners of different faiths, ages, et cetera.

Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?

Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.

Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.

I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.[/QUOTE]

^
^
^
This.

Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top