LDS resources and study on sexual orientation causes in the brain

[Left Coast]

But you "identified" them as unnecessary and unchosen.

Meaning - you believe yourself capable of claiming what is or is not necessary or chosen.

Correct, based on the definitions of the words. Do you think gay kids choose to be raised in families that don't accept them? That they wouldn't choose for the situation to be different if they could? Those situations obviously aren't necessary, because many parents have gay kids and do accept them.

 

[McBell]

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

Then you should really stop redifining the word.

 

[SoyLeche]

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

Umm - words and ideas get redefined all the time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No one has the right to redefine marriage.

So then what gives you the audacity to do so?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Correct, based on the definitions of the words.

So - if you are agree with my initial claim that you were deciding what was necessary or chosen - why did you dispute it in the first place?

Do you think gay kids choose to be raised in families that don't accept them?

A couple of things I disagree with here on a fundamental level.

First - I do not believe that anyone is born a sinner (i.e. homosexual).

That is an idea contrary to the Word of God and the doctrines of the Church.

They may be born with an attraction to the same sex - but that attraction does not automatically determine action.

Second - no one is defined by their sins (in this case sexual orientation).

Someone not agreeing with your behavior does not mean that they do not love or accept you.

There are things about me that I know my family does not like or agree with - but they still love me and accept that that is who I am.

Lastly - no one can choose which family they are born into - but they can choose whether or not a situation can be painful.

An LDS parent not agreeing with homosexuality does not - by itself - lead to a painful situation for a child who decides to act on their same-sex attraction.

It would be unreasonable for anyone to demand that someone would need to agree with everything that they do in order to love and accept them.

That they wouldn't choose for the situation to be different if they could?

We all have power over our own lives.

All parents - at one time or other - are going to disapprove of something that their child does.

It is up to the child to decide how to react to that.

Those situations obviously aren't necessary, because many parents have gay kids and do accept them.

I believe that a parent teaching their children what they have come to believe is true is always necessary.

If you believe that we need to agree with everything about everybody - in order to accept them - that's fine and you are free to teach that to your children.

If you believe that we don't need to agree with everything about everybody - in order to accept them - that's fine and you are free to teach that to your children.

Disagreeing with someone's behavior does not necessarily need to lead to pain of any kind.

Although - I would argue that there are times and situations where pain is necessary and it can do everyone much good.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Then you should really stop redifining the word.

I don't support same-sex marriage - so - I don't understand how this comment applies to me or to what I have said.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Umm - words and ideas get redefined all the time.

That is irrelevant - because we are not talking about whether or not things are redefined - but whether or not someone has the right to define things.

Shadow Wolf claimed that "rights" of homosexuals had been taken away - but since marriage is only between a man and a woman - no "right" was ever taken from them.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

So then what gives you the audacity to do so?

Marriage has always been between men and women.

I am not redefining anything.

 

[SoyLeche]

That is irrelevant - because we are not talking about whether or not things are redefined - but whether or not someone has the right to define things.

Shadow Wolf claimed that "rights" of homosexuals had been taken away - but since marriage is only between a man and a woman - no "right" was ever taken from them.

I’m saying that EVERYONE has the right to define things as they see fit.

 

[SoyLeche]

Marriage has always been between men and women.

I am not redefining anything.

Marriage has traditionally been arranged. Maybe we should go back to that so as not to redefine it.

 

[McBell]

I don't support same-sex marriage - so - I don't understand how this comment applies to me or to what I have said.

You do not understand that you are using a redefined definition of the word?

OK then.
YOU ARE USING A REDEFINED DEFINITION OF THE WORD MARRIAGE.
Hope that clears it up for you.


Though I predict you are going to simply put your fingers in your ears, start jumping up and down whilst screaming that you don't, but hey, what ever it takes to defend your faith, right?

 

[McBell]

That is irrelevant - because we are not talking about whether or not things are redefined - but whether or not someone has the right to define things.

Shadow Wolf claimed that "rights" of homosexuals had been taken away - but since marriage is only between a man and a woman - no "right" was ever taken from them.

ROTFLMAO
Religion lost whatever imaginary hold it had on the word marriage back when religion let government take over the marriage contract.
So, several hundred years ago.
That all of a sudden now, you want it back does not mean you get to redefine the word to suit your bigotry.

 

[McBell]

Marriage has always been between men and women.

I am not redefining anything.

Prove it.

Oh, thats right, you cant outside your prejudiced belief system.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I’m saying that EVERYONE has the right to define things as they see fit.

I cannot agree with that idea.

That mentality would create a world without facts or reason.

Marriage has traditionally been arranged. Maybe we should go back to that so as not to redefine it.

That is not entirely relevant.

Even if some past marriages had been arranged - they were always between a man and a woman.

How a potential spouse was selected or decided upon is not relevant in light of that fact.

 

[SoyLeche]

I cannot agree with that idea.

That mentality would create a world without facts or reason.

I disagree. People agree to a common definition to facilitate communication. If enough people, or the people with the right influence, adjust their personal definition, the rest will invariably change to continue the communication. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's how language works.

That is not entirely relevant.

Even if some past marriages had been arranged - they were always between a man and a woman.

How a potential spouse was selected or decided upon is not relevant in light of that fact.

It was still part of the definition, and it's been redefined several times.

And they weren't always between a man and a woman. There have been many examples of ancient cultures that accepted same sex marriages of some kind or other.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

You do not understand that you are using a redefined definition of the word?

OK then.
YOU ARE USING A REDEFINED DEFINITION OF THE WORD MARRIAGE.
Hope that clears it up for you.


Though I predict you are going to simply put your fingers in your ears, start jumping up and down whilst screaming that you don't, but hey, what ever it takes to defend your faith, right?

Can you reference examples of same-sex marriages from the past?

ROTFLMAO
Religion lost whatever imaginary hold it had on the word marriage back when religion let government take over the marriage contract.
So, several hundred years ago.
That all of a sudden now, you want it back does not mean you get to redefine the word to suit your bigotry.

No - I have always been against the secular hijacking of marriage.

I was married when I was sealed to my wife in the Temple.

That is the only marriage I personally care about.

Prove it.

Oh, thats right, you cant outside your prejudiced belief system.

I have all of human history on my side. Sorry.

 

[SoyLeche]

I was married when I was sealed to my wife in the Temple.

That is the only marriage I personally care about.

Apparently you care enough about some guy's marriage to another guy to argue about it on the internet, so there's that...

 

[SoyLeche]

Can you reference examples of same-sex marriages from the past?

History of same-sex unions - Wikipedia

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I disagree. People agree to a common definition to facilitate communication. If enough people, or the people with the right influence, adjust their personal definition, the rest will invariably change to continue the communication. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's how language works.

A consensus does not change facts or establish what is right or true.

It was still part of the definition, and it's been redefined several times.

That is not accurate.

Not all marriages were arranged - but all of them were between a man and a woman.

And they weren't always between a man and a woman. There have been many examples of ancient cultures that accepted same sex marriages of some kind or other.

Referencing extreme outliers to set precedent?

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Apparently you care enough about some guy's marriage to another guy to argue about it on the internet, so there's that...

I meant the fact that I was forced to also have some sort of "civil" or "secular" contract does not matter to me.