Note I never said it was necessarily “born in” (although I personally believe in many that’s the case – it’d be surprising were humans the only species without that). I merely said it wasn’t a matter of a simple choice. Which I think is independent of the nature/nuture issue. Lots of things can happen to develop a brain state in which one is not free to choose. I’d note that I don’t particularly think I choose my own base sexuality regardless of whether that is due to nature of nurture. So the nature/nurture issue is ultimately beside the point.

The following 2 facts seems to disprove your statement:

1. Gays are demanding SSM in a state (CA) where they already had all the civil rights they asked for guaranteed them via civil unions.

2. Only a very small percentage of gays actually entered, or wanted to personally enter, into civil unions.

I still contend that the real issue is about gaining approval, and making homosexuality be seen by a future generation as an option that can be legitimately chosen. The idea that homosexuality is universally and exclusively in-born is one of the big lies of this generation.

And that thing about liberal cities already having pro-gay curricula, with SSM, they will be able to use the power of the state eduction department to force the pro-gay curricula into all school districts.

Yes, individual books are still up to the local board, but the state is able to enforce over-arching guidelines which all locally-approved curricula must meet.

And yes, I’m aware of the difference between a) what kids pick up from other kids, b) what kids get in formal instruction in sex-ed, and c) what kids get from the examples set before them in the narratives of various curricula.

The bottom line is that there are several other origins of homosexuality other than it being in-born. I’m not saying it is universally or consciously chosen either. “Born gay” homosexuals are likely the minority. A recent FMH post had interesting comments about a spectrum of “hard coding” to “soft coding” in terms of sexual orientation. Many psychologists, most over the age of say 55, still recognize certain things of childhood development and family relations as having a strong influence on sexual orientation.

Older psychologists/psychiatrists (and many of the conservative ones employed by LDS Family Services) often concur that homosexuals can be made.

Childhood sexual abuse (by a same-sex adult) also is a big factor of influence. Personally, I’ve known young men who were targeted and steered/groomed into homosexuality by older homosexual men.

SSM’s net effect that I predict will be an explosion (a tripling or a doubling at least) of the percentage of people who self-identify as homosexuals in 11 to 15 years. Key to that are three things: 1) sexual orientation is not universally entirely in-born; for some it can be influenced and for some it can be chosen; 2) when all social taboo is removed, many people of a future generation will consider homosexuality as an option for exploration/experimentation; 3) first-time sexual experiences are already known to have a huge influence on a person’s sexuality, therefore those who are unfortunate to choose or be led into homosexual sexual experimentation will have a much higher rate of self-identifying as homosexual.

For any choice there will always be unintended consequences. And many ideologies create utopian schemes where rather obvious consequences are denied. I don’t think anyone would doubt that was true of the couter-culture movement of the 60′s and early 70′s.

I would note that for all it’s negative aspects there were positive aspects to the counterculture movement with respect to sexuality. I think it led to getting rid of the taboos of speaking about sex. I think that then getting some issues out in the open was important and led to better intimacy between couples. It also led to focusing in on sexual abuse and getting that into the open. While we’re far from solving sexual abuse I think the focus on it the past 20 years and taking it out of repression is unarguably a good thing.

If you buy that sexual orientation in terms of desire isn’t open to a simple choice then I think getting the issue of homosexuality out in the open is also important. I think it brings a psychological good. Now to the degree that homosexual acts are wrong (since marriage in LDS theology is only for heterosexual unions) there is a huge problem. I certainly don’t know the answer to that. It’s above my paygrade. I’ll leave that one to the prophet and God and simply trust in what they request us to do.

Bookslinger (#54), the issue of Prop-8 and gay marriage in California simply is not seen as merely a California only issue. Now you can dispute that and say that it should be. Yet clearly Mormons don’t see it that way (thus the worry from outside of the state) and gays from outside of California don’t either. So saying my point is irrelevant missing that as a civil rights issue the issue of legalized marriage is for gays a big issue as it will help them gain civil rights in places they simply aren’t granted it.

As to the issue of teaching in school I think despite Blake’s defenses I see this as largely a red herring. I just can’t see it being taught in any substantial form. Further I can approach the issue the same way you do. In some places (i.e. the Bay area) it is already taught. So how exactly does having gay marriage deal with teaching when it is already taught? What gets taught is largely an issue of school boards and frankly you already lost the debate with school boards. Sorry mate.

I also think it naive to assume kids aren’t going to learn about homosexuality in school. You should already be preparing them and countering false ideas in your home. It’s an important duty for all parents to teach sexuality issues before the kids encounter them. And frankly kids encounter them early. Realize that in the typical classroom you’ll have kids who have been sexually abused. You’ll have kids who do have parents or siblings who are gay. Pretending we can just brush things aside or that what the teacher says is the only encounter kids have is unwise to say the least.

I do think that as we teach our children we have to be loving to our brothers and sisters who struggle with these issues and not demonize them. Just as we can’t demonize the people who engage in the now rather common lifestyle of living with each other before marriage. Yes we have to say premarital sex of any sort is wrong. But demonizing or not providing the decency of rights is important.

You are a good man, and I don’t want to argue with you. And there is no point in arguing hypotheticals anyway.

I will just point out that you have taken a position that is in opposition to the church, which has said that it does not oppose hospital visitation and the other rights gay people in California now enjoy.

Re: polyamory, given the historical trent to expand the definitions of protected classes, and expand the definition of marriage, your reasoning seems a likely scenario of what could happen.

Another line of reasoning is that the courts have established a precedent of “marriage means/includes whatever we say it means/includes.”

This morphing of definitions of what is culturally acceptable harkens to the central theme that I’ve harped on: We’ve arrived at this point through a 40 year (at least) cultural process, therefore it is illogical to assume the process is going to end with the step currently under debate. So, what is this cultural process, and where is it headed?

What have been the fruits/results of this process of “sexual revolution” so far?

Who would have thought, in the summer of 1969, that “free love” was going to lead to government-recognized same sex marriages? Yet, this is _exactly_ where it has led. SSM is a _direct_ consequence.

By the way, how do you feel about teaching ____________ (I’m tired of typing it) as normal and socially acceptable to grade-school children?

A minor parenthetical threadjack about “employment at will”–the “employment at will” doctrine does not protect an employer who fires an employee on account of their sex, race, national origin or religion. “Employment at will” is a state law doctrine, and federal protections against employment discrimination override state law “at will” rules to the contrary. And, in any event, most, if not all, states with employment at will have statutory exceptions providing that the doctrine does not protect against discrimination claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment Some of those states provide that discrimination on account of sexual orientation is forbidden (even in an employment at will situation), some (most I think) do not protect against discrimination on account of sexual orientation.

************

Comment regarding polyamory–I am trying to follow how the California decision would lead to legalization of plural spouse marriage: let me see if I can structure it–1. the California court held that discrimination on account of sexual orientation is prohibited by the state constitution, homosexuality is a sexual orientation, and therefore same sex unions must be sanctioned as “marriages”,

2. polyamory (as distinct for a “one partner sexual orientation”) is a “sexual orientation”, therefore,

3. polyamorous relationships should be sanctioned as “marriages.”