Same-sex Marriage.

[_krose]

These arguments really are eerily similar to those the conservatives were making several years back about the dangers of legalizing interracial marriage. That was also "redefining marriage," and it was going to bring society crashing down in rubble around us.

Now that we have the result of one of those redefinitions in the White House, and the result of another helping his liberal father become NYC mayor, perhaps they would say that's proof they were right.

[_Runtu]

These arguments really are eerily similar to those the conservatives were making several years back about the dangers of legalizing interracial marriage. That was also "redefining marriage," and it was going to bring society crashing down in rubble around us.

Now that we have the result of one of those redefinitions in the White House, and the result of another helping his liberal father become NYC mayor, perhaps they would say that's proof they were right.

Human societies evolve in response to changing conditions, so social and family structures are constantly in flux. Thus, social structures and practices among, say, Hutus in Rwanda have evolved differently than among Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn or Aymaras in Peru. One would even find distinct differences in culture among the same group of people. Mormons in Utah live very differently than do Mormons in Brazil or the Philippines, and Canadian Mennonites are quite different from their Bolivian cousins.

Western political/social conservatives want to arbitrarily take a snapshot of social structure (preferably one taken using a Kodak Brownie sometime during the Eisenhower administration) and say it represents the ideal, God-ordained structure.

It's sort of like trying to prevent the development of new words. One might decide that the 3rd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is definitive, and therefore any "words" that have entered into English vocabulary since then are not valid words or are an attempt to denigrate "traditional English." But doing so would be a fool's errand because a dictionary merely reflects the words a society is using. In the same way, laws reflect how a society wants to govern itself, but whether the laws change or not, the society is changing.

Using the word "podcast" doesn't mean that I'm some sort of anti-English radical, and favoring laws that reflect current relationship practices does not mean I'm an anti-marriage zealot bent on destroying the fabric of society. If nothing else, my review of Wade's citations suggests to me that the "threat" to traditional marriage is highly exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated.

[_Bazooka]

These arguments really are eerily similar to those the conservatives were making several years back about the dangers of legalizing interracial marriage. That was also "redefining marriage," and it was going to bring society crashing down in rubble around us.

Now that we have the result of one of those redefinitions in the White House, and the result of another helping his liberal father become NYC mayor, perhaps they would say that's proof they were right.

Human societies evolve in response to changing conditions, so social and family structures are constantly in flux. Thus, social structures and practices among, say, Hutus in Rwanda have evolved differently than among Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn or Aymaras in Peru. One would even find distinct differences in culture among the same group of people. Mormons in Utah live very differently than do Mormons in Brazil or the Philippines, and Canadian Mennonites are quite different from their Bolivian cousins.

Western political/social conservatives want to arbitrarily take a snapshot of social structure (preferably one taken using a Kodak Brownie sometime during the Eisenhower administration) and say it represents the ideal, God-ordained structure.

It's sort of like trying to prevent the development of new words. One might decide that the 3rd edition of the Oxford English Dictionary is definitive, and therefore any "words" that have entered into English vocabulary since then are not valid words or are an attempt to denigrate "traditional English." But doing so would be a fool's errand because a dictionary merely reflects the words a society is using. In the same way, laws reflect how a society wants to govern itself, but whether the laws change or not, the society is changing.

Using the word "podcast" doesn't mean that I'm some sort of anti-English radical, and favoring laws that reflect current relationship practices does not mean I'm an anti-marriage zealot bent on destroying the fabric of society. If nothing else, my review of Wade's citations suggests to me that the "threat" to traditional marriage is highly exaggerated, if not entirely fabricated.

It's funny. Jesus Christ's Church is adamant that marriage is between one man and one woman with the specific purpose of having kids.
Remind me again, how many kids did Jesus have?

[_thews]

I am torn between showing respect to each participant by responding thoughtfully to their posts, versus living up to my promise to leave the board for wont of edification.

As a solution to this dilemma, I have decided to respond this one last time, and then live up to my promise going forward (which will necessitate my not looking in again and being tempted to resply):

You are being judgmental.

Obviously.

You cry foul for being called judgmental, then admit to being judgmental... what part am I missing here?

Questions for Wade:

1) Why do you seek homosexual men to converse with regarding their orientation?

I don't. I did seek to cyber-converse briefly for an evening with homosexual men and women over a decade ago, and that was to see what they thought about my ideas at the time. Since then, whatever conversations I have had with homosexuals have been incidental as a part of public discussions with no orientation in particular.

Ok... thanks for answering the question.

2) Do you believe sexual orientation is a conscious choice one can change?

I don't think it is a conscious choice, and I believe that some homosexuals are able to change.

You just contradicted yourself.

3) If being a homosexual is against God's will, why did God create homosexuals?

I don't know that God created homosexuals as homosexuals, nor do I suppose that homosexuality had anything to do with why homosexuals were created. They were created for the same reason we all have been created.

Thanks for responding, but you didn't answer the question. You could have said it was some sort of test, but that wouldn't have made any sense either. If homosexuals exist, the God creates homosexuals. I saw a story on CNN about a book called Born this way. It profiles very young kids who exhibit homosexual behavior long before they reach puberty. Based on your response, I'll assume you believe this is a learned behavior, but since it's not a conscious choice (a point you agree on), then the homosexual is burdened with guilt for being born the way God made them... your circular reasoning has no end and is full of contradiction.

Here is a question for you: "What do your questions have to do with the topic of this thread?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well, since you started it, the thread is about same-sex marriage. Being that you're a 50+ never married Mormon male, one has to question your motive in championing this cause. You don't believe homosexuality is a conscious choice, you do believe in the magical seer stones which brought you the Book of Mormon, yet your inner angst against same-sex marriage seems to be misplaced (to me anyway). I wonder what it is you're so afraid of? I've been married three times Wade (still am to my third wife), and, as a parent, kids who are brought up by loving parents are lucky. I don't care who they are and what they like to do when they're alone, but being a parent doesn't make one sinister if they happen to be gay in my opinion. I guess I just don't really care, because I won't paste the label of evil on them like you're doing. Once again, I wonder what it is you're so threatened by?

[_wenglund]

I am just writing a brief note to say, out of respect to the respondents, that I have read through each of your comments and I will utilize the helpful information to expand the horizons of my understand. It is good to expose oneself to differing views, and so I appreciate your participation on this thread. It has been enlightening.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I have reconsidered, and decided that as long as I can benefit from the collective knowledge here, this should suffice as a reason to stay. And, so, I will look past all the insults and rancor and glean what I can from the posts.

In particular, my interest has been piqued by the surprising reaction to my statement about homosexual suicides increasing as a result of legalizing same-sex marriage.

At your prompting, I have now changed the language of the offending statement to read (see bold): "In short, liberal compassion towards homosexuals, particularly with the legalization of same-sex marriage, may well have factored into the increase (in some cases drastic) in the rate of homosexual suicides, homosexual STDs/STIs, homosexual domestic violence, homosexual promiscuity and infidelity, etc. Liberal compassion, then, has been very destructive, and to some extent fatal to homosexuals. As the saying goes, "with friends like that, who needs enemies?",

However, I am interested in your thoughts on the matter.

Do you agree that homosexual suicides have have increased since 2004 when gay marriage was first legalized?

Do you agree that, proportionately speaking, homosexual suicides are significantly higher than the general population?

If so, is the increase and disproportionately higher rate of gay suicides troubling to you, and should the government health department be concerned and take action?

Do you agree that since 2004, the U.S. has become more gay friendly and attitudes have become more accepting of homosexuality?

If so, how do you explain the rise in gay suicides at the same time that gays have become more socially accepted?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Do you agree that homosexual suicides have have increased since 2004 when gay marriage was first legalized?

That appears to be the case.

Do you agree that, proportionately speaking, homosexual suicides are significantly higher than the general population?

Yes.

If so, is the increase and disproportionately higher rate of gay suicides troubling to you, and should the government health department be concerned and take action?

It's a public health issue, so it's within the government's mandate.

Do you agree that since 2004, the U.S. has become more gay friendly and attitudes have become more accepting of homosexuality?

It depends. From what I can see (and this is just my perspective, obviously), having gay issues out in the open has caused some real polarization. Although in general it appears that we as a society are less condemning of LGBT citizens, there's also been a backlash in some communities.

For example, I know of some Mormon families who believe that the "gay rights agenda" is a Satan-inspired effort to destroy the family, and when they have learned that friends or family members were LGBT, they reacted worse, in my view, because they saw it as a defection to the evil gay agenda.

If so, how do you explain the rise in gay suicides at the same time that gays have become more socially accepted?

My guess is that, in families in which gays are more socially accepted, the suicide rate would be lower, and in families where they aren't, the suicide rate would be higher. I read recently that when families respond to gay kids with hostility, the suicide rate is 8 times higher than in families where the response is nurturing.

So, if I were to guess, the polarization has resulted in less acceptance of gays among certain groups, resulting in a higher suicide rate.

[_Runtu]

A study from Columbia seems to support my anecdote-based guesses.

http://www.mailman.columbia.edu/researc ... -gay-youth

“The results of this study are pretty compelling,” said Dr. Hatzenbuehler. “When communities support their gay young people, and schools adopt anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies that specifically protect lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth, the risk of attempted suicide by all young people drops, especially for LGB youth.”

Dr.Hatzenbuehler developed five measures of the social environment surrounding LGB youth on a county-wide level that included: 1) proportion of schools with anti-bullying policies specifically protecting LGB students; 2) proportion of schools with Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs); 3) proportion of schools with anti-discrimination policies that included sexual orientation; 4) proportion of same-sex couples; and 5) proportion of Democrats in the county.

bcspace is right: Democrats are evil.

The study found that a more supportive social environment was associated with 20 percent fewer suicide attempts than an unsupportive environment. A supportive environment was also associated with a 9% lower rate of attempted suicide among heterosexual students.

Previous studies have documented risk factors for suicide attempts among LGB youth including depression, binge drinking, peer victimization, and physical abuse by an adult. Dr. Hatzenbuehler controlled for these individual risk factors in order to assess the influence of the social environment on suicide attempts above and beyond known risk factors for suicide attempts.

“The good news is that this study suggests a road map for how we can reduce suicide attempts among lesbian, gay and bisexual youth,” Dr. Hatzenbuehler said. Unfortunately, he notes, some communities are heading in the wrong direction. He points to Utah, where school-based Gay-Straight Alliances—student groups that work toward increasing tolerance between homosexual and heterosexual youth—have come under attack.

“This study shows that the creation of school climates that are good for gay youth can lead to better health outcomes for all young people,” said Dr. Hatzenbuehler.

[_SteelHead]

And the suicide rate among teens in the mountain west is the highest in the nation. Does this mean that being LDS is unhealthy for youth?

[Gadianton]

It depends. From what I can see (and this is just my perspective, obviously), having gay issues out in the open has caused some real polarization. Although in general it appears that we as a society are less condemning of LGBT citizens, there's also been a backlash in some communities.

For example, I know of some Mormon families who believe that the "gay rights agenda" is a Satan-inspired effort to destroy the family, and when they have learned that friends or family members were LGBT, they reacted worse, in my view, because they saw it as a defection to the evil gay agenda.

My guess is that, in families in which gays are more socially accepted, the suicide rate would be lower, and in families where they aren't, the suicide rate would be higher. I read recently that when families respond to gay kids with hostility, the suicide rate is 8 times higher than in families where the response is nurturing.

So, if I were to guess, the polarization has resulted in less acceptance of gays among certain groups, resulting in a higher suicide rate.

It was good of you to respond. I am familiar with a Columbia University study that, on the surface, seems to support your regional explanation. It is definitely something to consider.

However, I found the following criticism of the study interesting:

"I also have some technical concerns with the article....The effect size overall for community environment appeared to be about 0.03, a very small effect, as Cohen [5] sets 0.20 or above as a small-size effect. Even among GLB youth, the effect size between community environment and suicide appeared to be on the order of 0.10 to 0.12, still far below Cohen's guidance for a small effect, as well as much lower than most of the other effects in the model. Even with a relatively large sample, the interaction effect portrayed in Figure 1 was reported as not significant statistically (page 899). It seems that such nonsignificance proved no barrier to the author reporting the results of the interaction in Figure 1 and then using Figure 1 to call for significant policy changes. I am not sure that's how science is normally done." (See HERE)

What I also find interesting is that hate crimes based on sexual orientation peaked in 2007 at 1,726 (See HERE and HERE and HERE), and while they have fluctuated ever since, the numbers are very similar to hate crimes against religions, and less than half of hate crimes based on race.

So, if hostile environments are a significant factor in suicides, one might expect suicides to be disproportionately higher among African-Americans than homosexuals. But it is not.

The criticism mentioned above does touch on what to me appears to be a more compelling explanation for the increase and disproportionate rate of homosexual suicides: "However, the higher rates reported in this article for binge drinking among GLB students may suggest, among GLB students, lower levels of child/adolescent self-control, a factor for which higher levels have been found to predict better adult health, socioeconomic, and public safety outcomes in a longitudinal study from of children from age 3 to later adult age at 32 [4]. In some communities, acceptance of GLB identity may seem confounded with acceptance of binge drinking, drug abuse, or lower levels of self- control, making stigma against GLB youth seem to be a constructive way of promoting more mature levels of self-control among all youth, regardless of sexual orientation. (See HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-