One Utah

February 1st, 2007 by Cliff Lyon Cliff Lyon

18 Responses to “Gay Senator Spanks Utah Legislature”

1. Frank Staheli Says:
   February 1st, 2007 at 8:01 pm

   Only one thing I disagree with in the post. Although the inclination to sexual preference is strong, I think it is just that–a preference (or a choice) and not an orientation.

   Other than that, I agree with you. I think homosexuals who don’t flaunt their homosexuality should be respected just like any other human being. Those who do flaunt it should receive the same amount of respect as those who flaunt their heterosexuality.

   I find it ironic that parents want to protect their children from the bogeyman of homosexual proselytization, yet they buy them the latest Justin Timberlake album and smile approvingly when their daughters dress and act just like Paris Hilton.

   The acolytes of heterosexual promiscuity are much more numerous and active than those of the homosexual persuasion.

2. Cliff Lyon Says:
   February 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm

   Fraaaaank, did you choose to be heterosexual?

   Read this and tell me what you think.

3. Tom Grover Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 am

   Frank,

   Even if homosexuality is a choice (which I don’t believe), what is so wrong about them “flaunting”?

   And what do you consider “flaunting”?

   I think chicks are really hot and very cool- so very much so that I decided I found one that I wanted to marry, and even more incredible she agreed. That’s how much I’m attracted to females. Thing is, I don’t remember choosing one day that I would prefer chicks and not dudes- it’s just how I’m wired and I couldn’t change it if I wanted to.

   Do you remember the day you chose to be a heterosexual?

   Same thing with gays. That’s just how they’re wired. If it was really wrong, God wouldn’t have made them that way.

   This is an issue that our children and grandchildren will look back upon and view all of this apprehension about homosexuals as silly, illogical, narrowminded and backwards.

4. Tom Grover Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am

   PS- I am confident that in my lifetime a full assimilation and acceptance of gays will occur in Utah and in the LDS Church. I am 100% certain that before I die I will have an openly gay and married Bishop and/or Stake President. It’s gonna happpen.

5. Phil205Student Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 am

   Says the child rapist to the jury: It’s just how I’m wired. If it was really wrong, God woudn’t have made me this way.

   Not intending to imply homosexuals are pedophiles, just refuting by analogy an invalid argument.

   Perhaps the question is: Is *anything* a sin?

   Strong propensity to commit adultery (homo or hetero)? — “It’s how I’m wired. If it was really wrong, God wouldn’t have made me this way”.

   Oh, wait. *I* have a strong propensity to commit adultery. (I haven’t). Seems to me I’m wired this way. Must not be wrong or God wouldn’t have made me this way.

   Are polygamists “wired this way”? Must not be wrong. How about psycopath murderers? Kleptomaniacs ? Pyromaniacs? Must not be wrong — they are wired that way.

   Again, not intending to imply that homosexuals are any of these things, just pointing to a weakness in ‘Must not be wrong or God wouldn’t have made them that way’.

6. Phil205Student Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 2:33 am

   I am 100% certain that before I die I will have an openly adulterous and married Bishop and/or Stake President. It’s gonna happppen….. or not.

   You see, LDS believe it is a *sin* to act on homosexual tendencies, wired or not. For your prediction to come true would require a reversal of this — it would have to no longer be considered a sin. I don’t think that designation will be changed via the wired/choice argument. I believe strongly that some people are ‘wired’ with a propensity toward adultery, alcoholism, and many other sins. That “wired” nature doesn’t make the sin not a sin.

   Now, I could grant you your prediction if the LDS church were to make clearer a distinction between one having a propensity toward homosexuality, and one having committed or not “committed” homosexuality. Of course, someone with a propensity toward adultery who is sinless because they haven’t actually acted on it doesn’t go about announcing that propensity to everyone and making them uncomfortable, whereas homosexuals seem intent on ‘announcing’ to the world and thus demanding that the world accept homosexuality as legitimate behavior (or at least daring the world not to accept it as so).

   Look, homosexuality is not just a man who feels love for another man. A man may feel deep feelings of love, and even say “I love you” to another — I have on many occasion. The feeling were very deep and mutual. But homosexuality is about not just love of a man, it is a man with a desire for oral and/or anal sex with a man. Sorry to state the obvious, but the way men are built, those are the options. And that is what homosexuals are daring society not to accept as legitimate. It seems to me there’s a long way to go, much more than a simple argument of ‘wired that way’ will accomplish. It seems to me that this is requiring the majority of males who do NOT desire oral/anal sex with men, and may find it repulsive to suppress that repulsiveness. I don’t think simple arguments are going to bring that about.

   Now, can society as a whole change mores? Absolutely. It’s been done before. Such changes are usually slow, but they can be accomplished. So, there is hope for gays gaining social acceptance. But, I’ll say that there are a whole lot of people who would very much like for those mores to NOT be changed, so it will be an arduous change. (And there are many who would view such a change as a sign of increased wickedness and rejection of God, a repetition of history, and a precursor to God doing some ‘house-cleaning’ of the Sodom & Gomorrah type.)

7. Cliff Lyon Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 am

   Phil205Sudent,

   You’re not really going to hold out the child rapist thing as a valid argument are you?

   If you really are a studying philosophy. you either didn’t take that class yet, or you are kidding, right? Am I right?

8. Tom Grover Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 7:19 am

   Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

   Phil,

   Your argument assumes that homosexuality exists only as a behavior. I argue that sexual orientation is about as innate as any defining characteristic of human identity, manifested in behavior or not.

   Now, really, are you comparing homosexuals to adulterers and child rapists? Please explain to me how homosexuality produces comprable (or any at all) tangible harms to society like adulterers and rapists do.

   Really, your child rapist/adulterer analogy s a charged argument intended to ostracize, demonize and keep homosexuals on the periphery of our society where we can scoff at them as if they were freaks of nature. They are normal people and deserve to be treated no differently than anyone else.

9. Cliff Lyon Says:
   February 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 am

   Church will never change? Then how do you explain this…?

   For over 100 years, the LDS Church taught its members from the pulpit and in Sunday school, that blacks were inferior, and would never have the priesthood. In June of 1978 (and just as the ACLU was going to bring a lawsuit against the LDS Church for discrimination), a revelation was received indicating that the priesthood should be extended to all worthy male members of that organization, notwithstanding their race.

10. Cliff Lyon Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:02 am

    Asking the opinion of the executive director of Evergreen International if there is scientific basis for homosexuality is akin to asking a chicken farmer for proof eggs are bad for you.The beguiling nature of the entire article is betrayed in the first sentence ‘the simple “born gay’ theory has faded from the science scene.” You’d have to have just arrived from another planet to have not heard about the just released study known as the “older brother effect”. It was a feature story on Sixty-Minutes and published in about a million papers and broadcast news.

    Evergreen is essentially a boot camp founded by the LDS church to convert homosexual people to heterosexuality also known as “re-orientation therapy.” Someone should do a scientific study on how effective THAT is.

    So it should come as little surprise that The author and Evergreen’s Executive Director’s real thesis can be found in this statement, “The simplistic biological theory has been dismissed by all of the researchers whose studies have been cited to support the notion that homosexuality is so deeply compelled by biology that it cannot change. “

    I had to read it several times to get the gist. I think it is saying that no scientist will claim that sexual orientation cannot be changed. So there ya go. If you wanna meddle with God’s perfect creation, Evergreen is for you!

    One need not read too far into the article to find the predictable hallmark argument of the anti-gay crowd and most duplicitous manipulation of the uninformed. The Director disguised his ruse like a pro, “Let’s examine the words of just one of those (researchers) often incorrectly cited as providing evidence for a “gay gene.”

    To date, NO human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers and it is unlikely that there ever will. Many diverse sources of data have shown that any two individuals are more than 99.9% identical in sequence, which means that all the differences among individuals in our species that might be attributed to genes fall in a mere 0.1% of the sequence.

    The Director’s shameless distortion through the use of omission and semantics does not stop there. Citing a recent genetic study by a University of Illinois team, which unsurprisingly found “no [sic] one gay gene.” he selectively summarizes that “the lead researcher Dr. Brian Mustanski noted that environmental factors were also likely to be involved,” but conveniently leaves out this comment by the same man, “Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual.”

    Be also careful of the use of the phrase “environmental factors” by the snake oil salesmen trying to book rooms at Evergreen. It doesn’t always mean mommy was a monster in jackboots, “environmental factors” include hormonal conditions in the womb.

    Lastly, I want to point out the cunning in the sentence, “If the innate-immutable theory of homosexuality has no basis in science” blah blah blah. That’s the same Rovian technique the neo-cons use to ignore global warming. If you need innate-immutable proof before you can accept anything, what are you doing in church?

    At least 450 species exhibit homosexual behavior. Interestingly, our closest ancestral species exhibit quite a bit of it. I love this article.

    But the best evidence that homosexuality is not a choice is that there is a homosexual near you (You may have even created one), and if you can gain their trust, they will convince you they didn’t choose it.

11. Frank Staheli Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 am

    Cliff,

    Yes I chose to be hetero. It’s understandable that the passion of the sexual urge could be so overwhelming as to convince one that he or she was born that way. But ultimately it is a choice.

    I don’t know much about Evergreen, but I think Cliff’s characterization in his July post of them being a “boot camp” is a bit much. I don’t have a particular apprehension about homosexuals, if that’s what you meant, Tom. By flaunting I mean overly drawing attention to their sexuality in public. But remember that the main point of my previous comment was that society has a much bigger problem on its hands with heterosexual flaunting.

12. Cliff Lyon Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 am

    Frank,

    Again, I thank you for your honesty. You are a lovely man.

    If its not too personal, I like to understand a bit more.

    Did you have strong sexual urging for women before you chose to be heterosexual?

    …And do you have them now?

    If you go way out in your mind, in your wildest uncensorable imaginations, and really really try hard, as hard as you can, just for a split second, can you imagine yourself choosing to be gay and making love to a man?

    I’m not trying to be stupid here. This is an exercise I do whenever I want to try to put myself in someone else’s shoes.

13. Caveat Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 9:46 am

    In defense of hetro-deer, I am quite sure that the behindmost deer did not actually see the formost buck and was really going for the doe in the lead. (Of course, he thought his member was longer than it actually was). Had he not, knowing it’s a sin, he’d have waited his turn. (My guess is, he’d misplaced his contacts). Deer are my totem animal, I know these things.

14. Glenden Brown Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 12:50 pm

    RE: Evergreen.

    A good friend of mine attended Evergreen. The details of how he got there aren’t terribly exciting - his bishop at BYU told him he had to go to Evergreen, his friends and family told him he should go. He went.

    He reported to me that Evergreen was better for picking up men than the bars. And the sex was actually far more casual since none of the folks in Evergreen can admit that they’re having “teh gay sex” and enjoying it. So no messy breakups, no making breakfast, no meaningless small talk.

    And believe me, in this city, you can’t go anywhere gay folk congregate without running into someone who went to Evergreen and met his boyfriend there.

15. Jenni Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Just my own personal theory — there are various theories out there, including the Kinsey scale, which shows us that very few people are 100% hetero or 100% homosexual. I’m probably 80% heterosexual, so it makes sense for me that I live my life as a heterosexual . If Frank is anything like me ( let’s assume 80% hetero) he may have had, like me, sexual feelings for some members of the same gender, and therefore sees himself as making the choice to be hetero.

    Where he would be wrong is assuming that everyone was made up of the same hetero/home percentage as himself. A person that is 95% gay is, by living as a gay person, only doing what makes the most sense in his/her life.

    There have always been gay people on the planet. If being gay was 100% about choice, for most of history and in most places on the planet, I doubt that anyone would have chosen to be gay — what with the torture and death that gay people have been subjected to. “Hmm, should I choose heterosexuality and settle down and live my life, or should I choose homosexuality with the high likelihood that I will be killed/tortured?” Doesn’t make much sense, does it?

16. Tom Grover Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Frank,

    You are a true gentleman in your discourse.

    Let me ask this again, though- let’s assume for the sake of argument that sexual orientation is 100% choice. Even if that is true, what are the harms from some people choosing to practice and be open about homosexuality?

17. cassandra Says:
    February 2nd, 2007 at 2:54 pm

    Evergreen in Olympia? If so load up another, and keep ‘em coming!

18. Deseret Spectacle Says:
    February 3rd, 2007 at 10:57 am

    I don’t really have a comment on this story, but I enjoyed the title of the story immensely.

    DS

One Utah uses Modern — designed by Ulf Pettersson and powered by WordPress.