Cause and effect.

[Mustard Seed]

The assault on the family as seen in the desire to force a definition of marrage upon society that is contrary to the nature of the institution that has existed from the begining of time is one of the great battles of our day. Much anger and zealous attacks have been specificaly targeted at those with homosexual and lesbian tendancies. While many of them are spearheading the attack and their lifestyle is an afront to that which is good I have come to wonder how we got here. It did not happen overnight. Some would have us believe that there's always been a sizable 'underground' existance of those with these tendancies and while I am not an ignoramous and I do not suppose that no such situations involving some people never existed I believe they were far smaller in numbers than they are now. Why have they reached such a critical mass in numbers to where almost everyone I know knows a friend or love one who either strugles with these tendencies or has given way completely to them? How did it reach a point that these problems actually arose?

I came up with a hypothesis. While I have been aware for quite sometime that the 'sexual revelution' our society went through was part of it I think the following addresses it a bit more indepth. As the family unit has become seemingly increasingly dispensible by many a great many childeren have been raised in single parent homes. While the simple fact that a child who has had such an upbringing (that is with one parent) is in no way doomed to any faliure there needs to be acknowledged that a great many consequences must need rise from such an upbringing that either create, magnify or lessen various characteristics found in those individuals who either are limited to only a father or mother figure. Sociological studies have already pointed out the fact that the childeren of single mothers are more prone to everything from increased levels of juvenile delinquence to increased possibilities for a great many other social ills. So following such potential differentials how plausible do you all see it that tendencies of attraction to the same gender or like difficulties could arise in single parent households at a higher statistical likelyhood than of those kids raised in the bonds of matrimony with a mother and a father?

In short is the initial break up of families that occured a generation ago one of the likely causes for a seeming increase in those that are led for one reason or another to take up such lifestyles?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Mustard Seed

So following such potential differentials how plausible do you all see it that tendencies of attraction to the same gender or like difficulties could arise in single parent households at a higher statistical likelyhood than of those kids raised in the bonds of matrimony with a mother and a father?

In short is the initial break up of families that occured a generation ago one of the likely causes for a seeming increase in those that are led for one reason or another to take up such lifestyles? :yawn: ... Empirical data, please.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Skeptic

:yawn: ... Empirical data, please.

First off it is a hypothesis. I cannot as of yet present you with studies and reports. Even if I could your request for just empirical data in fields like sociology is as usefull as macro-economists gathering data. Regardless of how much data is gathered there will always be mass discrepancies in what is said. Just as there are groups of economists with conclusions for their own side there are invariably those on the other side. The same holds true for psychology, archeology and a great many other sciences that are more driven by theories and hypothesis or observed phenomena then they are with actual usable measurements ot the phenomena or real tests that indisputably establish theories to the degrees of certainty available in much of physics, chemistry and the other material sciences. I'm not saying things have not been gained by these 'softer' fields but rather that it is both more difficult to define progress and to acheive it with certainty. Whenever you get into the study of attraction the numbers and data fields are limited, in terms of concrete empirical data, to observed biological phenomina. The moment one ventures into the realm of gathering data through communications with humans on their feelings and other unsubstantiable terms of human existance then you fall into 'squishy' ground. Ground 'squishy' enough to enable a wide range of wildly different conclusions arived at from the same data collected.

Have you any empirical evidence that you believ would soundly refute the hypothesis?

[Chileice]

Mustard,
You ARE actually on the right track. There have been studies (and if I get time, I will try to look them up for you) which show that kids who lose one parent, especially at ages 3-5 have problems with understanding sex roles and have a greater tendency toward homosexual behaviour. Also it has been shown that a dominant parent of the opposite sex can increase the chances of homosexual behavior by instilling a certain fear of relating to the opposite sex.

I know that many things that might support your hypothesis are not being brought to light because they might be thought of as homophobic. But it is not homophobic to try to understand the roots of such behaviour whether you agree with the behaviour or not. We study all kinds of other human behaviour to discover why people wind up being the way they are.

On a different level, I think television also has done much to put homosexuality before kids as a way to rebel. I think many people experiment with homosexual behaviour and then somehow convince themselves they are gay to try to set themselves apart in some way that will "shock" there parents, show the parents how "with it " the kid is and do it all in a way that makes they feel chic and accepted by some group of the population. It was a bit like the hippie/free love movement I remember in the late 60s. You could take off your bra, move into a comunal living house, and somehow ruin everything your parents ever stood for while finding "love" and acceptance.

I am not denying that there are those people with a definite propensity to be drawn to the same sex. They have been around since day 2, I imagine. But I think there are many now days who are not so much drawn to the same sex as they are drawn to an image that they make for themselves and how they want the world to be.

Another thing to add to your hypothesis goes along with the disintegration of family life and of community life. When my parents were kids you knew everyone in your town (if it was small enough) or all the people on all the farms within 5 miles of your place. You went to church, to community halls, the grange hall, community dances, fairs, pie socials, etc, etc. You learned from an early age how to relate to others of both sexes and of different ages.

When I was a kid there was still some of that sense. I knew most of my neighbours and if my parents weren't home, they checked up on me. But somewhere around 1970, more and more women went to work and the economy began to change to large retailers, a few companies owning everything, corporate buy-outs, etc. What happened? People began to move in record numbers to keep up with there jobs or to find new ones after they lost old ones. The world was not the same place it used to be and people began to lose touch with those community values. Church attendence dropped, PTA meetings were attended by only a few, neighbourhood barbrques and stuff began to decline. Families got smaller because and many kids started growing up by themselves or with one or two siblings. Many got scared of relating to other people. I'm sure Zakath could help us here with some solid numbers about the amazing increase in problems like anxiety disorders and social phobias. People felt "cut loose". For some the mere thought of asking a girl for a date became more than they could handle. The thought of heading toward any kind of a permanent relationship has gone down whether gay or straight. The average age of marriage has skyrocketed.

[Mustard Seed]

Originally posted by Chileice

Mustard,
You ARE actually on the right track. There have been studies (and if I get time, I will try to look them up for you) which show that kids who lose one parent, especially at ages 3-5 have problems with understanding sex roles and have a greater tendency toward homosexual behaviour. Also it has been shown that a dominant parent of the opposite sex can increase the chances of homosexual behavior by instilling a certain fear of relating to the opposite sex.

I know that many things that might support your hypothesis are not being brought to light because they might be thought of as homophobic. But it is not homophobic to try to understand the roots of such behaviour whether you agree with the behaviour or not. We study all kinds of other human behaviour to discover why people wind up being the way they are.

Now that you mention it I recall some numbers given in my Psychology of Love class I took some time back. It talked about the problems in knowledge among primates as to proper reproductive functions and how they were skewed when there was not proper, or any, parentage. I realise that the two have inherent differences but the psychology must be linked in many ways.



On a different level, I think television also has done much to put homosexuality before kids as a way to rebel.

I think that's also why tobaco companies are all ready to promote their own dangers in their laughable 'education campaigns'.


I think many people experiment with homosexual behaviour and then somehow convince themselves they are gay to try to set themselves apart in some way that will "shock" there parents, show the parents how "with it " the kid is and do it all in a way that makes they feel chic and accepted by some group of the population. It was a bit like the hippie/free love movement I remember in the late 60s. You could take off your bra, move into a comunal living house, and somehow ruin everything your parents ever stood for while finding "love" and acceptance.

Similar to the activities required for gang initiations. In an attempt to mimic the order of the family and acceptance a set of rules of compliance is set up. Just as God has rules for living both in his family and kingdom and the families he gives us Satan sets up an opposing counterfeit. For socialists it's the state, for rebels in our day it's everything from streetgangs and mobs to special interest groups or really any group. At the base of it it becomes obvious that God has set up one system and Satan has every variety to distract from it. He'll even take legitimate organizations or tools or whathave you and by changing their place and importance in the lives of people he can divert them from that which is what they're suppose to be doing. I fall victim to such when I spend too much time on the internet. I'm not doing anything that's bad, but I'm allowing my time in forums such as this to take too much of my time that I really should be using to accomplish other things in my life. Things that will really advance my ability to earn sufficient money for my future wife and subsequent childeren. Heck even seeking out a wife is something I'll admit I need to do more actively. I need to date more.

Wow, I really got off on that.


I am not denying that there are those people with a definite propensity to be drawn to the same sex. They have been around since day 2, I imagine. But I think there are many now days who are not so much drawn to the same sex as they are drawn to an image that they make for themselves and how they want the world to be.

Reminds me again of the same psychology class in which our professor, while trying to maintain the argument that feelings of attraction to the same gender were just the way people are, she also added the corolary that nothing could determine what who when why or how such feelings were/would be manifested in anyone. Here statement, in essense was to keep open the possibility of anyone at any stage of life changing their orientation for no explainable reason at all. It fits right into what you've said. There are people that likely have a tendency most don't, yet their side of the argument wants to keep in the mind of all that they can instanteously swich sides, thus rendering a change, for whatever actual reason, explainable as being just the 'nature' of the thing.


Another thing to add to your hypothesis goes along with the disintegration of family life and of community life. When my parents were kids you knew everyone in your town (if it was small enough) or all the people on all the farms within 5 miles of your place. You went to church, to community halls, the grange hall, community dances, fairs, pie socials, etc, etc. You learned from an early age how to relate to others of both sexes and of different ages.

The mothers leaving the home in a mass exodus is, I believe, one of the primary causes of the above. I am well aware that women are just as capable in most areas as men and I believe that there are many instances in which it is not only appropriate but needed that women be educated and involved in the world. Much of this began with the world wars, especialy the second one, while I applaud the many liberties that were granted to women in many facets were changes that needed to occure. But I think this is a case of overcorrecting. Our society did something just because it felt it could. Material wealth and the obtaining of such became one of the driving factors and so many childerens childhoods that would have been greatly blessed by a more available mother (and father) now are suffering from the symptoms of the sacrifices of their parrents to the god mammon(a.k.a. commerce, economy, 'prosperity')

Our society, even despite the fad like superficial outlashes against some froms of materialism as of late, bends to much to the idea that we were put here to amass material wealth rather than to gain the experiance of a fullfilling and happy, though trying, existance. We were not made to serve the economy. The economy was made to serve us. We have made a science of making ourselves think we want something other than to be happy OR that our happiness is dependent upon obtaining something(be it material items, knowledge, aclaim, power, the acheivment of some system of whatever) It is true that our goal is happiness but we are trying to pull a quick one on ourselves (with a little help from Satan) that some momentary appeal to carnal desires (again there's a whole array of such that can cover any pursuit taken by man, be the pursuite good or evil in nature)


When I was a kid there was still some of that sense. I knew most of my neighbours and if my parents weren't home, they checked up on me. But somewhere around 1970, more and more women went to work and the economy began to change to large retailers, a few companies owning everything, corporate buy-outs, etc. What happened? People began to move in record numbers to keep up with there jobs or to find new ones after they lost old ones. The world was not the same place it used to be and people began to lose touch with those community values. Church attendence dropped, PTA meetings were attended by only a few, neighbourhood barbrques and stuff began to decline. Families got smaller because and many kids started growing up by themselves or with one or two siblings. Many got scared of relating to other people. I'm sure Zakath could help us here with some solid numbers about the amazing increase in problems like anxiety disorders and social phobias. People felt "cut loose". For some the mere thought of asking a girl for a date became more than they could handle. The thought of heading toward any kind of a permanent relationship has gone down whether gay or straight. The average age of marriage has skyrocketed.

Amen. We've become a society of nomads that are in many cases (not all) allowing ourselves to drift (spiritually and litteraly in the case of constantly moving our physical selves, families etc.) with the hope that such drifting will get us somewhere 'better' than where we are. It reminds me of the sad case I saw repeated over and over again as I served my mission in California for my church. I served among the Latinos and in so many cases I would see parents who would come to the states with the good and admirable desire to provide the best for their childeren, unfortunatly due to circumstance that are far less than desireable for anyone but the corporations and governmental institutions that benifit or exist off of the great GREY AREA that is immigration policy in the United States AND in many cases many misplaced priorities, these parents would drown themselves in work. Working around 70 sometimes more hours a week to both survive and get ahead economicaly they didn't realize that they very childeren they thought they were helping by gaining all this money were, in many cases, being lost to either street gangs or just a mentality of either apathy or any number of ideologies that would lead their futures to an ending of only bitterness. The same thing has happened in many cases here in Utah. When many of the pioneers got here they got so wound up in trying to provide as good a material support as they could to their families, even to unneccesary excess that they failed to nurture their childeren, and themselves, spiritualy.

What will a man give in exchange for his soul is really the question. We are all engaged in answering this at this very moment of our lives. every second of every day we answer it. Am I proud of all the ways in which I answer the question, no, many times I am frustrated with how quickly I lose forsight and how many resources and time I fritter away for that which one cannot consume (again spiritualy or physicaly).

Brigham Young makes a statement regarding the Saints when they got here in the Salt Lake Valley that goes something like this(again this is a paraphrase as I do not have the specific quote in front of me)-- 'If we all worked less, ate less and wore less we would be a great deal wiser and happier for it'.

I'm not suggesting we all do like the Europeans and cut our school days and work weeks on a national scale and submit to a socialism that mandates paid vacations for all but I am sugesting that we reassess what it is we are giving as an answer to the question 'what will a man give in exchange for his soul'.

I appreciate your comments Chileice. Out of curriosity did you still have plans of answering my last PM more completely or do you still not have time or am I just to hard headed for you to attempt a response on the issues of those interchanges? Again do not feel obligated if you have not the time or desire or whatever to answer that. I'm just currious. While I have and do object to many of the things you have said about my faith I find you among one of the most level headed of all here (in most cases).

[Mustard Seed]

bump