Rate Rexburg Housing

” Second, I assume that you also accept that a homosexual orientation is usually very difficult to change, if not immutable.”

in the honor code it sates that basically one way to know if a behavior is accepable is to ask the question “what if everyone in society did my behavior” – a valid question to ask of the honor code itself. What if it were against the law EVERYWHERE to wear sandals, to have long hair, wear dirty clothes, or speak of homosexuality as morally acceptable. If you attempt to punish behaviors which dont violate the rights of others, you are following satans plan. If we did that we would be eliminating the CHOICE and hence the freedom of mankind and the plan of god would be frustrated, as satan knew it would be, if people were forced to do good, as he planned.

“From the standpoint of economy – there is no value added (benefit) to the world from homosexuality.”

“There is no reason to support homosexuality. There is no benefit to society to support homosexuality. Without benefit there is no reason.”

First, Jonathan, I assume you accept the reality that certain individuals (between two to five percent of the population) are homosexually oriented. Second, I assume that you also accept that a homosexual orientation is usually very difficult to change, if not immutable. Given this, we can see that the decision to “support” (or not support) homosexual individuals in certain ways will not significantly impact the number of individuals who are homosexually-oriented, regardless of their hypothetical “benefit to society.” If you disagree with either of these basic assumptions, please explain your objections and I will try to address them.

Given these assumptions, it is reasonable to ask how such individuals can best contribute to society. As you have explained above, the generally accepted model for heterosexual adults is that they find an opposite-sex partner whom they wish to marry, in which context they produce and raise offspring.

However, marriage does not only benefit society by providing a context for child-rearing—it also increases the happiness, security and stability of the couple themselves. Married partners can divide domestic labour effectively—one person cooking and cleaning for two is less work than two people cooking for themselves. They share basic living expenses—again, two people making joint financial decisions spend less than two people making such decisions individually. If one loses their job or has an accident, the other can help shoulder the additional burden; the net reduction in quality of living is less than it would be for a single individual. Emotionally, a loving, intimate partner is an enormous boon, to the improvement of physical, mental and spiritual well-being.

You may argue that these are “selfish benefits,” but healthier, happier, more financially stable individuals are an asset to society—indeed, they are the very essence, the building blocks, of a healthy society. Opposite-sex marriage helps to provide these benefits for heterosexual individuals. However, there is good reason to believe that marriage to an opposite-sex partner would not improve the overall well-being of homosexual individuals, due to the strain of labouring under an expectation of intimacy with a partner to whom one is not sexually attracted, or a partner who is not sexually attracted to oneself; indeed, there are numerous examples of such partnerships ending in divorce or worse. (Nick, whom you have encountered above, is a case in point.) It is far more likely for homosexual individuals to find happiness and stability in a relationship with another homosexually-oriented partner of the same sex. Thus, it would be eminently sensible for society to encourage such individuals to enter into a relationship which is analogous to heterosexual marriage, but with the affordance of a same-sex partner.

It is quite simple. A healthy, happy, stable society is composed of healthy, happy, stable individuals. Anything which benefits a significant number of individuals in a society (and a percentage greater than one in fifty is certainly significant) without severely impacting other individuals is desirable.

Also, numerous studies concerning gay parents show that same-sex couples have similar parenting outcomes to opposite-sex, married couples—the generally accepted “gold standard”. As such, gay couples are well-positioned to adopt or foster children. This in turn has an improving effect on children who would otherwise lack primary caregivers, and furthers society’s interest in raising happy, healthy children.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/mormons-enter-calif-marriage-f.php