As for me stating that people are following blindly if they always seem to find the answer that is told to them to find isn’t intolerant. It’s not an issue of tolerance. It’s an issue of logic and reason. Let me give you a hypothetical: If I were to tell you I always pray about whether or not I should vote for Republicans (I only pray about Republicans; I won’t vote for anyone else) and amazingly I’m always told that I should vote for Republicans by god, what does that imply? Either: (1) My method is biased toward my political preference and therefore not a reliable method. Or (2) God is always a Republican and always will be, regardless of the positions taken. Now, let me add to this by continuing the hypothetical. Let’s say in 2004 the local Republican candidate opposes gay marriage. I pray and god says vote for her. Now in 2008 the local Republican candidate supports gay marriage. I pray and god says vote for him. What do I do? If I pray about this and find that god wants me to vote Republican, regardless of how I feel about gay marriage, doesn’t this imply that my method is biased and therefore flawed at outlined above? The method doesn’t seem to be able to find anything but what I’m told to find. Again, this isn’t intolerance, this is an issue of reason: the method always tells me to go with the candidate I’m told to go with, regardless of the candidate.

This is basically the equivalent of a scale that gives the exact same weight every time I stand on it, regardless of the fact that some times I only put half my weight on it and sometimes I get on it with someone on my back. The scale (method) is broken. In essence, the scale is blind - it can’t actually tell me anything. If I continue to believe the scale works, I’m blind, because I’m refusing to try anything else in order to determine the reliability and validity of my scale.

Jeremy, have you ever not followed the prophet? If you haven’t, then you can’t say you are “happier”; that implies a comparison. Again, my point was: You can’t claim to be “more” of something at some point unless you have had “less” of it at some point. Since you are unwilling to try “not following the prophet”, then you can only claim that you think you are happier. Without an actual comparison, you can’t claim that you are. In short, Jeremy, without evidence to the contrary, I am going to claim that you are only as happy as you have ever been, but don’t know whether you could be happier outside of Mormonism. You’re happy relative to your past experience, but you can’t claim you are as happy as you could be.

This next article tests the idea that there is a quasi-birth-order effect to homosexuality, which might imply a hormonal influence on sexuality. Basically, there is a significant correlation between how many older brothers someone has and the odds of that male being gay (this articles focuses on men). Here’s the article:
Bogaert, Anthony F. 2006. “Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:10771-4.

This next study discusses the hormonal contributions to sexuality in detail. It admits that there isn’t great evidence to indicate that it is exclusively hormonal, but it does suggest that there is a hormonal component to sexuality:
Gooren, Louis. 2006. “The biology of human psychosexual differentiation.” Hormones and Behavior 50:589-601.

This next article talks about the genetic evidence for homosexuality based on twins studies. It concludes that there is clearly some familial influence on sexuality that must be genetic, but specific genes have not been identified:
Kendler, K S, L M Thornton, S E Gilman, and R C Kessler. 2000. “Sexual orientation in a U.S. national sample of twin and nontwin sibling pairs.” The American Journal of Psychiatry 157:1843-6.

This next article is a review article summarizing all of the evidence on these issues to date:
James, William H. 2005. “Biological and psychosocial determinants of male and female human sexual orientation.” Journal of Biosocial Science 37:555-67.

Finally, this is the article I reference earlier that is a sociological study of the influence of homosexual parents on children. It finds that there is virtually no affect on the children:
Stacey, Judith, and Timothy J. Biblarz. 2001. “(How) Does the sexual orientation of parents matter?.” American Sociological Review 66:159-183.

I’ll address the last comments shortly.

Here’s the reference:
Bailey, J M, M P Dunne, and N G Martin. 2000. “Genetic and environmental influences on sexual orientation and its correlates in an Australian twin sample.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:524-36.

And here’s the actual article.

A brief summary:
The authors examine Australian twins (both monozygotic and dizygotic) for sexual concordance as well as several other traits (e.g., gender nonconformity). Based on their data, sexuality is at least somewhat inherited (20%-24% concordance between twins) and gender nonconformity (behaving in ways incongruent with your sex) is definitely inherited. The authors also note that there is a difference in how this plays out between men and women; one way this plays out in just sexuality - men are more likely than women to be either gay or straight, but not somewhere in between; women are a more likely than men to be somewhere in between (bi-sexual). In short, there is probably a small genetic component to homosexuality. Considering genetics plays only a small role, other biological factors must play a part as well (i.e., hormones, which I’ll post about later).

What’s more, how can you really say Mormonism makes you “happier” unless you’ve tried something else. Inherent in the word “happier” is a comparison with something else. Can you compare your “happiness” within Mormonism to your happiness outside Mormonism? Have you experienced both? Until you can, the best you can say is that you “think you are happy with Mormonism, but you could be happier without it; however, you don’t know.”

As someone who has experienced both the “happiness” of Mormonism and the “happiness” of secular humanism, I know where I am happier. That may not be true for you. If not, then at least you can say that you tried and can say you no longer have blind faith. But until you have tried, you are acting on blind faith, not experience, and not knowledge.

1) What do I like about him?

Josh, take a look at his position page (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/). Here are just a few of the issues where I agree:
-he wants to work on civil rights issues, like reducing recidivism and ending racial profiling and discriminatory voting practices; he also isn’t throwing the book at non-violent drug offenders, which makes a ton of sense
-he wants to streamline our army and develop good relations with allies so we don’t have to be the world’s police force; he also wants to end the war in Iraq
-Obama is in favor of labor unions and wants to cut tax loopholes for big businesses and oil companies
-Obama wants more money for teachers, which is the only proven way of improving our educational system
-$150 billion over 10 years for renewable energy
-Obama wants limits on lobbying and earmarks
-despite not favoring the faith-based initiatives, generally, Obama wants to keep them, but police them so there is no proselytizing going on; I can get behind the policing of them - kind of like polishing a turd, but I guess I prefer shiny poop over the alternative
-Obama wants to reverse tax cuts for the wealthy and balance the budget
-he wants to make it so the US isn’t hated anymore
-he wants healthcare for everyone
-he wants to work toward eradicating poverty
-he actually wants to improve technology in the US and knows how (unlike McCain)

So, while I may not agree with him 100%, and while he may be pandering to some degree, I agree with all of those positions. Why don’t you compare him to McCain? Read both of their position pages.

As far as me frustrating you, I don’t think you see how frustrating you were in that discussion. I gave you about half of these reasons on Sunday and then kept pressuring you to tell me what you like about McCain. You couldn’t give me a single thing, but you were still supportive of McCain. Talk about frustrating. I gave you half a dozen things that I like about Obama and criticized McCain’s policy positions, but you offered up only one criticism of Obama (see the patriotism discussion below) and no positives for McCain. And, in the end, you still said you supported McCain. I felt like I was talking to a wall.

2) How do I address the “concerns” about his patriotism?

Here are some of the quotes you sent me to:
“OBAMA: They get bitter. They cling to guns or religion or antipathy towards people who aren’t like them.”

This is Obama talking about voters in rural areas. A NYTimes op-ed actually attacked Obama on this, but I think he has a good point at some level: people in rural areas who have lost their jobs to overseas factories do get a bit bitter. Do they cling to guns or religion or prejudice? Well, the op-ed piece (by a sociologist, by the way), said probably not. I agree, they may not do that. But, they may have slightly elevated levels of prejudice towards the people who took their jobs. Also, are rural people more religious (and more religiously fundamentalist) than urban people? Yes. Is the relationship between lost jobs and religiosity causal? No. I don’t think so. So, Obama may have been wrong, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with his patriotism. People who live in rural areas are: more prejudiced, more favorable of gun laws, and more religious. He connected that to bitterness over lost jobs and some how that turns him into a traitor? I don’t see the logic in that, Josh. Do you?

“MICHELLE OBAMA: Barack knows there’s a hole in our soul.”
I fail to see how this statement is even remotely unpatriotic. Michelle Obama used this phrase a couple of times to refer to the lack of spirit and the broken spirits of the American people. What’s wrong with this phrase?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1972537/posts

“OBAMA: I know my country has not perfected itself.”
I don’t even need context on this one… Is the US perfect? No. Far from it. Ergo, how is criticizing the US unpatriotic. If someone didn’t criticize his/her country for its failings (e.g., torturing prisoners, having 45 million people without healthcare, 1 in 4 kids in Ohio going to bed every night hungry, etc.), that person wouldn’t love his country. I, like Obama, think we can do better. Thus, I criticize. The person you need to be afraid of is the person who says the US is perfect. They are either deluded, uber-wealthy, or a fascist.

“MICHELLE OBAMA: It’s easier to hold onto your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your ignorance. That’s America.”
As noted on Sunday, the US is a pretty racist country. Are there worse countries? Sure. South Africa is terrible. But when campaign workers for Obama call random homes and have the candidate called a n*gger (related to me by a friend who heard it from the person who made the call) and hope he dies, you know we aren’t anywhere near where we need to be. Again, the Obamas are right to criticize: American can improve. Anyone who thinks the US shouldn’t be criticized on this issue is probably, well, white.

“OBAMA: We’re confronting the history and stain of slavery in this country. We’re confronting those scars.”
Ditto. As I mentioned on Sunday, in 2000 or so, the General Social Survey asked whether people think there should be a law against interracial marriage. About 6% of Americans still think there should be. About 15% of Americans won’t vote for a black president. If you think it’s unpatriotic to talk about the reality of racial prejudice in the US, I don’t understand what you mean by patriotism. Maybe you are thinking about it the same way you think about Mormon leaders - that they are above reproach. If so, IMO, you need to change the way you think about both.

“MICHELLE OBAMA: For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”
I can’t say for sure what the background is for this, but I think it was more of a slip of the tongue than anything and probably misconstrued. Here’s Obama’s response, “Obama defended his wife on Texas radio. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said. “She has seen large numbers of people get involved in the process, and she’s encouraged.”" Why can’t that suffice as explanation? Why do conservatives continue to harp on one sentence one person said unscripted? Can you imagine what would happen if George Bush were allowed to speak unscripted? Oh wait, that list exists: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

“OBAMA: America, uh, is — is no longer, uh, what it — it could be, what it once was.”
This quote is just stupid. America is no longer what it once was. America is now owned by China. America used to be the sole superpower (for about 10 years after we bankrupted Russia). Then China rose to power. Now America is in competition over the title of the world’s superpower and is struggling financially. It used to be the case families in the US could survive on a single income. That isn’t true anymore. Is America different? Yes. Is it less powerful? Yes. Again, what’s the problem here?

(Note: I took out the insulting “(MY BELLE)” Rush inserted in Michelle Obama’s name every time. Rush Limbaugh is a demeaning asshole.)

In conclusion, Josh, if these are the best quotes Rush Limbaugh can come up with to claim Barack Obama is not patriotic, Rush isn’t working hard enough. Frankly, I’m disappointed that you actually believe any of these quotes call into question the patriotism of the Obamas. You really do need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. Try the Daily Show or NYTimes. Want a reason? You’ll be better informed:
http://people-press.org/report/319/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions

You said, “but that it is your intent to persuade me to criticize and doubt the leaders. Yeah, that’s a good place for me to go if I want to stay in the church”. Since when are leaders of the LDS religion above criticism? This attitude is really, really disturbing to me. Do the leaders of the religion ALWAYS speak the will of god? Or do they sometimes speak as men? If they sometimes speak as men (which is how Mormons weasel out of things like Brigham Young claiming there were people on the moon), then they should be criticized like any other man (or woman). Anyone who claims to be above criticism is a power-mongering dictator, nothing else! What’s more, Josh, if you really are afraid to question the leadership of your religion, I’m not really inclined to believe you could be persuaded by evidence or reason. As pointed out in my discussion with Jeremy, if your response to any piece of evidence or reason is, “But the leaders say so,” then I may as well argue with a wall. If asking you to think critically is “attacking your faith,” so be it. By that (convoluted) measure, I’m attacking your faith. Of course, from my perspective, my discouraging you from holding blind faith is about the greatest service I can provide you: blind faith leads to suicide bombers, Mountain Meadows Massacres, and all sorts of detestable things, including discriminating against homosexuals. If you prefer blind faith over reasoned faith, who am I to argue?

Second point… You said, “You have, however, intimitated, alluded to, or actually said that I was blinded by blind faith, tradition, whatever, and I would be better off by putting that stuff behind me and trusting in science.” Again, I doubt I ever said, “Josh, you would be better off putting that stuff behind you and trusting in science.” If me expressing my opinion that I am better off for having done so is some how suggesting that you do so, well, then call me guilty. But I’ve never expressly said this. However, in the above paragraph I did just criticize you for what seemed like wanting to adhere to blind faith. I’m still not saying “leave Mormonism.” I’m saying, “Don’t accept everything on faith.” Sometimes people are wrong. And the last time I checked, Thomas S. Monson was a person.

I guess I can respond to both Josh and Hillari on this next point. You both basically said that you would study out the change for yourselves. Well, kudos to both of you for claiming to actually reason things out and pray about them (though Josh’s initial argument that you should never criticize the leaders is pretty contradictory to this new sentiment). However, I do find it intriguing that the only thing that can get either of you to reconsider your position on homosexuality is a decree from the prophet. Why is that? Why can’t you pray about this issue now? Why can’t you reason it out now? Why can’t you take the lead on this and not simply follow? Also, doesn’t it seem kind of convenient that you ALWAYS end up agreeing with the prophet? That seems pretty strange to me. Actually, what it seems like to me is that both of you are starting with a foregone conclusion and then manipulating the evidence to get you there. In the end, you aren’t actually questioning anything, just convoluting the evidence to support what you want to find in the end. You are both, of course, welcome to do so, but I have to point out that this is not how science works (Kirk’s claims to the contrary): Scientists come up with theories, then gather data to test them. If the data doesn’t support the theory, we don’t reinterpret the data until it does. And we definitely don’t fudge the data (see the recent disgraced scientist from Korea as an example of this). We change the theory or come up with a new one that fits with the data. What you two are suggesting is that you will change the data until it fits the theory, but changing the theory isn’t an option (as that would mean disagreeing with the leaders). That leaves me thinking that you do follow your leaders blindly, but claim not to. I know you won’t like me saying that, but it’s pretty hard to arrive at a different conclusion. Here’s a thought: Is there any issue you disagree with the LDS religion on? Anything? If not, I think I may just be right…

I’ve decided to take a different tack on the homosexuality as choice issue. That response will have to wait.

Continuing with Josh… You said, “Why the Hell not? am I supposed to overlook the exceptions to the rule, which are not nearly so rare as you are trying to make us believe, and not rely on my experience?” So, by this standard, Josh, I should assume that all Mormons are pedophiles and sex abusers because there are a few of them out there? (e.g., http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4621993a12855.html) Is that really the point you are trying to make: Judge an entire group of people based on your very limited experience with one unrepresentative individual? You know what we call this in Sociology? Prejudice and stereotyping.

To continue this line of reasoning… Since you brought up the FDA and healthcare, we can toy with this idea. Should the FDA ban all vaccinations because a very small number of children (less than 1 in 10,000) has a negative reaction to them and can have complications? By your reasoning, none of us should get vaccinated because we can’t overlook the exceptions. Josh, that line of reasoning is patently absurd! Honestly, I expect better from you.

You also said, “When we were in California, we debated that whole acu-pressure thing of dads about pushing on the feet. I explained to you that I didn’t put much stock in it myself, but three different people, myself included, gave you FIRST HAND accounts of how it actually worked to one degree or another, and you simply refused to believe us.” No, Josh, I didn’t say foot reflexology didn’t cure Dad of his hay fever. What I said was, “I’m skeptical that foot reflexology did it.” I also said, “Please explain how it works.” No one can and no one there did. That was my point. Think about it this way, Josh: Which is more likely, that a foot message technique with no evidence backing its ability to cure any ailments (other than maybe a sore foot) cured Dad’s hay fever or it simply went away on its own? I think the reasonable position here is that it simply went away and Dad associates that with foot reflexology because that is what he was trying at the time (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay_fever). So, no, I didn’t look evidence right in the face and deny it, Josh. I offered an alternative explanation, one that is far more plausible (as per Occam’s Razor), but Dad (and apparently you) refuse to admit there is an alternative explanation.