LDS

[skyrider44]

. . . Because his partner would be a man. Because he cannot eel romantic love for a woman. Because he can feel romantic love towards another man.

So marriage changes him into a man? What was he before the marriage?

Great Xenu's ghost! No. Not at all. In no way whatsoever. Courts can't neuter people. What's wrong with you?

You might want to look at some case history re. this subject.

And what if it doesn't threaten their welfare, just their happiness? What if they get enough to eat and have all the cool toys and designer clothes? What if they are loved and love in return? And what if their parents still argue and namecall and hate each other? Will they be taken out of the home then? Where will they go? What resources exist to care for them once the parents are pushed aside?

Obviously, a court would have to take all of that into consideration before rendering a decision.

 

[Craig4]

Skyrider, make a compelling case that two people of the same gender should not be married. Don't tell us about child rearing or any other ancillary issue. Tell us why two people of the same gender in the USA should not be able to marry if they so choose.

 

[Apology]

How does the falsity of Mormon beliefs affect me personally?

Well, I'm a Californian, so the Mormon Church attempted to undermine the State Constitution of my state with their belief that gays should not be married (and effectively did so for quite a while). As a result of this miscarriage of justice, the issue was taken to the 9th Circuit Court (at great expense to the taxpayers). The law was overruled as unconstitutional since it violated the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution (equal protection clause).

In short, the Mormon Church has attempted to undermine the constitutions of the State of California and the United States of America and cost the taxpayers a great deal of money, which I believe affects every American negatively. 313,914,040 people have been affected by the LDS attempt to enforce their beliefs outside of the confines of their own church.

Before you trot out the old "but other religions did it too!" excuse, please be reminded that LDS members provided over half of all the money raised towards the prevention of gay people marrying (and that's just counting the contributions of over $1,000).

Let me just drop this quote for you here, to illustrate the difference between "speaking out" on a moral issue and actively attempting to undermine the Constitution:

"We’ve spoken out on other issues, we’ve spoken out on abortion, we’ve spoken out on those other kinds of things,” said Michael R. Otterson, the managing director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons are formally called, in Salt Lake City. “But we don’t get involved to the degree we did on this."

For a more in-depth article on exactly where the LDS crossed the line on this issue, you can read here.

Just as a reminder, since 2008 was a long time ago, of the dishonesty and lack of integrity involved in the Prop 8 campaign:

But the “Yes” side also initially faced apathy from middle-of-the-road California voters who were largely unconcerned about same-sex marriage. The overall sense of the voters in the beginning of the campaign, Mr. Schubert said, was “Who cares? I’m not gay.”

To counter that, advertisements for the “Yes” campaign also used hypothetical consequences of same-sex marriage, painting the specter of churches’ losing tax exempt status or people “sued for personal beliefs” or objections to same-sex marriage, claims that were made with little explanation.

Another of the advertisements used video of an elementary school field trip to a teacher’s same-sex wedding in San Francisco to reinforce the idea that same-sex marriage would be taught to young children.

 

[Loss Leader]

You might want to look at some case history re. this subject.

I didn't say it hadn't happened, only that constitutional law as now decided cannot stop a person from procreating.

However, even when forced sterilizations were carried out in the US, they were largely used on mentally ill and developmentally disabled women. There were some sterilization programs in women's prisons which were mostly voluntary. Even today, a case or two pops up of a woman in jail who went along in the belief that she was being required to undergo sterilization. However, these tend to result in large cash awards.

The last known punitive forced sterilization in the US was in 1981.

 

[Foster Zygote]

So marriage changes him into a man?

He never said that.

You might want to look at some case history re. this subject.

I'm pretty sure that LL is a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what case history should we look into?

Obviously, a court would have to take all of that into consideration before rendering a decision.

If the welfare of the children isn't threatened, then how is a court of law going to become involved in the first place? Are you suggesting that parental custody could be terminated for something like parental bickering?

 

[bruto]

Yeah, and I pointed out that none of this evidence was presented at trial even though the defendants said they would put on such evidence. It is likely junk science. More importantly, there is no law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting so the marriage point is moot.

If you really want to know what the state of the evidence is, then go read the transcripts or watch the trial reenactment. They had real psychologists siting real data for a statistically significant amount of time.

Then again, facts are stubborn things.

Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 1 Chapter 1

Okay, so, let's grant you your proposition? Now what?

1. Do you strip children from single parents and give them to the state?
2. Do you prohibit single people from fornicating?
3. Do you require a married couple to sign a pledge to have children?
4. Do you stop gays and lesbians who are right now adopting children from doing so?

The premise is wrong prima facie and further there is no affective cause to compel the state to do something, anything if it accepted the premise.


I know a man with three children. His wife died. It turns out that children raised with two parents do much better than children raised with a single father.... and? Do we take those children from their homes?


I honestly don't even understand what the argument is supposed to mean. Even if I grant the premise which was laughed out of the prop 8 court, it tells us absolutely nothing as to how the state should treat gays and lesbians.

Randfan, in your enumerated list above, you forgot a couple of important situations. First of all, there is nothing that prevents a significant portion of the gay population from procreating. Donors and surrogates exist. It's quite possible for a gay couple to have kids biologically belonging to either one. In addition, (although one might expect this group to shrink as homosexuality becomes more normalized and options more available), there are a good many people who divorce out of heterosexual marriages and "come out" as gay, and children are often involved. Adoption is not the only way gay adults end up with a family.

 

[skyrider44]

as compared. . . .

Christine Kim's article is a critique of the methodology used in studying the effect of same-sex marriage on children. [/quote

]

: Let's just remember, her entire critique isn't that same-sex marriages are worse for kids. only that the methodology does not allow us to conclude same-sex marriages are any different from kids.

Please see the bold-faced statement (above) from one of my earlier posts (which you actually included in the post to which I am now responding).
I said her article is a critique of the methodology used in studying the effect of same-sex marriage on children. I didn't say that her article allows anyone to conclude that same-sex marriage is bad for children.

What would you say if the data shows same sex marriages are SUPERIOR for children?

There would have to be a consensus from multiple studies by a broad cross-section of social-scientist researchers before I would accept that finding.

 

[skyrider44]

Then how can you claim that Kim's article is "eye opening"?

Because she exposes serious flaws in the methodology of studies some people, on both sides of the issue, have accepted as "gospel."

 

[skyrider44]

He never said that. I'm pretty sure that LL is a lawyer. But just out of curiosity, what case history should we look into?

I'm not a lawyer.

If the welfare of the children isn't threatened, then how is a court of law going to become involved in the first place? Are you suggesting that parental custody could be terminated for something like parental bickering?

I should have declined to answer, inasmuch as LL didn't provide adequate information on which I (or anyone else) could make an informed decision. Has one of the partners, for example, ever been arrested? Received treatment in a psychiatric facility?

 

[Pixel42]

Those meeting houses are more than places of worship. They are centers where plans are made for helping the needy, and where articles are actually made or assembled, everything from blankets to emergency kits.

Oh, please. Even if I grant you the upkeep cost of such multi-purpose buildings as part of your church's welfare programme, the total is still a small fraction of what your members pay in tithes.

Most churches have buildings to maintain and many also run welfare programmes without either sharing your church's bizarre beliefs (no, I haven't forgotten that it was my use of that adjective that launched you on this utterly irrelevant tangent) or demanding a compulsory tithe from their membership.

 

[halleyscomet]

Oh, please. Even if I grant you the upkeep cost of such multi-purpose buildings as part of your church's welfare programme, the total is still a small fraction of what your members pay in tithes.

Most churches have buildings to maintain and many also run welfare programmes without either sharing your church's bizarre beliefs (no, I haven't forgotten that it was my use of that adjective that launched you on this utterly irrelevant tangent) or demanding a compulsory tithe from their membership.

Jewish Synagogues will generally ask a membership fee of members, but the fee is based on your income and is not a flat percentage. It's also not required.

 

[joobz]

Please see the bold-faced statement (above) from one of my earlier posts (which you actually included in the post to which I am now responding).
I said her article is a critique of the methodology used in studying the effect of same-sex marriage on children. I didn't say that her article allows anyone to conclude that same-sex marriage is bad for children.

I know. This is what lead me to my next question.

There would have to be a consensus from multiple studies by a broad cross-section of social-scientist researchers before I would accept that finding.

That is fine. Let's say that there is broad concensus from multiple studies?
What would you say? Would you conclude, then, that opposite sex couples should no longer be allowed to marry?
Remember, one of your key arguments against gay marriage is the impact on children.

 

[Loss Leader]

You might want to look at some case history re. this subject.

I'm not a lawyer.

Making it appear that you have access to facts that support your position, then withdrawing when challenged does not logically support your point. The only logic to it is to deflect and forestall, for however short a time, having to face criticism head-on.

 

[skyrider44]

I was going to let Loss Leader's response suffice, as it's a good one, but I have to get back to this one. Throughout this thread, you have stated that denigration or even scholarly criticism of your scriptures and your faith's prophets is irrelevant or impermissible because your faith in them has done no quantifiable harm to others.

You take liberties with what I have said. I have asked how the Church and its members have harmed anyone.

Now, how dare you oppose someone else's civil marriage in some other place because you don't see your made-up criterion of increased love being met?

My "made-up criterion of increased love"? What is that supposed to mean? My concern all along has been for the welfare of children. And I have so said repeatedly. That's what the long, tedious discussion of late hereon has been about.

Quite apart from that being a short-sighted and narrow view of what marriage is about, and a question that can be asked of any marriage at all, it certainly seems to fall far short of your own criteria. What harm indeed?

Biology alone tells you what marriage is not about.

Marriage is not, of course, just about some ledger of love. It's about how families are organized and protected also. It's about how society regards partnerships, households, and also the children who belong to them.

Well stated; I don't disagree.

Throughout this tangential argument, apart from some poorly read statistics and speculations about the future which is past, very little of substance seems to have been brought up in opposition to gay marriage except for the one glaring truth of circularity.

Pardon me, but what is "the one glaring truth of circularity"?

Laws that seek to normalize homosexual relationships will inevitably result in those relationships being regarded more and more as normal.

Perhaps so.

If you see the act as a sin, you will of course see actions that normalize it as at best unfortunate. If not,....well, not. Welcome to the century.

I haven't spoken of same-sex marriage as "sin."

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because she exposes serious flaws in the methodology of studies some people, on both sides of the issue, have accepted as "gospel."

No it doesn't. All she does is try to undo what the 2010 study attempted to do, which was to correct for oversampling in the earlier studies by eliminating socio-economic status as a factor.

Kim's little blog entry attempts to masquerade as a report of research, but it's really just a crap propaganda piece. She misleads and obfuscates regarding the validity of the sampling methods employed, she doesn't link to any actual data, and even her footnotes, intended no doubt to proffer the appearance of academic investigatory rigor, offer no access to any actual data.

By contrast, the Child Trends summary that you linked to is an example of soundly applied scientific methodology, but once you realized that it doesn't support your position, you abandoned it in favor of a source that amounts to nothing more than agitprop from a highly biased political site created with the expressed mission of pushing an agenda.

 

[joobz]

There would have to be a consensus from multiple studies by a broad cross-section of social-scientist researchers before I would accept that finding.

As a follow on point, according to the article that you linked to, there is already a consensus emerging amongst social scientists....

Still, there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in how well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development. What matters more, researchers found, is the quality of parenting and the family’s economic well-being.

Note that there is strong consensus that children do more poorly with parents of low economic well being.

Do you believe, based upon this consensus, that we should no longer allow poor people to marry?

If not, then why does any of this matter in terms of allowing gay marriage?

 

[skyrider44]

Making it appear that you have access to facts that support your position, then withdrawing when challenged does not logically support your point. The only logic to it is to deflect and forestall, for however short a time, having to face criticism head-on.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that case histories exist--and are well documented--that "logically support [my] point."

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Let's say that there is broad concensus from multiple studies? What would you say? Would you conclude, then, that opposite sex couples should no longer be allowed to marry?

Sorry, but you appear to have entered the theatre of the absurd.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm not a lawyer.

So you have no idea. Then why did you bring up legal precedent in the first place?

I should have declined to answer, inasmuch as LL didn't provide adequate information on which I (or anyone else) could make an informed decision. Has one of the partners, for example, ever been arrested? Received treatment in a psychiatric facility?

He provided plenty of information. He described a situation in which the children are well cared for, but the parents simply don't get along. You then indicated that you felt this was a matter for the courts do decide. This tells us that you feel that courts of law could choose to suspend or terminate parental rights based on parental bickering and animosity. You are simply evading yet another direct question.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, in your enumerated list above, you forgot a couple of important situations. First of all, there is nothing that prevents a significant portion of the gay population from procreating. Donors and surrogates exist. It's quite possible for a gay couple to have kids biologically belonging to either one. In addition, (although one might expect this group to shrink as homosexuality becomes more normalized and options more available), there are a good many people who divorce out of heterosexual marriages and "come out" as gay, and children are often involved. Adoption is not the only way gay adults end up with a family.

Thank you!

Children are a giant red herring when it comes to gay marriage. It's irrelevant. Further, the defense in the prop 8 trial stipulated to the fact that families of gays and lesbians would be better off if they gay marriage were legal.