LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

Regardless of what I believe, the actions you describe in your hypothetical scenario cannot be implemented in our representative democracy.

Why not? These are the exact actions that the Mormon church seek to do with gays in our society?

This is the exact thing you do when you cite supposed* child welfare concerns as a reason to object to gay marriage.

By selectively blocking Just gay marriage and not poor marriage, your reasoning becomes nothing more than simple bigoted prejudice.

*note that it is supposed. There is no evidence to suggest that children from stable gay marriages would be worse off than children from stable heterosexual marriages. If the goal is to provide the best chances for children, then the goal should be STABLE MARRIAGES. Advocating for anyone who could provide a stable home for children should be your goal, if your goal is, indeed child welfare. As stated, simply trying to prevent gay couples from marrying does nothing to protect children.

 

[Slowvehicle]

While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bête noir. . . .

You appear to be unaware of what the Church is doing to reach out to lesbians and gays. Perhaps the following will help to remedy that.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

...in which we find that your sectarian superstitions are supposed to be valid to impose rules invented by your sect, to control the behaviour of members, upon people who are not members and do not fit your cookie-cutter biases.

"God has given us commandments that support family and individual happiness. One of these is the Law of Chastity — individuals should have no sexual relations except in marriage, which Latter-day Saints define as between a man and a woman. Sexual intimacy is a powerful and beautiful thing. For this very reason it should be treated with care, within the boundaries of commitment and responsibility."

(emphasesadded. Note the bald, unsupported assumption that "commitment and responsibility" can only be found within the LDS "definition" of marriage...Youmay be unaware of the evidence to the contrary in the studies you have not read.

What has that to do with the fact that divorced LDS are allowed to re-marry, even at the highest level of temple privilege--in diametrical opposition to what Jesus is said to have said (at least in the xianist canon) about divorce; particularly given what Jesus is NOT said to have said (at least in the xianist canon) about homosexuality? Are those phylacteries quite wide enough, yet?

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23272471

...non-functioning link.

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction

"The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel."

In which we again find the smug idea that rules invented by the CJCLDS to control members are meet and fit to impose upon non-members. No matter upon what sectarian superstition they are based.

In which we also see the dishonest implication that Jesus is said to have spoken against homosexuality, which he is not said to have done...at least in the xianist canon.

Why do you continue to avoid the divorce issue?

Why do you continue to ignore the results of the recent studies?

 

[bruto]

While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bête noir. . . .

You appear to be unaware of what the Church is doing to reach out to lesbians and gays. Perhaps the following will help to remedy that.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23272471

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction

I believe many of us here are aware of the content of these sites, and continuation of the discussion is not thereby ended. It is true enough that according to current Mormon thinking, persons having same sex attraction are accepted (and good on them for that at least), but it is just as true, and clear from these sites, that "homosexual behavior" is utterly forbidden. Insofar as the Mormon church itself or Mormons as individuals act to impose that viewpoint on non Mormons who do not consider homosexual behavior morally unacceptable, this remains a problem. In the case of the church acting as a lobbyist, it is a legal problem. In the case of individuals acting on belief, it is a subject for argument and persuasion. There has been plenty of the former here, but the latter is not in evidence.

It is more a problem in the case of the United States, where homosexual behavior is, in most instances, legally accepted, and where homosexual partnerships are, in most instances, allowed, and where, at least in many places, homosexual child custody and adoption have been sanctioned for a very long time. In this case, the moral argument is focused on marriage itself, and not on the abolition of homosexuality.

I do not want to suggest that dividing inclination from behavior is illegitimate, or persiflage. Many of us have inclinations to do things that are reasonably forbidden, and a large part of morality involves understanding the distinction between what you wish to do and what you really do. However, in this case, the focus is much narrower - any war waged by religious conservatives against gay behavior has long been lost in most areas of civil society.

It seems pertinent to note here that the sources cited (at least the two that worked - the second did not) are specifically related to how Mormons should view homosexual Mormons. Perhaps I did not read far enough, but I did not see much argument here that tells Mormons what to do about non-Mormons. The other thing that seems worth mentioning is that the last of these sites specifically refers to "the sacred institution of marriage." That is a religious term for a religious event. I am not aware of any law anywhere that forbids churches from deciding what they include in, or exclude from, their sacraments, rites, privileges and activities. In states where gay marriage is fully recognized, no church is required to participate against its policy. Civil marriage is not a sacred institution, and arguments about it do not enjoy the immunity that faith traditionally enjoys in its own sphere.

 

[skyrider44]

While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bête noir. . . .

I believe many of us here are aware of the content of these sites, and continuation of the discussion is not thereby ended. It is true enough that according to current Mormon thinking, persons having same sex attraction are accepted (and good on them for that at least), but it is just as true, and clear from these sites, that "homosexual behavior" is utterly forbidden.

You understand, I'm quite sure, that the LDS Church has a right, as part of its doctrine, to forbid homosexual behavior.

Insofar as the Mormon church itself or Mormons as individuals act to impose that viewpoint on non Mormons who do not consider homosexual behavior morally unacceptable, this remains a problem.

How has the LDS Church actively endeavored to "impose" on others its viewpoint re. homosexual behavior? Are you thinking of California?

In the case of the church acting as a lobbyist, it is a legal problem.

It may be, but to this point at least, the IRS has taken no action against the Church's 501(c)(3) status.

In the case of individuals acting on belief, it is a subject for argument and persuasion. There has been plenty of the former here, but the latter is not in evidence.

Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)

 

[deaman]

King James Bible
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."

How do you explain the fact that Temple Marriages, which are supposed to be for all time and eternity, are regularly granted a divorce by the Prophet?

Is he going against the word of God?

Fortunately, for me. I figured out long ago that there is no god.

Just man-made depictions of what a god should be like, and a lot of human, short comings of living up to those idealizations.

 

[joobz]

Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)

I have read it. It does nothing to help your case. Unless your case is to demonstrate pure bigotry. (Remember. You have yet to insist that poor people not marry)

 

[BadBoy]

Again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. I tend, however, to think there is a correlation between being on welfare/unemployed and a higher incidence of abuse.

Of course theres no one-size-fits-all, its a correlation. Its a statistical observation. When theres a statistical correlation it deosnt imply for example in this case that being on welfare ==> higher incidence of abuse does not mean that all famillies on welfare will abuse their children, just that statistically more likely.

It correlation doesnt even try to suggest the cause. Being on welfare is not necessarily the cause of the abuse.

 

[skyrider44]

. . .Why are you avoiding the divorce issue?

What is the "divorce issue?" I confess I don't know the meaning of that term.

 

[BadBoy]

Again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. I tend, however, to think there is a correlation between being on welfare/unemployed and a higher incidence of abuse.

Obviously, since a correlation is just a statistical observation, that its not one-size-fits-all.

Note also the reason for such a correlation (if there is one) may not be due to people being on welfare that causes the abuse.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Why do you continue to ignore the results of the recent studies?

Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."


You can read the article, of course, but note these key findings:

["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."

I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Skyrider44, I'd still like to pursue the following discussion:

Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

That's certainly a major part of it. Marriage makes it possible to bring children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other.

But there is no legal requirement that couples get married in order to raise children, nor is there a legal requirement that anyone who does marry must have children. And married couples are certainly not legally committed to each other in the sense that you are implying. If one or both parties are unhappy in the marriage, there is no legal requirement that they remain committed to one another.

So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?

 

[halleyscomet]

King James Bible
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."

How do you explain the fact that Temple Marriages, which are supposed to be for all time and eternity, are regularly granted a divorce by the Prophet?

Is he going against the word of God?

Fortunately, for me. I figured out long ago that there is no god.

Just man-made depictions of what a god should be like, and a lot of human, short comings of living up to those idealizations.

That's actually a pretty simple one. It has to do with Mormon concepts of what it really means to be "bound" to someone. You have to keep in mind, back in the old days , Mormons would "bind" their employees, so they would still have use of their services in the afterlife. Acting as the proxy in a baptism of the dead binds the decedent to you. Some LDS founders married women who were already married, and to justify this behavior, it was deemed that a new binding superseded the old one.

The people are still bound, but to someone new, not to each other. The existence of a binding remains intact. In a married couple, the husband would already be bound to his other wives. Since adultery was the primary grounds for divorce allowed at the time, the woman was just shifting her binding from her old husband to the new one. Marrying someone new WAS a divorce, not a separate act. This saved Smith, Young and the other polygamist elements of the LDS a lot of paperwork.

A modern temple divorce, unbinding someone from one person and not immediately binding them to someone else, is a relatively new development. It probably grew out of polygamy being banned within the LDS church. Once Men were no longer bound to multiple wives, a loophole was needed to allow men to get divorced without immediately remarrying.

 

[RandFan]

Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the increase or decrease of the number gays and lesbians having families.

 

[halleyscomet]

Skyrider44, I'd still like to pursue the following discussion:

So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?

Miracles.

Impossible pregnancies are a mark of divine blessing in the Bible. It's a proof of God, of divine intervention in human affairs. Sarah was a few decades past menopause when Abraham impregnated her with God's aid. Denying marriage to people who cannot have children would be denying God an opportunity to perform a miracle.

That's not to say marrying sterile partners is encouraged. There's still a good deal of blame attached to a "barren" woman. Despite the fact that it's assumed God can cause a pregnancy whenever it suits him, deliberately marrying someone sterile and then asking for a miracle amounts to demanding God provide proof. It's testing God, something you're not supposed to do.

 

[joobz]

Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."


You can read the article, of course, but note these key findings:

["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."

I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.

once again, you fell into the trap of looking at biased, bigoted sites attempting to use science to support their bigoted biases.

Here is the actual study "Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health The Role of Race-Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status" Journal of Health and Social Behavior March 2013 vol. 54 no. 1 25-45

It appeared on line in February (early access).

Note, here is the abstract from the paper: I shall bold some important points.

A legacy of research finds that marriage is associated with good health. Yet same-sex cohabitors cannot marry in most states in the United States and therefore may not receive the health benefits associated with marriage. We use pooled data from the 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys to compare the self-rated health of same-sex cohabiting men (n = 1,659) and same-sex cohabiting women (n = 1,634) with that of their different-sex married, different-sex cohabiting, and unpartnered divorced, widowed, and never-married counterparts. Results from logistic regression models show that same-sex cohabitors report poorer health than their different-sex married counterparts at the same levels of socioeconomic status. Additionally, same-sex cohabitors report better health than their different-sex cohabiting and single counterparts, but these differences are fully explained by socioeconomic status. Without their socioeconomic advantages, same-sex cohabitors would report similar health to nonmarried groups. Analyses further reveal important racial-ethnic and gender variations.

Notice this????
their key point is to show that co-habitation correlates with worse health as compared to marriage. To claim that this paper supports the idea that gay lifestyle is unhealthy is the height of bigoted dishonesty. Especially when they point out that cohabitation of opposite sex couples were equal in their unhealthiness.


Are you not bothered that people who agree with you need to lie and be deceitful to support their arguments? I wonder what parallels exist in this kind of dishonesty and the kind that Joseph Smith must have used to commit the fraud he made in writing the BoA?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."

No, it's not. That's the title of that article about the study that appears on the anti-gay LifeSiteNews.com site.

You can read the article, of course,...

We could, if you URL worked. [URL="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couples-less-healthy-than-married-heterosexuals-study-finds/"]Here's a link to the article.
Note that the article does not contain a single link to the actual study. It contains links to a couple of other LifeSiteNews.com articles, one to a right-wing blog, and one to an anti-gay Facebook page. The article is crap. It pretends to be a journalistic piece, but it's really just a propaganda piece.

but note these key findings:

["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."

Did you think that we wouldn't actually read the article? Why did you omit the text near the end which states:

The professor who led the newest health-related research, Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, chalked up the discrepancy to the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination.

Liu told the press, “If marriage can promote health, it is reasonable for us to expect that if same-sex couples had the advantage of legalized marriage, their health may be boosted."

Liu proceeded to suggest that filing joint tax returns may also boost health of same-sex couples, should they be permitted to “marry.”

I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.

Yes, there are. And often they've been the studies that you've presented in the belief that they support your position. You frequently cite studies that you clearly have not read. Did you pay the $32 to download the study? Did you even read the free abstract? If you'd bothered to pursue it, you'd have come across this:

A legacy of research finds that marriage is associated with good health. Yet same-sex cohabitors cannot marry in most states in the United States and therefore may not receive the health benefits associated with marriage. We use pooled data from the 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys to compare the self-rated health of same-sex cohabiting men (n = 1,659) and same-sex cohabiting women (n = 1,634) with that of their different-sex married, different-sex cohabiting, and unpartnered divorced, widowed, and never-married counterparts. Results from logistic regression models show that same-sex cohabitors report poorer health than their different-sex married counterparts at the same levels of socioeconomic status. Additionally, same-sex cohabitors report better health than their different-sex cohabiting and single counterparts, but these differences are fully explained by socioeconomic status. Without their socioeconomic advantages, same-sex cohabitors would report similar health to nonmarried groups. Analyses further reveal important racial-ethnic and gender variations.

I'm sorry, but Johanna Dasteel is either an idiot, dishonest, or both. And if you are really just making an unbiassed, pragmatic assessment of the available scientific evidence, then why do you keep citing studies that you clearly haven't read in the belief that they support your position?

 

[bruto]

.....Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)

I did not say the attempt to persuade has not occurred. You can flap your arms forever and not fly.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?

I'm quite sure you assign a position to me not of my making.

I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children. I haven't said that my rationale for opposing same-sex marriage is because the couple "cannot naturally produce offspring of their own."

Can you cite a post in which I say what you claim I said?

 

[skyrider44]

Oh there are lots of non-Mormons with discriminatory prejudices against homosexuals.

Maybe you'd like to actually address post #8942. Or #8938 for that matter.

I assume your problem with Post 8938 is that Mormons, by themselves, passed a bill banning gay marriage in CA. Is that it? Even if they did (doubtful at best), would you deny them the right to vote their consciences? Would you deny them access to the ballot box because they are Mormons?

As for Post 8942, I don't know what I wrote that you apparently found objectionable. Perhaps you can explain.

 

[halleyscomet]

once again, you fell into the trap of looking at biased, bigoted sites attempting to use science to support their bigoted biases.

Here is the actual study "Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health The Role of Race-Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status" Journal of Health and Social Behavior March 2013 vol. 54 no. 1 25-45

It appeared on line in February (early access).

Note, here is the abstract from the paper: I shall bold some important points.




Notice this????
their key point is to show that co-habitation correlates with worse health as compared to marriage. To claim that this paper supports the idea that gay lifestyle is unhealthy is the height of bigoted dishonesty. Especially when they point out that cohabitation of opposite sex couples were equal in their unhealthiness.


Are you not bothered that people who agree with you need to lie and be deceitful to support their arguments? I wonder what parallels exist in this kind of dishonesty and the kind that Joseph Smith must have used to commit the fraud he made in writing the BoA?

This means the study supports gay marriage, as it would reduce the amount of unmarried cohabitation.

<snip>

Edited by LossLeader: 

Edited. Moderated thread.