LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children.

Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.

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?

Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view, you have linked to papers that make that exact argument. (Remember your reference to the Harvard paper?). You would do well to actually read the references you use. It would help you avoid making these kinds of embarrassing posts.

 

[skyrider44]

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


We could, if you URL worked. 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.

Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Here are several posts you seem to have ignored:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9588060#post958806

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9593632#post9593632

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9594201#post9594201

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9597279#post9597279

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9598423#post9598423

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9598220#post9598220

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9599539#post9599539

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9599794#post9599794

Most of them are from the last few days. You can read them, of course, but note this key issue:

None of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) have anything to do with homosexuality at all. In fact, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is not said to have ever mentioned homosexuality.

On the other hand, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is said to have spoken directly, specifically, and restrictively about divorce, and about remarriage after divorce.

In spite of this, The CJCLDS sees fit to graciously "allow" individuals who are attracted to their own gender to be so, as long as they do not, in any way, act so. Mormons of apparently acceptable standing, with temple privileges and everything, see no problem identifying "homosexual behaviour as a "disgusting and abhorrent" lifestyle. Further, The CJCLDS has seen fit, as an organization, to become socially active in denying the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples, even when neither party of the couple is, in fact, a mormon, nor would ever choose to be.

At the same time, the CJCLDS provides counseling, support groups, and remediation for divorced mormons, up to and including allowing divorced mormons to re-marry at the highest level of temple privilege. Nor do we see the CJCLDS actively pursuing legal restrictions on, ot prohibition of, civil divorce, even for mormons.

Why is it that behaviour specifically proscribed, even forbidden, by Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) is allowed, supported, and remediated in the CJCLDS, while behaviour about which Jesus is not said to have said a word is reviled?

Again, I grant you, as I have allalong, that your sect may impose whatever standards it chooses upon its members. I do not grant that your sect's superstitions give them leave, authority, or permission to arrogate to enforce your rules, invented to control the behaviour of members, upon non-members and the public at large.

I do find it odd that your sect adopts the name "Jesus Christ" in its cognomen while so selectively applying the teachings attributed to Jesus, who was said to be said to be "the Christ".

 

[RandFan]

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

Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

=Originally Posted by skyrider44 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.

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote 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?

The defendants, in open court, were forced to concede that gay marriage could only help and strengthen the families of gays and lesbians.

There was never a mechanism proffered for why gays and lesbians couldn't marry. None

 

[RandFan]

Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.

You mean like astronomy is the other side of astrology, alchemey is the the other side of chemistry.

There are not tow scientific, reasonable sides based on science/

1. Previewed.
2. Published.
3. Replicated.

Do you have that?

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

Then why did you write, "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"?

I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children.

But you've also said that there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Given your inability to cite any research actually supporting that claim, I can only assume that you have a prejudicial objection to same-sex marriages and you are attempting to find the evidence to justify it.

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?

Yes.

skyrider44[/URL]]Biology alone tells you what marriage is not about.

Foster Zygote[/URL]]Could you clarify the above statement? Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?

skyrider44[/URL]]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.

 

[halleyscomet]

What is the official LDS position on people like Warren Jeffs? He claims to be Mormon, practiced Polygamy, is serving a life sentence for sexual assault on underage girls and yet still wields considerable political clout in some areas of Utah. A mayor even asked him to nominate people for the job of sheriff. When he was free, he pretty much WAS the local government right down to having non-members denied water hookups to the municipal water supply.

I bring this up, because the LDS Church's political involvement in the Marriage Equality debate strikes me as not that different from what Jeffs did. We can see in the linked articles above what happens when fundamentalism is allowed access to government surveillance systems and overall local government. Is the control Jeffs had over the town the kind of control the LDS Church wants over the communities where they have members? If not, where is the line in the sand they current claim they do not want to cross?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I assume your problem with Post 8938 is that Mormons, by themselves, passed a bill banning gay marriage in CA. Is that it?

No, that isn't it at all.

Here, let me link to it again.

It shows the absurdity of invoking, "bringing children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other" as any sort of test for marriage.

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?

They can vote any way they want. But if they vote for bigoted policies against other members of society and the only justification they can offer is their personal religious beliefs based on the lies of a con-man, then I'm going to point out that fact.

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

Perhaps you could actually look at the post? It wasn't your post, it was made by joobz. It destroys your claim that two peer-reviewed articles support your argument.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:

Nice red herring, but this isn't about liberal vs. conservative. It's about the methodology employed. The LifeSiteNews.com article is a blatant propaganda piece that only pretends to be backed up by scholarship for the benefit of its homophobic readership that doesn't know the difference. Just like the links you provide below.

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.

What a ridiculous thing to say. The "liberal" sources that I've relied on have been the actual scientific studies that your sources claimed supported their position. The difference is that I actually took the time to look up those sources and learn what they actually have to say, instead of simply parroting some politically biased site that misrepresents them. Seriously, my "liberal" sources have been publications like Social Science Research and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the sources that you introduced.

 

[bruto]

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.

Let us for the moment abandon any discussion of whether the LDS Church participated, as an institution, in the Prop. 8 issue, and pretend for the moment that paid advertisements and harangues from the pulpit, and the like, either did not happen or are not relevant. What IS relevant, if your statement is taken as written, is the inherent answer to the question you have asked over and over (and claim so insistently was simply a question and not a statement). You ask over and over, what harm is done to others if the Mormon founders were fraudulent and the gospels they authored false?

Well, here is your answer. Assuming that limited comprehension applies only to the reading and not to the writing of posts, the phrase "Mormons, by themselves," designates Mormons. Your post distinguishes the group so referenced from others, and the fact that they are Mormons is, thereby, made central to your argument about rights. It is clear from the manner in which it is written that you acknowledge the group in question acted as Mormons, because they are Mormons. And therefore, insofar as the group is acting on the basis of falsity and fraud, then the falsity and fraud are relevant to what they do. Nobody here is disputing the rights of "Mormons, by themselves," to voice their opinions or to vote their consciences. But when they do so, it is entirely relevant, and entirely permissible, for those who find their beliefs repugnant, to attack their beliefs and the basis of their beliefs. Nor does it matter whether or not they alone were responsible for the passage of the bill in question. If they participated, and if they did so openly as a result of their Mormon beliefs, then that is what they did.

 

[skyrider44]

No, that isn't it at all.

Here, let me link to it again.

It shows the absurdity of invoking, "bringing children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other" as any sort of test for marriage.

I didn't say it was a "test" for marriage; that is your unsupported, distorted interpretation.

They can vote any way they want. But if they vote for bigoted policies against other members of society and the only justification they can offer is their personal religious beliefs based on the lies of a con-man, then I'm going to point out that fact.

Why do you imagine that the "only justification" for some LDS supporting the CA initiative was "their personal religious beliefs"? Are you unaware that some LDS are devoted Democrats and liberals who sometimes take issue with Church positions?

Perhaps you could actually look at the post? It wasn't your post, it was made by joobz. It destroys your claim that two peer-reviewed articles support your argument.

It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.

 

[skyrider44]

Then why did you write, "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"?

Because it's true.

But you've also said that there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Given your inability to cite any research actually supporting that claim, I can only assume that you have a prejudicial objection to same-sex marriages and you are attempting to find the evidence to justify it.

A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."

 

[Loss Leader]

A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."

But you've admitted that the evidence does not identify any merit to the proposal. You've said that "the jury is still out". So you've formed an opinion before the jury has come back with a judgement. You've pre-judged the issue. That's the literal definition of prejudicial.

I, personally, would be much more satisfied if you came out and said you don't want gays to marry because you don't believe homosexuality is moral and you want to root it out of society entirely. That argument, while wrong, is at least consistent.

 

[joobz]

It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.

Argumentative.
Every bit of evidence that you have linked to in support of your anti-gay marriage view has been shown to be misinterpreted and fails to support your position. I have presented these arguments and you have failed to address them.

Most importantly, You have yet to address this clear question:

Do you support the banning of poor marriage(which your studies show is bad for children)?
If not, then why do you support the banning of gay marriage(which your studies show is not bad for children)?

 

[halleyscomet]

Because it's true.

Assuming you're correct, so what?

Marriage is a human institution that has changed dramatically over the last few thousand years. For example, the so-called "Nuclear Family" is more of an Industrial Age truncation of what we now call the "Extended Family." Instead of marrying into a family, people splintered off to become moveable, obedient cogs for industrial work. The sudden lack of the extended family's support resulted in parenting being more stressful, as there were fewer adults available to help with the kids.

The Mormon church can of course ban its members from same sex marriage, but it has no right to demand non-members adhere to their dogma, no matter how many badly flawed, readily debunked arguments they use to try and create an imaginary reason why gay married couples are somehow "worse" than heterosexual ones.

 

[RandFan]

Because it's true.



A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."

Actually it does.

 

[halleyscomet]

The evidence is mounting that homosexuality is not a choice.

HAWAII: Geneticist Testifies To Blow Away Claims About Choosing To Be Gay



To the LDS members here, do you think the mounting evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, a natural phenomenon will influence the religious response to marriage equality and adoption by gay parents?

Do you personally feel your beliefs challenged by the mounting evidence that homosexuality is not a choice? If not, what standard of evidence WOULD challenge your attitudes about homosexuals and oppressing them by denying them the opportunity to marry and have families?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I didn't say it was a "test" for marriage; that is your unsupported, distorted interpretation.

You clearly stated that "biology alone tells you what marriage is not about". Now you're backing out of it.

Why do you imagine that the "only justification" for some LDS supporting the CA initiative was "their personal religious beliefs"? Are you unaware that some LDS are devoted Democrats and liberals who sometimes take issue with Church positions?

The LDS hierarchy strongly influenced its membership to vote to restrict the rights of non-Mormon citizens based on their religious convictions regarding homosexuality.

It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.

You don't even know how to address the statistical issues that joobz points out, do you?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because it's true.

No, it's not. Married couples are not legally committed to each other. There is no requirement for a couple to get married before having children.

A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."

But so far, you've been completely unable to come up with any rational, scientifically based argument to oppose same-sex marriage. What else are we to make of the fact that you are clearly just Googling for anti-gay marriage sources and posting nothing but biased political websites that blatantly misrepresent studies that you have obviously not bothered to track down?

In science, you follow the evidence and see if it can lead you to a conclusion. Starting with a conclusion and then trying to make the evidence lead to it is the opposite of science, and is, by definition, prejudicial.

 

[skyrider44]

Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view, you have linked to papers that make that exact argument.

I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.

(Remember your reference to the Harvard paper?).

I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper. I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.