LDS II: The Mormons

[AdMan]

Perhaps you can tell me why your god gives children cancer? Janandele is avoiding the question.

Your question has nothing to do with my point.

It is still a valid question. Are you avoiding answering it just as Janadele is?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Are you aware of any religion whose work has been "scientifically confirmed"?

No. Why might that be?

That aside, you miss my point. Some on this thread have dismissed out-of-hand research sponsored by religious/conservative organizations.

This is untrue. The claims presented by these biased sources have been examined for their content and many errors and methodological problems have been brought to light.

I brought up Mendel to point out that the "The Father of Genetics" (the titles vary) did his work under the aegis of a monastery.

Yes. And his scientific methodology was not influenced by this fact. His science would have been the same had he been a Buddhist, Hindu, deist or atheist.

Darwin was a pastor?

No. He did study at Cambridge to be an Anglican clergyman early on, but his interests shifted to naturalism. During the voyage of the Beagle, he started out as a biblical literalist, but came to see many of the old Testament stories as allegorical by the time he returned home. He was still a theist when he wrote Origin. It wasn't until late in his life that he identified himself as an agnostic.

Can his work be trusted?[/QUOTE]
Yes. Because he was scientifically objective.

Not so. Work done on SS parenting by researchers affiliated with conservative and religious organizations has been excoriated on the basis of affiliation alone.

Untrue. Your biased sources have been excoriated for misrepresenting actual scientific studies. They have been show to rely on junk-science like the Regnerus study, which used poor sampling and poor statistical analysis to reach its conclusion, under the financial sponsorship of an organization opposed to same-sex marriage that was seeking ammunition to use in court. Many problems have been pointed out to you, but you choose to ignore them. Why?

I don't know to what this refers, though it's little more than a statement of the obvious.

I suspect that you know exactly to what abaddon is referring.

So it would seem, given the volume of favorable reports about SS parenting hereon. I note, not without amusement, that the well left-of-center New Yorker magazine recently published a pro homosexual piece (as I recall, it was about gay marriage, but could have included SS parenting). Borrowing the gay activists' tactics, it would be appropriate for me to dismiss/besmirch that article based on its politics.

It sounds like you've already done that. You can pretend all you like that the arguments you've presented haven't been addressed and shown to be erroneous, and even dishonest. You can pretend that we've attacked the Mayo Clinic piece that you linked to, even though no one has done anything of the sort. You can pretend that you haven't linked to sources that actually contradict your position. Just don't expect us to ignore those facts, or what this behavior says about your own biases.

The fact that the Mayo Clinic found it important/necessary to warn homosexuals about the dangers inherent in their lifestyles--yes, that IS what they did, and they did it fully aware that they would take heat for doing so-- that fact speaks for itself. The "discussion" to which you refer was designed to mitigate the article's impact.

Your continued insistence that the Mayo Clinic piece was an indictment of the "gay lifestyle" is approaching deliberate dishonesty. There is no single "gay lifestyle". If you think that all homosexuals fall into a category of negative stereotypes that you've adopted then there really is no other way to describe your attitude than as "bigotry". Plenty of heterosexuals live a lifestyle that warrants exactly the same precautionary advice, yet we don't see you characterizing such cautionary guidelines as an indictment of the "heterosexual lifestyle". Again, you are applying double standards weighted against homosexuals.

 

[skyrider44]

Yes, we all know about Mendel. Remember, you used him in your attempt to justify your assertion that faith is a component of the scientific method. Ironically, I pointed out then that Mendel's religious beliefs were not a part of his scientific methodology. If Mendel had argued for some unsupported claim on the basis of its religious correctness, then you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

My point was that the wholesale condemnation of research by individuals associated with religious/conservative institutions is wrong. Some contributors to this thread are guilty of that very thing; i.e., judging the merits of research reports based on the researchers' institutional affiliation.

:If someone makes claims about international Jewish banking conspiracies and cites "research" originating from Arian Nation websites, it would be about as objective as citing the anti-homosexual "research" that you have presented.

The research I have presented doesn't happen to fit into your draconian analogy. Do you think the reports you cite emanate from sources that do not have an agenda. . .that are perfectly objective?

: I'm sure that many religious people are involved in legitimate science concerning the sociology of various homosexual issues. That isn't a problem as long as they don't let their religious views influence their research. But all you have managed to produce is pseudo-science, designed to appeal to people who don't know how the scientific method works, and produced by bigots who want to justify their desire to discriminate against people whom they regard as morally inferior to themselves.

Your sentence that begins "But all you have managed. . . ." is an adventure in conjecture. The only way you know that the researchers involved are bigots is that they publish findings that contradict your gay activist agenda.

: I'm getting the strong impression that you are not even bothering to read much of what is being posted in this thread. It has been explained to you more than once that the Mayo Clinic page you cited was not being disputed, at all. What was disputed was your false claim that it was presenting issues unique to homosexuals. Is that so hard to comprehend? What does your failure to pay attention to such a simple point say about your objectivity regarding this issue?

I didn't say that the Mayo Clinic information was "unique" to homosexuals; however, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize recipient to understand that concerns about the dangers involved in the homosexual lifestyle motivated the Mayo report. Obviously, promiscuous heterosexuals who engage in gay practices face the same dangers. I assume you aren't prepared to argue that gays are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Could SS marriage change that? At this point, no one knows.

 

[skyrider44]

Well, not actually, and it would be simplistic and naive of you to claim so.

Had Fr. Mendel, for instance, claimed that it was impious to investigate why genetic combinations happen in the ratios they do, because those combinations simply represent the perfect will of 'god', that would, in fact, be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. Had he, for instance, claimed that a "heathen" would not see the same ratios, because she would not find favor with 'god', that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable. If he distorted his findings to reflect a papal mandate of what the "holy" ratio should be, that would be a reason to find his conclusions unacceptable.

Of course; however, your analogy fails. Why? Because the researchers associated with religious/conservative institutions are not guilty of the hypothetical transgressions you assign to Mendel.

. . . when religious organizations, and conservative organizations, and conservative religious organizations distort the findings of studies, they should not be surprised to find their contributions discounted.

You have proof, do you, that religious and conservative organizations have distorted the findings they report to make them discount the findings reported by gay activist researchers?

See, for example, the hordes, simply fabulous hordes, of egyptologists, anthropologists, paleontologists, linguists, and historians depending upon JS' "translations" of the BoA as their sole source of historical and lexicographical accuracy.

This relates somehow, does it, to the integrity of research performed by
individuals studying gay marriage and SS parenting? If it did, I assume a pro-gay research report would include introductory information about Joseph Smith and the founding of the LDS Church.

...which recommended precautions, also urged for heterosexuals, have what, exactly, to do with the "good of the children"?

The following statements by Dr. David van Gend and sociologist David Popenoe are relevant:

"The life between mother and baby is the most profound human bond, but that primal relationship is abolished by the 'marriage' of two men. Homosexual marriage heralds an authentic 'gay stolen generation,' destined to the same disorientation and pain as children conceived by anonymous sperm donor fathers or removed at birth from single mothers." http://www.familypolicycenter.org/id76.html

Dr. Gend quotes sociologist David Popenoe: "Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children" [underlining added]. Source: Same as above.

 

[halleyscomet]

The fact that the Mayo Clinic found it important/necessary to warn homosexuals about the dangers inherent in their lifestyles--yes, that IS what they did, and they did it fully aware that they would take heat for doing so-- that fact speaks for itself. The "discussion" to which you refer was designed to mitigate the article's impact.

I'm still confused.

Given the inherent health risks of promiscuity, which is the exact set of risks the Mayo Clinic warned about, why are you opposing gay marriage, when it's been demonstrated that legalizing gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity?

It's as if you were using the fact that a child has Strep Throat as an argument against giving her antibiotics.

Why do you keep talking about the Mayo Clinic study, when the conclusions you're trying to draw regarding it constitute a medical justification for legalizing gay marriage?

 

[halleyscomet]

I'd be curious to hear what the gay marriage opponents think of this video:

http://aattp.org/watch-this-teen-de...-marriage-in-his-stunning-bar-mitzvah-speech/

Duncan McAlpine Sennett delivered an unbelievable Bar Mitzvah speech in support of same-sex marriage. Sennett spoke his d’var Torah analysis regarding the chapter in Genesis which tells the story of Jacob’s marriage to Leah and Rachel, two sisters who also happened to be his first cousins. During his speech, he stated that, "the definition of traditional marriage is nothing like what people think it is today."

 

[skyrider44]

[/U]

Not so fast. The underlined portion of your post takes liberties with the truth. There are other studies, just as credible, that show children raised by SS parents suffer a variety of problems compared to children raised by heterosexual parents. I have posted some of those studies, but for you and some others they are dead on arrival.

: Where do you find the "right of religious organizations to determine whom they will join in 'holy wedlock' " to need protecting?

Is this more of your "gaoled" pastor false witness?

Please demonstrate a single, actual, honestly-described case of a church entity being forced by law to perform a marriage between same-gender individuals.

I have said nothing about the three topics/issues listed above; hence, I'm at a loss trying to understand why you direct them at me.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . The Mayo clinic report isn't being attacked. What is being attacked is your interpretation of what the report says.

That cuts both ways. Why do you assume that your interpretation of the report (and you have interpreted it) is uniquely correct?

 

[skyrider44]

Assuming a heterosexual couple has children, and assuming the couple is promiscuous, what effect do you think the couple's lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

It will affect the children negatively.

If, however, the parents are of the same sex, the children's confusion about gender roles and their own sexual identity--already a problem for them--is likely to be amplified.

You want to see a study? I recall seeing one; I'll try to find it.

 

[skyrider44]

. . .You are going way out of your way to engage in special pleading.

No "special pleading" is required. The Mayo Clinic stated what it stated, and--unlike statements by some organizations that are openly conservative or religious and opposed to gay marriage--you are unable to denigrate statements/credentials of the Mayo Clinic.

I am not saying that the Mayo Clinic opposes gay marriage (I have no information about that); I am saying that the Mayo Clinic is aware of risks to the health of homosexuals. Thus they felt it necessary to make those risks public without singling out gays (not only for political reasons, but also because the precautions they list can apply to heterosexuals as well).

 

[skyrider44]

No. Why might that be?

My comment was based on your innuendo that other churches have had their positions scientifically confirmed, but the LDS Church has not.

: This is untrue. The claims presented by these biased sources have been examined for their content and many errors and methodological problems have been brought to light.

So, all the sources--every single one of them--that are opposed to gay marriage and SS parenting are biased, while all of your sources (those advocating gay marriage and defending SS parenting) are 100% correct--right? No errors "and methodological problems" can be found in even one pro gay marriage/SS parenting study? Right? You have taken an indefensible position.

Yes. And his scientific methodology was not influenced by this fact. His science would have been the same had he been a Buddhist, Hindu, deist or atheist.

You don't know that because you don't know if another religious organization would have supported his work, as the monastery did. I understand your point; i.e., the scientific method is inviolate, but it must be allowed to operate in an unhindered environment.

No. He did study at Cambridge to be an Anglican clergyman early on, but his interests shifted to naturalism. During the voyage of the Beagle, he started out as a biblical literalist, but came to see many of the old Testament stories as allegorical by the time he returned home. He was still a theist when he wrote Origin. It wasn't until late in his life that he identified himself as an agnostic.

A development that didn't make Mrs. Darwin happy (referring to your last sentence).

Untrue. Your biased sources have been excoriated for misrepresenting actual scientific studies. They have been show to rely on junk-science like the Regnerus study, which used poor sampling and poor statistical analysis to reach its conclusion, under the financial sponsorship of an organization opposed to same-sex marriage that was seeking ammunition to use in court. Many problems have been pointed out to you, but you choose to ignore them. Why?

Again, you insist that all of my sources are biased, but specify a grand total of one (Regnerus). I don't find that especially convincing.

You can pretend that we've attacked the Mayo Clinic piece that you linked to, even though no one has done anything of the sort.

You have "attacked the Mayo Clinic piece" by denying that it was particularly applicable to people who live a homosexual lifestyle, whether or not they are homosexuals.

You can pretend that you haven't linked to sources that actually contradict your position. Just don't expect us to ignore those facts, or what this behavior says about your own biases.

What you don't understand is that there are no clear-cut answers to the issues under discussion. You and those who think as you do seem to believe that it has been proven that children raised by SS parents are not negatively affected in any way. That has not been clearly established. Why? Because the length of time SS parenting has been studied is too short, and the sample sizes are too small.

: Your continued insistence that the Mayo Clinic piece was an indictment of the "gay lifestyle" is approaching deliberate dishonesty.

I'm reasonably certain I haven't used the word "indictment." I'm also reasonably certain that the Mayo statement was an appropriate, well-intentioned advisory directed to those who live a homosexual lifestyle.

: There is no single "gay lifestyle". If you think that all homosexuals fall into a category of negative stereotypes that you've adopted then there really is no other way to describe your attitude than as "bigotry".

You conclude that because I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman (a position backed by countless centuries of humankind experience),
you find it expedient to play the "bigotry" card. Forgive me, but that smacks of desperation.

Plenty of heterosexuals live a lifestyle that warrants exactly the same precautionary advice, yet we don't see you characterizing such cautionary guidelines as an indictment of the "heterosexual lifestyle". Again, you are applying double standards weighted against homosexuals.

Please read the words I have hi-lighted above.

 

[skyrider44]

I'm still confused.

Given the inherent health risks of promiscuity, which is the exact set of risks the Mayo Clinic warned about, why are you opposing gay marriage, when it's been demonstrated that legalizing gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity?

The time period for studying gay marriage is too short, and the sample size too small for any organization to claim that "legalizing gay marriage reduces promiscuity."

. . . the conclusions you're trying to draw regarding it constitute a medical justification for legalizing gay marriage?

They may or may not. Substantially more data are required, including the gay marriage divorce rate.

 

[Pup]

I am not saying that the Mayo Clinic opposes gay marriage (I have no information about that); I am saying that the Mayo Clinic is aware of risks to the health of homosexuals. Thus they felt it necessary to make those risks public without singling out gays (not only for political reasons, but also because the precautions they list can apply to heterosexuals as well).

So you're okay with lesbians having sex and/or getting married, then, because they're not sticking their penises in the dangerous places that the Mayo Clinic warns about, right?

 

[halleyscomet]

No "special pleading" is required. The Mayo Clinic stated what it stated, and--unlike statements by some organizations that are openly conservative or religious and opposed to gay marriage--you are unable to denigrate statements/credentials of the Mayo Clinic.

I am not saying that the Mayo Clinic opposes gay marriage (I have no information about that); I am saying that the Mayo Clinic is aware of risks to the health of homosexuals. Thus they felt it necessary to make those risks public without singling out gays (not only for political reasons, but also because the precautions they list can apply to heterosexuals as well).

You appear to have missed the following questions:

I'm still confused.

Given the inherent health risks of promiscuity, which is the exact set of risks the Mayo Clinic warned about, why are you opposing gay marriage, when it's been demonstrated that legalizing gay marriage reduces gay promiscuity?

It's as if you were using the fact that a child has Strep Throat as an argument against giving her antibiotics.

Why do you keep talking about the Mayo Clinic study, when the conclusions you're trying to draw regarding it constitute a medical justification for legalizing gay marriage?

If you are using the Mayo Clinic warnings about the risks of promiscuity as a justification for opposing gay parenting, do you also oppose allowing single parents or promiscuous parents to keep their children?

If you are NOT arguing that promiscuous parents should not be allowed to keep their children, they why not? How do you justify this contradiction? Why should a promiscuous homosexual be denied a parental role, but a promiscuous heterosexual be allowed it?

 

[Foster Zygote]

My point was that the wholesale condemnation of research by individuals associated with religious/conservative institutions is wrong. Some contributors to this thread are guilty of that very thing; i.e., judging the merits of research reports based on the researchers' institutional affiliation.

And my point is that what you have presented has been critically examined for its argumentative content and has been shown to be lacking. Your sources aren't wrong because they are biased, they are biased because they misrepresent the truth in order to fabricate support for their position.

The research I have presented doesn't happen to fit into your draconian analogy. Do you think the reports you cite emanate from sources that do not have an agenda. . .that are perfectly objective?

I haven't cited any reports. All the citations that I've addressed have been your own, including the one that you couldn't possible have bothered to read because it said in giant font at the top that the data used could not be applied to the issue of same-sex marriage. Are you even paying attention to the arguments being made against your position?

Your sentence that begins "But all you have managed. . . ." is an adventure in conjecture. The only way you know that the researchers involved are bigots is that they publish findings that contradict your gay activist agenda.

I know they're bigots because they distort the truth to support their opposition to homosexuals.

I didn't say that the Mayo Clinic information was "unique" to homosexuals; however, it doesn't take a Nobel Prize recipient to understand that concerns about the dangers involved in the homosexual lifestyle motivated the Mayo report. Obviously, promiscuous heterosexuals who engage in gay practices face the same dangers.

There you go with that "gay lifestyle" thing again. Please tell me why homosexuals who have multiple partners are representative of the "gay lifestyle" while heterosexuals who do the same are not representative of the "heterosexual lifestyle".

I assume you aren't prepared to argue that gays are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals.

If they are, don't you think that the fact that most states in the Union don't allow them to marry might have something to do with that?

Could SS marriage change that? At this point, no one knows.

Then why are you opposed to same-sex unions?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That cuts both ways. Why do you assume that your interpretation of the report (and you have interpreted it) is uniquely correct?

Perhaps it is because the Mayo Clinic advisory never states that the cautions offered are unique to homosexuals.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It will affect the children negatively.

If, however, the parents are of the same sex, the children's confusion about gender roles and their own sexual identity--already a problem for them--is likely to be amplified.

You want to see a study? I recall seeing one; I'll try to find it.

Yeah, let's see that study.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No "special pleading" is required. The Mayo Clinic stated what it stated, and--unlike statements by some organizations that are openly conservative or religious and opposed to gay marriage--you are unable to denigrate statements/credentials of the Mayo Clinic.

I am not saying that the Mayo Clinic opposes gay marriage (I have no information about that); I am saying that the Mayo Clinic is aware of risks to the health of homosexuals. Thus they felt it necessary to make those risks public without singling out gays (not only for political reasons, but also because the precautions they list can apply to heterosexuals as well).

You've just tanked your own argument.

 

[joobz]

If, however, the parents are of the same sex, the children's confusion about gender roles and their own sexual identity--already a problem for them--is likely to be amplified.

Ignoring for a moment that there isn't legitimate evidence that homosexual parents negatively impact children's sexual identity, This is a very interesting statement as it implies that confusion regarding gender roles and sexual identity doesn't happen in children from heterosexual parents.

But, to put a sharper point on this: your emphasis on gender roles suggests that there is a "correct" gender role that a male or female must adopt.

100 years ago, a woman wearing pants would have been viewed as a "gender role confusion". Yet, would you consider a mother who wore pants as a dangerous influence to her children...as she may be amplifying gender role confusion? What about a father who chooses to wear a skirt? Would it matter if he was Scottish?


Does a father who is unable to show emotion a "proper gender role"?
What about one who chooses to not watch football?

 

[joobz]

That cuts both ways. Why do you assume that your interpretation of the report (and you have interpreted it) is uniquely correct?

because I do not interpret the report to say anything other than what it says:
There are health concerns that gay men should be cautious of. In particular, STDs, Depression and poor body image.

Clearly, these issues are seen in the general public and are not exclusively the domain of gay men. As such, your continual harping on it is quite....bizarre.