LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

Uhm...Basically I postulate that you will not be able to produce one piece of proof that says that the benefits of breastfeeding can not be wholly simulated by a man.

That's because producing such proof is wholly unnecessary. One might as well undertake an effort to prove that water runs downstream.

Neither in the warmth, the sucking of a nipple, the transference of bacteria or the content of mothers' milk.

Indeed, hundreds of men nationwide earn extra money by serving as wet nurses.

It is taken as a "given" that breastfeeding is beneficial because of all of these biological mechanisms, but not a single study (not even one of your links) shows that the agent *must* be the mother or even a woman.

It's also taken as a "given" that only a woman can conceive and bear a child.

 

[joobz]

My point was that pro-gay activists dismiss every site that opposes their positions, but accept without question every site that supports their positions.

So, you justify your behavior by asserting that this is what pro-gay activists do?

You don't like the Heritage Foundation because it is conservative, and Kim's article pointed out some significant problems involving pro-gay research.

You would be better advised to analyze Kim's article based on its merits or lack thereof.

That has already been done. Multiple times.
here is one from over a month ago.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9586591#post9586591

On the contrary, I have cited several studies that you auto-reject.

You haven't cited one single study directly. You have only cited others who site studies. And in most cases, you are citing people who citing people who cite studies.

The "remedial scrutiny" of which you write is seen by gay activists through a lens that filters out any information that challenges their position.

So your goal is to be as good as "gay activists"?

Numerous studies have shown, for example, that where children are involved, they do significantly better when raised by heterosexual parents as compared to children raised by same-sex parents.

that is as false as someone claiming that the sun revolves around the earth. If it were true, you would actually be able to present ORIGINAL RESEARCH instead of opinion pieces.

You seek to strike at the very heart of a healthy society--the family unit.

I seek to enhance and strengthen the family unit. Allowing gay marriage will do just that. It will mean more people will have a stable family unit.

Or do you believe that gay marriage will destabilize heterosexual marriage?

You do not know, and reputable social scientists do not know, what will happen to our society if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide.

People also didn't know what the impact of integration would have on society.

And if it does become legal, what's next on the anything-goes "progressive" agenda?

Why do you ask? Are you hoping to put polygamy on the docket?

By the way, since when did equal treatment under the law = "anything goes"?

Wrong. You assume, for example, that if gay marriage is legalized, the high rate of promiscuity among gays will drop. You don't know if it will or not.

I do not care one bit about this.
Promiscuity isn't illegal.
Permitting gay marriage isn't about lowering rates of promiscuity. that's YOUR hangup.
Permitting gay marriage is about equality under the law. If it is only 0.000001% of gays that want to get married, it is still their right to marry their gay partner.

I care about children. It doesn't matter if they are part of a SS parental household or not. The example set by two same-sex individuals being married sends a message that isn't healthy for children as they seek to validate their sexual identity. SS marriage demolishes the principle that every child deserves to have a mother and a father.

clearly, you refuse to believe the science.
So let's go another way: Would you permit gay marriage if you were to ban them from having children?
This would completely eliminate your "think of the children" argument.
would you oppose gay marriage in that setting?

 

[Olowkow]

Determining whether a particular couple or individual is qualified or equipped financially, psychologically and morally to adopt a child is the province of the adoption agency. One can only hope their officials do a thorough job.

Open marriages among gays and heterosexual couples seem to be more and more common, but there is a big difference between an open marriage and sexual promiscuity.

An interesting New York Times article on open marriages among gays points out how some couples do not need the vow of sexual fidelity to be happy. Dan Savage has addressed this many times, and he uses the term "monogamish", meaning "kind of monogamous". He and his husband have an adopted boy, around 15 years old now, I think.

A study to be released next month is offering a rare glimpse inside gay relationships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some gay men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counter intuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among gay men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners.

While hinting that his marriage is "monogamish", Savage also decries the tendency towards promiscuity, many short term sexual partners, among some in the gay community. Since AIDS, and the hope of marriage, the widespread culture of multiple partners is on the decline if I remember his stats correctly.

Of course most of us prefer to remain faithful to one partner, but the determination of whether an open marriage is an impediment to adoption, in any parental situation gay or straight, should be for the agency's investigators to decide. Rampant promiscuity is probably a deal breaker, I would imagine.

 

[realpaladin]

That's because producing such proof is wholly unnecessary. One might as well undertake an effort to prove that water runs downstream.

Indeed, hundreds of men nationwide earn extra money by serving as wet nurses.

It's also taken as a "given" that only a woman can conceive and bear a child.

Good, so you agree that there is no biological necessity for a woman in anything after birth.

Therefore you also concede to the point that biologically a same sex couple is the equal to a male /female couple.

Why are you against same sex marriages again?

 

[Foster Zygote]

That's because producing such proof is wholly unnecessary. One might as well undertake an effort to prove that water runs downstream.



Indeed, hundreds of men nationwide earn extra money by serving as wet nurses.



It's also taken as a "given" that only a woman can conceive and bear a child.

You seem to be agreeing with realpaladin. So what does breastfeeding have to do with same-sex marriage?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . reread my statement. I said being poor is more damaging to children than being gay. This is comparative statement. It is not a statement that both are damaging.

Yes, it's a comparative statement--precisely so. it compares the amount of damage suffered by poor children with the amount of damage suffered by children with SS parents. As such, it implies that both suffer damage.

AND (what you seem to choose to ignore) is that what I said is based upon the science. I was pointing out the fact that being a poor parent is consistently worse (by the studies) than being a gay parent.

That may be true, but "consistently worse" implies that gay parents have some degree of "worseness."

Why are you not advocating for poor people from marrying?*

Because wealth or lack of it is not a criterion for receiving a marriage license. I realize that doesn't answer your question; however, there is such a thing as societal norms, and at present marriage law observes them (in most states).

*I know the answer to this. You know the answer to this. I know you know the answer to this. I know you know that I know the answer to this. What I do not know is why you pretend to not know that I know that you know that I know the answer to this.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I wonder if the CJCLDS will have a constitutional law-inspired "revelation" about marriage equality like unto the constitutional law-inspired "revelation" about ploygamy...

http://fox13now.com/2013/12/20/federal-judge-strikes-down-utahs-ban-on-same-sex-marriage/

http://localtvkstu.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/amendment3ruling.pdf

 

[skyrider44]

It was you who stated that breastfeeding forms a bond that can't be formed any other way, and then refused to back up that claim, wasn't it? Thus, it can be inferred that, to you, women who can't or don't breastfeed, for whatever reason, are denying their child a bond they would otherwise have. It's an inaccurate inference, but that is what YOU implied by your erroneous statement.

My statement wasn't erroneous; I stand by it. Note the following:

1) "Scientists have discovered the secret behind how breastfeeding helps mothers bond with their babies. Childcare experts have long known that the closeness and intimacy of breastfeeding strengthens maternal affection. But a study out today has discovered that the action of a baby sucking actually changes how the mother's brain behaves. This results in a massive rush of the 'love hormone' oxytocin in women's brains." The article explains in detail how oxytocin works. The research was conducted by a team from Warwick University, and the report appears in the journal Public Library of Science Computational Biology.
www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1036151/Breast-feeding-DOES-help-mothers-bond-babies--releases-love-hormone.html

2) The May, 2011 issue of The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry reports that researchers at Yale University have found evidence that "breast milk may be the key to mother-baby bonding" [emphasis added]. The link to the article is somewhat confusing. I suggest you enter "Breast-Feeding Is Important to Mother-Baby Bonding," under the heading The Top 10 Everything of 2011.

Efforts by some to immediately characterize these studies as "junk science" will be less than persuasive considering the sources.

 

[joobz]

That may be true

Excellent. you admit that being poor is consistently measurably bad for children.
Being gay has never demonstrated this level of danger. As such, to use this as a reason to deny gay marriage is an exercise in double standards.

, but "consistently worse" implies that gay parents have some degree of "worseness."

No it doesn't.

A person who continually comes in 2nd place is consistently worse than a person who comes in consistently 1st.

Because wealth or lack of it is not a criterion for receiving a marriage license.

irrelevant to the point.

I realize that doesn't answer your question;

Then why even say it?

however, there is such a thing as societal norms, and at present marriage law observes them (in most states).

So now you admit it. It has NOTHING to do with child welfare. It has ALL to do with your arbitrary "societal norms"

Let's recap:
1.) Slavery used to be a societal norm
2.) Women not being allowed to vote was a societal norm
3.) Segregation (including the LDS ban against black priests) was a societal norm

These norms change as societal adopts the ideals of america, that all men and women are created equal.

The only problem here is your "societal norm" is clearly outdated.

 

[AdMan]

Pretty soon it may not matter what you want to believe, skyrider.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story/judge-strikes-utahs-sex-marriage-ban-21293820

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is such a thing as societal norms, and at present marriage law observes them (in most states).

It was once a societal norm to prohibit marriages between "mixed race" couples.

 

[Olowkow]

The paper entitled Emergent Synchronous Bursting of Oxytocin Neuronal Network appears to be the one referenced by sr44 from his Daily Mail link.

While the research is interesting, and very possibly sound, I don't understand what the study has to do with same sex marriage; it will not lead to win in a debate on the merits or pitfalls of same sex marriage.

As has been mentioned many times, wedded or not, lesbian, gay or straight, couples (or singles) who adopt an infant are not likely to be engaging in breastfeeding in any case. Furthermore, many adoptions are often not neonates. An infant who is being placed up for adoption does not have its natural mother to provide nursing...whether gays are permitted to marry or not.

Incidentally, in principle, it is technically not impossible for a man to breastfeed a child. Below is a response to the question, "Can men breastfeed?"

What an intriguing question! I'm sure that many men have wished they could, especially when they see the closeness that develops between a nursing mother and her infant.

Yes, in theory, men can breastfeed. Male breasts have milk ducts, and some mammary tissue. They also have oxytocin and prolactin, the hormones responsible for milk production. There have been reports of men who were able to produce milk through extensive breast and nipple stimulation, but no one knows whether the milk was of the same composition or quality as the kind women produce. Using a pump, or a feeding tube (a small silicone tube attached to a plastic bottle filled with formula) at his breast, he might be able to get a baby to latch on and suckle, but how long it would take to produce even drops of milk is anyone's guess.

So, I keep returning to the question of the day. Why are LDS followers so antagonistic to the idea of same sex marriage? Welfare of the children, particularly the nursing argument, really is not making any sense to me as a valid concern, but rather as a red herring to shroud the real reasons behind this belief.

I found these facts about adoption informative:

• Currently Florida is the only state that bans adoption by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Some states, such as Mississippi, allow a man or woman to adopt alone but will not allow second-parent adoption by a same gender partner. The state of Utah prevents any unmarried couples from adopting.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents. An estimated 65,500 adopted American children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.

The state of Utah does not allow unmarried couples to adopt, so working to outlaw same sex marriage would certainly prevent gay couples from adopting. Except that there is this breaking news as I type this post.
In Utah, judge's ruling ignites same-sex marriage frenzy

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/20/justice/utah-same-sex-marriage-ruling/
updated 10:17 PM EST, Fri December 20, 2013
It was joyful mayhem Friday night in the county clerk's office in Salt Lake City, Utah, after a federal judge struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, saying the law "conflicts with the United States Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and due process under the law."

Off topic: The Daily Mail has a very bad reputation for truth, much like World Net Daily. I'd be careful referencing them in debate. In this case, it is probably an acceptable summary of the research, but personally I feel more comfortable with the BBC's article on the subject. At least they gave the name of the PI.

 

[desertgal]

While the research is interesting, and very possibly sound, I don't understand what the study has to do with same sex marriage; it will not lead to win in a debate on the merits or pitfalls of same sex marriage.

It doesn't. Skyrider made an erroneous statement that I took exception to, and responded to before considering that it was off topic. Apologies to all for the thread drift. I'll refrain from commenting further on the breastfeeding issue, since it really is irrelevant.

On topic, I would like to see Skyrider provide conclusive evidence that children are consistently damaged by being raised in a solid, loving household with a legally and emotionally committed same sex couple.

I'll wait. Forever, I expect.

 

[Loss Leader]

While the research is interesting, and very possibly sound, I don't understand what the study has to do with same sex marriage; it will not lead to win in a debate on the merits or pitfalls of same sex marriage.

For that matter, I don't understand what SSM has to do with the CLDS. They funded large, robust programs to defeat it, but they've lost in every state they tried. Marriage equality is now a fact in California and ... well ... Utah.

The overarching question left in my mind concerns the reportedly strong impulse to disenfranchise gay family members. Is this a function of Mormonism, of narrow-minded conservatism, of some other social pressure, or has it been imagined by the non-Mormon populace?

Furthermore, will the normalization of homosexual unions help pull the CLDS along into the future the way the black civil rights movement managed to win them over in 1978? You've got to think that the Mormon leadership 20 years from now will be composed almost entirely of people who spent their adult-lives with the reality of gay marriage.

 

[Pup]

Good, so you agree that there is no biological necessity for a woman in anything after birth.

Therefore you also concede to the point that biologically a same sex couple is the equal to a male /female couple.

Why are you against same sex marriages again?

You seem to be agreeing with realpaladin. So what does breastfeeding have to do with same-sex marriage?

Not sure whose sarcasm meter is broken, but I took Skyrider's answer to be sarcastic, especially this line:

Indeed, hundreds of men nationwide earn extra money by serving as wet nurses.

Obviously, they don't. Um, we all know what wet nurses are, right? I realize it's biologically possible and male lactation has been reported, but it's certainly not done commercially in the hundreds.

So I took Skyrider to be saying that breastfeeding is as obviously female a trait as giving birth and therefore it's self evident that only females can provide the benefits.

 

[scarlettinlondon]

Judge Shelby for teh win.

As it happens, I have been following this thread and even contributed to it a few times. Unusual for me as I tend to be a learner here rather than a poster.

It seems to me that after all these pages this thread has accomplished a little. It has certainly informed and educated me and probably other lurkers too. It may even have informed some people who were sitting on the fence to the extent that they might reconsider their personal position.

Therefore in essence, it is a good and effective thing, within limitations.

What it has signally failed to do is alter in any way, shape or form the views of a couple of posters, including skyrider who have maintained their position despite the well reasoned arguments and evidence. Therefore, I think I would accept that if it can't be done here, in this way (gentle reasoned argument) it probably can't be done at all and therefore this effort has been ineffective.

Just because I think that reasoned argument supported by the evidence, presented well and in a generally amiable tone is the way forward doesn't mean that it actually works with everyone.

In a way, I admire Skyrider at al for their strong beliefs contrary to the evidence. They remind me of my mother, an uneducated but determined woman taking my dad home from hospital at the end of his life against all medical advice (and against my advice) because she was following her personal beliefs in what was right. It hastened his death to a certain extent, but he got the death he would have wanted rather than dying in the middle of the night alone in hospital. She was right and I was wrong.

The issue is that I think that they truly believe that they are doing the right thing. It's a crusade to them, and this thread is not going to change their views. Particularly when opposing views are based on evidence. Evidence is not what matters to their views and to an extent I admire this passion in the same way that I admire my mother's actions.

Therefore if we think that it is not likely that skyrider etc will ever change their views, our best efforts should surely be directed to ENSURING that these views do not impact on others.

In saying that I admire deeply held beliefs of this nature I do not say that I agree with them. In fact I disagree vehemently. However, some tremendously intelligent and well read and informed people on this thread are putting their best efforts (and they are damn good) into what is essentially a waste of time. These arguments should be disseminated from a more public platform in a more targeted way. Now, in the UK this would include, among others, letters to the Times and letters to our MPs. Joining in civil rights demonstrations and writing and sharing pamphlets.

It's probably fair to say that Skyrider's beliefs will not change. Therefore our work should be to ensure that they do not impact on other folks. We should be trying to change the laws not the individuals. There are folks out there who will listen, Skyrider is not one of them I think.


Please don't lose sight of this folks. This is important world changing stuff. You are important, educated and reasonable chaps. Once we have the rights for gays across the world that we want, we will look back on this era as being as quaint and out of date as the segregation era. And we are winning, no doubt. And no doubt Skyrider's views will remain exactly the same.

I would love to see your passion being played out on a larger stage, one where it could really make a difference. I don't have the debating skills to do it, but you do!

I therefore view this thread as a hopeless waste of time, talent, passion and ingenuity. I only say this because i can really see that this drive could be used more effectively to gain freedoms faster and to genuinely make a difference.

Unless you are doing it for the LOLZ. In which case, as you were........

 

[tsig]

By supporting same-sex marriage, you are part of the process of changing white to black. I don't think that such a change--overturning centuries of tradition and violating natural law--would be a good thing. You, in contrast, think it would be a good thing. There are reputable studies that support both
of our positions.



You ask me to respond to a falsehood that comes perilously close to a ad hominem attack. I am not biased against gays. I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).



Here you open the valve to a veritable cascade of falsehoods about me. There is nothing I can do about that.

Didn't Joe overturn centuries of tradition?

 

[Olowkow]

It doesn't. Skyrider made an erroneous statement that I took exception to, and responded to before considering that it was off topic. Apologies to all for the thread drift. I'll refrain from commenting further on the breastfeeding issue, since it really is irrelevant.

On topic, I would like to see Skyrider provide conclusive evidence that children are consistently damaged by being raised in a solid, loving household with a legally and emotionally committed same sex couple.

I'll wait. Forever, I expect.

No, I don't think any apology is necessary for pursuing an honestly developed good faith answer to a claim. If no response is offered to these red herring type claims, it could appear that the debate has been cowed in favor of the one who is attempting to derail the discussion. I'm sure that dispassionate fair minded readers of this thread understand when responses to certain issues are being avoided by a participant's changing the subject.

For instance, I still would like to hear an LDS opinion of various sexual behaviors, such as oral and anal sex, in heterosexual marriages. I posted up thread what I thought were reasonable questions, along with an LDS counselor's opinion that these practices were acceptable for married Mormon couples, while the same behaviors are dismissed by some as "barbaric" or other loaded theist notions such as "sinful" just in case they occur among those of the same sex. It has to be said that these religious opinions have damaged people and destroyed family relationships. How, in good conscience, can a person hold both of these disparate positions?

But I have not seen a response to this issue by any of our resident LDS. I consider this to be an important question that must be addressed if one is honestly attempting to come to grips with what is obviously a huge social trend towards acceptance of homosexual relationships and marriages, potentially world wide.

While I'm at it, I don't believe I have seen a proper acknowledgement of the obviously dishonest usage in a Mormon publication of Harold Bloom's famous tongue in cheek "Joseph Smith was a religious genius" quote which was actually naively posted by SR44 in evidence of a claim. Again, the subject gets buried and ignored, and the appearance of LDS in denial appears again to be unfortunately the technique of choice used in debate.
-------------
There is a separate thread for discussion of same sex marriage laws in Utah, by the way, not necessarily related to LDS. Utah: Same sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional.

 

[bruto]

I agree with almost everything Scarlettinlondon says, except for the expectation that Skyrider and his cohorts will never change. I hope they, or perhaps their children, may. The church that guides them is not in the vanguard of change, but it has been known to change, and that leaves at least the possibility that it will again, and that loyal followers will at least feel free to reevaluate their assumptions.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . A person who continually comes in 2nd place is consistently worse than a person who comes in consistently 1st.

But he/she still has some degree of worseness, consistent or not.

So now you admit it. It has NOTHING to do with child welfare. It has ALL to do with your arbitrary "societal norms"

Please make an effort to read with accuracy what I write. I never said it has "NOTHING" to do with child welfare, and I never said it has "ALL" to do with [my] "arbitrary" societal norms.

Let's recap:
1.) Slavery used to be a societal norm
2.) Women not being allowed to vote was a societal norm
3.) Segregation (including the LDS ban against black priests) was a societal norm

These norms change as societal adopts the ideals of america, that all men and women are created equal.

Your 1-2-3 recap overlooks some societal norms that have changed for the worse; i.e., 1) Record number of Americans live on federal welfare, which is now a societal norm. 2) The percentage of black children born out of wedlock is now circa 70; that has become a sad, sobering societal norm in the black community. 3) The income gap between rich and poor is the biggest in a century--an ever-growing societal norm. Note this from the Sept. 11, 2013 Los Angeles Times: "If you feel you're falling behind in the income race, it's not just your imagination. The wealth gap between the top 1% [those making above $394,000 in 2012] and the bottom 99% in the U.S. is as wide as it's been in nearly 100 years. . . . between 1993 and 2012, the real incomes of the 1% grew 86.1%, while those of the 99% grew 6.6%." Those figures are based on IRS statistics examined by economists at UC Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University.