LDS II: The Mormons

[Foster Zygote]

And that supposed tendency to ignore facts in favor of ideology happens to apply specifically to gay marriage.

What facts are we ignoring? The only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments because you were so eager to post something denigrating homosexuals that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually read them, preferring to believe the bigots who misrepresented them (excepting those sources that you edited in quotation to remove statements damaging to your argument). On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that the Book Of Abraham bears not the slightest resemblance to the actual text of the funerary text from which it was "translated". Yet you can't bring yourself to admit that Joseph Smith was a fraud.



In the case of children being raised by homosexual parents, you claim that there is a lack of evidence and therefor we should judge against same-sex marriage.

In the case of the Book Of Abraham, where we have overwhelming evidence of fraud, you claim that some magical affirmation might surface in the future to contradict this evidence (like maybe the entire field of Egyptology is an elaborate Satanic plot against Mormonism, or more liberal claptrap?) and therefor we are being closed-minded by not giving Joseph Smith the benefit of the doubt.

Where is the intellectual consistency?

 

[tsig]

Your claims about alleged gay promiscuity make a very compelling case for legalizing gay marriage.

Most the scandalous US promiscuity statistics you are going to find predate the main core of the AIDS epidemic. Education caused the rates of unprotected gay sex to drop dramatically 80s and 90s. This changed the majority gay culture dramatically. It could be argued that the current push for gay marriage is in many ways the end result of the shift away from rampant promiscuity that began because of HIV.

You keep ranting about the promiscuity of homosexuals as if your information were recent and relevant. Even if your claims about statistics were right, it would make a very profound argument in favor of legalizing gay marriage in order to continue the shift in the gay male culture towards a decline in promiscuity and high risk behavior.

Sure, there are there still bathhouses out there. There Is still a minority of gay men engaging in very high-risk behavior. As a counterpoint, there's the "dogging" culture in the UK and Australia among heterosexuals. The existence of high risk behavior among the fringe sections of a group is no reason to condemn the entire sexual orientation. Should white people in Australia and the UK be denied the opportunity to get married just because there's a minority of women who go out and have sex with strangers in parks while their husbands film the encounters?

Why are you using claims about gay promiscuity to argue against a legal institution like marriage? It's like a doctor advising against an obese man reducing the excess calories in his diet. I honestly don't understand how you can make such an argument. Please explain it to me. I really want to understand how you can use a high risk behavior to argue against something that would encourage a reduction In the high risk behavior.

I believe it was Paul who said it was better to marry than to burn.

 

[skyrider44]

The Mayo Clinic page, that skyrider44 himself linked to, says as much:

Isn't that a key feature of marriage?

Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.

 

[skyrider44]

In fact, the main reason the wife of a straight couple need not take the same precautions is because of monogamy. Once both partners commit to each other, no new sexually transmitted diseases can enter the equation. THE EXACT SAME is true of homosexual couples. They can't catch a sexually-transmitted disease that neither person has.

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Of course, if you just consider gay people to be sinners who must be marginalized until they give up their ways and embrace the Mormon idea of God ... then none of these arguments really matter.

Why the need to take a cheap shot?

 

[Loss Leader]

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Then why deny marriage to gay men? What harm could marriage do to them? Or, if you want some sort of monogamy test, why deny marriage to two men who have verifiably not had any other partners (at least as verifiably as any male/female couples)?

Why the need to take a cheap shot?

I don't believe it is a cheap shot. You have stated that the evidence that homosexuals make bad parents is inconclusive. You have stated that some evidece may exist that the availability of gay marriage reduces promiscuity. You have failed to show any way any of this could possibly affect you personally. Yet, you continue to advocate against gay marriage. You display a shocking lack of understanding as to the sexual practices of gay individuals. Your information about homosexuals is little more than a litany of long-dismissed myths.

You are prejudiced against homosexuals. You have stated yourself that you are judging the matter while "the jury is still out." It's okay to be prejudiced. Many, many people are. Your fellow Mormon on this thread has expressed an abiding religious hatred of homosexual sex. You should admit your bias and deal with it honestly.

 

[HappyDance]

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Have you considered that perhaps some gay men are promiscuous because they live in a society that vilifies them for being homosexual and actively discourages them from forming stable, monogamous relationships? After all, it's more difficult to stay in the closet if you're living with one partner for any length of time. Random hook-ups are easier to hide.

 

[joobz]

Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

If you want to know just how you sound, just replace "homosexuals" with "blacks" and "homosexual men" with "black men" in the above statements.


You have yet to provide any rational reason to deny gays the same rights/privileges that straights have.

 

[Janadele]

... Janadele, if you're willing to argue that no one should intrude when FLDS members practice polygamy...

Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.

 

[halleyscomet]

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

It turns out the data IS there.

The Effects of Same-Sex Marriage Laws on Public Health and Welfare

This paper analyzes the relationships among same-sex marriage bans, social attitudes toward gays and non-marital sex, and measures of public health and welfare. We hypothesize that same-sex marriage bans may foster intolerance for gays and increase the social costs of same-sex partnerships, which may raise incentives for risky homosexual behavior. We also hypothesize that same-sex marriage bans may codify and signal traditional family values, which may raise the benefits of heterosexual marriage and reduce incentives for non-marital sex. Using micro-and state-level data, we find evidence that same-sex marriage bans reduced tolerance for gays and increased the syphilis rate, a rough proxy for risky homosexual behavior. However, we find no consistent evidence that same-sex marriage bans impacted risky heterosexual behavior,marriage, or divorce.

Fascinating. It looks like stigmatization of homosexuals is what ultimately drives gay promiscuity, and legalizing gay marriage reduces gay syphilis rates.

This mirrors nicely the shift in interracial relationships during the civil rights era. Relationships that are stigmatized or carry a high social cost are destabilized by the social pressure. As the social pressure recedes, the previously stigmatized relationship types stabilize and approach the median.

 

[bruto]

Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not. Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.

It would be better news yet if religious conservatives did not confuse holy matrimony with civil marriage.

 

[Craig4]

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.



Why the need to take a cheap shot?

If you were not Mormon would you care if gay people marry?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Mayo is advising homosexuals to be monogamous, fully cognizant of the fact that many are not.

They, and many other organizations, offer the same advice to heterosexuals for the same reason.

Does marriage change their behavior? There is some indication that it does, according to your own propaganda publication, Gay Star News. Obviously, that is good news.

Have I cited that publication, or is this some attempt to insinuate that I must be a homosexual if I am advocating equal rights for them?

Here's something that you seem not to have considered: sexual activity between consenting adults outside of marriage is not illegal. Even in cases of marital infidelity it's entirely up to the couple whether they will remain married, the state has no say in this. Your "some of them are promiscuous" argument is still no different from Jim Crow if you are legislatively penalizing only homosexuals for something for which heterosexual couples face no legal penalties or restrictions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You assume that marriage will make homosexual men less promiscious. The data at this point are insufficient to validate that assumption, although there is some indication that it may be true.

Is that what marriage is about, making people less promiscuous? Even if your stereotypes were true, there is no legal restriction against extramarital sex. So why would this be an issue for homosexuals only?

Why the need to take a cheap shot?

How is it a cheap shot? Have you looked at the title of this thread lately? If this isn't about your Mormon beliefs, then why haven't you asked that this discussion be split off to a new thread in Social Issues & Current Events?

 

[skyrider44]

So far, the only sources that you have been able to provide that claim it is a problem have been highly biased, relying largely on the misrepresentation of the studies that show no harm in being raised by homosexual parents relative to being raised by heterosexual parents.

I'm sure you're familiar with the Gay Star News. It isn't exactly a model of objectivity.

So "guilty until proved innocent". That's like saying to a neighbor you've just met, "until is see some evidence that you aren't a sexual predator, I have a problem with you".

Your analogy strains credibility because I would have no basis on which to accuse a "just met" neighbor of being a sexual predator.

 

[skyrider44]

What facts are we ignoring?

You reject out-of-hand any data that contradicts your position. In your post immediately preceding this one, for example, you find it expedient to besmirch Conservapedia. I believe it is every bit as responsible and credible as what one finds in Gay Star News.

The only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments because you were so eager to post something denigrating homosexuals that you couldn't be bothered to take the time to actually read them, preferring to believe the bigots who misrepresented them (excepting those sources that you edited in quotation to remove statements damaging to your argument).

So, the public affairs office of the Mayo Clinic is populated by bigots who misrepresented what Mayo physicians and researchers said about taking a cautionary approach to gay sex. Is that your "point"?

On the other hand, it is an undeniable fact that the Book Of Abraham bears not the slightest resemblance to the actual text of the funerary text from which it was "translated". Yet you can't bring yourself to admit that Joseph Smith was a fraud.

Do you suppose you could have purposely raised a subject that doesn't belong on this thread because "you were so eager to post something denigrating" to the LDS Church?

In the case of children being raised by homosexual parents, you claim that there is a lack of evidence and therefor we should judge against same-sex marriage.

What I have said is that research findings appear to be in conflict; therefore, we should opt for the conservative course.

In the case of the Book Of Abraham. . . .

You're off topic (again).

 

[skyrider44]

Exactly. You haven't said anything about families in poverty, even though your justification for being Antigay marriage (child welfare) is a greater concern with parents who are poor than parents who are gay.

Be that as it may, the negative effects of poverty on children is not the topic of this thread. It is, I admit, an important topic; however, it should have a thread of its own.

The sources you cite some this to be true.

Eh?

Yet, you are not talking against poor parents.

Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?

This suggests that your argument is pure bigotry and has nothing to do with child welfare.

It does? Well, I'll be danged.

 

[skyrider44]

That's a bad place to start. First of all, Conservapedia is quoting a report by "Agape Press." That organization, whatever it was, cannot be found.

Apparently, you overlooked Footnote 5 in the article. It refers you to agapepress.org/archives/9/152006g.asp. If you click on that link, you will, indeed, reach Agape Press, but with a note saying "Coming Back." Apparently they are updating their web site

The actual survey was supposedly published by The Advocate on August 15, 2006. There is no trace of such a study in The Advocate as far as I could find.

I couldn't find it either, but I did run across an interesting article entitled "No One Wants to Be Called a Bigot." Interesting.

There is no mention of whom The Advocate surveyed, whether they were a representative sample of anything or whether the data was collected in a reliable manner.

Those questions can probably be answered when the agape site is again operational.

The supposed study is from 2006. A newer study shows promiscuity to be decreasing.

That's true, it is decreasing.

Your source does not compare promiscuity among straight men at the same time. Once source I found said that 30% of straight men have had 15 or more female partners.

You want detailed documentation from me, but here (above) the best you have to offer is "one source."

Nowhere do you even begin to try to find the pandemic threshhold - the average number of partners that would cause the disease to become pandemic.

That wasn't on my schedule.

You still haven't addressed those clean, monogamous homosexuals with no partners (because they're waiting) who want to get married. One of the men donated his sperm to a very nice woman who subsequently died tragically, leaving him the father of a four month-old baby. Why shouldn't they be allowed to get married?

I don't know all the circumstances, so it's difficult for me to comment on the case.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Why are you using claims about gay promiscuity to argue against a legal institution like marriage? It's like a doctor advising against an obese man reducing the excess calories in his diet. I honestly don't understand how you can make such an argument. Please explain it to me. I really want to understand how you can use a high risk behavior to argue against something that would encourage a reduction In the high risk behavior.

I understand your point, and it's a valid one.

I applaud recent reports indicating that gay promiscuity is declining. I hope that reduction is the result of gay marriages. That may surprise you, but one of my reasons now for opposing gay marriage is the mordant example promiscuity sets for children (assuming they are involved). You may say that some heterosexual parents set bad examples because they, too, are promiscuous. True enough, but the data I looked at (before the recently reported reduction) showed same-sex couples were much more promiscuous than hetereosexual couples.

Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem. Divorce has a devastating effect on most children, especially young children.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't know all the circumstances, so it's difficult for me to comment on the case.

Ask me anything you want to know. I will fill you in on all details that you believe are relevant.

 

[Empress]

Do you suppose you could have purposely raised a subject that doesn't belong on this thread because "you were so eager to post something denigrating" to the LDS Church?

You're off topic (again).

Why would any of the Mormon scriptures be off-topic in a thread about the LDS church?