LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

Assuming a gay 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?

Based upon the data, if they aren't poor, they will likely have a very good outcome.

There is only one study which suggested otherwise, but that one clearly has questionable methods. Considering you haven't bothered to defend the paper, one must assume you know it isn't defendable.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Assuming a gay 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?

Assume a gender-diverse couple has kids, one of their own, and one each from previous marriages; assume also that both members of the couple are penuring themselves with alimony and child support; assume further that the couple is individually promiscuous (and may be promiscuous together).

What effect do you suppose two dissolved marriages (with at least two other children (the ones getting child support) , three "step" ramifications, low SES, and the couple's lifestyle are likely to have on the children?

Or, assume that the same-gender couple, after 10 years of devoted fidelity and successful careers, decide to adopt two disadvantaged children and provide for them stability and the emotional/financial support. What effect do you suppose the couple's lifestyle will have upon the children?

And what has any of that to do with denying adults capable of consent the benefits and privileges of civil marriage?

 

[Slowvehicle]

[/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.

Every "study", every opinion piece, every editorial you have posted has been analyzed, and responded to.

The fact that you do not like the results does not change the truth.

(see, for example, your misstatements about the Mayo Clinic article)

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.

It is difficult to tell whether this is an honest typo (they do happen), or a misattribution. Either way, this time, instead of attributing to me words I did not, in fact, post, you are failing to attribute to me words that are,in fact, mine.

 

[bruto]

Assuming a gay 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?

Is your question related to the issue of gay marriage, or to other issues. If a gay couple really wants children, they can have children whether married or not. The main effect of marriage on the children will be that they are accorded the legal protections given to families by marriage of the parents. If they are promiscuous, the harm is probably about the same as it would be if a heterosexual couple were promiscuous. It would be utterly crazy to suggest that allowing gay couples to marry would make them more promiscuous than they now are.

Are you arguing that existing gay rights should be rescinded?

Are you arguing that gay parents should lose custody of their children?

Are you arguing that promiscuous parents should lose custody of their children?

Are you arguing that marriage makes couples more promiscuous?

The content of the argument is a mystery to me. Actually whether it could even be called an argument is questionable. Assuming this and assuming that assumption results, no doubt, and usually as one wishes.

I suppose one could at least count it as progress that children are being factored in, since further up the thread much the same argument was used to suggest that gay couples had no reason to get married because they would be childless. Nothing in the argument now presented seems to apply to anything that changes when couples get married. We are assured that the argument is about marriage and not simply "anti-gay" but the difference is not being well communicated.

 

[Shalamar]

Assuming a gay 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?

Probably the exact same effect that a promiscuous Heterosexual couple would have on a child.

Therefore, heterosexual couples should not be permitted to marry, 'or the children', since there are promiscuous heterosexual couples.

 

[Shalamar]

I have a question for the Mormons, that I'm certain will not be answered, but I will ask anyways.

When Gay marriage was legal in Washington state, the day it was permitted, a local church happily opened their doors to the couples to perform religious ceremonies to those couples that wished it.

Why does the LDS church seek to control the actions of a religion that is not Mormon? Why does 'religious freedom' only apply to the LDS church to deny people freedoms and rights?

 

[JimOfAllTrades]

The radical homosexual agenda...

I bet I could sum up the “radical” homosexual agenda in three words:

LEAVE THEM ALONE

Really, I’m pretty sure they would prefer you just pretend they don’t exist. Let them get on with their lives. Let them grow up, fall in love if they want, get married if they want, get divorced if they want, make friends, get jobs, hang out, stay alone, lead good lives, or screw up. Just forget about them, stop trying to run their lives, and just let them be the people they are. For goodness sake, just

LEAVE THEM ALONE.

 

[RandFan]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

The arguments must be separate from the arguer. They are either valid or not. That the Mao Clinic has found some correlation in no way invalidates the mountain of evidence that demonstrates that gays and lesbians, on average make for good parents.

Of course this stands in contrast to an identifiable group that has increased risk for children, by that I mean poor families. You feel that poor parents (heterosexual) have some right to have children even if those children are, by definition, disadvantaged. The same cannot be said of children of gays and lesbians.

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

 

[halleyscomet]

Assuming a gay 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?

The same impact it would have upon a child of straight promiscuous parents.

Again, your point FAVORS gay marriage. Do you realize that your entire argument about the well being of the children FAVORS legalization of gay marriage?

I'm struggling to find your reason for opposing gay marriage. You keep listing reasons to legalize it and then turn around and call for the opposite what your claims support.

Why, exactly, do you oppose gay marriage anyway? Every single point you've made so far has ultimately favored marriage equality.

 

[halleyscomet]

"The homosexual rights movement is rotten to the core. It has no future. There is no life in it. "

Riiiiight. Just like the civil rights movements of the 1960's.

Now that I think about it, your comments about race mixing prompt this next question. Do you believe the civil rights movement was rotten to the core, the way you apparently believe the gay rights movement is today?

 

[halleyscomet]

Jan,

How do you address this sad news?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/11/25/mother-claims-flu-shot-killed-her-teenage-son/

Chandler Webb received the shot on October 15 during a routine physical, after he had decided to go on a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The day after the exam, Chandler became extremely ill – suffering from vomiting and headaches. A little more than a week later, Chandler slipped into a coma and spent nearly a month on life support at Intermountain Medical Center in Murray, Utah.

Clearly this child was doing the work of LDS church. According to your belief system he was following God's will. Did he and his parents not pray as hard as the mormons who were saved miraculously during the recent natural disaster we discussed in this thread?

If a handful of Mormons claiming to be saved by God's intervention during a natural disaster is proof that the LDS church is the one true church then would not this tragic death be a data point in favor of the argument that perhaps it is not?

If this boy's tragic death is not evidence against the LDS church then why are claims of people being miraculously saved evidence in favor of it? Is not ignoring one and accepting the other not the very definition of dishonest cherry picking?

 

[Craig4]

So I went to a Christmas market or wein nachts markt in German this evening for a gluh wein and a pork sandwich. There were two Mormon missionaries at the exit to the S Bhan station. What a waste. There these two kids were at one of the best fests in Germany trying to get Germans to believe a fraud and ignoring what could have been a really good time. It's a shame really. They should have ditched the name tags and checked out the market. They would have got more out of that than perpetuating a shabby lie.

 

[RandFan]

Assuming a gay 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?

Assuming a poor couple have children and assuming they are abusive and neglectvile, what effect do you think the couples lifestyle is likely to have on their children?

[sources missing] where is your evidence that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will increase the number of children in gay and lesbian households?

I'm sorry, we've already been here. You can't special plead on this. Either we disallow poor people to marry to protect children or we allow gay couples to marry.

Oh, and answer me this skyrider where on the application for a wedding license does it ask if the heterosexual couple are promiscuous?

We've been over this ground over and over. It's beginning to become disingenuous for you to respond with the same premise. It's ad hoc rationalization to justify your opinions. If you truly cared about the welfare of children and you wanted to use marriage to improve their lives you would not allow poor people to marry.

You are being morally inconsistent IMO.

 

[RandFan]

Jan,

How do you address this sad news?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/11/25/mother-claims-flu-shot-killed-her-teenage-son/


Clearly this child was doing the work of LDS church. According to your belief system he was following God's will. Did he and his parents not pray as hard as the mormons who were saved miraculously during the recent natural disaster we discussed in this thread?

If a handful of Mormons claiming to be saved by God's intervention during a natural disaster is proof that the LDS church is the one true church then would not this tragic death be a data point in favor of the argument that perhaps it is not?

It's all in how you pick your data.

If you lose your wallet, pray, then find it, well, then god did that. If your child dies of lukemia then that has nothing to do with god. BTW: You can pray to a jug of milk and get the same answer, yes/no/wait (see
The best optical illusion in the world!)

 

[RandFan]

Gregor Johann Mendel, a Moravian monk, is recognized as the father of genetics. By your lights, his religious convictions would seem to make his plant genetics work unacceptable. Moreover, a single statement by a believer or conservative can invalidate his or her whole body of research.

Thus, any fair-mined person must conclude that any information re. gay marriage is ipso facto false if it originates from a) a religious organization, or b) a conservative writer or organization. What you are really saying, so it seems, is that religious/conservative sources cannot enter the marketplace of ideas and truth.

In contrast, information reported by liberal sources is never questioned, never open to challenge. Even middle-of-the-road sources (the Mayo Clinic comes to mind) is attacked if it has the audacity to post something that suggests homosexuals should take precautions to protect their health.

No, that's a straw man. If the data goes against consensus, and it does, then it's fair to look at possible self serving motives for why we ought not toss out the scientific consensus.

And I've given you all of the links for the sociological data that disputes your claim and I've given you court transcripts (and a reenactment) where the plaintiffs for prop 8 (funded in part by the LDS church) were asked point blank for such evidence and they responded they didn't need to supply any evidence.

Prop. 8 Supporters: We Don't Need Evidence

The judge asked the attys point black about this.

At oral argument on proponents' motion for summary judgment, the court posed to proponents' counsel the assumption that "the state's interest in marriage is procreative" and inquired how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that interest. Counsel replied that the inquiry was "not the legally relevant question," but when pressed for an answer, counsel replied: "Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know. I don't know."…

Blankenhorn’s testimony…provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that "responsible procreation is really at the heart of society's interest in regulating marriage." When asked to identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention, proponents' counsel replied, "you don't have to have evidence of this point."

I think it is very disingenuous to pretend that the jury is out on this subject. It's not. At trial there was provided a mountain of scientific evidence in the way of substantive sociological studies that clearly demonstrated that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would help children not hurt them.

 

[halleyscomet]

The radical homosexual agenda

I have discussed the radical homosexual agenda with a number of homosexuals and bisexuals over the last 20 years. The agenda is very simple.

Be left alone.
Not be beat up for being gay.
Not be fired for being gay.
Not be paid less for being gay.
Not be denied the same rights straight people have.
Not be subjected to endless screaming about religion for being gay.
Not be falsely accused of pedophilia for being gay.
Not lose custody of their children for being gay.

That's pretty much it. What part(s) of that agenda do you find insidious, immoral or worth opposing?

 

[halleyscomet]

The arguments must be separate from the arguer. They are either valid or not. That the Mao Clinic has found some correlation in no way invalidates the mountain of evidence that demonstrates that gays and lesbians, on average make for good parents.

Of course this stands in contrast to an identifiable group that has increased risk for children, by that I mean poor families. You feel that poor parents (heterosexual) have some right to have children even if those children are, by definition, disadvantaged. The same cannot be said of children of gays and lesbians.

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

It's important to note that not all religious people are dodging the issue. Dr. Richard D. Land for example, advocates that single mothers offer their children for adoption so as to avoid denying the child a Father. He takes skyrider44's line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion, at least as far as single parents are concerned.

Baptist leader: Single moms are denying their kids ‘the father that God wants’

Adoption: The Best Option

A former top official in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) chided single mothers in a column for the Christian Post, saying that giving them up for adoption into nuclear families would be best for everyone involved.

“Keeping the baby is almost never preferable to allowing a baby to be adopted into a solid, faithful Christian home,” former SBC Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission head Richard Land wrote in the column, which was published on Saturday. “A single mother who keeps her baby is quite often denying that baby the father that God wants for that baby, and every baby, to have.”

Land published the column in conjunction with National Adoption Day, saying Christian married couples could best demonstrate their faith by taking in a foster child. He also called it a better solution to “problem” pregnancies — saying the “problem” was often the result of the lack of a father — than abortion.

Frankly, comments like Land's make Sky and Jan's refusal to address their arguments in a more complete context quite puzzling. It's obvious that there are religious leaders with substantial followings who DO admit the conclusions of the arguments against gay marriage.

Why are Sky and Jan not admitting the logical end point of their "arguments?" I suspect they, deep down, recognize the horror of that conclusion and as a result are struggling with the conflict between the dogma they've been taught and their own conscience.

 

[Cat Tale]

Same-sex Adoptions

I went, this afternoon, to the US Government's Child Welfare site (Child Welfare is part of the Department of Health & Human Services Administration for Children and Families) to see what it had to say about same-sex couples and adoption, and I was surprised by the results (I don't know why, I guess I just never really thought about it before this thread).

They give a common "issue and concern" why people might object to homosexual couples adopting (I underlined the issue), and then give the evidence, and footnotes to the studies regarding the claim. Here's what it had to say.

Children will be molested by homosexual parents. In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual."

Children raised in homosexual households will become gay. The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay".
Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of "significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals".

Children will develop problems growing up in an 'unnatural' lifestyle. Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children's development in gay and lesbian families.
The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

I mean, that's good enough for me. So that means that the only reason to be against same-sex marriage and adoption outside the Church is discrimination, bullying, etc. I think it's interesting on the Church's MormonsandGays website,

From a public relations perspective it would be easier for the Church to simply accept homosexual behavior. That we cannot do, for God’s law is not ours to change.

I am hoping that what this means is the same thing as the blacks and the Priesthood. It's not our law to change, but God can through modern revelation if He sees fit. The Church is now encouraging open dialog and love toward the homosexual community something I had not seen before. Therefore, I am hopeful that someday we might hear the prophet tell us the news.

I feel that if there is someone out there who meets all the criteria, and has a heart of gold, why make the child suffer by keeping him in an orphanage or passing him around every so many months from foster home to foster home? Why not give him/her a forever home with a nice, loving homosexual couple?

 

[skyrider44]

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.

 

[skyrider44]

Mendel was Silesian not Moravian.

True, you are correct.

: Mendel's work on genetics was scientifically confirmed, Mormonism is not scientific.

Are you aware of any religion whose work has been "scientifically confirmed"?
That aside, you miss my point. Some on this thread have dismissed out-of-hand research sponsored by religious/conservative organizations. 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.

: Mendel's work complemented that of Darwin who was a pastor himself.

Darwin was a pastor? Can his work be trusted?

: Furthermore, you have a strawman there. Nobody dismissed any opinion here because of the beliefs of the one holding that opinion, but because such opinions had no scientific basis.

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

: Nope. Baseless opinions carry no scientific weight. Otherwise I might as well claim the moon is made of skittles, yet be surprised to be dismissed.

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

: Any source is open to challenge. It so happens that the ones with the weight of scientific evidence in their favour are the ones you don't much like.

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.

: And surely you understand the whole preceeding Mayo Clinic discussion, or did you not read those posts?

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.