LDS II: The Mormons

[Slowvehicle]

skyrider:

I find it tragic that you are so panicked at the thought of a homosexual man leading a normal, love-filled, life as part of a devoted, dedicatged family unit that you do not even relize how pointless your points are.

Take the simple issue of nursing, for example. Despite your evasions, and equivocations, and sidestepping the implications of your claims. Even if what you say about men being unable to bond with a baby because they are not physically lactating were true (and it is not), if that were, in fact, a reason to legally prevent homosexual men from raising babies, that very criterion that you want to use to exclude homosexual men form parenting would also exclude:
-widowers
-women who experience lactational insufficiency
-women who have had mastectomies
-women who adopt neonates
-women who choose to bottle feed rather than breast feed.

Shall all of these be legally excluded from parenthood?

 

[joobz]

So women who don't breast feed are unfortunate? Should we still consider them citizens? Should they be allowed to marry?

The underlined questions in your post are not rational; hence, I cannot take them seriously.

And yet, you use very similar reasons to deny gays to marry. IF it is not rational to apply those conclusions to women who can't breast feed, it is equally not rational to make those conclusions to gays.
Why the double standard?

That is your statement, not mine. I do think it's an issue that merits study.

And, if it is found taht it is true, would you move to prevent women who can't breastfeed from having children? From Adopting children?

What I said was that breastfeeding creates a bond between infant and mother.
You continue to twist the meaning of my words.

IT isn't twisting your words. If you do not like the conlcusions your ideas lead to, it isn't my fault.

In my previous post I referred to your tendency to make sweeping generalizations. You repeat that practice here. Who "considered a woman [who wore pants as someone] who didn't know her place"? The thousands of women who helped to build airplanes during WWII wore pants. The Defense Department and the men who worked with the women certainly didn't consider them out of place (to cite just one example).

You used rosie the riveter as justification, when the entire campaign was used as a way to motivate women from standard gender role as housewives while men were waging war. Part of that campaign was the idea that women would return to their standard role as housewife once the war was over.

Again. I agree, that pants don't cause a gender confusion. It is clear they don't. IT is only men who were threatened by empowered women who would object to the image.

I am stating that your objection to gay marriage is as equally crazy.

I cited one or more studies suggesting gender role confusion could be an outcome. Please be accurate.

NO, you didn't. I evaluate all studies you presented. none claim what you say they claim.

It seems inevitable that there comes a point in a discussion when one participant resorts to character assassination and name-calling.

I am defining behavior.
It isn't name calling. It is an accurate label of your post.

I have done nothing of the sort. BTW, even if what you say were true, do you rule out the use of science in a discussion about gay marriage?

No, I don't rule out the use. If I did, I wouldn't have attempted to engage you in discussions of the science by presenting you actual scientific analysis of the data.

Once again, you resort to character assassination.

Still more character assassination.

I am not attacking your person. Only the sin of bigotry.
I hate the sin, not the sinner.

 

[Cat Tale]

Please know that I take no joy--absolutely none--in the fact that gay people have a very high suicide rate. Indeed, that circumstance saddens me. I sincerely wish something could be done about it, and I commend Mr. Savage for his efforts.

There is plenty that we as LDS, (and as people in general), can do to help the situation. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have endorsed the following (on MormonsandGays.org), we are to "respond sensitively and thoughtfully when we encounter same-sex attraction in [our] own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

Elder Oaks, in General Conference Oct. 2012 said, "Young people struggling with any exceptional condition, including same-gender attraction, are particularly vulnerable and need loving understanding -- not bullying or ostracism."

I assume that the reason that they want to commit suicide is because they feel like misfits. They feel they don't matter, that no one will miss them, that the world would be a better place without them. These are people who are like everyone else, the only difference is they are attracted to a person of the same-sex. They need love, patience, hope... in other words they need a friend that they can rely on, who will listen, and love them for who they are and not judge them. That's what we can do to help the situation.

 

[desertgal]

I respectfully disagree. Breastfeeding fulfills the hunger impulse while feeling physically close to the mother.

Bottle feeding fulfills the hunger impulse while feeling physically close to whomever is doing the feeding. Breastfeeding is not the only way to establish the bond you refer to.

Are you a mother?

 

[bruto]

....(snipping) In some cases in the past when I have used the "preview post" button, I have lost the entire post, after being instructed to reload the page, a process that hasn't worked for me.

If you take a very long time on a post or leave and come back to it, it can expire. If this is customary for you, another way to insure that there are no typos in a link would be to open another browser window or tab. In that one, enter your URL, and if the page loads correctly, select and copy the URL to your clipboard. You can paste that into your post without having to retype it.

 

[skyrider44]

Do you think it likely that the suicide rate is that high because they live in a society that chooses to claim insanely stupid things like:
They are an abomination or that accepting their life style is a sign we are in the last days black will be white and white will be black?

I haven't claimed they are an "abomination," nor have I claimed that I (or any other Mormon) has claimed to be able to force prophecy to be fulfilled.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I respectfully disagree. Breastfeeding fulfills the hunger impulse while feeling physically close to the mother.

Yeah, if only mothers wouldn't feed their babies formula with a bottle tied to a long stick. Then maybe they could be close enough to actually hold them during feedings.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The underlined questions in your post are not rational; hence, I cannot take them seriously.

If you took it seriously, you'd have to address its implications regarding your arguments against same-sex marriage.

 

[skyrider44]

I had to chuckle when I read that. I think biologically humans want to be as promiscuous as possible whilst religions (and sometimes cultural mores) prevent them from fulfilling those biological roles.


This is not true. I am in the process of having a child (well, my wife is and I have the role of father-to-be-that-is-reading-everything-out-there-including-how-it-all-works-biologically) and this is a myth.
What is needed is skin-to-skin contact for the smell (feromones), warmth and bacterial cultures to be shared.
(http://www.uu.nl/faculty/medicine/NL/Actueel/Pages/Hetsocialelevenvanbaby's.aspx is the book I am reading on that)
The breastfeeding itself plays no role at all. Mind you I am not talking about mothers milk since that can be administered in other ways.
Also, I understood from the Chef de Clinique of that this bonding can be achieved by any person that is in this manner in contact with the child.
This was in response to my question why, after a ceasarian, the father does not get to hold the child for a prolonged time until the mother recovers from the anaesthetic.

Many 'net sites describe important benefits to both infant and mother as result of breastfeeding. They also describe some significant downsides caused by not breastfeeding. For starters, go to:
http://www.medelabreastfeedingus.com/benefits-of-breastfeeding

 

[skyrider44]

. . . My point stands. Women are being threatened over wearing clothing that is still respectful, to a place that should be accepting of EVERYONE regardless of their clothing.

I think you know the press well enough to know that they seize on any
negativity, regardless of its insignificance to society, in an ongoing effort to sell newspapers or raise TV viewership.

Just who is threatening women who wear or want to wear pants to church? And how many are doing the threatening? And what form do the threats take? Some on this thread act as if there is a massive anti-pants movement led by tens of thousands of LDS women. Silly in the extreme.

Are you really so obsessed with appearance that you'd condone people being threatened for going to church just because they don't look "nice" enough for your proclivities?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Second, I do not support people (all 30 or 40 of them) who are threatening women who wear/want to wear pants to church. Third, how a person is dressed has nothing to do with whether or not they will be welcomed in an LDS meetinghouse. When I mentioned a dress code, I had in mind principally young men who bless and pass the sacrament. They are encouraged to wear white shirts with ties.

I suggest you put on a pair of paint-spattered overalls, together with a dirty work shirt, walk into an LDS meetinghouse near you, and sit down in a pew.
If anyone approaches you, it will be to greet you and welcome you.

The message is very clear [Twain's essay]. Anyone moaning about how people dress, or even smell, in church are thumbing their nose not at the people they deem shabby, but at Christ himself.

I couldn't agree more. Why are you attacking me about this "issue"?

Condoning threats against women who dare wear pants to church is no different than telling Christ you won't follow him unless he casts off those uncouth, fishy smelling men from Galilee.

I think that's true. So why (to reiterate) are you directing your analogy at me?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . While I was aware that Mormonism was based on a 19th century fraud, I was unaware that it was steeped in medieval gender roles.

You are also apparently unaware that no females play in the NFL.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . What are you talking about? The popular term has always been, "SHE wears the pants in the family" or "Well, you know who wears the pants in that family", meant to convey that the female has plays a dominant role or has a domineering personalty.

*Ninjaed by Cat Tale, who said it much better.

The truth is the expression has been used with both "He" and "She" as the subject.

 

[joobz]

Do you think it likely that the suicide rate is that high because they live in a society that chooses to claim insanely stupid things like:
They are an abomination or that accepting their life style is a sign we are in the last days black will be white and white will be black?

I haven't claimed they are an "abomination," nor have I claimed that I (or any other Mormon) has claimed to be able to force prophecy to be fulfilled.

I never claimed you said those things, only that a society who supports casual hatred as i described is the likely source for suicide rates.

...but allow me to point you in the direction of your own post.

Yet, to consider the idea of women wearing pants as confusing gender roles" is laughable. So, one day, will your claims about gay marriages.

That's possible, which will make it entirely consistent with the teachings of my faith (and other faiths as well) that in the last days black will be white and white will be black.

it is hard to claim i changed your meaning when i used your own words. Are your shocked to know that your own bias against gays may be a contributing factor to the suicide rate?

use this as a learning experience.
your bias against gays is much deeper than you are aware.
it is much more damaging than you are aware.
reevaluate why you are so motivated to deny them marriage.
Think why you haven't been able to link to original research which supports your views.
Think why you have had to go to ridiculous lengths (e.g., breast feeding = deny gay marriage) in order to support your arguments.

I do hope you learn from this.

 

[Agatha]

Many 'net sites describe important benefits to both infant and mother as result of breastfeeding. They also describe some significant downsides caused by not breastfeeding. For starters, go to:
http://www.medelabreastfeedingus.com/benefits-of-breastfeeding

Nobody is suggesting that breastfeeding does not confer advantages; for those for whom it is possible it is the best start they can give their child in terms of immune system health (for example). What people are objecting to is your characterisation of mothers who choose not to, or who are unable to breastfeed as 'unfortunate', and your assessment that the parental bond is lessened. You have presented no evidence suggesting that breastfeeding results in an increased bond between mother and child.

Further, this diversion into non-breastfeeding as an objection to children being brought up by same sex couples is not applicable to fostered or adopted children in either homosexual or heterosexual relationships, nor to children brought up by males. Babies born to lesbian mothers can be breastfed by the birth mother just as babies born to mothers in a heterosexual partnership.

The love and the bond between child and parent is founded on a great deal more than a few weeks/months/years of breastfeeding. Parenting is so much more than how the child is fed.

You are also apparently unaware that no females play in the NFL.

What on earth does this have to do with your religion (which does not treat men and women as equals), or with same sex marriages?

 

[skyrider44]

Good lord, man, of course it doesn't.

So it's your position that adoptive parents of a five-year old should attempt to breastfeed their child with the same prospect of success as the adoptive parents of a month-old infant. No? Well, then, just what are you trying to say?

You're also ignoring the fact that, while breastfeading may help create a closeness between mother and child, there are lots of other ways to bond with a child.

Of course there are--IF you disregard the age factor. It's not easy to play football with a two-month old baby.

I never breastfed my children because, well, I'm a guy. Yet somehow, we formed a loving relationship. How did we do that?

Why don't you share your experiences? Perhaps other parents can benefit from reading about your approach.

 

[skyrider44]

skyrider: Even if what you say about men being unable to bond with a baby because they are not physically lactating were true (and it is not) . . .

The premise of your post is light years wide of the mark. If you're going to attribute statements to me, kindly strive for a semblance/modicum of accuracy.

 

[skyrider44]

Bottle feeding fulfills the hunger impulse while feeling physically close to whomever is doing the feeding. Breastfeeding is not the only way to establish the bond you refer to.

Are you a mother?

In Post 489, I listed a link to just one of many articles that extol the virtues of breastfeeding. Here are some condensed statements from the link I posted (for those who didn't bother to read it):

Breastfed babies have fewer and shorter illnesses. . .breastfeeding is the most natural and nutritious way to encourage a baby's optimal development. . . colostrum (the first milk) is a natural laxative that helps to clear the baby's intestine (aids in preventing jaundice). . .breastfeeding benefits a baby's IQ. . .skin-to-skin contact "offers babies greater emotional support and enhances bonding [emphasis added]. . .sucking at the breast enhances a baby's oral development. . .breastfeeding appears to reduce the risk of obesity and hypertension. . .delays the onset of hereditary allergic disease. . .aids development of a baby's immune system. . .increases the effectiveness of immunizations. . .protects against the development of chronic diseases, including bowel disease, asthma, and childhood cancers.

Lack of breastfeeding increases the risk of ear infections, childhood diabetes,
obesity, GI infections, childhood cancers, SIDS, respiratory infections, allergies, and NEC (necrotizing enterocolitis).

Moreover, breastfeeding provides important benefits to the mother (see the link). Lack of breastfeeding increases the risk that the mother will develop urinary tract infection, pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and osteoporosis.

The foregoing information is supported by numerous scientific studies.

As I said at the beginning of this post, a link to the source is available in Post 489.

 

[desertgal]

The truth is the expression has been used with both "He" and "She" as the subject.

So? That wasn't your original contention.

In Post 489, I listed a link to just one of many articles that extol the virtues of breastfeeding. Here are some condensed statements from the link I posted (for those who didn't bother to read it):

Breastfed babies have fewer and shorter illnesses. . .breastfeeding is the most natural and nutritious way to encourage a baby's optimal development. . . colostrum (the first milk) is a natural laxative that helps to clear the baby's intestine (aids in preventing jaundice). . .breastfeeding benefits a baby's IQ. . .skin-to-skin contact "offers babies greater emotional support and enhances bonding [emphasis added]. . .sucking at the breast enhances a baby's oral development. . .breastfeeding appears to reduce the risk of obesity and hypertension. . .delays the onset of hereditary allergic disease. . .aids development of a baby's immune system. . .increases the effectiveness of immunizations. . .protects against the development of chronic diseases, including bowel disease, asthma, and childhood cancers.

Lack of breastfeeding increases the risk of ear infections, childhood diabetes,
obesity, GI infections, childhood cancers, SIDS, respiratory infections, allergies, and NEC (necrotizing enterocolitis).

Moreover, breastfeeding provides important benefits to the mother (see the link). Lack of breastfeeding increases the risk that the mother will develop urinary tract infection, pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and osteoporosis.

The foregoing information is supported by numerous scientific studies.

As I said at the beginning of this post, a link to the source is available in Post 489.

So? None of this is disputed. The bolded was not your original contention.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The premise of your post is light years wide of the mark. If you're going to attribute statements to me, kindly strive for a semblance/modicum of accuracy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9679373#post9679373
and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9681378#post9681378
(especially the red herring about milk donor fathers"), and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9683790#post9683790
(especially the claim that the bond is not available "any other way")
(also, you might want to consider the etymology of the "pants" phrase: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/wear+the+pants) and
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9690720#post9690720
(ignoring bottle-feeding)

So, no--you actually made the claim that breastfeeding creates a bond that cannot be formed any other way.

Notwithstanding that you have yet to address your error here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9668366#post9668366
...engendered by your formatting here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9650506#post9650506
...even though I responded here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9675498#post9675498

 

[abaddon]

The premise of your post is light years wide of the mark. If you're going to attribute statements to me, kindly strive for a semblance/modicum of accuracy.

Kindly return the favour.

You are also apparently unaware that no females play in the NFL.

No idea what an NFL might be, nor why it's gender specificity might be in any way relevant..