LDS II: The Mormons

[dafydd]

Is it OK to have sex with the lights on?

No. And you have to don the special underwear too. Why are the religious so obsessed with sex? The rest of us just enjoy it in its various forms.

 

[Foster Zygote]

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

Similarly, I fail to see what sexual promiscuity (which is not illegal) among some homosexuals has to do with prohibiting marriage for other homosexuals who want to enter into monogamous relationships.

 

[skyrider44]

It certainly predisposes them to ignore facts in favour of ideology.

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

 

[Foster Zygote]

Research on the effects of children living with same-sex parents is mixed. Some studies report it is a problem, while others claim it is not. Consequently, it isn't accurate to say that there is no problem.

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.

Yes it does. Until there is a peer-reviewed study involving a large number of subjects conducted by a scholarly institution that conclusively proves children are not harmed by being raised by same-sex parents. . .until that comes about, society has a problem.

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".

It seems to me that you will accept only those findings that support your position. Those findings are subject to challenge, and are by no means conclusive.

That's an extremely ironic statement.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Your logic weaves from wrongly assigning individuals traits because they are sometimes observed in groups to wrongly assigning groups traits that are sometime observed in individuals. It's a gordian knot of poor reasoning.

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.

By that logic, you should be in favor of gay marriage. It encourages pair-bonding and monogamy. It discourages the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

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

Be monogamous. Another reliable way to avoid sexually transmitted infections is to stay in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who isn't infected.

Isn't that a key feature of marriage?

 

[dafydd]

You ignore my point. Even if your premise were correct... SO WHAT? Poverty is clearly linked to childhood problems. What do you propose to do about that? Nothing because that fact does not call for any conclusions about marriage.

Whether gays and lesbians can marry has nothing to do with the number of children gays and lesbians have. At best it will improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians.

My oldest daughter is a lesbian and has been together with her partner for twenty years. They have two sons by AI. Two wonderful grandsons, we are all happy and thriving, no horrid diseases caused by having sex outside of the religious box and no god to smite us. I know hetero couples who are far worse off.

 

[Craig4]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

State and federal authorities seem to have found a very logical reason to intrude. The depravity that went on in some of those communities (and probably still does) provided more than enough justification for the law to intrude.

 

[skyrider44]

...and you'll be providing those sources you you claim show this, yes? Will they be sources you have actually read, or will you be performing research-by-title some more?

You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

 

[Craig4]

No one with any sense of decency, morality, or common sense would sink to such depravity. If they do so choose, then they deserve to suffer all the resulting retribution, misery, and diseases and not expect others such as tax payers to pay for research and medical treatments.

I am going to assume that this view is based on your beliefs as a Mormon. Given the clearly fraudulent nature of the founding of your religion, why then should anyone take such views seriously? You've done nothing to defend your religion from the well deserved charges of fraud. Absent such a defense the idea that anyone should change their behavior based on Mormon beliefs is just silly.

 

[Loss Leader]

You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

 

[dafydd]

Yes, I shoud have included that. However, as I note in a previous post, I think some of the mental problems that afflict homosexuals are the result of self-imposed guilt.
I worked with a doctor whose son, a returned missionary, is gay. The son suffers from extreme feelings of guilt. Commenting on his son's condition, the doctor--who is convinced people are born gay--asked me, "Why in the world would anyone choose to be a homosexual considering the pain they endure?"

So you meant some homosexuals. Some heterosexuals suffer from self-imposed guilt too. So what?

 

[Slowvehicle]

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

Well...that, and divorce, and evangelicals murdering their children, and faux "holy books"...quite a list!

 

[joobz]

I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.

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.
The sources you cite some this to be true.


Yet, you are not talking against poor parents. This suggests that your argument is pure bigotry and has nothing to do with child welfare.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

Thank you! Let's have a look at your source.

1. "Conservapedia"...and no primary source of the"survey" is provided.

2. You said you had"sources showing that promiscuity was a "problem". Where is your date on the extreme tail of the number of partners among heterosexuals?

3. You make it too easy--how many of those rapaciously promiscuous homosexual men were in monogamous, stable, committed married relationships? (You are, again, arguing against your own position...)

 

[joobz]

You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

. You you claim to not be anti gay, and then cite conservapedia, a website devoted to the conservative bible project. An attempt to remove all liberal bias from the bible.

 

[RandFan]

I haven't said anything about childhood poverty and whether or not it lends itself to conclusions about marriage.

Again you miss the point. Of course you have not said anything about poverty. Poor people are an identifiable group. Their children suffer.... and? And? There is no nexus between allowing people to marry and the health of children. It doesn't enter into it until you have a solution in need of a problem.

• Solution: Don't let gays marry.
• Problem: Their children will suffer.

Got it now?

Again, I haven't said anything about the number of children gays and lesbians can have. What is your point?

What is YOUR point? Why are you discussing children at all? Assuming your premises calls for disallowing gays and lesbians to marry as much as assuming my premise above should or could preclude poor people from marrying.

It's a non-sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other by your own admission. Gays and lesbians will have children regardless. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry can only improve the lives of their families.

 

[halleyscomet]

The wife of a straight couple need not take "the very same precautions" Mayo recommends. Why? Because gay men have have, for years, had a higher promiscuity rate than straight men. The homosexual propaganda site Gay Sex seems to acknowledge as much but notes that the promiscuity rate among gay men is dropping.

I will supply figures/sources in a separate post (out of time for now).

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.

 

[Pup]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

I am not sure I much agree with the last sentence, but that matter of opinion aside, I must note that the answer, which rather unusually is entirely your own and in your own words, is also directly responsive to the issue. You should take a lesson from yourself!

Just wanted to emphasize this.

The main LDS church is against polygamy as a practice among living people and wants marriage to be one-man-one-woman. Polygamy as practiced today would be considered a sin.

(Specifically, it would be adultery because the wives after #1 would not be considered married by the church and thus having sex with them would be adultery, but in case anyone doubts, here's a quick random example from lds.org: Dallin H. Oaks, Quorum of the Twelve, talking about sins that some church members commit, 1994: "Church disciplinary records make us aware of other serious transgressions rarely reported in the press: adultery, fornication, polygamy, and apostasy.")

Janadele, if you're willing to argue that no one should intrude when FLDS members practice polygamy, even though it would be considered sinful in your religion, then why doesn't the same apply when others enter into relations that your religion considers sinful?

 

[Craig4]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has never restricted non members from settling in Utah. Whereas Hildale /Short Creek / Colorado City on the border of Utah / Arizona is and has always been an exclusive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS) community. Non FLDS are not welcome there, except as patrons of the shop on the highway. I have visited a number of times out of curiosity. They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.

Are you suggesting that there should be a religious test before people move to these areas or towns? As a member of member of a religious group perceived negatively by many, are you sure this is a road you want to go down?

 

[Foster Zygote]

You make it too easy. Here, just for starters:

"A survey by The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, revealed that promiscuity is a reality among homosexuals. The poll found that 20% of homosexuals said they had had 51-300 different sex partners in their lifetime, with an additional 8% having had more than 300."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_promiscuity

Conservapedia again?

Conservapedia is little more than the ravings of someone who's mental health I seriously question. Have a look at their page on mass–energy equivalence. It's an absolute joke of the sort that induces schadenfreude.

Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that there is no unified theory of light and matter because they were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

If you have to resort to Conservapedia to support your arguments then you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.