LDS II: The Mormons

[Pixel42]

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.

Once again: the behaviour of some members of a demographic group is not a reason to discriminate against all members of that democratic group, even when statistics tell you that the average behaviour of that demographic group is worse than that for another. Unless you think it's fair for an employer to refuse to consider any male applicants when recruiting for a position of trust, on the grounds that there are more male criminals than female ones?

Whatever the divorce rate or the promiscuity rate amongst different types of couples there will still be monogamous lifelong couples of every type who do not deserve to have basic human rights denied to them.

 

[joobz]

Eh?



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



It does? Well, I'll be danged.[/QUOTE]

All of this is clearly a dodge. The topic of this thread is Mormon belief and the resulting impact it has on society. Gay rights is just on point. You are free to comment on poor people, but I am sure you will continue to avoid this as the implications are clear.

Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry. This is pure prejudicial bigotry.

Now, the question is how much does your Mormon beliefs feed this prejudice. The selective reasoning you have used to ignore the fraud in the BoA has been quite similar to your selective use of evidence to support your prejudice.

 

[joobz]

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.

Are child brides also righteous? At what age do you believe it acceptable for a girl to marry a man?

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

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.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.

If your concern is promiscuity, with a side-order of "won't someone think of the children", you should be wholeheartedly supporting same-sex marriage. It's a stabilising influence, anyone who isn't interested in making a lasting commitment won't bother with it, and not being married is no barrier to same-sex couples having children and being as promiscuous as they choose (which is typically not very, but that's another story).

You say same-sex couples are promiscuous, so your punishment for this perceived crime is to ensure that they can't get married and form lasting, stable, legally recognised relationships. You're enforcing a feedback loop of discrimination (and promiscuity, if your statistics are taken at face value), and you seem to be the only one who hasn't worked it out yet.

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.

How are you going to gather data on this without letting them try? Why are you hoping to consider this in the absence of any evidence either way? What if straight couples get divorced at a faster rate - should straight marriage be banned?

When you start wildly throwing out possible ways that same-sex marriage may be inferior, not just without evidence, but without even the faintest prospect of gathering any evidence without allowing the very thing you're opposing, it's clear that you're losing the argument. But as we're playing this game, there's one thing that can seriously harm and even ultimately break marriages, which is infinitely more likely among straight couples. Unplanned pregnancy.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

What are you talking about? Seriously, what does this have to do with anything that has gone on previously in this discussion? You are the one who introduced the Gay Star News, so what is your point?

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

Just like you have no basis for accusing same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.

 

[Pup]

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.

Exactly. Different people define sin differently.

Similarly, the vast majority of those who support gay marriage do not recognize that the Lord says it's a sin.

If you think the FLDS should be left alone to commit sin (as defined by the LDS church) as long as they're doing their thing among consenting adults, then logic would indicate that gay people should also be left alone to commit sin (as defined by the LDS church)

There's evidence the FLDS church isn't confining their activities to consenting adults, but that's another issue.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

I have rejected sources based on an analysis of their content, something you seem to find too challenging or time consuming to practice yourself. So you really think that Conservapedia, the website that has a paranoid fixation on all things "liberal", to the point that they feel the need to lie about the evidence for mass-energy equivalence and call a well tested physical theory "liberal claptrap", and "disproves" the theory by pointing out that light and matter are created at different times in the Book of Genesis, is a credible source? What does that tell us about your credibility?

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"?

You seem to be confusing the Mayo Clinic page you linked to with the Regnerus paper that you cited. Perhaps you should go back and read through those posts again so that you can address the criticisms that are actually being presented, rather than addressing an argument that has not been made by anyone. No one has expressed any disagreement with the Mayo Clinic's page, only with your claim that it supports your argument. That's what I meant when I wrote, "the only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments".

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?

Again, what is the subject of this thread? It may have been split because of the high number of posts causing loading issues for some viewers, but this is still the LDS thread. And what do we read in the very first post?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.

So if your Mormon faith really has nothing to do with the present topic, why are you discussing it here?

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

Right, guilty until proved innocent. And we have pointed out that the only sources that you have been able to provide stating that homosexuals are bad parents have relied on misrepresenting the research that actually says differently, or biased sources with a well defined political agenda.

You're off topic (again).

What was the topic? Oh, yes:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence."

Would you please address my point? Why do you claim that Joseph Smith needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt that the Book Of Abraham is a fraud, yet claim that homosexuals should be presumed to be harmful as parents when you haven't been able to produce any evidence that they are? Where is the intellectual consistency in that?

 

[halleyscomet]

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)

Now that we see marriage equality reduces homosexual promiscuity, I think we can agree that particular promiscuity argument is no longer relevant.

Given the role comprehensive sex education plays in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, what is your stance on sex education?

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.

It turns out in the USA homosexuals divorce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Specifically 1.1% per year for same sex couples and 2% per year for heterosexual couples.

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States (PDF). The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Overall, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates.

Gay Marriage: States That Allow Same-Sex Unions Have Lower Divorce Rates

Since I doubt the gay population is large enough to impact the statistics directly, it's probably a result of other cultural factors. For example, the more progressive states are not only more likely to have legalized gay marriage, but have an older median age for first marriages. People who marry in their late 20's or older are far less likely to divorce than people who marry right out of high school. Progressive politics correlates with older ages for first marriages.

By the way, I would advice against relying too heavily upon divorce rates as an argument. It's not exactly one that works out well for conservatives.

High divorce rates and teen pregnancy are worse in conservative states than liberal states

Red States Lead the Nation in Divorce

Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?

 

[bruto]

A couple of points to mention here:

As far as the Gay Star News is concerned, I don't know whether other posters here had heard about it. I had not until Skyrider mentioned it, and I cannot quite fathom a reason other than the opportunity for a snarky comment why those arguing against his point of view would be expected to know about it or have read it. It's a British based organization, by the way. I, for one, support certain ideas without having to consult media to decide what they are. My personal interest in the "gay lifestyle" is nil, and issues other than rights are to me irrelevant. There was a gay-issues newspaper in Vermont for a number of years, called Out in the Mountains, but for reasons that should be clear to anyone who has a grasp of what how the past and the future relate to each other in the real world, it ceased publication some years ago when its objectives became reality. It's one of the few publications I've seen whose publishers celebrated its closing.

I see now that, with promiscuity proving an unpromising avenue, we are now being presented with the question of divorce.

As it happens, (for those of us who remember how past and future relate to each other) there are at least some preliminary findings on divorce rates among gay couples in this and other countries. Of course longer term speculation must remain speculation in the US, but one need not speculate about things that actually exist. Whoever wishes to argue the divorce issue seriously can cite facts instead of surmises.

I did also see in passing a remark that something around two thirds of the same sex couples marrying in places where this is permitted are women. A person making arguments against same sex marriage on the basis of what icky things some hypothetical men might do might well be missing the point if that statistic should happen to be true.

For me, I'm going to remain vague, at least in this post, and let others get embroiled in statistical quibbles and fine parsing of who does what to whom or what different people might prefer to put in what place, because that is, I think, secondary to the important issues in this dispute.

Unlike some, I am willing to admit that what I'm really arguing about is ideas and principles and beliefs, not raw facts and statistics. Marriage is a grand and wonderful institution. For some, at least, it counts as special and unique among human endeavors, and I think everyone who loves another person should have a shot at it, and every child who has parents, step-parents or adoptive parents who love each other should be allowed a part in it.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

You have argued that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, "for the good of the children", on the basis that you suspect that families with same-sex parents might by detrimental to children. There is overwhelming evidence that poverty is detrimental to children, yet you scoff at the idea that couples of low socioeconomic status be prohibited from marrying "for the good of the children". (Readers please note that I am not arguing for the prohibition of marriage based on socioeconomic status.) So, by your own introduction, "the good of the children" is on topic in this discussion. The fact that you are only applying this factor in regard to same-sex couples clearly demonstrates that your desire to see same-sex marriage prohibited has nothing to do with a pragmatic concern for the welfare of children, and everything to do with a bias against homosexuals. You are proposing legislation that would only apply to a certain class of citizens, but not others. Hence the very relevant references to Jim Crow laws.

Eh?

Please stop focusing on editorial and typographical errors as a means of evading discussion.

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

This raises the question of why you do want to talk against same-sex parents. When you make an argument based on a premiss (the welfare of children), and someone points out another situation involving the same premiss, it isn't "off topic" just because you don't want to address the inconsistency that it reveals in your stated position.

It does? Well, I'll be danged.

Yes, it does. It shows that child welfare isn't really your concern.

 

[Recovering Agnostic]

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.

I apologise. This is one of the worst sentences I've ever written. If you make the last bit read "...makes any meaningful comparison impossible, even if it were relevant", it at least makes some sort of sense.

 

[skyrider44]

Once again: the behaviour of some members of a demographic group is not a reason to discriminate against all members of that democratic group, even when statistics tell you that the average behaviour of that demographic group is worse than that for another. Unless you think it's fair for an employer to refuse to consider any male applicants when recruiting for a position of trust, on the grounds that there are more male criminals than female ones?

Whatever the divorce rate or the promiscuity rate amongst different types of couples there will still be monogamous lifelong couples of every type who do not deserve to have basic human rights denied to them.

Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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

So... they can't be found.

I couldn't find it either,...

So that makes it pretty useless to this discussion.

...but I did run across an interesting article entitled "No One Wants to Be Called a Bigot." Interesting.

You ran across it, but did you read it?

Bigotry is such a savage curse because so often, its perpetrators tend to deny they're guilty of the act. Sometimes bigots know full well their hatred is wrong. And there are well-meaning folks who are just blind to gay rights and truly want to preserve marriage for heterosexuals. Those people donate big bucks to powerful advocacy groups that mask the donors' hatred of homosexuality. Either way, it's going to take a lot more time, effort, and money exposing antigay bigotry and pushing the forward momentum of marriage for all.

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

So it's useless to this discussion. Just like hypothetical affirmations of the Book Of Abraham are useless to the discussion of its fraudulent nature.

That's true, it is decreasing.

And it is still of no relevance to the discussion of marriage for same-sex couples.

You want detailed documentation from me,...

Actually, LL only pointed out that the source you cited didn't offer other relevant facts. But if you're going to advance an argument, it's really up to you to make sure that you fill in your own holes.

...but here (above) the best you have to offer is "one source."

"One source" that shows that heterosexuals can be sexually promiscuous as well, as an example of why the lack of data in your cited source makes it impossible to frame an informed opinion based on a complete picture. Another factor that is missing from your source is the level of promiscuity over time. I know many people, of both genders, who had a number of sexual partners as young adults, only to settle into a monogamous relationship later in life.

And the "promiscuity" argument is still a red herring. It may be a dirty word to you, your religion may regard it as morally objectionable, but there is nothing illegal about having multiple sexual partners. Unless you are willing to prohibit a woman from getting married because she had a number of sexual partners prior to meeting the man she wants to marry, you're just making more special rules that only apply to homosexuals.

That wasn't on my schedule.

So you admit that you have formed your opinion based on insufficient evidence.

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

As a hypothetical situation, what more information do you need? Is there some objection that you can raise, based on scientifically derived facts, that would not also apply to a heterosexual couple in the same situation? Sure, perhaps one of the pair has a criminal record, or is an alcoholic. But those sorts of issues would apply to a heterosexual couple as well. What objections can you raise that would apply only to a same-sex couple?

 

[skyrider44]

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

All of this is clearly a dodge. The topic of this thread is Mormon belief and the resulting impact it has on society.

"Mormon belief" is far too broad a topic to be accommodated by one thread.

Gay rights is just on point. You are free to comment on poor people. . .

I am free to comment on poor people on a thread dedicated to that discussion.

but I am sure you will continue to avoid this as the implications are clear.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your "drift."

Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry.

Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

This is pure prejudicial bigotry.

Perhaps you can elaborate.

Now, the question is how much does your Mormon beliefs feed this prejudice. The selective reasoning you have used to ignore the fraud in the BoA has been quite similar to your selective use of evidence to support your prejudice.

Quite frankly, joobz, I'm unable to follow your line of reasoning.

 

[Foster Zygote]

True enough, but the data I looked at (before the recently reported reduction) showed same-sex couples were much more promiscuous than hetereosexual couples.

And how many had children? You really need to present this data if you want to advance this argument.

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.

Once again, couples with lower socioeconomic status have a higher rate of divorce, shorter duration of marriage, and are far less able to deal with the economic impact of divorce. This is very hard on the children involved in such broken families. This is undoubtedly a problem, but you aren't calling for a prohibition of marriages between poor couples, just same-sex couples. Why is that?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.

It shouldn't be a determinant at all. Unless you are willing to apply it to heterosexual couples of lower socioeconomic status, who are at greater risk of divorce that those in higher positions.

 

[skyrider44]

And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.

I raise the point, which is relevant, because in 2001 (yes, it's old data) 80% of heterosexual couples remained married after five years; 66% after 10 years; and 57% after 15 years. For male homosexuals in relationships, less than 1% remained together after just a year; after 1-3 years, 31% were still together; and after 4-7 years, 29%.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfi=IS04C02

Yes, the homosexual couples did not have the benefit of marriage, which may, indeed, explain the differences. I'm simply asking if there is reason to believe that marriage will cause gay couples to stay together for periods that approximate the figures for married heterosexual couples.

If your concern is promiscuity, with a side-order of "won't someone think of the children", you should be wholeheartedly supporting same-sex marriage. It's a stabilising influence. . . .

I sincerely hope that it will be a "stabilising" influence, but only time will tell.

: When you start wildly throwing out possible ways that same-sex marriage may be inferior. . . .

I haven't thrown out anything, wildly or otherwise.

 

[joobz]

Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.

Then what are your reasons?
So far, your reasons to opposing gay marriage is
1.) Child welfare (something that isn't supported by evidence, and you do not hold against other groups)
2.) Promiscuity (while this is a none of your business, marriage would decrease this)
3.) Divorce rates (gays have lower divorce than straight couples, so again this works against you).
4.) Anal sex is unnatural (yet, straight couples have anal sex and are allowed to marry.)



None of your arguments are valid. And even if they were, they would not be reasons to deny marriage to other couples.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

And yet the majority of Christians consider polygamy a sin. Whose religious values should "win" in defining marriage in this regard? How do you find a compromise in a country consisting of people of a variety of faiths?

Did you know there are FLDS members who FAVOR of gay marriage, because they see it as a gateway to legalizing Mormon polygamy?

Personally, I adhere to a more libertarian ideal of marriage. If it's going to convey civil benefits, such as taxation, shared property ownership, inheritance and medical proxy rights, then allow assorted combinations as long as all parties are consenting adults. That's the big problem the FLDS has, forcing underage girls to become sister wives. I say we legalize Mormon Polygamy, as long as all parties are legally adults. Legalize Muslim polygamy. Legalize gay marriage. Legalize plural marriages so my wife can marry her girlfriend and have both a husband and a wife, and then let her put both of us on her health insurance under the family plan.

Keep in mind, there are people who believe interracial marriages are as much of an abomination as gay marriage. Given the state of race relations in parts of the USA, I suspect the people who think interracial marriage is an abomination outnumber all Mormons combined. The Washington post just published a column that claims NYC mayor’s biracial family makes ‘conventional’ conservatives ‘gag’.

What's your view on interracial marriage Janadele? Keep in mind, the FLDS is very much opposed to interracial marriage.

FLDS added to list of hate groups

FLDS President Warren Jeffs landed his church on the list by his descriptions of blacks in tape recordings apparently made in the mid- to late-1990s. In them, he contends that blacks "are low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind."

In addition, Jeffs warns against interracial relationships, saying they could lead to the loss of priesthood blessings.

Potok said Jeffs "has a completely racist ideology."

But Salt Lake City attorney Rodney Parker, who represents the church, said Jeffs' remarks come from a strict interpretation of the early teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The theological discussion does not equate to racism, he said. "These people are the fundamentalists," Parker said. "They take the teachings of the early Mormon prophets literally and seriously."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-Day_Saints

Racism

In its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[87] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships. Warren Jeffs has said, "the black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth."[88]

Historically, the LDS church had a very negative view of interracial marriage, at one point depicting it as a sin so vile it could only be redressed through blood atonement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement

The ritualistic elements involved in the execution of Coleman’s murder may have been in response to a public sermon made three years earlier by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863. In this sermon, Young states, “I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood.”[47] Following this statement, however, Young makes a statement regarding interracial relations in which he continues, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Young continues his sermon by condemning whites for their abuse of slaves with the proclamation, “for their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”[48]

Of course, the LDS church softened its view on interracial marriage not long after that sermon. The list of quotes in this Wikepedia article nicely highlights the transition over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism#Interracial_marriages

While it hasn't been banned for a very long time, it's still discouraged in assorted church publications.
http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-priesthood-manual-3/lesson-31-choosing-an-eternal-companion

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”

It's easy to find quotes from church leaders condemning interracial marriage to varying degrees, but I don't think it's quite fair to use quotes that predate the 1978 position change. That said:

The official newspaper of the LDS Church[99] – the Church News – printed an article entitled "Interracial marriage discouraged". This article was printed on June 17, 1978, in the same issue that announced the policy reversal for blacks and the priesthood.

I'll give the article mentioned above a pass as well, as the LDS church was still evolving its position.

 

[skyrider44]

What are you talking about? Seriously, what does this have to do with anything that has gone on previously in this discussion? You are the one who introduced the Gay Star News, so what is your point?

You and others have repeatedly attacked my sources as lacking in credibility and of being anti-gay marriage propaganda "rags." I have simply noted that you have your own propaganda "voice" in the form of Gay Star News.

Just like you have no basis for accusing same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.

Correction: I have no basis for accusing all same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.