• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LDS II: The Mormons

Things are not looking good for the Regnerus "study." In general, researchers are willing to release their raw data. I'm having trouble thinking of an example of anyone who fought anywhere near this hard to keep their raw data hidden who wasn't later revealed to have engaged in fraud or misdirection of some kind.

UCF Calls Out Big Guns In Campaign To Cloak Emails About Regnerus Study

The University of Central Florida ... has hired the former chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court to defend themselves against demands that they produce the emails leading up to the publication of Mark Regnerus' discredited study on gay parenting.
Click to expand...

University of Central Florida Embroiled in Ploy to Keep Controversial Regnerus Documents Secret

A judge ruled the university had to release the documents, deemed public records under Florida law. Late last week, UCF retained legal counsel and ignored the court order. The Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., and Barrett, Chapman & Ruta, P.A – which represents John Becker, the reporter who initially sought the documents under Florida public records law - immediately filed an emergency motion for civil contempt. "What is UCF hiding?" asked Becker. "And why are they fighting tooth and nail - spending taxpayer dollars in the process - to keep these public records under seal?" UCF has retained Charles Wells, former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice, to serve as lead counsel in the case. "These latest stalling tactics are typical of the way UCF has conducted itself throughout this entire months-long ordeal," said Becker. "Instead of respecting the rule of law in Florida and turning over these public records, the university has stonewalled and obstructed at every turn. Nevertheless, I'm confident that we will prevail in the end and uncover all the public records, including even more of the anti-LGBT animus behind Regnerus' research.”
Click to expand...

Pro-Tip: If the "researchers" refuse to release their raw data, they're probably hiding something.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption. Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...

OK. We have dealt with the fiction that children need to be "protected" from being adopted by loving couples in stable relationships, and we have dealt with the fact that the honest, non-fraudulent, openly-available studies show, if anything, an advantage to children raised by same-gender couples in stable relationships (an effect which may, in fact, reflect SES more than any other factor).

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.
 
Janadele said:
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption.
Click to expand...
It was Joseph Smith that started the Mormon doctrine of "Lying for the lord". Given the facts that have been provided in this thread it would seem that the doctrine is still accepted.

  • Gays and lesbians already have the right to adopt in California and many other states.
  • Experts for the defendants in the Prop 8 trial testified (admitted) that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would strengthen gay and lesbian families.
  • No evidence has ever been provided in open court and then has become a finding of fact that adoption of children by gays and lesbians results in any increased risk to the children.
  • In the Prop 8 trial THERE WAS finding of fact based on objective scientific evidence that marriage was good for the children of gays and lesbians
Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...
Again, given that evidence has already been provided in this thread that demonstrates this premise to be untrue it would appear to be a lie.

Huffington Post said:
Gay Couples Hoping To Marry Within Their Faith Not Guaranteed In Church.

"There's no question of that," said Douglas NeJaime, a University of California, Irvine law professor and expert on gender law issues. "They're constitutionally protected. No religious bodies will be asked by the state to perform marriages for same-sex couples.
Click to expand...

If the state recognizes gay marriage as it does in California then it is a "civil" issue and not a religious one. No Church will be made to perform marriages for gays and lesbians.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption. Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...

So a child can be adopted only by married couples? Which religious organizations have been forced to join anyone in holy wedlock? :confused:

I think someone may have lied to you.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption. Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...
Protecting adoptive children from what exactly?

And guess what. Allowing same sex civil unions will have precisely zero effect on the LDS church, nor will it force them to perform such. I cannot fathom what confusion of ideas would lead you to such a conclusion.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The Mormon church doesn't care to protect children adopted into abusive homes where the parents are heterosexual. Don't pretend you've suddenly started caring about the children.

Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Same sex marriage legislation supports civil unions.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption. Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...
The first part of this is not strictly a marital issue. As I have mentioned over and over again, adoption by gay couples is a separate issue. Exactly how separate may depend on jurisdictions as well as adoptive agencies, but stopping marriage does not stop adoptions. In Vermont, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the 1999 Supreme Court ruling that resulted in civil unions was based partly on the fact that that same Supreme Court had overturned legal bars to gay adoption in 1993. And well they should have, too. Adoption includes the adoption of children who belong to one of a couple.

The second part of this is utterly and absolutely irrelevant, at least in the United States. No matter how many times you repeat a lie it does not become true! Deaf ears notwithstanding, I will repeat as I repeat again and again: Civil marriage is not "holy wedlock" if you don't want it to be, and no gay marriage law compels any religious organization to participate in the religious wedding of anyone who is not deemed suitable.

We're all free to comment on United States laws even if we're alien to the country, and we're all free to object to things we find unpleasant or objectionable, but for Christ's sake don't perpetuate stupid lies.
 
Janadele said:
Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that religious organizations are going to be forced to conduct marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples? Nobody's going to force Mormon temples to perform weddings for same-sex couples any more than they're going to force them to perform Catholic, Hindu or Sikh weddings.
 
Janadele said:
Of course not.
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption. Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...

Relax. Churches today are NOT forced to marry interracial couples despite the civil rights battles of the 1960's.

As long as the LDS church opposes gay marriage they will not be forced to bless one in temple. Anyone saying otherwise is either a liar or someone who has believed a liar.
 
I don't know if I'm allowed to say this in a moderated thread, but what the hey. My daughter has a bunch of LDS friends and attended church with them for about a year. It wasn't her cup of tea, but she still remains very close with her buddies. During the year in question, I got to know quite a few of the folks who go to the LDS church, as well as the parents of my daughter's friends. While I put no stock in the Mormonic Boogaloo, I have to say that the LDS folks I've met are some of the friendliest, most inclusive, compassionate people I know. And the woo? No worse than any other major woo-slinger's woo. Folks scared of death in an impersonal universe make up stuff that makes them feel warm and fuzzy. No biggy.
 
Janadele said:
Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...
I think you’ll find that all the people here who think it’s a travesty that the LDS church lobbies against same-sex marriage would also think that it’s just as big a problem to lobby for laws that force any religion, yours included, to perform same-sex marriage. We might think that it’s bigoted and hateful for religions to exclude homosexuals, but I don’t think many at all would want to make laws to force religions to perform those marriages.

See the difference between that and your religions viewpoint?
 
Janadele said:
Faith precedes miracles:
LDS Sister Missionary prays for water to stop rising... the water retreats.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=10...sing-concern-for-typhoon-survivors&fm=home_pa

All LDS Missionaries serving in the Philipines survived the devastating Typhoon.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...r-faith-and-what-it-means-to-be-prepared.html
Click to expand...

Hmm.

http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/...cle_9e3eae5f-1d2e-50e5-8f7e-f9956d888f5a.html

Twelve Mormon missionaries have died so far in 2013 — including two this week. The deaths are far above typical levels. And while church officials insist the spike doesn’t represent a trend, it has raised anew the question: Is missionary work safe?
Click to expand...

Did they forget to pray hard enough? :confused:
 
The radical homosexual agenda is far more insidious than the majority of their supporters understand. Their goal has long been to Infiltrate positions of power and influence within the legal system to force anti discrimination laws upon those who dare expose homosexual immorality for what it is, and who refuse to accept their perversions. The LDS Church will never capitulate to their demands regardless of the cost... even if this means being unable to officially perform legal marriages.
 
Janadele said:
Briefly... protecting children who are available for adoption.
Click to expand...

Well, gay couples are already allowed to adopt. So, opposing gay marriage just prevents these couples from marrying. As we know marriage provides a greatly likelihood for a stable home, by preventing gay marriage the church actively worsens the child welfare outcomes.


Janadele said:
Protecting the right of religious organisations to determine whom they will join in Holy Wedlock.
Click to expand...
No one is changing this and it makes no sense at the face of it.

Are Mormons forced to marry Muslims?
Are Muslims forced to marry Buddhists?

No, of course not.
 
Slowvehicle said:
...Interesting that, in a thread about "LDS" doctrine, a Catholic Author's opinion piece is offered as "evidence" that marriage equality will be bad for "the children".
Click to expand...

Open-minded individuals who sincerely seek the truth about a given issue, do not influence the outcome by selectively choosing sources. Truth knows no political, economic, or religious constraints. Truth exists where it exists. You seem to believe that if one is a Catholic, his/her conception of truth is predetermined by his/her Catholicism. Not so. There are many Catholics who do not accept certain aspects of Catholic doctrine, yet they continue to be Catholics. The same is true of Mormons. Some LDS believe the BoM is a 19th century work written by Joseph Smith. Yet they continue to be faithful Latter-day Saints.

Your "interesting" observation at the beginning of this post manages to be both simplistic and naïve.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
It's been explained to you MANY TIMES that the study by the Mayo Clinic is not being doubted. The cherry-picking of individual quotes from the article, however is quite biased. Especially when the study itself points out that many of the problems that gays face- the serious problems you yourself point out- are indeed probably caused by the prejudice and social stigmatization homosexuals face in society, such as not being allowed to marry.

Stop pretending you don't understand this.
Click to expand...

Why did the Mayo Clinic find it necessary to post an article that specifically addresses health concerns for homosexuals?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom