LDS II: The Mormons

[joobz]

The time period for studying gay marriage is too short, and the sample size too small for any organization to claim that "legalizing gay marriage reduces promiscuity."

They may or may not. Substantially more data are required, including the gay marriage divorce rate.

So why not permit gay marriage and let the data determine the outcome?

 

[skyrider44]

So you're okay with lesbians having sex and/or getting married, then, because they're not sticking their penises in the dangerous places that the Mayo Clinic warns about, right?

The term "same-sex marriage" applies to both males and females.

 

[skyrider44]

Yeah, let's see that study.

Here's one for starters:

The peer-reviewed journal Demography published a study by Dr. Douglas Allen, Burnaby Mountain Professor of Economics at Simon Fraser University, that reveals a major error in a large study conducted by Stanford sociologist Dr. Michael Rosenfeld. The Rosenfeld study (oft cited by gay activists) found there were no differences between children raised by homosexual couples and those raised by heterosexual couples. Dr. Allen was assisted in his study by Dr. Catherine Pakaluk of Ave Marie University and Dr. Joseph Price of BYU. Yes, those are conservative institutions. Bear in mind, however, that the Allen et alia study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Demography, not exactly a conservative journal. The error Allen and his colleagues found "completely alters the outcome of the Rosenfeld study," Allen says. "It turns out the children from [single-sex parent homes] don't do as well. They're about 35% more likely to fail a grade . . . ."

Allen adds: 1) ". . .every time a study that claims no harm to children raised by same-gender couples is released, it has been successfully disputed when put under a microscope." 2)"The gold standard is to have married, heterosexual parents. . . .every study pretty well finds that. It doesn't matter what dimension you're looking at, there's no question--the gold standard is having two parents, married, opposite sex" [underlining added].

Demography is available by subscription only (your local library may have it). Here, however, is a link to the Allen article:
http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/01/06/the-truth-about-children-with-gay-parents

 

[Slowvehicle]

I have said nothing about the three topics/issues listed above; hence, I'm at a loss trying to understand why you direct them at me.

Please, just read your post #377:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9650506#post9650506

 

[skyrider44]

You appear to have missed the following questions:

If you are using the Mayo Clinic warnings about the risks of promiscuity as a justification for opposing gay parenting, do you also oppose allowing single parents or promiscuous parents to keep their children?

Your question assumes that I have opposed allowing gay parents to keep their children. I have said nothing about that.

If you are NOT arguing that promiscuous parents should not be allowed to keep their children, they why not? How do you justify this contradiction? Why should a promiscuous homosexual be denied a parental role, but a promiscuous heterosexual be allowed it?

Your question assumes that the degree of promiscuity among homosexual parents and opposite-sex parents is the same. Is it?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ignoring for a moment that there isn't legitimate evidence that homosexual parents negatively impact children's sexual identity, This is a very interesting statement as it implies that confusion regarding gender roles and sexual identity doesn't happen in children from heterosexual parents.

But, to put a sharper point on this: your emphasis on gender roles suggests that there is a "correct" gender role that a male or female must adopt.

100 years ago, a woman wearing pants would have been viewed as a "gender role confusion". Yet, would you consider a mother who wore pants as a dangerous influence to her children...as she may be amplifying gender role confusion? What about a father who chooses to wear a skirt? Would it matter if he was Scottish?

Does a father who is unable to show emotion a "proper gender role"?
What about one who chooses to not watch football?

Thanks for bring that up, positively.

The entire system of "proper" gender rôles is, at best, a clinging to an imagined past; at worst, a way to make one gender subservient to the other.

In my relationship, I am the "domestic goddess"--the one who likes to cook, likes to make clothing (fabulous custom coture), likes to keep things neat and orderly. Let anyone who wants to call that an "improper" gender rôle, or "gender rôle confusion" explain why. After dinner--we're having jacket spuds and petit point peas in beurre noisette, and I don't want to break the sauce.

In my classrooms, I used to confront the idea of silly, atavistic, dysfunctionally antiquated gender rôles by wearing one of my utilikilts to class--and pointing out that not a single person was phased by the women in class wearing boy jeans, or the teacher in the next room wearing a man's suit.

Oh, well.

 

[skyrider44]

Ignoring for a moment that there isn't legitimate evidence that homosexual parents negatively impact children's sexual identity, This is a very interesting statement as it implies that confusion regarding gender roles and sexual identity doesn't happen in children from heterosexual parents.

First you say that there is no "legitimate evidence" that same-sex parenting has a negative effect on children's sexual identity. Then you suggest that it's unrealistic to believe that said confusion doesn't happen to children whose parents are heterosexual. So, children who have same-sex parents do not experience confusion about their sexual identity, while children who have opposite-sex parents do experience such confusion. Is that what you believe?

 

[halleyscomet]

This is a fascinating article about the LDS church's relationship with homosexuality and gay marriage.

Mormons split over same-sex marriage

Heterosexual marriage is "hard-wired" into the faith, but there are signs that it is evolving

Overall, most Mormons seem to be fine with letting non-Mormons live their lives as they see fit. The LDS political action on gay marriage is summarized nicely by this line:

Where LDS people have mobilized against LGBT civil marriage rights, it’s often because they have been taught that their own religious freedom, theology and marriage practices will come under threat—a threat that while disclaimed by most legal experts can feel especially real given LDS historical memory of popular and US governmental anti-polygamy crusades in the late nineteenth century.

What the civil rights movement of the 1960's shows us however is that legal action against discrimination does NOT result in religious institutions being forced to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The very foundation of Lay LDS opposition to marriage equality, the claim of religious suppression, is a lie. The rank and file LDS members opposing marriage equality appear to be doing so because they have been lied to.

 

[halleyscomet]

The softening stance on homosexuality is closely mirroring LDS reaction to civil rights movements worldwide. If the 1978, "God changed him mind about black people" shift is any indication, the LDS church will probably come around on marriage equality about a decade after the 50th state passes it. Just look at how influential LDS members were handling the South African battle to end apartheid.

A few years later and much further along in the anti-apartheid movement, a young Jeff Flake (now a senator from Arizona) became active in lobbying for South African mining interests in the late 1980s and early ’90s, after returning from his Mormon mission to South Africa. As a graduate student at Brigham Young University, he testified against an anti-apartheid resolution in the Utah State Senate and then became a lobbyist in Washington for Smoak, Shipley and Henry, a lobbying firm specializing in representing the South African mining industry. Flake went on to personally represent the Rossing Uranium plant in Namibia, which had been a major target of anti-apartheid activists for its discriminatory and unsafe practices.

Now look at the same man, who once defended apartheid in legal battles, reacts to the death of Nelson Mandela

http://www.flake.senate.gov/public/...lake-statement-on-the-death-of-nelson-mandela

Mesa, Arizona – United States Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), today released the following statement on the death of former South African President and anti-Apartheid leader Nelson Mandela:

“One of the true giants of the past century has passed,” said Flake. “His courage, perseverance, optimism and moral leadership have blessed not only his beloved country, but the entire world."

Senator Flake has, in many ways, embodied the LDS reaction to global civil rights movement with his own biography. I expect that many of today's marriage equality opponents will speak up and praise the equality moment in ten to twenty years.

 

[halleyscomet]

Your question assumes that I have opposed allowing gay parents to keep their children. I have said nothing about that.

Would you deny a non-monogamous married couple who have been married for ten years the right to adopt a child?

Would you deny a monogamous gay couple who have been together for ten years the right to adopt a child?

Your question assumes that the degree of promiscuity among homosexual parents and opposite-sex parents is the same. Is it?

Does it matter?

If so, why does it matter to you?

How would you measure "levels of promiscuity?"

Would you use negative health consequences as a measure?

Would you use number of partners as a measure?

Someone practicing "safer sex" within a close-knit polyamarous community has to have a much larger number of partners to get anywhere near the risks of having a single unprotected one night stand with a stranger. Does this information impact your opinion of who should and should not be allowed to adopt or get married?

Would you deny a non-monogamous heterosexual couple (Polyamarous or swingers) the right to marry? If not, why not?

 

[Pup]

The term "same-sex marriage" applies to both males and females.

Exactly. You've cited the Mayo Clinic article as if it was talking about risks that same-sex couples took, when in fact it applies to only a portion of same-sex couples and some opposite-sex couples. So it doesn't seem to be relevant to same-sex marriage overall, because it doesn't correlate very well with same-sex couples overall.

 

[joobz]

First you say that there is no "legitimate evidence" that same-sex parenting has a negative effect on children's sexual identity. Then you suggest that it's unrealistic to believe that said confusion doesn't happen to children whose parents are heterosexual. So, children who have same-sex parents do not experience confusion about their sexual identity, while children who have opposite-sex parents do experience such confusion. Is that what you believe?

I was demonstrating that such issues exist regardless of parents' sexuality. Since you do not deny this fact, it is clear once again you are attempting to apply a different set of standards against gay couples as heterosexual couples.


Thank you for helping prove my point.

 

[joobz]

Here's one for starters:

Allen adds: 1) ". . .every time a study that claims no harm to children raised by same-gender couples is released, it has been successfully disputed when put under a microscope." 2)"The gold standard is to have married, heterosexual parents. . . .every study pretty well finds that. It doesn't matter what dimension you're looking at, there's no question--the gold standard is having two parents, married, opposite sex" [underlining added].

Demography is available by subscription only (your local library may have it). Here, however, is a link to the Allen article:
http://onenewsnow.com/culture/2013/01/06/the-truth-about-children-with-gay-parents

First, that isn't a study. that is an article referring to a study.

Secondly, Here is what you claimed:

It will affect the children negatively.

If, however, the parents are of the same sex, the children's confusion about gender roles and their own sexual identity--already a problem for them--is likely to be amplified.

You want to see a study? I recall seeing one; I'll try to find it.

I read the Allen Paper, and saw NOTHING in it referring to gender role or sexual identity confusion being higher in homosexual households vs. heterosexual households.
In other words, the paper you reference DOESN'T address FosterZygote's request.

Thirdly, the conclusions from the paper is that gay marriage would be a benefit to children. They subdivided the data in an effort to see differences. Their approach is quite amusing, because there first thing they did was to compare all groups to samesex groups. In this comparison, they find NO STATISTICAL significant difference between samesex and other groups. This is a shocking result.

they then when through and showed that the only difference was, after adjusting for economic status and children moving, they see only statistical difference for married couples and gay couples. There wasn't a difference for gay parents and straight parents cohabitating. In other words, the paper demonstrates that gay marriage is likely to be a benefit for children.



In other words, not only did you fail to read the paper, you failed to comprehend the meaning of the results. Bigotry is built on ignorance.

 

[Craig4]

Your question assumes that I have opposed allowing gay parents to keep their children. I have said nothing about that.



Snip

So, should gay parents keep their children?

 

[skyrider44]

Thanks for bring that up, positively. The entire system of "proper" gender rôles is, at best, a clinging to an imagined past; at worst, a way to make one gender subservient to the other.

You assume, then, that someone (or a group of someones) arbitrarily decided "proper" gender roles. That's false. The gender roles assigned to men and women are biologically driven. It's a fact, for example, that infants who are nursed receive important disease immunities from their mothers; obviously, that protection to infants isn't available from a father "mother." Consequently, women have the role not only of child bearing, but of child nurturing.

As far as men wearing pants and women wearing dresses, are you unaware of numerous situations in which women wear pants--on a ranch, in a factory, in certain sporting events, on construction projects, etc.?

BTW: Your claim that gender roles are linked to male dominance is correct in an overarching sense. Why? Men are physically stronger than women. It isn't any more complicated than that.

 

[Janadele]

Nonsense

 

[skyrider44]

. . .The rank and file LDS members opposing marriage equality appear to be doing so because they have been lied to.[/B]

That's quite a charge. Do you have a source?

 

[joobz]

You assume, then, that someone (or a group of someones) arbitrarily decided "proper" gender roles. That's false. The gender roles assigned to men and women are biologically driven. It's a fact, for example, that infants who are nursed receive important disease immunities from their mothers; obviously, that protection to infants isn't available from a father "mother." Consequently, women have the role not only of child bearing, but of child nurturing.

There is a rather large leap from breast feeding to nurturing.
1.) Your implication is that women who can't breast feed or choose not to are inferior mothers.
2.) Nurturing requires a lot more than simply sucking a boob. Having a nurturing set of parents (parents attentive to the needs of the child and a willingness to meet those needs) is infinitely more beneficial than pawning off such responsibility onto one party.
3.) If you wanted to make a claim for biological roles in a family, why not this one? As women have functioning set of mammaries and men don't, they clearly are more functional leaders of the family.

As far as men wearing pants and women wearing dresses, are you unaware of numerous situations in which women wear pants--on a ranch, in a factory, in certain sporting events, on construction projects, etc.?

You seem to be ignorant of historical context. Women wearing pants was for a long time a negative sign. In fact, we still have the expression "to wear the pants in the family" as an outdated statement of who is in charge.

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

BTW: Your claim that gender roles are linked to male dominance is correct in an overarching sense. Why? Men are physically stronger than women. It isn't any more complicated than that.

Might makes right is your moral argument for gender roles?
Yikes. You have really dug yourself deep into a hole here.
My general rule of thumb is if you have to make increasingly stupid arguments to support your original position, your original position must be a bad one.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You assume, then, that someone (or a group of someones) arbitrarily decided "proper" gender roles. That's false. The gender roles assigned to men and women are biologically driven. It's a fact, for example, that infants who are nursed receive important disease immunities from their mothers; obviously, that protection to infants isn't available from a father "mother." Consequently, women have the role not only of child bearing, but of child nurturing.

As far as men wearing pants and women wearing dresses, are you unaware of numerous situations in which women wear pants--on a ranch, in a factory, in certain sporting events, on construction projects, etc.?

BTW: Your claim that gender roles are linked to male dominance is correct in an overarching sense. Why? Men are physically stronger than women. It isn't any more complicated than that.

Are you saying,l then, that mothers who are not physically able to breasfeed should not be allowed to keep children, "for the good of the children"?

Are you saying, then, that mothers who choose to bottle-feed, rather than breast feed (for convenience, because of the power of advertising, for squeamishness, whatever) should not be allowed to keep children "for the good of the children"?

Are you saying then, that "Paul's" misogyny, and the institutionalized misogyny of the CJCLDS, are "for the good of the children"?

That women should, as a class, get paid less for the same work, "for the good of the children"?

"Might makes right", "for the good of the children"?

Girls get pink toys for xmas; boys get tools; "for the good of the children"?

 

[skyrider44]

Are you saying,l then, that mothers who are not physically able to breasfeed should not be allowed to keep children, "for the good of the children"?

Are you unaware of milk donor mothers? Do you know of any milk donor fathers?

Are you saying, then, that mothers who choose to bottle-feed, rather than breast feed (for convenience, because of the power of advertising, for squeamishness, whatever) should not be allowed to keep children "for the good of the children"?

Of course not.

Are you saying then, that "Paul's" misogyny, and the institutionalized misogyny of the CJCLDS, are "for the good of the children"?

Your premises are wrong; consequently, your questions do not merit a serious answer.

That women should, as a class, get paid less for the same work, "for the good of the children"?

Is that supposed to be a serious question?

Girls get pink toys for xmas; boys get tools; "for the good of the children"?

Apparently, that's what you believe inasmuch as you composed the statement.