LDS II: The Mormons

[Olowkow]

OK. As yet I have heard nothing from the Mormon side to logically justify the prohibition of same sex marriage. I do see a lot of flailing about trying out all sorts of talking points. My notion that it is all just from the Bible's "man lying with a man...abomination" was said to be too simplistic, or not scholarly enough. Well, what else is there? The children? It sure seems not to be a problem to me.

I then read on a LDS site that it is the "homosexual act", whatever that is, that is unacceptable, but homosexuals themselves are welcomed into the church of LDS. So I am naturally curious about what married heterosexual couples can do in their bedrooms under LDS, or God's law. I have been too timid to ask if Mormons can engage in fellatio or cunnilingus, because it seemed to me that LDS sex was just for making babies, not for bonding with a partner...a wife. I even heard, from a Mormon friend, that male 14 year-olds are discouraged from masturbating! I'm sure that ends well.

Ever careful not to cite "anti Mormon" sources, I just looked at some LDS sites, and I find this article, among others.

The Mormon Therapist on Appropriate Sexual Intimacy in Marriage

Is anal sex wrong? I asked my husband to do it once because I was curious and he was more than willing to oblige. We’ve done it a couple of times and I have enjoyed it about half the time, depending on my mood. We haven’t done it in a long time, but I was wondering if it was wrong to experiment to such an extent. Same with oral sex: I’ve heard two camps with one saying it’s absolutely wrong and not spiritually uplifting and therefore shouldn’t be done, while others say once you’re married anything is game. That would certainly include oral sex. So which is it?

This is such an excellent question and I appreciate your courage to ask it. There are many LDS couples who grapple with similar questions. I, myself, have gone several times to both bishops and stake presidents to gain clarification on what is appropriate sexually within the bounds of marriage. All times I got a very similar answer: as long as you both consent to the behavior in question, as long as no one feels pressured to do something they are uncomfortable with, as long as it is something not harmful to your bodies, and as long as pornography is not involved – then sexual lifestyle should be decided on by husband and wife.

I'm not sure why the exception of pornography is included, but this strikes me as a reasonable answer. But how can someone be against what two consenting men do with each other, even to the extent of depriving them of the joy of marriage, then turn around and say this behavior is just fine between a man and a woman? All the while condescendingly saying, "But we love you gays!", just don't do the nasty or we will reject you. I honestly don't understand how this works in the belief system of the LDS.

I'm trying hard not to personalize this, but I really think any attempt to demonize gay behavior is based on strong beliefs that were held by parents or peers, rooted in the Bible, and just cannot be abandoned by some among the aging LDS leadership.

 

[Cat Tale]

At the end of the day, the LDS considers the homosexual act to against divine law.
End of story, until someone has a vision justifying a change, correct me if I'm wrong.

That's pretty much it. Of course that "someone" has to be the prophet of the Church, and it can be any form of communication, doesn't have to be a vision.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . I evaluate all studies you presented. none claim what you say they claim.

That being the case, I think you'll be interested in the following.

"In her book, Children as Trophies?, European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 studies [emphasis added] on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behavior, CONFUSED GENDER ROLES [emphasis added], and increased likelihood of serious problems later in life." [A link for this and all other quoted information in this post appears at the end of the post.]

In the article "Science, myths and same-sex parenting," author Dale O'Leary writes: "A French parliamentary report on the rights of children decried the 'flagrant lack of objectivity' in much of the pro-gay research in this area, and concluded with the warning that 'we do not yet know all the effects of the construction of the adopted child's psychological identity. As long as there is uncertainty, however small, is it not in the best interest of the child to apply the precautionary principle as is done in other domains?'"

O'Leary then notes that an analysis by two scholars disproved the "just like other children" claim. Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz analyzed a study entitled "How Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" They examined 20 cases that supposedly supported the pro-gay "no differences" claim. Stacey and Biblarz found that the "researchers of the study ignored the differences [emphasis added] that "they had, indeed, found." Among those differences: the 20 subjects were "more likely to have CONFUSION ABOUT GENDER IDENTITY [caps added], more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behavior."

O'Leary continues: "Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, admitted that Stacey and Biblarz had 'burst the bubble of one of the best-kept secrets of the gay community--namely that the studies it had been using did not actually support the claims it was making'" [emphasis added].

While gay activists have tried to put a positive spin on the Stacey-Biblarz findings, "they know there are political consequences to admitting that there are real differences," O'Leary writes.

The article is five pages long, including 15 footnotes. I have presented a small part of the information it contains that is severely damaging to the claims of pro-gay sources.

Here is the link:
www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/science_myths_and_same_sex_parenting/

 

[skyrider44]

. . . Frankly I found his judgmental condemnation of women who can't breast feed a refreshing instance of consistency on his part.

Please name the post or posts in which I "condemn . . . women who can't breastfeed."

Skyrider, do you believe a woman who has trouble producing milk for her child does so as a result of some sort of judgement from God?

If I were to believe that, I would also probably believe that pro-gay propaganda is trustworthy.

 

[skyrider44]

It's funny that you should choose terminology invoking "black" and "white". Wasn't it once considered part of the natural order that a "black" man was ineligible for the priesthood in the LDS church?

The term "black and white" is used to illustrate opposites in the same sense as "hot and cold," "night and day," etc. You thought, I suppose, that you had an opportunity to call me a racist.

Please point to one reputable study supporting your position.

Am I limited to just one?

"I'm not biased against gays. I just think that they must be denied the same rights as others because they are a danger to society. I've cited many anti-gay organizations that have misrepresented data in order to sustain this assertion."

Are you attributing that statement to me? If so, the honorable thing to do would be to issue a retraction and an apology,

 

[halleyscomet]

Please name the post or posts in which I "condemn . . . women who can't breastfeed."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9683790&postcount=447

"Condemn" may be a bit strong a word, but you do depict women who need to supplement with formula or donated milk as maternal failures.

Skyrider, do you believe a woman who has trouble producing milk for her child does so as a result of some sort of judgement from God?

If I were to believe that, I would also probably believe that pro-gay propaganda is trustworthy.

I see. Then we agree that biological features, such as milk production capacity and sexual orientation, are not the result of divine judgement.

 

[Loss Leader]

That being the case, I think you'll be interested in the following.

"In her book, Children as Trophies?, European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 studies [emphasis added] on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behavior, CONFUSED GENDER ROLES [emphasis added], and increased likelihood of serious problems later in life."

Children As Trophies, the entire book, is available online.

It is a 2002 publication of The Christian Institute. As such, in pretending to review 144 studies, it misses the last 11 years of research. Those would be the years encompasing studies like this. At the time of publication, gay marriage was legal in only one country in the world, and had been for only seven months. The first US state wouldn't legalize gay marriage until 2004.

The forward of the book makes no bones about its purpose:

Homosexual adoption is radically opposed to the Judaeo-Christian family ethic which views marriage as the only right context for sexual relations and the procreation of children. The Genesis account states “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” Parenthood is male and female. Children need male and female role models. The fifth of the Ten Commandments enshrines this. In Christian understanding, children are not possessions but a gift from God. There is no ‘right’ to have children. To “Be fruitful and multiply” is the normal expectation of marriage, though it is recognised that not all married couples can have children. Having children is one of the three purposes of marriage universally recognised by all Christian Churches. Procreation is tied to marriage. Children are not to be spawned in
random relations, but begotten in arrangements in which their parents are
bound to their offspring by the ties of law as well as nature.

Patricia Morgan is described as a Senior Research Fellow at the The Institute for Study of Civil Society. It is interesting to note that, while the institute publishes books, it did not publish this one. I can't find much about Patricia Morgan at all. She wrote a dozen or so studies on criminology and the family in Europe. The last work I found of hers didn't speak about the effects of gay parenting on children at all. She argued that homosexual marriage is associated with weakening marriage rates in Europe.

 

[joobz]

That being the case, I think you'll be interested in the following.

No. These aren't interesting to me as they are NOT scientific studies. They are cherry picked interpretations of scientific studies.

Have you yet read the Regenerus study?

"In her book, Children as Trophies?, European sociologist Patricia Morgan reviews 144 studies [emphasis added] on same-sex parenting and concludes that it fosters homosexual behavior, CONFUSED GENDER ROLES [emphasis added], and increased likelihood of serious problems later in life." [A link for this and all other quoted information in this post appears at the end of the post.]

You are quoting a site that refers to a book that supposedly reviews scientific studies. Why are you so reluctant to read the original reports?

I would love to discuss what the objective science says, which clearly shows that parents being poor is much more damaging to children than being gay.


As far as gender confusion goes, you still haven't explained what this is. If a boy wears a skirt, is that gender confusion? If a girl plays sports, is that gender confusion?

The article is five pages long, including 15 footnotes.

those 15 footnotes only refer to 12 different sources. And of those, only 2 seem to be original research articles. As far as papers go, it is a rather poor reference set.

I have presented a small part of the information it contains that is severely damaging to the claims of pro-gay sources.

You haven't done any such thing. And Besides, I am not interested in a pro-gay vs. anti-gay propoganda argument.


I am interested in what the legitimate peer reviewed studies suggest. Those studies demonstrate CONCLUSIVELY that it is more damaging for a child to be raised by poor parents than to be raised by gay parents.

Unless you are willing to seek legal action to prevent poor people from having children or getting married, your ENTIRE ARGUMENT about child welfare IS nothing other than a DOUBLE STANDARD.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The term "black and white" is used to illustrate opposites in the same sense as "hot and cold," "night and day," etc. You thought, I suppose, that you had an opportunity to call me a racist.

No. Actually, I thought you might make the connection between the LDS church's former attitude of discriminating against people because of their skin pigmentation and its present attitude of discriminating against people because of their gender preference. It's funny how subjective "natural law" can be.

Am I limited to just one?

You have to start with at least one.

Are you attributing that statement to me? If so, the honorable thing to do would be to issue a retraction and an apology,

You've argued that gays are a danger to society and that this is a reason for denying them the same legal rights as heterosexuals regarding state recognized unions. In support of this position you have cited a number of sources with openly anti-gay agendas which have distorted information to support their arguments. So you won't be getting an apology from me as I believe that I have accurately paraphrased your position.

 

[joobz]

The term "black and white" is used to illustrate opposites in the same sense as "hot and cold," "night and day," etc. You thought, I suppose, that you had an opportunity to call me a racist.

No. He didn't call you a racist at all.
What he was demonstrating was that your church held racist views. These racist views were considered part of the natural order. That is, until, those views were changed.

The questions that this EXCELLENT example raises are:
1.) Was the LDS church wrong to hold that racist view?
2.) If No, than does that mean they are lying about their new view simply to be politically expedient?
3.) If Yes, than doesn't that mean the LDS church is not infallible and there it is quite possible they also wrong to deny gays the right of marriage?

 

[Polaris]

OK. As yet I have heard nothing from the Mormon side to logically justify the prohibition of same sex marriage. I do see a lot of flailing about trying out all sorts of talking points. My notion that it is all just from the Bible's "man lying with a man...abomination" was said to be too simplistic, or not scholarly enough. Well, what else is there? The children? It sure seems not to be a problem to me.

I then read on a LDS site that it is the "homosexual act", whatever that is, that is unacceptable, but homosexuals themselves are welcomed into the church of LDS. So I am naturally curious about what married heterosexual couples can do in their bedrooms under LDS, or God's law. I have been too timid to ask if Mormons can engage in fellatio or cunnilingus, because it seemed to me that LDS sex was just for making babies, not for bonding with a partner...a wife. I even heard, from a Mormon friend, that male 14 year-olds are discouraged from masturbating! I'm sure that ends well.

Ever careful not to cite "anti Mormon" sources, I just looked at some LDS sites, and I find this article, among others.

The Mormon Therapist on Appropriate Sexual Intimacy in Marriage


I'm not sure why the exception of pornography is included, but this strikes me as a reasonable answer. But how can someone be against what two consenting men do with each other, even to the extent of depriving them of the joy of marriage, then turn around and say this behavior is just fine between a man and a woman? All the while condescendingly saying, "But we love you gays!", just don't do the nasty or we will reject you. I honestly don't understand how this works in the belief system of the LDS.

I'm trying hard not to personalize this, but I really think any attempt to demonize gay behavior is based on strong beliefs that were held by parents or peers, rooted in the Bible, and just cannot be abandoned by some among the aging LDS leadership.

What is it about religions that make them fall all over themselves to tell people what they can't do in the bedroom?

 

[Cat Tale]

The fact that the Mayo Clinic found it important/necessary to warn homosexuals about the dangers inherent in their lifestyles--yes, that IS what they did, and they did it fully aware that they would take heat for doing so-- that fact speaks for itself. The "discussion" to which you refer was designed to mitigate the article's impact.

Actually, the article isn't so much about the dangers of a homosexual lifestyle, as much as it is about the dangers of promiscuity among gays. What the article seems to support is a same-sex couple commit to each other and practice a monogamous relationship. Isn't that what same-sex marriage is all about? In fact, when one looks at the Mayo Clinic's history with gays, they are among the leaders in equality. Here's an interesting article that I found online when I got to be curious about what the Mayo Clinic really did think about same-sex marriage.

I found an interesting article this morning about the Mayo Clinic and medical benefits for its employees.

Mayo has long had a policy providing same-sex domestic partner benefits because those affected were not allowed to be married. That policy notes that marriage would be required if same-sex marriage became legal in the state where the couple lives.

Mayo Clinic has offered same-sex domestic partnership benefits to its employees since 2000. Those benefits are also available for its employees in Florida and Arizona, where same-sex marriage is not legal. Mayo Clinic does not provide benefits for opposite-sex couples in domestic partnerships.

So the solution seems to be (from the Mayo Clinic's point of view) for gays to do as straight people do. Find someone they love, commit, and settle down in a monogamous relationship, and marry when legal.

 

[halleyscomet]

Children As Trophies, the entire book, is available online.



It is a 2002 publication of The Christian Institute. As such, in pretending to review 144 studies, it misses the last 11 years of research. Those would be the years encompasing studies like this. At the time of publication, gay marriage was legal in only one country in the world, and had been for only seven months. The first US state wouldn't legalize gay marriage until 2004.

Setting the obvious bias issues aside, that would suggest using the book to discuss modern research about gay marriage and it's impact upon society is analogous to a discussing the evidence for evolution by using a creationist book written in 1920. In both cases, the book was written before any of the relevant research even existed.

 

[desertgal]

Please name the post or posts in which I "condemn . . . women who can't breastfeed."

It was you who stated that breastfeeding forms a bond that can't be formed any other way, and then refused to back up that claim, wasn't it? Thus, it can be inferred that, to you, women who can't or don't breastfeed, for whatever reason, are denying their child a bond they would otherwise have. It's an inaccurate inference, but that is what YOU implied by your erroneous statement.

 

[Loss Leader]

It was you who stated that breastfeeding forms a bond that can't be formed any other way, and then refused to back up that claim, wasn't it? Thus, it can be inferred that, to you, women who can't or don't breastfeed, for whatever reason, are denying their child a bond they would otherwise have. It's an inaccurate inference, but that is what YOU implied by your erroneous statement.

Not to mention that, when I pointed out all of the other ways parents could bond with children, Skyrider44 begged to respectfully disagree.

 

[Cat Tale]

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.

We can't hold anyone to standards higher than our own. I can say that the heterosexuals aren't doing all that well in the marriage category in the US. In 2011, the last year the CDC has up on their website, the US marriage rate was 6.8 per 1,000 total population, and a divorce rate that was 3.6 per 1,000 population (44 reporting States and D.C). So that's a little over 1 divorce for every 2 marriages. Two of the states not to report on divorces were CA the #1 most populous state, and GA the 8th most populous state.

Adding into all that slightly over 40% of all babies born in the US in 2011, were to unwed mothers, some may have been in a committed relationship, but not married at the time; but we're talking over 1.5 million babies born out of wedlock! I'm just not that sure that we heterosexuals are any more stable or capable of raising children than anyone else. Of course I haven't even touched on domestic violence and couples who stay together with children.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I found an interesting article this morning about the Mayo Clinic and medical benefits for its employees.

So the solution seems to be (from the Mayo Clinic's point of view) for gays to do as straight people do. Find someone they love, commit, and settle down in a monogamous relationship, and marry when legal.

Interesting find. It seems that the Mayo clinic recognizes that there isn't a single "gay lifestyle", and supports its employees in same-sex relationships because they see a deficiency in state support for such relationships relative to heterosexual couples. Rather puts the claim that they warned of the risks of said "gay lifestyle" into perspective.

 

[skyrider44]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9683790&postcount=447 "Condemn" may be a bit strong a word, but you do depict women who need to supplement with formula or donated milk as maternal failures.

Not only is "condemn" too strong a word, but your clause that follows it is equally hyperbolic. Where, in what post, have I depicted women as "maternal failures?" Identify it.

I see. Then we agree that biological features, such as milk production capacity and sexual orientation, are not the result of divine judgment.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God" [emphasis added]. --Ninth Article of Faith, LDS Church

 

[skyrider44]

Not to mention that, when I pointed out all of the other ways parents could bond with children, Skyrider44 begged to respectfully disagree.

Please identify the post.

 

[skyrider44]

It was you who stated that breastfeeding forms a bond that can't be formed any other way, and then refused to back up that claim, wasn't it? Thus, it can be inferred that, to you, women who can't or don't breastfeed, for whatever reason, are denying their child a bond they would otherwise have. It's an inaccurate inference, but that is what YOU implied by your erroneous statement.

I asked that the post be identified; you haven't done that.