LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

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.

In fact, modern research affirms much of what is presented in the article. Assuming you won't accept that, there remains the shocking disclosure by a prominent lesbian leader that the gay lobby was guilty of distributing information based on a bogus study.

 

[skyrider44]

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:

​

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.

No comment, though, on the statement by a prominent lesbian leader that the study gays used to promote their cause was based on fraudulent research. Patricia Morgan didn't say that. Judith Stacey didn't say that. Timothy J. Biblarz didn't say that. Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce said it, didn't she?

 

[halleyscomet]

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

Skyrider44,

Since fathers can't breast feed why do you consider us necessary? You seem to be claiming I'm incapable of bonding with my son due to my gender's lack of lactation.

 

[skyrider44]

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

You haven't read them, yet you "know" they aren't scientific, and you're positive they are "cherry picked interpretations of scientific studies."

Authentic seekers of truth look at all sides of an issue.

If a boy wears a skirt, is that gender confusion?

It could be.

If a girl plays sports, is that gender confusion?

Of course not.

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.

Herewith you admit that children raised by gay parents suffer some damage but not as much as those raised by poor parents. Aren't you on record as saying that children raised by gay parents suffer no damage? So which is it?
Do children raised by gay parents suffer some damage or no damage?

 

[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.

Name the post.

 

[skyrider44]

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?

The LDS Church has never claimed to be infallible, although some leaders have suggested that it is (Brigham Young comes immediately to mind). Do you know of any organization that is infallible?

 

[skyrider44]

. . .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.

False. I have not argued that "gays are a danger to society." I have said that single-sex marriage adopted nationwide could have negative consequences. I have also said that the data from various studies re. the effect of SS parenting on children is ambiguous and contradictory.

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.

You don't know that those "number of sources" have "distorted information to support their arguments" because, by your own admission, you refuse to read them.

 

[skyrider44]

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.

Be that as it may, there are questions about the accuracy of studies cited by pro-gay activists. I gave one example in a previous post in which Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, blew the whistle on a bogus report her colleagues had been using to justify the "no differences" claim.

Now, in a June 19, 2012 article, Christine Kim writes: ". . .a number of researchers have pointed out significant methodological problems with the research that would cast doubt on the conclusiveness of the 'no difference' findings.* Even some researchers supportive of same-sex parenting have acknowledged the significant methodological limitations in the research to date.** Kim then describes those limitations, including non-representative samples, convenience samples, failure to reflect diversity, small samples, false negatives, inconsistent to non-existent comparison groups--and others.
This is ironic in view of the relentless attacks by gay activists on studies supporting heterosexual marriage.

*This footnote lists multiple sources in support of Kim's statement, as well as links to some of those sources. You can see them in the linked article.
**Again, multiple sources are listed, including one link.

Here is the link to the article proper:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/06/impact-of-same-sex-parenting-on-child...

In case the link doesn't work, enter the title of the article into your search engine, which is "Impact of Same-Sex Parenting on Children: Evaluating the Research," Christine Kim, June 16, 2012, The Heritage Foundation.

 

[joobz]

The LDS Church has never claimed to be infallible, although some leaders have suggested that it is (Brigham Young comes immediately to mind).

Excellent. this means that question 3 is the question you should answer.
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?

 

[desertgal]

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

Uh, no, you never asked me to identify the post. Please show me the specific post where you did so.

Name the post.

I think we should call it "Fred".

 

[joobz]

You haven't read them, yet you "know" they aren't scientific, and you're positive they are "cherry picked interpretations of scientific studies."

I did read the article you linked. as other articles AND also the original research. It is how I know they are cherry picked interpretations.

Authentic seekers of truth look at all sides of an issue.

I have done so. I have looked at the research AND I have looked at the opinion articles you linked. I rely on the data more than the biased opinions.

It could be.

Of course not.

And you are the ultimate arbiter of gender roles?

Herewith you admit that children raised by gay parents suffer some damage but not as much as those raised by poor parents. Aren't you on record as saying that children raised by gay parents suffer no damage? So which is it?
Do children raised by gay parents suffer some damage or no damage?

Wow, reread my statement. I said being poor is more damaging to children than being gay. This is comparative statement. It is not a statement that both are damaging.

AND (what you seem to choose to ignore) is that what I said is based upon the science. I was pointing out the fact that being a poor parent is consistently worse (by the studies) than being a gay parent.

Why are you not advocating for poor people from marrying?*



*I know the answer to this. You know the answer to this. I know you know the answer to this. I know you know that I know the answer to this. What I do not know is why you pretend to not know that I know that you know that I know the answer to this.

 

[realpaladin]

You're correct: "There is no single conclusive study that has proven the benefits of breastfeeding." In fact, there are multiple studies that conclusively prove the benefits of breastfeeding. Among medical professionals the benefits of breastfeeding are a "given"; they are not even open to debate.

Please see my response to Agatha and follow the links.

Uhm... yes they are pretty much open to debate.

In *none* of these links there is the following conclusion (read carefully):
"The mechanisms that produce the beneficial effects of breastfeeding are exclusive to women."

Do you understand that sentence?

Basically I postulate that you will not be able to produce one piece of proof that says that the benefits of breastfeeding can not be wholly simulated by a man.
Neither in the warmth, the sucking of a nipple, the transference of bacteria or the content of mothers' milk.

It is taken as a "given" that breastfeeding is beneficial because of all of these biological mechanisms, but not a single study (not even one of your links) shows that the agent *must* be the mother or even a woman.

 

[Foster Zygote]

False. I have not argued that "gays are a danger to society." I have said that single-sex marriage adopted nationwide could have negative consequences. I have also said that the data from various studies re. the effect of SS parenting on children is ambiguous and contradictory.

You are contradicting yourself.

You said:

I am biased against a fundamental change in our society that threatens to harm children (I have cited studies that validate that concern).

You have argued that same-sex marriage poses a danger to society.

You don't know that those "number of sources" have "distorted information to support their arguments" because, by your own admission, you refuse to read them.

I've read everything that you presented. In fact, I've read a number of things that you obviously haven't bothered to read yourself. Remember that Child Trends study you cited? Remember what was written on the very first page in really big font?

Note: This Child Trends brief summarizes research conducted in 2002, when neither same-sex parents nor adoptive parents were identified in large national surveys. Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn from this research about the well- being of children raised by same-sex parents or adoptive parents.

You might want to avoid accusing others of not reading things.

 

[Foster Zygote]

The LDS Church has never claimed to be infallible, although some leaders have suggested that it is (Brigham Young comes immediately to mind). Do you know of any organization that is infallible?

No one has asserted that the LDS church claims to be infallible. The argument hinges not on a claim of infallibility, but rather on your statement that you oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that it violates "natural law". Yet "natural law" has turned out to be remarkable subjective, and often seems to parallel political expedience. How long do you suppose it will be before the LDS renounces its attitude toward homosexuals, as it has already done with plural marriage and priesthood for people of African ancestry?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Please identify the post.

He already did, in the very post you quoted. Do you see those words that are underlined and appear grey?

 

[desertgal]

Please identify the post.

You asked Loss Leader to name the post at 11:04.

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

At 11:06, you expected me to already have responded to the post you made to Loss Leader, and for the mods to have approved my post.

Name the post.

At 11:58, you nudged me again to have, within the previous 52 minutes, logged on, read your post to Loss Leader, responded to it, and for the mods to have approved my post.

Now that the post has been identified, perhaps you should find another way to dodge acknowledging your own unsupported claim. Unreasonably demanding that posters and mods instantly respond to you didn't work.

 

[halleyscomet]

Be that as it may, there are questions about the accuracy of studies cited by pro-gay activists.

Let me get this straight. You are sincerely, and without apparent awareness of the irony, accusing the studies you disagree with of being biased, by citing the Heritage Foundation?!?!? That's like using PETA as a resource for arguing against increasing the kill limit on deer hunting licenses.

I still want to know why you REALLY oppose gay marriage. You have yet to offer a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that survives even remedial scrutiny. Every secular "Reason" you've given has been shown, when you look at the numbers, to be a good reason to LEGALIZE gay marriage.

Skyrider44, What is your real, personal, reason for objecting to gay marriage?

Skyrider44, What is your real, personal, reason for wanting to prevent Non-LDS homosexuals from getting married?

 

[Craig4]

I've asked this before and you've never answered. If the LDS church said it was totally okay to be gay and sexually active what would your stance be?

 

[skyrider44]

Let me get this straight. You are sincerely, and without apparent awareness of the irony, accusing the studies you disagree with of being biased, by citing the Heritage Foundation?!?!?

My point was that pro-gay activists dismiss every site that opposes their positions, but accept without question every site that supports their positions.
You don't like the Heritage Foundation because it is conservative, and Kim's article pointed out some significant problems involving pro-gay research.

That's like using PETA as a resource for arguing against increasing the kill limit on deer hunting licenses.

You would be better advised to analyze Kim's article based on its merits or lack thereof.

I still want to know why you REALLY oppose gay marriage. You have yet to offer a SINGLE argument against gay marriage that survives even remedial scrutiny.

On the contrary, I have cited several studies that you auto-reject. The "remedial scrutiny" of which you write is seen by gay activists through a lens that filters out any information that challenges their position. Numerous studies have shown, for example, that where children are involved, they do significantly better when raised by heterosexual parents as compared to children raised by same-sex parents. You seek to strike at the very heart of a healthy society--the family unit. You do not know, and reputable social scientists do not know, what will happen to our society if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide. And if it does become legal, what's next on the anything-goes "progressive" agenda?

Every secular "Reason" you've given has been shown, when you look at the numbers, to be a good reason to LEGALIZE gay marriage.

Wrong. You assume, for example, that if gay marriage is legalized, the high rate of promiscuity among gays will drop. You don't know if it will or not.

Skyrider44, What is your real, personal, reason for objecting to gay marriage?

I care about children. It doesn't matter if they are part of a SS parental household or not. The example set by two same-sex individuals being married sends a message that isn't healthy for children as they seek to validate their sexual identity. SS marriage demolishes the principle that every child deserves to have a mother and a father.

 

[skyrider44]

Skyrider44,

Since fathers can't breast feed why do you consider us necessary? You seem to be claiming I'm incapable of bonding with my son due to my gender's lack of lactation.

You seem to have attributed to me language not of my making. What you state hereon is a complete misrepresentation of my position.