LDS

[joobz]

I don't mean to be uncharitable, but your wording suggests that Joseph Smith "actively sought to limit the rights of gays."

I assume that isn't what you meant.

No, I was referring to the LDS church, not Joseph Smith. The LDS church has actively sought to limit the rights of gays.

 

[Pixel42]

". . .who deliberately seek them out. . . ." I haven't sought you out; you came here of your own accord. To my knowledge, no one else has sought you out either.

You and Janadele came to a sceptics discussion forum and presented your beliefs for discussion; I did go to a Mormon discussion forum and start a thread disputing Mormon beliefs. Mormons have knocked at my door many times and tried to persuade me to join their church; I have once never knocked at a Mormon's door and tried to persuade them to leave it.

True. It is also not necessary to cast dispersions on a person or organization with whom you disagree. It is possible for fair-minded people to disagree without being disagreeable.

I presume you mean aspersions.

I don't accept the above as an accurate description of this thread. Pointing out factual errors and challenging unsupported assertions is par for the course in a discussion. Fair minded people are not bigots.

You know no such thing; otherwise, provide a source.

The source was given earlier in the thread. IIRC it was the LDS's own figures that were quoted.

The Church builds and maintains chapels throughout the world, in addition to 100+ temples. They require a huge oulay of tithing funds.

What a dreadful waste of money that could be used helping the needy, as Jesus instructed.

The notion that the service the Church provides is based on "bizarre beliefs" is of your manufacture.

You were the one that mentioned the services your church provides in response to my comment that I found its beliefs bizarre. I replied that I didn't see any connection between the two. I still don't. Plenty of people manage to help the needy without believing in golden plates provided by angels which later mysteriously vanish, ancient civilisations in America founded by Jews, an afterlife as a god ruling your own planet, and all the rest of the stuff Joseph Smith made up.

 

[Craig4]

I don't mean to be uncharitable, but your wording suggests that Joseph Smith "actively sought to limit the rights of gays."

I assume that isn't what you meant.

Do think that when the LDS attempts to influence a political campaign or ballot initiative that it is wrong for your opponents to point out that your beliefs are founded on a fraud?

 

[Dissolution]

How do you achieve a balanced perspective about an issue if you refuse to look at information that challenges your position?

Ms. Kim's article is extensively footnoted, including summaries of court cases.

How do you achieve a balanced perspective about an issue when you accept propaganda as fact and ignore the fact that your source has been discredited?
The company that she works for has already been shown to use intentionally misleading figures for one issue, so why should anyone entertain any other examples of their biased garbage?

Is it your belief that there are 'net sites that are perfectly objective in their approach to controversial issues?

No. Did I say anything that lead you to believe that this was the case?

 

[skyrider44]

. . . We seem to have differing standards of what constitutes "in detail". Kim's blog post offers very little actual information. Why didn't you simply cite the source articles?

I noted that Kim's article is extensively footnoted, including references to court cases. Yes, I suppose I could have listed links to all the footnoted sources, but I left it to the reader to choose which links to follow. I don't regard that as a significant failing.

It's obvious that this discussion is going nowhere. Why? Because reputable scholars and researchers cannot agree on the issue. Note, for example, that an article in the journal Health & Science, dated March 26, 2013, is headlined "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children."

The article notes that "Researchers have been develing into the effects of same-sex parenting only since the 1980s and 1990s. Most of the studies involve relatively small samples. . . . Still, there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in how well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development" [good point for your position].

On the other hand, there is a study by Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at the U. of Texas at Austin, that found that "adults who reported being raised by a person who had a homosexual experience were likely to be on welfare or experience sexual abuse." I don't find that very convincing, but I mention it to reinforce my point that there are studies on both sides of the issue and no clear conclusion has been reached.

So, Foster, it matters not to me how you feel about the matter. For myself, as a conservative, I will opt (as I've said before) for the traditional position; i.e., a child needs a mother and a father.

 

[skyrider44]

I am curious as to your methods here:
You first linked to an article trying to allude that the paper supports natural parents (as opposed to opposite sex couples) are superior to child care.

That was Post 8813. It presented research indicating that children do better with mother and father role models.

When it was pointed out that the paper can't make such a conclusion as its study ONLY LOOKED at opposite sex couples. . . .

No, the article described several studies and made several references to sources indicating that same-sex marriage is not good for children. The article also presented the opposing point of view (with references/sources).

you then link to an article discussing study design problems in research in general.

Christine Kim's article described problems with the methodology used in studying the impact of same-sex parenting on children. She described what she felt were flaws in the research, and she included footnotes.

Do you not see the logical disconnect here?

No, I don't.

: You have made the positive claim that there is a difference between same sex and opposite sex couples' ability to raise children. If you believe this, then show the data in support of this claim.

The claim is made by the first article, parts of which I quoted. Data in the article proper support the claim.

The new article you linked to is not original research but rather a review opinion.

As I state above, Christine Kim's article is a critique of the methodology used in studying the effect of same-sex marriage on children. It is much more than a "review opinion." You are, of course, free to disagree with Dr. Kim's analysis.

As I say in an earlier post, this discussion is going nowhere because competent experts on both sides of the issue arrive at opposing conclusions.
I see no point in keeping it on the thrashing floor any longer.

 

[RandFan]

How do you achieve a balanced perspective about an issue if you refuse to look at information that challenges your position?

Ms. Kim's article is extensively footnoted, including summaries of court cases.

I find it dubious. The judge in the Prop 8 trial repeteadly asked for such evidence and was rebuffed. The experts that did testify said that gay and lesbians make wonderful parents. And marriage has nothing to do with gay adoption. What a child needs most is to attentive and loving parents.

Those are the facts. Scientific and legal. (see finding of fact Prop 8 trial). See my video above as to why the defense failed to provide expert testimony. Junk science, even when it is footnoted, can be torn apart on the stand. That's why.

 

[skyrider44]

But if you can't have that, what should you do?

1. My friend Mike is gay. He cannot have a low-conflict marriage with a woman. It would destroy his very notion of personhood, force him to live a lie and cause him and his female spouse great consternation. However, he has no intention of ever having children. He's in his forties and does not have any desire to have a child in his life. Why should he be prevented from marrying a man he loves?

You cite an individual, special-circumstances case. What if laws affecting the entire citizenry were passed using that criterion? Moreover, if he were to be married, would he love his partner more? How so?

2. My friend Greg is not gay. He is married to a woman. His marriage is hardly low-conflict. He and his wife fight constantly (when they are speaking at all). Each has cheated on the other. They will never love each other. Should they be legally prevented from having children?

I could be wrong here, but I believe that in some states in circumstances akin to the one you describe, courts can order that the women undergo surgery to prevent pregnancy.

3. My friend Stu married a woman and they had children. For years, it was a loving, low-stress relationship. However, he and his wife have grown apart. Each blames the other for holding him/her back. Each curses loudly at the other in front of the children. Neither has had a nice thought towards the other in years. Should their children be taken away?

I believe there is legal precedent for taking children out of a home that poses a threat to their welfare.

4. There is a young orphan baby. He was born prematurely to a crack-addicted mother, the father is unknown. The mother neither wants the child nor could she care for him anyway. She is on her way to jail in any case. Her sister (a sober and responsible lawyer) is willing to raise the child. Her sister is in a happy, low-stress marriage of eight years. She loves and wants the child and her spouse feels the same way. Nobody else is available to adopt the child. Literally, nobody else wants the sickly, disabled little baby. Her spouse is a woman. Should she be prevented from adopting?

No.

This assumes your statement about male/female families is true. It isn't, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I quoted experts whose research indicates children do best when raised by a mother and a father. I also noted, however, that the research isn't conclusive. In fact, I referenced an article entitled "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children," published by Health & Science journal, Mar. 26, 2013. (Note: I may have written "Feb." in that post, but Mar. is the correct month. Apologies.)

 

[Loss Leader]

You cite an individual, special-circumstances case. What if laws affecting the entire citizenry were passed using that criterion?

They have been. And they're working just fine.

Moreover, if he were to be married, would he love his partner more? How so?

Because his partner would be a man. Because he cannot eel romantic love for a woman. Because he can feel romantic love towards another man.

I could be wrong here, but I believe that in some states in circumstances akin to the one you describe, courts can order that the women undergo surgery to prevent pregnancy.

Great Xenu's ghost! No. Not at all. In no way whatsoever. Courts can't neuter people. What's wrong with you?

I believe there is legal precedent for taking children out of a home that poses a threat to their welfare.

And what if it doesn't threaten their welfare, just their happiness? What if they get enough to eat and have all the cool toys and designer clothes? What if they are loved and love in return? And what if their parents still argue and namecall and hate each other? Will they be taken out of the home then? Where will they go? What resources exist to care for them once the parents are pushed aside?

 

[Slowvehicle]

You cite an individual, special-circumstances case. What if laws affecting the entire citizenry were passed using that criterion? Moreover, if he were to be married, would he love his partner more? How so?

I could be wrong here, but I believe that in some states in circumstances akin to the one you describe, courts can order that the women undergo surgery to prevent pregnancy.

I believe there is legal precedent for taking children out of a home that poses a threat to their welfare.

No.

I quoted experts whose research indicates children do best when raised by a mother and a father. I also noted, however, that the research isn't conclusive. In fact, I referenced an article entitled "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children," published by Health & Science journal, Mar. 26, 2013. (Note: I may have written "Feb." in that post, but Mar. is the correct month. Apologies.)

...you continue to ignore the dissonance between fighting so very hard against marriage equality, "for the protection of the children" (when Jesus, at least in the xianist scriptures, is reported to have said...not one word...about homosexuality); while turning a blind eye to how easy divorce (against which Jesus is,at least in the xianist scriptures, said to speak specifically and harshly) is, and the effect of divorce on "the children".

Why do you suppose this is?

 

[joobz]

That was Post 8813. It presented research indicating that children do better with mother and father role models.

as compared to what?
same sex marriages? if you believe the data that you linked to extends to this, you are being dishonest as Foster Zygote as alredy corrected that point.

Christine Kim's article described problems with the methodology used in studying the impact of same-sex parenting on children. She described what she felt were flaws in the research, and she included footnotes.

I tried to follow her footnotes and references. They linked to other summaries and failed to cite original(First) sources. This is a bad tactic and typically frowned upon in actual academic research.

The claim is made by the first article, parts of which I quoted. Data in the article proper support the claim.

Provide the actual links. I do not see such data.

As I state above, Christine Kim's article is a critique of the methodology used in studying the effect of same-sex marriage on children. It is much more than a "review opinion." You are, of course, free to disagree with Dr. Kim's analysis.[/qutoe]
There is no analysis as she didn't actually seem to analyze the research. (Original research articles are not referenced. If I am wrong, please show me.

As I say in an earlier post, this discussion is going nowhere because competent experts on both sides of the issue arrive at opposing conclusions.
I see no point in keeping it on the thrashing floor any longer.

Interestingly, you completely ignored my itemized supporting arguments that justify my review of her report.

So let me try one more time:

Let's just remember, her entire critique isn't that same-sex marriages are worse for kids. only that the methodology does not allow us to conclude same-sex marriages are any different from kids.

What would you say if the data shows same sex marriages are SUPERIOR for children?

 

[joobz]

I quoted experts whose research indicates children do best when raised by a mother and a father. I also noted, however, that the research isn't conclusive. In fact, I referenced an article entitled "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children," published by Health & Science journal, Mar. 26, 2013. (Note: I may have written "Feb." in that post, but Mar. is the correct month. Apologies.)

That isn't "Health & Science JOurnal" That's the Health and Science Section of the washington post.
A section of a news paper is not EQUAL to a peer-reviewed academic journal.

but, let's quote the article:

Still, there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in how well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development. What matters more, researchers found, is the quality of parenting and the family’s economic well-being.

and

The best study, Siegel said, is the National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study, which began in 1986 with 154 lesbian mothers who conceived children through artificial insemination. A recent look at 78 offspring found that the children did fine — better, even, than children in a similar study involving more diverse families.

and then, the final point:

“One thing we’re finding that’s very important for children is stability in their family life,” Brown said. “To the extent that marriage is a vehicle through which children can achieve stability, it only follows that marriage is something that would be beneficial to children.”

This last point is, in my estimation, is what best serves children. If that is your goal(choosing what is best for children), why not promote same-sex marriage as a way to promote what is best for children?

 

[bruto]

Moreover, if he were to be married, would he love his partner more? How so?

I was going to let Loss Leader's response suffice, as it's a good one, but I have to get back to this one. Throughout this thread, you have stated that denigration or even scholarly criticism of your scriptures and your faith's prophets is irrelevant or impermissible because your faith in them has done no quantifiable harm to others. Now, how dare you oppose someone else's civil marriage in some other place because you don't see your made-up criterion of increased love being met? Quite apart from that being a short-sighted and narrow view of what marriage is about, and a question that can be asked of any marriage at all, it certainly seems to fall far short of your own criteria. What harm indeed?

Marriage is not, of course, just about some ledger of love. It's about how families are organized and protected also. It's about how society regards partnerships, households, and also the children who belong to them.

Throughout this tangential argument, apart from some poorly read statistics and speculations about the future which is past, very little of substance seems to have been brought up in opposition to gay marriage except for the one glaring truth of circularity. Laws that seek to normalize homosexual relationships will inevitably result in those relationships being regarded more and more as normal. If you see the act as a sin, you will of course see actions that normalize it as at best unfortunate. If not,....well, not. Welcome to the century.

 

[RandFan]

I quoted experts whose research indicates children do best when raised by a mother and a father. I also noted, however, that the research isn't conclusive. In fact, I referenced an article entitled "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children," published by Health & Science journal, Mar. 26, 2013. (Note: I may have written "Feb." in that post, but Mar. is the correct month. Apologies.)

Yeah, and I pointed out that none of this evidence was presented at trial even though the defendants said they would put on such evidence. It is likely junk science. More importantly, there is no law that prevents gays and lesbians from adopting so the marriage point is moot.

If you really want to know what the state of the evidence is, then go read the transcripts or watch the trial reenactment. They had real psychologists siting real data for a statistically significant amount of time.

Then again, facts are stubborn things.

Prop 8 Trial Re-enactment, Day 1 Chapter 1

Okay, so, let's grant you your proposition? Now what?

1. Do you strip children from single parents and give them to the state?
2. Do you prohibit single people from fornicating?
3. Do you require a married couple to sign a pledge to have children?
4. Do you stop gays and lesbians who are right now adopting children from doing so?

The premise is wrong prima facie and further there is no affective cause to compel the state to do something, anything if it accepted the premise.


I know a man with three children. His wife died. It turns out that children raised with two parents do much better than children raised with a single father.... and? Do we take those children from their homes?


I honestly don't even understand what the argument is supposed to mean. Even if I grant the premise which was laughed out of the prop 8 court, it tells us absolutely nothing as to how the state should treat gays and lesbians.

 

[Pixel42]

For myself, as a conservative, I will opt (as I've said before) for the traditional position; i.e., a child needs a mother and a father.

So if one of a child's biological parents dies they should immediately be taken away from the other one and placed with any mixed sex couple at all, to ensure they still get the best possible upbringing?

You cite an individual, special-circumstances case. What if laws affecting the entire citizenry were passed using that criterion?

Legislation that ensures that people are judged on their individual merits rather than on the average merits of whichever demographics they belong to - ie that forbids discrimination - is exactly what's required.

Even if it was true that, on average, mixed sex couples make better parents than same sex couples, there would still be plenty of same sex couples who would be better parents than plenty of mixed sex couples. All potential adoptive parents should be judged on their individual merits, not on those of the demographic groups to which they belong.

That's why we have anti-discrimination legislation. So that bigots can't discriminate against individuals because of their race, gender or sexual orientation.

 

[pakeha]

...I agree except that your starting point is a pre-judgement of Joseph Smith and the Church's cornerstone documents. ...

Hardly a pre-judgement, skyrider.
I can appreciate it must be difficult to accept one's spiritual guidance is based on a conman's lies and and pretentious dishonesty, especially as we've seen in the case of the BoA.
I can appreciate your use of evasions, diversions and other classic resources gleaned from the debaters' repetoire, all designed to avoid coming to grips with a most unpalatable truth.
That truth is that the LDS' entire belief structure is based on the writings of a huckster and conman, one who himself was taken in by a hoax.
A classic example of the biter bit, don't you think?

 

[Pup]

I could be wrong here, but I believe that in some states in circumstances akin to the one you describe, courts can order that the women undergo surgery to prevent pregnancy.

What on earth...? Do you mean US states? What country are you talking about? I can't imagine any first-world country today even entertaining such a bizarre idea.

On the topic in general, I'm still not clear on the logic. Let's say that all the points you're making are absolutely true (I disagree, but putting that aside...).

Let's say that the best home for a child is indisputably a home with two loving opposite-sex parents who can provide all necessities.

How would allowing gay marriage take children away from those homes and force them to go to a lesser home? Children who are up for adoption are, almost by definition, not in that circumstance. They're either orphans, abandoned, have only one parent, or have parents who can't care for them. Showing that gay parents are worse than straight parents doesn't help. What you'd need to show is that children who are up for adoption are better off not being adopted at all rather than being adopted by gay parents.

 

[skyrider44]

You and Janadele came to a sceptics discussion forum and presented your beliefs for discussion; I did go to a Mormon discussion forum and start a thread disputing Mormon beliefs. Mormons have knocked at my door many times and tried to persuade me to join their church; I have once never knocked at a Mormon's door and tried to persuade them to leave it.


I presume you mean aspersions.

Good catch!

What a dreadful waste of money that could be used helping the needy, as Jesus instructed.

Again, you provide evidence you have much to learn about how the LDS Church functions. Those meeting houses are more than places of worship. They are centers where plans are made for helping the needy, and where articles are actually made or assembled, everything from blankets to emergency kits. In some cases, they act as storage centers for supplies needed in emergencies.

If you're going to be a critic of the LDS Church, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the object of your criticism.

 

[Foster Zygote]

I noted that Kim's article is extensively footnoted, including references to court cases. Yes, I suppose I could have listed links to all the footnoted sources, but I left it to the reader to choose which links to follow. I don't regard that as a significant failing.

Could you point out these extensive footnotes?

It's obvious that this discussion is going nowhere. Why? Because reputable scholars and researchers cannot agree on the issue. Note, for example, that an article in the journal Health & Science, dated March 26, 2013, is headlined "Social science struggles for data on effects of same-sex parenting on children."

Then how can you claim that Kim's article is "eye opening"? You presented the Child Trends report (clearly without having read it) as evidence that households with homosexual couples were bad for children, even stating, "There are many other well-researched findings that point to the same conclusion". Now you're back-pedaling and making our point for us by noting that there isn't any data to support the claim that homosexual couples make bad parents.

The article notes that "Researchers have been delving into the effects of same-sex parenting only since the 1980s and 1990s. Most of the studies involve relatively small samples. . . . Still, there is a growing consensus among experts that the sexual orientation of parents is not a major determinant in how well children fare in school, on cognitive tests and in terms of their emotional development" [good point for your position].

On the other hand, there is a study by Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at the U. of Texas at Austin, that found that "adults who reported being raised by a person who had a homosexual experience were likely to be on welfare or experience sexual abuse." I don't find that very convincing, but I mention it to reinforce my point that there are studies on both sides of the issue and no clear conclusion has been reached.

What's a "homosexual experience" and how does it relate to the typical homosexual couple raising a child?

So, Foster, it matters not to me how you feel about the matter. For myself, as a conservative, I will opt (as I've said before) for the traditional position; i.e., a child needs a mother and a father.

I'm sorry, but life isn't perfect. My wife and her brother were raised by a single mother. My wife is an engineer working in controls compliance for one of the largest technology companies in the world and her brother is a partner in a large law firm in Chicago. I know people who were raised by a mother and a father who have made complete messes of their lives.

I have a friend from high school who married a guy who turned out to be physically abusive. She divorced him and gained custody of their two sons. She later married a woman whom she fell in love with. Is the state to deny them the right to marry for the "well being" of her children? By the way, the younger son is on the A/B honor roll at his high school and the older has just started attending a major university.

And what about same-sex couples who don't plan to have children? What does your concern have to do with their right to marry? There is no legal obligation for married couples to have children, nor is there a legal obligation for couples who have children to be married. So what does child rearing have to do with same-sex marriage that it doesn't also have to do with heterosexual marriage?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I could be wrong here, but I believe that in some states in circumstances akin to the one you describe, courts can order that the women undergo surgery to prevent pregnancy.

Where, in the Großdeutsches Reich???

Jesus Christ in kinky boots, no!