posted
I'm gonna stick this in here so I don't start another thread about it. For my job I had to sort through a box of stuff that was in my supersupervisor's office and I found a lot of stuff related to gays and religion, including a brochure on the Book of Mormon and homosexuality. The back of it says:
quote:The Book of Mormon, which contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel" says absolutely nothing about homosexuality. Nothing!
Treatment of homosexual men and women as sinners in the LDS Church is an administrative decision, not a revelation from God.
I'm aware of the whole Old Testament argument, etc, etc, but I was wondering what role the Book of Morman played in LDS spirituality and what anyone who is LDS thinks about the above quote.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:did you know that 100% of people who died of cancer last year ALL used toilet paper?
Not that it's particularly relevant to anything, but I find this extremely unlikely. People die of cancer even in poor regions where toilet paper is unavailable. And in the West, both homeless people and people with colostomies get cancer. [/irrelevant nitpick]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kojabu, that quote presupposes that the Book of Mormon is the only source for LDS doctrine. It is NOT. We have four books of scripture, and also give equal weight to the leadership of the modern prophet. It's odd for someone to claim that it is an administrative decision, and is therefore NOT a revelation. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The grounds for Latter-day Saint "treatment of homosexuals as sinners" stems from our marriage rites. We practice a form of marriage called "Sealing" or "Eternal Marriage" which we believe lasts beyond the grave, and prepares couples for greater responsibilities in the afterlife.
This form of marriage can only be practiced between men and women. The assumption many people make to explain this is that their future responsibilities in the hereafter involve or are analogous to child-rearing, and that these responsibilities can only be carried out by a man and a woman together — that sexual dimorphism among humans reflects a larger eternal principle that cannot be violated, and that it would be a lie to tell homosexuals that their marriages can carry the same weight after this life, according to our doctrine.
Mormon society is built around family units that are joined by these kinds of marriages. Even heterosexuals who marry civilly are constantly encouraged to work towards this "higher" form of marriage.
Homosexual marriage doesn't fit into this society. We can exist peacefully alongside a society that practices it, but to give equal weight to homosexual marriages would mean denying much of the foundation of our culture and belief.
So Mormons don't believe that it is a sin to BE a homosexual. But we DO believe in chastity outside of marriage, so if someone is unwilling for any reason to marry within the natural bounds set by our doctrine and culture, then their sexual relationships are considered sinful.
To sum it up:
1. Mormon society is built upon a certain form of heterosexual marriage that we believe is tied to a half-known eternal truth that we can't just change on a whim.
2. We also believe in chastity outside of marriage.
3. Therefore, sexual relationships that cannot occur within marriages that Mormons can recognize must necessarily be treated as sinful.
The sex acts performed by homosexuals are never identified as sinful in and of themselves, and homosexuals are never identified as being inherently bad or sinful people — at least, no more than the rest of us. This issue is simply a product of the constraints that affect ALL of Mormon society. Single heterosexuals who are unwilling or unable or marry for whatever reason (who constitute a rather large minority) are expected to live no less chastely than Mormons who do not marry because they are homosexual.
AND we are VERY serious about treating people with other beliefs with tolerance and love. We certainly have known our share of persecution because of ill-understood marriage practices, so there is a lot of compassion here (at least from me) for the homosexual community.
But it doesn't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is incompatible with our faith and doctrine. If we set the precedent of changing our doctrine with the whims of the surrounding culture, we wouldn't be who we are anymore.
[EDIT: good-natured teasing of competing faith removed to avoid giving offense or opening can of worms]
Squickmeister: Puppy's summary puts my background into perspective, so hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. And I suppose that source of information is incompatiable with how you approach things. No matter. I believe it, so there you go.
I do stand by the notion that male/female parenting is best, and to expect me to prove it to you with sources that you'll not dismiss seems a big waste of time. There's always some excuse why all the data I did present doesn't meet your criteria, so I don't feel like scrambling around to feed a guy who never planned to eat anyway.
I also stand by the notion that data on alternate forms of parenting are incomplete; though a few sources of data were presented, the majority of your links were simply association policy. The change to the social norm has the burden of proof and, frankly, when other data shows the opposite and/or biases inherent in the process, I'm not all that keen to rely only on data.
Martin Luther King never stood and read data on the effects of policies in regards to civil rights. Instead he "had a dream." Great social change ultimately comes from the heart, be the ideological and/or the spiritual. Spiritual confirmation uses its own form of data and "peer review" to help ensure it comes from the right source––but it's a science that requires learning a whole different set of sensory tools to understand beyond the five senses.
The only way you could get a balanced understanding is to convert...so whattya say?
posted
Yea but then you have to convert so many times to get the balanced understanding for all the different religions, and someone's bound to catch on...
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, fair is fair. We all convert to whatever estavares' brand of fairy tales is, for three days, let's say. Meanwhile, he converts to a flaming fairy for three days, and does his best to get laid. Who knows, maybe he'll 'gain a balanced understanding'.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cute parallelism, King. Doesn't make it less annoying that you persist in describing religion in the same childish, insulting tone. Just thought I'd remind you.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
estavraes, One of the main that likely contributes to why I discount your sources is that you seem to put almost no time into looking for them. Did you even read the ones you posted to establish that supremecy of male-female marriage, because none of them did so? The only one that tried to had a little paragraph that said, essentially: "C'mon, you all know it's the best way." Then you tried to balance an advocacy group against an established professional organization and called an statment of opinion a study.
I didn't accept your sources because they are very obviously poor ones and your description of what they are and say are not accurate. Like I said, there are established, objective reasons why certain evidence and groups have more credibility than others. These reasons are not in doubt, or at least not unless the credible source say something you disagree with. For all your accusations of me being led by bias and letting politics instead of facts and having almost no evidence to back up my position, I've stayed easily within these bounds while you seem to be willing to take whatever scraps you can find and present (and often misrepresent) them.
You can say that you don't have and don't care to have any evidence except for your prejudices, religiously based and otherwise. You don't have to pretend that you have good reasons to believe that there is science on your side. You're coming across, to me at least, as someone who doesn't know the science and doesn't think that knowing the science is important anyway.
Oh, and you're very wrong about MLK not reading and not using the scientific data. He quite clearly did so, on many occassions. It might fit your prejudices that he did not, but the facts again don't bear your assertion out.
---
Also, I find your presumption that I don't have a rich spiritual life about as arrogant as your assumption that you speak for God. Again, it may fit your prejudices, but it's not actually true.
edit: In fact, I'm going to expand on that. Here's why America is not run on the theocratic model that you seem to prefer. In the development of Western civilization, there was an epistemological (among other things) revolution that directly contributed to the character of the country we now live in. Rather than a revolution, really, you could say that it was the developement of epistemology. People started sitting down, pondering the questions of what we could know and how could we know it. Out of this came a systematic field of classifiying knowledge and the confidence we could have in knowledge. One of the main tools of this field is the scientific method.
One of the primary concerns of this system is that evidence must be transferrible and repeatable. That is, it must be able to be seen by other people. There must also be some objective standard to refer to.
Faith, religious or otherwise, does not fit these requirements and also gives a good illustration as to why they are needed. One of the big problems with faith is that people all have different and generally mutually exclusive ones. While it's common to assume (as you so arrogantly did to me) that people who don't believe as you do are infidels (literally those without faith), the reality is much different. So the resolution of what different subjective faiths comes down to a might makes right situation. If we assert that this is the guiding principle of a civilization, we are limiting the conflict resolution strategies to the application of force. Often this was direct force, as in control of the military or other group of large men with weapons. Recently, with the advent of democracy, it's in the force of numbers, with minority groups being left with only the more violent recourses.
This is a really crappy way to run a society and it also ignores the fact that reality and quality do not follow th will of the masses or of those who control the money or power. There are objective standards, the following of which have led to an unprecendented develoment of accurate, reliable information about the world (and in the process shown many historical "faith" based views of things to be laughably wrong).
The reason why you may want ot push a more theocratic style of government is because you think you've got the force right now. I wager that if some other group with a conflicting view of the world were in power, you'd be pretty set against it. This harkens back to the "veil of ignorance" argument from the second page. The denial of this sort of hypocracy and reliance on a set of standards the protect all of the people in society is one of the hallmarks of the new world order that was heralded by the founding of America.
posted
Hey King o'Men: Sounds like a great idea! I'll get right on it!
Squickster: You crack me up. You love to put words and motives into people's mouths, and this whole debate was fueled by you forcing my hand to prove something I'm in no position to prove...nor should I have to. Then you basically ignored the main points of my contention with a couple of throw-away retorts. You'd have made a great debater with all the smokescreens. Heck, you'd make a great army general with the way you manipulate. Sometimes your audacity is pretty amazing.
Classic point is your second half with which I basically agree . I do not "speak for God" nor do I demand a more theocratic society. But I have a right to stand up for what I believe for reasons that you may not agree with. But it's done everyday. You saying you disagree with the MLK reference means nothing; what "data" do you present to prove otherwise? He marched based on the hopes and dreams of a million of his brothers fighting the same cvil rights war. I doubt he ran some statistics and said, "Gee, I better do something about that!" He based his belief that equality was God-given. But that doesn't fit your "criteria," does it?
Regardless of whatever spirituality to which you ascribe you make it a second-class citizen, something that many visionaries and social leaders did not do. Like it or not, even the Founding Fathers understood that ideology (often fueled by faith) is the very crux of a new nation. They went into this grand experiment with very little data if it would work.
You never fully address or disprove the concept that when it comes to massive social change, it is rarely dicated by the scientific method or decided by data. Sure it plays a part. Sure it helps us see issues that might have been invisible. Sure it helps us see problems. But the motivating factor that finally decided change is ideology. Faith may be the foundation of such ideology, but that does not mean we demand a new government or must force everyone to believe the way we do.
You are motivated by your ideology as much as the next––the very fact you presume that the gathering of data and making decisions on that alone is your own brand of ideology. It's a valid one, and makes perfect sense. But data DOES change and mistakes ARE made and the very people who sit in their high-handed places die and suddenly a whole new crop of data changes what was once set in stone. It is just as fluid and unstable as you claim religion to be.
To use short-term, incomplete data (when reputable people and groups, regardless of your own brand of criteria, find at fault) to dictate massive social and moral change is irresponsible at best, dangerous at worst. If we were talking about building a bridge, everything you have contended would make perfect sense. But we're talking about making changes to practices that have been around for most of human history.
What this debate HAS done is caused people to rethink why we have marriage and its benefits. That's a healthy reaction. It's been fascinating to see how divided studies really are concerning the matter, and the data often seems to reaffirm one's current beliefs rather than change people's minds.
As in coming up with data to defend my position: of course I'm in no position to take days and days to prove something you wouldn't accept anyway. I could offer a thousand sources and you would either denounce then, claim they don't fit your "criteria" or continue the offer the "they're not a credible source" line with yet no evidence to show why it's not credible. Of course when you're called on it, you start arguing second- or third-tier issues and run them into the ground. It's a clever way of appearing right, and I applaud your ability to muddy the waters by never really answering any of the big questions posed to you.
(But hey, you present big answers to things I neither feel nor advocate, so there you go.)
I must admit your insights have allowed me to better understand another point of view and for that, I offer my thanks. It makes me very afraid to see how quick able-minded professionals can jump on a bandwagon that may one day prove to be yet another Piltdown Man––something that seems so right, yet proves to be a hoax.
Man, that was long-winded. I'm pooped. Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i couldn't even read this whole thread, it was too big for my little brain to synthesize. but i had a few things to say about some of the things that have been covered. forgive me if i repeat anything anyone else has said. on the subject of democracy: we choose our representatives, but even if they are elected by the majority, they still represent us all and should take that responsibility seriously. Faith and religion are all good in my book, but just because a representative is from a certain faith doesn't mean they can ignore the cries of their other people. i believe they shouldn't, but what can you do? we're too big to be a true democracy. the answer is you take part. you write your congressmen, your local political leaders. A message board is a fine place to start, to discuss, to vent and to learn from other people. But take your message to the people who can DO something about it. And be intelligent and respectful, even if you can't guarantee they will be back. encourage others to do the same. VOTE! you can bet there are boneheads on both sides. AND WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, BOTH SIDES HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK. and that's one of the things that make this country great. I may not like to hear that homosexuals are detrimental to society or that they are the downfall of this country or that they are evil or that...or that...or that...but just as well as it is someone's right to say so, it's my right to not listen. and hate is just bad in general. if you can't see where someone is coming from, try! look at it this way. what if you were taught your whole life that something was wrong and you agreed with what you were taught? let's say you weren't violent or rude or nasty about it. let's say you held something as sacred and in your eyes someone was defiling it? would you be wrong for respectfully standing up for your beliefs and voting accordingly? I don't think so. Now lets say you really loved someone, i mean really loved them and you wanted to be with them for your whole life. Lets say that you don't understand why people have such a problem with it when you are actually in a loving, healthy relationship and you want to cement it. let's say you respectfully stood up for those beliefs and voted accordingly. would you be wrong? I don't think so. The problem i personally have with the debate on homosexuality is that some people have ideas that are so deeply rooted they can't get rid of them (see: all homosexual men are pedophiles, or all lesbian women are man haters, or all christians are intolerant bigots) then the conversations get ugly. you aren't dealing with a dry issue. you're dealing with peoples deep seeded beliefs and desires. I know married couples that have been together forever and love eachother. i've known gay couples that haven't lasted. I've known married couples that destroyed the sanctity of their own marriages without any help from the gay community. and i've known gay couples that have been together upwards of 20 years. I can't tell you who is right and i don't have a religion to tell me. nor do i want one. i have faith, and that's good enough for me. all i know is calling people names will only further their argument against you. and it also makes you into just the bonehead you rail against. left wing, right wing, gay, straight, republican, democrat, athiest, judeo-christian and all the others, too. unless they prove themselves to be other than worthy, they're all people.
whoo! i don't know if you hung with me for the whole thing, but there it is. my jumbled opinion of the sitch.
P.S. Just because people marry and procreate certainly doesn't mean they didn't marry for love.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's odd. I'd thought I'd offered clear, specific reasons for why I didn't feel the stuff you linked was strong evidnce in your facor. Maybe In eed to be more explicit.
1) You claimed that there is study after study that supports your assertion that homosexual parents are substandard. I responded with a bunch of links to pieces of information that disputed this claim and requested that you substantiate yours. Do you feel you have done so? Could you show me where? What I saw was two position statements by a Doctor of Religion and a member of NARTH who has been censured that didn't reference any such studies (and that's kinda telling right there, don't ya think?) and a news piece talking about a study that supported the idea that the children of homosexual parents were not significantly worse off than their peers raised by straight parents. Do you feel that you've even made a responsible effort to show me any study (let alone a reputable one) that supports your assertion? Because I haven't seen it.
I realize it's much easier to say that I've always got some reason to not agree with your provided evidence, but you do realize that you haven't actually provided any evidence, right? And that this has made up my complaint? It's not like I have to stretch to find fault with you not supporting your assertion, which I disputed with actual evidence, with nothing but your say-so. Or do you feel that this is not a legitimate criticism?
2) You claimed that I seemed to be the only one who thought science supported these claims. I responded with links showing how the major professional organizations who studied these things agreed with me. You then claimed that they were letting politics trump over science, as was I. Do you agree that I'm not the only one (as I'm pretty sure you do)? What made you think it was responsible to make a definite claim about something you obviously know very little about, or am I supposed to believe that you know a lot about this but happened to miss anything put out by these organizations? Also, if you have any reasons for thinking that these organzations have put politics ahead of science that go beyond "They say things I don't want to believe are true.", could you explain them to me?
The way I see it, if this is what's being done, not only are these organizations showing a grave defect in responsibility, but they're also acting pretty stupidly, as when things are changed based in part on their confident recommendations, what they've said is going to be put to the test by reality. If they're wrong in a significant way, it'll be very damaging to these organizations.
3) You held up the ACP as an equivilent counterweight, in terms of science, to the AAP. I hold that as the ACP is not a scientific organization, but rather a advocacy one, that was started specifically to advocate against the AAP's acceptance of gay parents as legitimate. This is reflected in their character. Nor have they provided any actual science, at least that you've offered or on their web site, to back this up. Do you dispute any of these claims? Do you have any reason for me to consider the ACP a reputable organization?
4) You represented the linked article from the Journal of Psychohistory as a study. I disputed this and said that it was an opinion piece in a non-research oriented journal. Was I wrong?
5) You've made a claim that there isn't enough science to be confident one way or the other. I believe that you've shown pretty clearly that you have no idea what scientific evidence exists nor do you particularly care. Do you feel you've established someone who has made responsible claims that you could easily back up with reputable support? Do you believe that anyone has a reason for trusting your description of the current levels of research, especially as it is opposed to the one provided by the professional organizations that I linked to?
See, because I don't think that this is true. You come across to me as someone who has a prejudice and is deteremined to stick to it. Your attitude on science has gone from "There are tons of easily findable studies on my side." to "You're the only one who thinks that the science supports this." to "There's not enough evidence to know anything." to "Science isn't actually important." Just about any time you've made a definite claim it's been false. You've admitted that in order to find actual stuff that supports your position, it would take days of you looking. This is why I believe you don't even understand what it means to have integrity.
The knowledge of the evidence should precede the claim about it. When you make a claim that there are studies that back up what you're saying, you should actually know that these studies exists and not merely want to believe that they do. When you claim that there isn't enough science one way or the other, you should have some idea of the field that you're talking about. Doing otherwise is very much akin to lying.
----
Specifically related to this issue, the scientific data that show that children of gay parents are not worse off that children of straight parents has led to mnay places overturning their prohibitions on gay couple adoption (although you're going to have bigot holdouts, like Texas). Is this not a significant social change?
Wasn't the ending of segregation on the basis of a Supreme Court decision that was heavily influenced by the doll study I referenced a signficant social change?
See, you may not consider what can be shown to be something we can have a high degree of confidence in being true important, but there are actually plenty of people who consider this important. I do actually care a great deal about the health of chldren and if you could present me with evidence that having gay parents would necessarily be harmful for them, I'd weigh that very heavily. I've been trained as a sceintist to understand why I should have confidence in some things and not in others and I consider adhering to integrity in determining this very important. But don't expect me to take your ignorant prejudices as some sort of evidence, not even if you do a poor job of backing them up with some internet fumbling.
Perhaps you are right and the things I'm advocating are against the eternal plan. My understanding of the eternal plan is somewhat different. Of course, I also have the humilty to realize that I have no right to force other people to live according to my very imperfect understanding and the wisdom to realize that neither science nor government can remain responsible when involved in the spiritual area.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I wondering, are you going to chime in at any point or has this discussion ended for you?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay admit it, Squicky...you're a computer, aren't you?
Here's our impasse, as best as I understand it:
1. First, we base our philosophy on two very different foundations. You rely on a standard to determine what is considered true and credible. You rely on those whom you believe to be credible and objective, and you trust their credentials and trust that if enough of them gather together to say something, they must be right. Fair enough.
I come from a place that says that there is a different standard. It is true that I base a good portion of my belief on this topic on my faith (about 50/50) and I trust those whom I believe speak with authority on such subjects. It is a standard that you do not ascribe to.
2. Second, you have created a debate that can never be won or lost. I realize now that my desire to throw up a few websites to show that alternative opinions exist was like throwing the gauntlet. That was never my intention and yes, it was a mistake. It was like throwing steak to a dog.
It is both insidious and deceitful of you to demand I "prove" this issue––as if I had the time, the crendentials or the inclination to do such a thing, much less beat my head against someone who is biased toward one side of the debate. What do you want, a thesis? Especially when I have history on my side?
You're demanding something that society hasn't accomplished. Has homosexuality been "proven" to be a normal practice by society? Why wasn't this in the news? When did a few studies and the opinions of a few professional organizations change thousands of years of standard practice?
You re-read that FoxNews article. Though the writers saw nothing wrong in and of themselves with gay marriage, the article clearly states that there are differences in children who are raised in homosexual homes (including a higher chance of earlier sexuality) and these differences are not being pursued for fear of political fallout. So if this is the case, how much of those studies advocating gay marriage/paretning tell the whole story? Especially when most of the studies you cited are less than a decade old?
Since you seem to think that unless I prove it it must not be true, you must hold my opinion in high regard. By your continuous degrading and condescending language, I'm guessing you feel the opposite.
3. Third, you do not hold yourself to the same standard you demand from others. You referenced a few studies (with nothing earlier than 1994), but three of the four organizations were simply statements of policy with no data. And what data have you shown that the ACP or the other studies I've shown are not legitimate sources? You've offered none.
You simply decide that this group or study doesn't meet your standard while this one does...and gee, the ones you approve of happen to follow your particular opinion. Imagine that! How much of a sample size officially "proves" a topic? The idea that if I provided proper evidence you might consider it is a lie, and you know it. You're far more interested in appearing right.
4. Fourth, you have cleverly manipulated things to muddy the true spirit of this discussion. I should have seen your plan from the get-go, and I made the first mistake: allowing the opposition to choose the battlefield. You picked those points you could oppose, ignored the rest, and like a fool I followed along with foolish pride. I won't make that mistake again.
You are free to follow your own brand of prophets, and I am free to follow my own. We choose our masters, and you have chosen yours. By definition we are both bigots to our ideologies, and this debate has opened my eyes to how pervasive and important this issue has become.
I stand by my thoughts. You do the same and let's call it good, shall we?
posted
When the posts between other people reach a certain critical length, my ADD kicks in, and I cannot continue Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, It's cool. I don't think there'd be much value in anyone else adding to the cul-de-sac that estey and I are in, but that doesn't mean that the overarching point is gone. I'm still waiting for someone to present me with a reason against gay marriage or how, specifically, allowing gay marriage threatens other people's lifestyles.
---
estavares, I have been trying to be specific in the things that I've been saying. I thought I had presented definite, specific reasons for the things I said. It was never my intention to muddy the waters; in fact, I think that clarity can only help my case. In fact, I've seen this as a struggle to get you to make clear, specific statements.
You've made a specific statement that there are plenty of studies that show homosexual parenting to be substandard. I've repeatedly asked you to point these out to me, as I've not seen them and seen many to the opposite. I also don't believe you actually knew of any such studies when you made that claim.
Three of the supporting articles brought up (one of them by you) are survey articles. That is to say, they encompass many studies within themselves. Likewise, the APA position statement contains almost more text in external reference footnotes than for the basic statment. This statement also reflects the response made to the NARTH guy in the Mass. thing (and, indirectly, the stuff in the first link by the Doctor of Religion). There is a great deal more I provided in the periphery than a few studies. And, here's the thing, I've actualy read those other studies. I am knowledgible in this area. What I linked was limited by "things I can link to very quicky and which give an idea of the much broader scope" criteria, not the "things I know" one.
I don't need to re-read the Fox article. I read the actual study (I linked to it too. Did you read it?). Here's some excerpts:
quote:The findings summarized in Tables 1 and 2 show that the “no differences” claim does receive strong empirical support in crucial domains. Lesbigay parents and their children in these studies display no differences from heterosexual counterparts in psychological well-being or cognitive functioning. Scores for lesbigay parenting styles and levels of investment in children are at least as “high” as those for heterosexual parents. Levels of closeness and quality of parent/child relationships do not seem to differentiate directly by parental sexual orientation, but indirectly, by way of parental gender. Because every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or social adjustment, there is no evidentiary basis for considering parental sexual orientation in decisions about children’s “best interest.”
quote:We have identified conceptual, methodological, and theoretical limitations in the psychological research on the effects of parental sexual orientation and have challenged the predominant claim that the sexual orientation of parents does not matter at all. We argued instead that despite the limitations, there is suggestive evidence and good reason to believe that contemporary children and young adults with lesbian or gay parents do differ in modest and interesting ways from children with heterosexual parents. Most of these differences, however, are not causal, but are indirect effects of parental gender or selection effects associated with heterosexist social conditions under which lesbigay-parent families currently live.
quote:Most of the research to date focuses on social-psychological dimensions of well-being and adjustment and on the quality of parent/child relationships. Perhaps these variables reflect the disciplinary preferences of psychologists who have conducted most of the studies, as well as a desire to produce evidence directly relevant to the questions of “harm” that dominate judicial and legislative deliberations over child custody. Less research has explored questions for which there are stronger theoretical grounds for expecting differences—children’s gender and sexual behavior and preferences.
As for the ACP, here's their mission statement:
quote:The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being. To this end, we recognize the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development, but pledge our support to all children, regardless of their circumstances.
They are not a scientific or professional organization. They don't pretend to be. They're an advocacy group, founded to push an agenda. Do you disagree with this or do you disagree that they thus lack objectivity and therefore scientific credibility?
Finally, I fail to see how I manipulated the discussion. Such was not my intent. For me, I was asking for a credible case against gay marriage, as I've yet to see one. From that point, what I presented was directly determined by what you said. To wit, "gays are substandard parents" -> "Here's a bunch of evidence that says otherwise. Do you have any evidence for this claim?' -> "Here's three links that support it." -> "No, they don't. In fact, one supports the opposite."
Or, "You seem to be the only one who thinks that the science is for gays here." -> "Here are professional organizations that seem to thinks so too." -> "What about the ACP? And they are letting politics trump integrity." -> "The ACP is clearly an advocacy organization that got upset that the AAP supported gay parents adopting. I'd hardly call their secondary source positions reliable. Also, what evidence do you have that these organizations are overwhelmed by political concerns and I by bias?"
And, "It doesn't matter anyway, because social changes don't come from science." -> "What about these cases from civil rights and gay parent adoption?"
If you could present how you saw me subtly manipulating the conversation and muddying the waters, I'd appreciate it. Neither of these were what I intended. Likewise, if you care to make more specific criticisms of or responses to what I've said, I'd again appreciate it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read this entire thread and I still haven't seen a credible case FOR gay marriage and considering that this is the real agenda that the pro-gay community is trying to achieve, it would be better to approach it from this perspective.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's another, we value marriage as a social institution in large part because it confers many benefits on its participants and benefits society in general. There seeems to be no reason why these benefits are tied to the partners being of different sexes, so allowing gay marriage is a good thing for those people and a good thing for society.
I have actually made that argument multiple times on this thread.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When the posts between other people reach a certain critical length, my ADD kicks in, and I cannot continue
Man oh man do I know what you mean, Geoff. So I'll jsut ignore the last 20 or so posts and address something you said earlier.
quote:1. Mormon society is built upon a certain form of heterosexual marriage that we believe is tied to a half-known eternal truth that we can't just change on a whim.
Let's look at it this way. (This is taken from the perspective of someone who beleives homosexulaity is a sin, by the way) I have... let's say a cup and a glass. Now I can only take cups with me into this next room, ok? But I really want to take my glass. So I tried to rename my glass a cup so I could take it with me. But they still wouldn't let me because ultimately my glass is just a glass.
Homosexual marriage isn't real marriage in the eyes of the church. Therefore worrying about what it's called is silly because it still won't be a "sealed" marriage.
Geoff, what do you think will happen, in a spiritual sense, if homosexual marriage is legalised?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: [QUOTE]Geoff, what do you think will happen, in a spiritual sense, if homosexual marriage is legalised?
There are 612 mitzvah one can preform. They are not doing one of them. This is purly a sin against G-d. It is not a sin against fellow man. If a person sins against G-d then they can always make up for it come Yom Kippor.
Now, this is the perspective I've gotten from the teachings of Judaism. Well from my denomination anyways.
That's my spiritual sense, homosexuality is as important as keeping kosher. And I know Christians read the "Old Testament" and yet they don't keep kosher. Infact alot of people inculding Jews don't preform the 612 mitzvah.
And yet the world keeps spinning.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Nah, I'm done. I'm not real certain you take the time to read and digest my posts (heck, they're too long anyway, so I get bored re-reading them myself) and it's like a broken record on both our counts.
I figure if you need studies to convince you having a mother and a father in the home is the best means to raise children, and thousands of years of history doesn't prove that to you (yet you're convinced by a decade's worth of scattered studies and the policies of a few organizations) I'm not sure anything I could say would be of any value.
EDIT: One thing i must add, though, is that making the assumption that advocacy must dimish scientific merit works both ways. A great example is if you scroll down to the bottom of the APA page and see advocacy group after advocacy group. Who's in whose pocket? Can you really assume them objective?
When the time comes that I write my thesis on the subject, I'll send along a copy.
It's been a hoot though, thanks for your insight. I may strongly disagree on just about everything you bring up, but I do value the importance of seeing the other perspective.
posted
Hmm. Been a while. How's the water? <splash> Yep. 'Bout the same as I left it.
Regarding the pieces linked by estavares: all three of these groups have their axes to grind, which naturally makes me skeptical, much like when tobacco companies find their product doesn't cause cancer or petroleum companies find no links between car emissions and increased rates of asthma. Focus on the Family is a conservative group lobbying for their particular brand of "family values", Fox News is unquestionably right-of-center (and proud of it), and NARTH's very existence is dependent on those who see homosexuality as a disease to be treated. Skepticism itself, however, is not sufficient reason to put aside data; it merely serves as a warning light.
However:
Focus on the Family's "study" compares statistics on heterosexual marriage to homosexual relationships. Do you see the difficulty? Assuming the statistical data itself is correct, this is still comparing the length of relationships between people who are, for lack of better info, "dating" with people who have presumably known each other for some time and then planned and executed a wedding. The data sets do not match; you're comparing people who are inherently committed to people who aren't. Unless you include all the heterosexual couples that are "in a relationship" but not married...
The data that Dr. Satinover presents makes conclusions on a number of fallible points, including:
a) that accurate data about persons' homosexuality is available at sufficient length to plot out a family history and make Mendelian models thereof,
b) that the treatment of homosexuality has a certain "success" rate, and homosexuals are subject to a [undisclosed] higher rate of "pathopsychology", without definition of either term or disclosure of any information about the studies the individuals may have undertaken for said proofs,
c) "What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well."
The doctor refuses to acknowledge that this statement has much the same quality as the "as everyone knows" statements he condemns earlier, seeing as how he sites no specific studies nor makes clear if any of the alleged studies have specifically taken note of children raised in the home of a homosexual couple.
Further, the doctor makes use of innumerable quotes taken out of context, and veers between statistical "proofs" and the say-so of people of letters who may have had their own axes to grind with no description of the studies that generated their possibly pre-disposed proofs. While such tactics are not unique to this cause, I find the doctor's statement lacking.
None of the conclusions in the research sited by Fox News suggest that children raised by lesbian and gay couples are affected negatively, except in as much as the viewer feels that homosexuality in and of itself is negative, with the possible exception of "Young girls raised by lesbians are more likely to be sexually adventurous and active than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents" and "A significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers say they have experienced sexual intimacy with a partner of the same sex. They were not, however, statistically more likely to identify themselves as gay or lesbian". And in these cases, you have to wonder if such children were more likely to actually engage in such behaviors, or merely more likely to report them. The conclusions in the concluding paragraph do not necessarily follow the researchers' claims.
I haven't gotten to the "Journal of Psychohistory" page, but I must confess that a journal that names itself for Isaac Asimov's utterly fictional science of precognition is already behind in my scorebook.
Apologies to the readers suffering from ADD.
I do not agree that these matters should be left entirely to personal beliefs and moral/spiritual/ethical convictions; I think science and statistics can and should play a role.
If anyone has information on studies conducted regarding children in the scandinavian countries where homosexual marriage is legally permitted, I should be interested to see it.
I remain unconvinced that permitting homosexual unions will result in the apocalyptic scenarios some have described.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's look at it this way. (This is taken from the perspective of someone who beleives homosexulaity is a sin, by the way) I have... let's say a cup and a glass. Now I can only take cups with me into this next room, ok? But I really want to take my glass. So I tried to rename my glass a cup so I could take it with me. But they still wouldn't let me because ultimately my glass is just a glass.
Homosexual marriage isn't real marriage in the eyes of the church. Therefore worrying about what it's called is silly because it still won't be a "sealed" marriage.
Personally, I think it is up to God to choose whether we can bring a cup or a glass or even a chair with us into the other room. But as individuals with free will, we should be able to choose what we would want to take with us. And by preventing same sex couples (who undeniably exist) to marry, it is we who are preventing them from being chaste until marriage. Granted, they could remain chaste forever, but should the judgement of the rightness of their togetherness be up to us? Give them the tools to allow the strongest relationship and bond in this life, and leave the next to God (who actually knows what is in the next room).
m. not perfectly expressed but it feels complex
Posts: 17 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno if this is been brought up, and it might very from state to state. But what are the benefits, the legal benefits of marriage. I'm talking about taxes or just things that come when you legally marry someone.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Social Security survivor benefits. Joint tax filing. Rights to adopt spouse's child in many circumstances. Eligibility for inheritence through intestacy. Automatic next of kin status, which contains many related benefits. Spousal immunity and marital communication privilege. Right to own real property as tenants in the entireties. Eligibility for spouse's employment benefits. Many others.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Yea, I wouldn't necessarily trust a Focus on the Family study either. It's hard to find something that's unbiased either way.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Geoff, what do you think will happen, in a spiritual sense, if homosexual marriage is legalised?
There are 612 mitzvah one can preform.
Um... that would be 613, Junkman.
quote:They are not doing one of them. This is purly a sin against G-d. It is not a sin against fellow man. If a person sins against G-d then they can always make up for it come Yom Kippor.
Now, this is the perspective I've gotten from the teachings of Judaism. Well from my denomination anyways.
That's my spiritual sense, homosexuality is as important as keeping kosher. And I know Christians read the "Old Testament" and yet they don't keep kosher. Infact alot of people inculding Jews don't preform the 612 mitzvah.
And yet the world keeps spinning.
Um... okay. Here's the thing. And I'm saying this as an Orthodox Jew who happens to also be a lesbian. As far as traditional Judaism is concerned, the prohibition of "a man shall not lie with another man", etc. refers only to anal sex between men. Other intimacy between men is an extension that most authorities consider to be rabbinic (though no less binding), and the verse has absolutely nothing to do with women.
The rabbis did prohibit certain acts between women, specifically those which are imitatory of heterosexual intercourse. But that's it.
As far as gay marriage is concerned, marriage is fundamentally a religious status, and the government of a free country has no business involving itself in such things. If they can dictate what marriage is, they can dictate what form of worship is acceptable.
Nevertheless, the word is used also for "civil marriage", which is a state-recognized status. And this is something else entirely. If a man has a right to marry me, but my partner of almost 8 years does not, that's discrimination. If we are not allowed to file our taxes jointly, that's discrimination. If she is covered by my health insurance at work, but I have to pay taxes on her insurance that I wouldn't have to pay if I were married to a man, that is discrimination. It is harmful and punitive.
If the government wants to get out of the marriage business, that's fine with me. But whatever it chooses to do, it should be done even-handedly.
Let me clarify. There is no such thing as "marriage" between members of the same sex in Judaism (except for the various movements which don't accept Jewish law as binding anyway). There never will be. There should not be. It's meaningless to even talk about such a thing.
But the government should either stop recognizing marriage, or start recognizing it between members of the same sex, because to do otherwise is unjust and immoral.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That sounds extremely interesting... *would love to hear more details about what it is like to be Orthodox Jewish and lesbian.*
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starlisa: I already typed what you typed on page one
quote: listen the problem was that marriage is a religous thing. and if your religon has certain rules for marriage and you don't like them then you can always change religions. the problem as i see it was that the goverment got involved and got the power to marry people, where i believe it should have only had the power to make civil unions.
and its alot harder to switch goverments then to swtich religons.
but with all that said and done there's nothing we can do about it now.
I just think that we can't stop the goverment from getting people married to just civil unions. Marriage started out as a religous thing but its not a religous act to everyone nowadays.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Let me clarify. There is no such thing as "marriage" between members of the same sex in Judaism (except for the various movements which don't accept Jewish law as binding anyway). There never will be. There should not be. It's meaningless to even talk about such a thing.
That doesn't make sense, it never will be? I hope you realize that's you opinion and not a fact. And the movements such as Reconstructionist don't count as Judaism, again that's your opinion.
I do know that the Conservative and Reform and Orthodox movements don't except any form of homosexual marriage, although Conservative and Reform movements have said they support civil unions.
Anyways my spiritual thoughts are my opinion, being a Reform Jew I know our movement doesn't believe in Jewish same-sex marriage. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say. And even if I don't agree with the Reform movement on that stance that doesn't make me anyless of a Reform Jew or a Jew. But that's my opinion.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: That sounds extremely interesting... *would love to hear more details about what it is like to be Orthodox Jewish and lesbian.*
<laugh> What would you like to know?
I'm a lesbian because I was born that way. I'm an Orthodox Jew because I'm convinced that it's true (though I was not raised that way). I don't have whatever special quality is necessary to alter my convictions to be make things more comfortable for myself. I wish I did.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Junkman: Starlisa: I already typed what you typed on page one
quote: listen the problem was that marriage is a religous thing. and if your religon has certain rules for marriage and you don't like them then you can always change religions. the problem as i see it was that the goverment got involved and got the power to marry people, where i believe it should have only had the power to make civil unions. and its alot harder to switch goverments then to swtich religons.
but with all that said and done there's nothing we can do about it now.
I just think that we can't stop the goverment from getting people married to just civil unions. Marriage started out as a religous thing but its not a religous act to everyone nowadays.
That may be true. But the non-religious marriage needs to be equally accessible for me and for my brother, and it isn't.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Let me clarify. There is no such thing as "marriage" between members of the same sex in Judaism (except for the various movements which don't accept Jewish law as binding anyway). There never will be. There should not be. It's meaningless to even talk about such a thing.
That doesn't make sense, it never will be? I hope you realize that's you opinion and not a fact.
Relax, Junkman, and look at what I actually said. I said "except for the various movements which don't accept Jewish law as binding anyway". Surely you aren't suggesting that there are any movements which accept Jewish law as binding and recognize "marriage" between members of the same sex?
quote: And the movements such as Reconstructionist don't count as Judaism, again that's your opinion.
They surely don't count as accepting Jewish law as binding. If you'd like me to give my view on such movements, I can, but I haven't done so. I've merely stated a fact. Jewish law will never recognize any such thing.
quote: I do know that the Conservative and Reform and Orthodox movements don't except any form of homosexual marriage, although Conservative and Reform movements have said they support civil unions.
You need to keep up, I guess. Reform rabbis have been officiating at same-sex weddings since long before it was legally recognized anywhere. The Conservative movement has opposed them, but that's largely due to the outgoing head of their seminary, who prevented it. There is strong sentiment among them to change it.
And I wouldn't use the word "movement" for Orthodox Judaism. All movement has to be relative to something. Orthodoxy is that something.
quote: Anyways my spiritual thoughts are my opinion, being a Reform Jew I know our movement doesn't believe in Jewish same-sex marriage.
Honestly, Junkman, that's not the case.
quote: But that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they say. And even if I don't agree with the Reform movement on that stance that doesn't make me anyless of a Reform Jew or a Jew. But that's my opinion. [/QB]
I have never suggested that a Jew who doesn't accept Jewish law is not a Jew. If you are born Jewish or have converted according to Jewish law, you are Jewish. Forever. Neither Mormon post-mortem baptisms nor actual attempt to convert out can change that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That may be true. But the non-religious marriage needs to be equally accessible for me and for my brother, and it isn't.
that's where problems come from. in the best case scenario, also the least likely to happen (I'm just saying it so it actually happens) all the state goverments change the word marriage to civil unions when dealing with it legally. So you can be married and have a civil union too. Although now thinking about it I wonder if this might have problems when getting divorced.
ya and the Jewish law and orthadox as a movement thing is all relative we could go on that for a while, and since its been a while since i've gone to sunday school i'll pass.
you'd probaby win anyways
anyways to everyone else, "treat others as you would like to be treated." I think that works well here.
Posts: 17 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: That sounds extremely interesting... *would love to hear more details about what it is like to be Orthodox Jewish and lesbian.*
<laugh> What would you like to know?
I'm a lesbian because I was born that way. I'm an Orthodox Jew because I'm convinced that it's true (though I was not raised that way). I don't have whatever special quality is necessary to alter my convictions to be make things more comfortable for myself. I wish I did.
Extremely fascinating. I don't know nearly enough about Orthodox Judism except from what little I read in those Chaim Potok books... I wish I knew more.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: That sounds extremely interesting... *would love to hear more details about what it is like to be Orthodox Jewish and lesbian.*
<laugh> What would you like to know?
I'm a lesbian because I was born that way. I'm an Orthodox Jew because I'm convinced that it's true (though I was not raised that way). I don't have whatever special quality is necessary to alter my convictions to be make things more comfortable for myself. I wish I did.
Extremely fascinating. I don't know nearly enough about Orthodox Judism except from what little I read in those Chaim Potok books... I wish I knew more.
Chaim Potok is a Conservative rabbi. His portrayal of Orthodox Judaism comes from that perspective. So... take it with a grain of salt.
Don't get me wrong: I love that book. It just bears no resemblance to anything I've ever seen in over 20 years of being Orthodox.
Try Faye Kellerman's Rina Lazarus mysteries. She shows various different shades of Orthodox Judaism, from the moderate to the extreme, and the books themselves are extremely well written.
Just to give you an example, I have a slight headache today. I don't know how I could present evidence to that effect, but it's quite clear to me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. E, Did you find what Tom and I offered valid reasons for gay marriage? And did you also realize that I had offered up my reason on more than one occasion on this thread?
Also, starL was describing her life. Why should she have to "provide evidence" that she wasn't lying? Do you have any evidence that she was not born that way?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If one was attracted to the same sex for as long as one could remember, I would think that would be perfectly adequate "evidence". Not that I think one should have to provide evidence of such personal things.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Has anyone on either side pondered the idea of civil unions for all under the recognition of the government?
This would allow the Religious to keep their sanctity/tradition/values in place. (Because you can still get 'married' in a church and have it considered a marriage within your religion)
This would allow the government to be truly secular.
And this would allow the gay community to be recognized as a minority group with rights within the government.
This wouldnt hurt soul and completely gets rid of the arguments for both sides.....what are you thoughts?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's been pointed out as an acceptable comprimise by many people, altohugh perhasp not specifically on this thread. It's important to realize though, that many people on the anti-gay side are in fact bigots and would not accept this solution and that many of the 2004 ballot initiatives against same-sex marriage specifically banned civil unions, even when used as a separate term for only same sex marriages.
State sponsorship of marriage is already divorced from the religious context, by use and by culture. The legal definitoin of marriage and the varied definition used by different religions share some common features but are not (or no longer, anyway) derived from each other. I care very little what we actually call this secular legal relationship. If making it a "civil union" across the board helps people realize that they are free in themselves and in their religions to hold "marriage" as whatever the heck they want and that the legal situation is not there to reflect this understanding, then sure, why not change the terminology.
But it's by no means as easy as that.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my ideal world I'd allow gay marriage. But I wonder if allowing any two people to marry in our current society would result in children being seen as an ever-smaller adjunct to marriage, resulting in underpopulation and neglect of the children that are born.
Basically, if the vast majority of people (gay or heterosexual) get married with the intention of having children somewhere along the line, I'm fine with gay marriage; I think any hypothetical deficiencies in the childhood experience caused by not growing up very close to a member of each sex can probably be worked around. I'm not keen on paying taxes just to help people validate their romantic love for each other, though.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It should be noted that a majority of Americans favor civil unions for gay couples with "essentially the same legal rules" (or something like this) as marriages, if I'm remembering the various polls correctly. The difference was something like 40% in favor of allowing same sex marriage and 57% in favor of allowing civil unions. So far civil unions are the only mechanism passed by a state legislature without judicial prompting (Connecticut, I think).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some ways it's even worse when people are against gay marriage but for civil unions with "essentially the same legal rules." They must see no rational reason to deny gays marriage benefits, but they're still jealous of the name "marriage."
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
