ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags mormonism

Reply
Old 2nd November 2013, 04:07 PM   #1
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 9,527
LDS II: The Mormons

Mod InfoWelcome to the LDS continuation thread. Older posts can be found HERE. Feel free to quote or link to them as you see fit. The cut-off point was arbitrary. The only reason is due to the length of the thread. Thank you.
Posted By:Loss Davis





Why are there so many LDS Temple Divorces?

https://www.google.com/#q=lds+temple+divorce

On the average, how many children do LDS marriages adopt, in order to save their "eternal lives"?

Last edited by Loss Leader; 3rd November 2013 at 12:22 PM.
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 04:32 PM   #2
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
. . . I will just mention that I am not confusing Skyrider with any other poster when I suggest that his explicit statement that gay marriage laws apply to two gay men who will not have children is not good evidence that goof faith has been exercised in discussing the rights of children who actually exist in the world that actually exists around us, or the marital issues of a class of people half of whom are women, and if such a post is indicative of a concern for the rights of children and women it's an odd way to express it.
I'm sorry, but your syntax makes it impossible for me understand what you are saying. I'm not being evasive. Perhaps I can get at your meaning by asking some questions: 1) If I have said gay marriage laws should apply to two gay men who will not have children, how do you interpret that to mean
I'm not concerned about the rights of children (assuming that's what you mean?). 2) In at least two posts I have said that inasmuch as researchers have not reached consensus re. the effect of same-sex parenting on children, we should opt for the conservative approach and prohibit gay marriage; i.e., we shouldn't gamble with the welfare of children. I should note, however, that the Social Science Research peer-reviewed studies I posted a day or two ago cast serious doubt on the belief that same-sex parenting doesn't affect children negatively. As I noted, the old (2005) APA study, which has been cited by many pro-same-sex-marriage advocates for years, has at least one major methodological error that renders it all but useless.

I encourage you to restate your charge that I have not been concerned about children or women in this discusssion. Please use shorter sentences.
I will be pleased to respond.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 04:37 PM   #3
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Because you don't understand the statistical elements of those studies and you've chosen to believe the spin of biased conservative Christians like Christine Kim because it supports your religiously derived prejudices.
Are non-believers devoid of prejudices?
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 06:01 PM   #4
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,810
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Squeaky violins and withered hearts and flowers aside.
There is absolutely NO circumstance which would warrant the adoption or fostering of children, or of fertility treatments, to enable those involved in the evil satanic practices of sodomy, homosexual activities, and all and any other sexual perversions... to provide a "role model", "example" and "parental" influences to the minds and emotional health of babies /children / youth, and to pollute the minds, spirit, and emotional health of the innocent.
The destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviours have devastating effects, not only for mortality, but far into the eternities... as chances to progress are forever lost.
Why not? In a secular state which is what the US is and Australia almost is, why shouldn't those involved in Satanic practices raise children? Why should your devotion to a fraud impact anyone else's decision to be a parent?
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 06:16 PM   #5
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 14,810
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Can I remind participants in this thread that judging people by the demographics to which they happen to belong, rather than on their individual merits, is the definition of unfair discrimination. Women are, on average, shorter than men, but if you put "no women need apply" in a job advert because the job requires the successful applicant to be at least 5ft 10" you are illegally discriminating against the many tall women who could do it. Statistics only tell you that if you put "no-one under 5ft 10" need apply" in your job advert you will get more male applicants than female ones.

There are a great many same sex couples who are very obviously doing a much better job of raising children than a great many mixed sex couples. Even if it could be proved beyond doubt that children raised by mixed sex couples do better on average than children raised by same sex couples it would still not justify preventing all same sex couples adopting. It would just mean that you'd expect fewer same sex couples than mixed sex couples to meet the stringent requirements for adoption.
Great point! I can't speak for all jurisdictions but as a former foster parent I can say no one gets a license just because they are straight, white, or anything else. All are assessed on their ability to be parents. What I find both galling and offensive is the assertion by implication that leaving a kid in care is preferable to them being adopted by a loving gay couple. If you want to talk about bad outcomes, let's talk about kids who age out of foster care.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 07:28 PM   #6
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Wow. It is almost as if you did not even bother to read any of the actual sources I provided, which could be found by clicking the actual links.

I can only suggest that you actually read http://futureofchildren.org/publicat...&sectionid=699
Your link takes one to an article entitled "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children," published in Journal Issue: Marriage and Child "Wellbeing. The article is dated Fall 2005. In other words, it's eight years old. Keep that in mind.

The article's author writes under the subhead "What the Evidence Shows and Means." The author is referring to an APA report published in 2004 entitled "Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children." That report concluded that "Overall, results. . .suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."

The author, referring to the dated APA "resolution," then states: "Our own review of the evidence is consistent with that characterization."

This is fresh, newly developed research on the topic under discussion in a field noted for the rapidity of changes in research findings? It is? Astonishing.

It gets worse. The author (perhaps it's author[s]) state elsewhere in the article the following: "We believe both sides of the argument are right, at least partially."

So, SV, you cite an eight-year-old resolution and an article based on that resolution dated circa a year later as support for your contention that children are unaffected when raised by lesbian and gay parents.

Wow!
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 07:34 PM   #7
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Squeaky violins and withered hearts and flowers aside.
There is absolutely NO circumstance which would warrant the adoption or fostering of children, or of fertility treatments, to enable those involved in the evil satanic practices of sodomy, homosexual activities, and all and any other sexual perversions... to provide a "role model", "example" and "parental" influences to the minds and emotional health of babies /children / youth, and to pollute the minds, spirit, and emotional health of the innocent.
The destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviours have devastating effects, not only for mortality, but far into the eternities... as chances to progress are forever lost.
While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bęte noir, but divorce is an occasion for support groups and counseling (given the difference in what Jesus, at least in the xianist canon, is said to have said about each), I do think it is important to point out that the behaviours of any pair of married, consenting adults in private cannot "pollute" the minds of anyone. What has happened today, in the fastness of my boudoir, that has, in any way affected you, or anyone (other than those consenting adults involved)?

Further, your "satan" is no more real than your 'god'--why should your superstitions be allowed to enforce behaviours invented to keep CJCLDS members in line upon non-members? Would you gleefully submit, if the situation were reversed? Suppose you were forced, under penalty of law, to publicly recite a decade of the rosary every day, or to affirm Sola Scriptura before you were allowed to marry, or to share property with your partner?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 08:04 PM   #8
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I should note, however, that the Social Science Research peer-reviewed studies I posted a day or two ago cast serious doubt on the belief that same-sex parenting doesn't affect children negatively.
This is utterly false. You would know this if you read my critique of the paper.

However, this very important question you keep ignoring:
What isn't false is that lower socioeconomic status has a negative impact on children.
Based upon this information, do you advocate for preventing poor people from marrying?
If not, then why do you advocate it for gay people?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 08:08 PM   #9
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,918
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Are non-believers devoid of prejudices?
Oh there are lots of non-Mormons with discriminatory prejudices against homosexuals.

Maybe you'd like to actually address post #8942. Or #8938 for that matter.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 08:09 PM   #10
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'm sorry, but your syntax makes it impossible for me understand what you are saying. I'm not being evasive. Perhaps I can get at your meaning by asking some questions: 1) If I have said gay marriage laws should apply to two gay men who will not have children, how do you interpret that to mean
I'm not concerned about the rights of children (assuming that's what you mean?). 2) In at least two posts I have said that inasmuch as researchers have not reached consensus re. the effect of same-sex parenting on children, we should opt for the conservative approach and prohibit gay marriage; i.e., we shouldn't gamble with the welfare of children. I should note, however, that the Social Science Research peer-reviewed studies I posted a day or two ago cast serious doubt on the belief that same-sex parenting doesn't affect children negatively. As I noted, the old (2005) APA study, which has been cited by many pro-same-sex-marriage advocates for years, has at least one major methodological error that renders it all but useless.

I encourage you to restate your charge that I have not been concerned about children or women in this discusssion. Please use shorter sentences.
I will be pleased to respond.
http://futureofchildren.org/publicat...&sectionid=699

http://www.apa.org/about/policy/parenting.aspx

Why are you avoiding the divorce issue?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 08:09 PM   #11
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,847
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Squeaky violins and withered hearts and flowers aside.
There is absolutely NO circumstance which would warrant the adoption or fostering of children, or of fertility treatments, to enable those involved in the evil satanic practices of sodomy, homosexual activities, and all and any other sexual perversions... to provide a "role model", "example" and "parental" influences to the minds and emotional health of babies /children / youth, and to pollute the minds, spirit, and emotional health of the innocent.
The destructive nature of homosexuality and its related behaviours have devastating effects, not only for mortality, but far into the eternities... as chances to progress are forever lost.
You are as wrong about this as you are about the earth being hollow and the fantasies of Joseph Smith being real. What genuinely decent and moral people find evil, destructive and a bad role model for children is hateful bigotry like this. Thankfully such opinions become less common in civilised societies with every year that passes, and will eventually be consigned to the dustbin of history.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 08:57 PM   #12
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,695
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'm sorry, but your syntax makes it impossible for me understand what you are saying. I'm not being evasive. Perhaps I can get at your meaning by asking some questions: 1) If I have said gay marriage laws should apply to two gay men who will not have children, how do you interpret that to mean
I'm not concerned about the rights of children (assuming that's what you mean?). 2) In at least two posts I have said that inasmuch as researchers have not reached consensus re. the effect of same-sex parenting on children, we should opt for the conservative approach and prohibit gay marriage; i.e., we shouldn't gamble with the welfare of children. I should note, however, that the Social Science Research peer-reviewed studies I posted a day or two ago cast serious doubt on the belief that same-sex parenting doesn't affect children negatively. As I noted, the old (2005) APA study, which has been cited by many pro-same-sex-marriage advocates for years, has at least one major methodological error that renders it all but useless.

I encourage you to restate your charge that I have not been concerned about children or women in this discusssion. Please use shorter sentences.
I will be pleased to respond.
It's getting increasingly hard to search this long thread, and especially hard to find references about which we continue to argue page after page. I took a little time to search, but it is too tiresome to do again. I hope this will do it:

I refer you first of all to post 8848, a subject that has come up before, in which, to an anecdotal case cited by Loss Leader, in which no children are involved, you state "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?"

You then claimed limited understanding or confusion in post 8874 when, referring to that post, I suggested marriage involves more than the question of whether a person love his partner.

In a further exchange debating whether Mormons consider homosexual activity a sin, or whether the idea of "sin" is somehow not included in the characterization of an activity as morally impermissible and forbidden, as Mormon sites seem to concur. I pointed out that if one criterion for the morally impermissible is (as Mormon rules seem to imply) any extra-marital sex, and if at the same time Mormon rules make homosexual marriage impossible, then clearly the protection of marriage is out of the question, and they are in a double bind. Your response to that was, verbatim, in post 8910 the following:

"Marriage was instituted primarily as a means to raise children with legally sanctioned protection. What protection do two adult males, who will not have children, receive as a result of being married? Perhaps you're referring to financial matters."

In a response to the issue I raised regarding gay marriage in general, your response was to refer to "two adult males, who will not have children." This as part of a long argument, repeated page after page after page, of which the post referenced was a part, in which I have made the point that protection of children in marriages (an issue we both consider central) must include those who actually exist, including those who actually are part of gay based families. If you did not understand that I was making that point after page after page after page of repetition, then "limited understanding" is a gross understatement. I am alleging that your response did not include mention of women, and did not include: (I will break this up for the comprehension of those who cannot grasp long sentences)

1: existing natural or adopted children of gay persons;
2: Women;
3: gay persons who intend to adopt children;
4: gay persons who intend to become parents of children.

I do not believe that my inability to find any of those subjects in the cited sentence is due to limited comprehension on my part.

So now, just to put the record straight, and be done with this:

You, Skyrider44, and I both, I believe, agree in part that central to the issue of marriage is the matter of how children are to be protected and nurtured. It is, among other issues, one of the core issues that I am told the Vermont Supreme Court considered when rendering the historic judgment that resulted in civil unions.

It may well be that the ideal situation is a happy, heterosexual pair of parents with children they want. I certainly hope so, because it's what I grew up in, and I'd like to think I came out moderately well. But the world is far more complex. Many people do not fit into that category, and many children exist who do not, cannot and never will find themselves in that category. A real life consideration of the welfare of children who actually exist in the world, and children who actually will exist in the future, will not be reached by forbidding the families that actually exist and will exist from enjoying the protections and obligations of marriage.

I will end this little diatribe, however, by pointing out that I favor "gay marriage" for several reasons, and consider it a positive step for society in addition to the matter of child welfare, An argument against my position would have to show conclusively that the institution of single sex marriage itself would have a net harmful effect on the society that actually exists at this moment. My job is, I believe, much less demanding than yours. If you are to argue that considerations of child welfare make gay marriage inadvisable, you will have to find cogent arguments, and those arguments must include an explanation of how the existing children of homosexual parents, with or without partners, would be harmed by allowing their parents to marry the people they love. That is a very hard argument to make. It has not happened yet. Limited comprehension is not an asset here.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 09:04 PM   #13
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Your link takes one to an article entitled "Gay Marriage, Same-Sex Parenting, and America's Children," published in Journal Issue: Marriage and Child "Wellbeing. The article is dated Fall 2005. In other words, it's eight years old. Keep that in mind.

The article's author writes under the subhead "What the Evidence Shows and Means." The author is referring to an APA report published in 2004 entitled "Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children." That report concluded that "Overall, results. . .suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."

The author, referring to the dated APA "resolution," then states: "Our own review of the evidence is consistent with that characterization."

This is fresh, newly developed research on the topic under discussion in a field noted for the rapidity of changes in research findings? It is? Astonishing.

It gets worse. The author (perhaps it's author[s]) state elsewhere in the article the following: "We believe both sides of the argument are right, at least partially."

So, SV, you cite an eight-year-old resolution and an article based on that resolution dated circa a year later as support for your contention that children are unaffected when raised by lesbian and gay parents.

Wow!
Wait...when was that opinion piece by a conservative xianist organization, the only one upon which you keep relying, published?

What about the Australian study?

What about the fact (yes, fact) that no study (out of more than 50) yet has shown a significant difference in the children's development, based on the genders of the parents, as opposed to, for instance, the SES of the parents?

What about the fact (yes, fact) of the demonstrated disadvantages of being raised by the state?

Why do you continue to evade the divorce question?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 09:52 PM   #14
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
<respectful snip for space>
http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...-0377.full.pdf

"On the basis of this comprehensive review of the literature regarding the development and adjustment of children whose parents are of the same gender, as well as the existing evidence for the legal, social, and health benefits of marriage to children, the AAP concludes that it is in the best interest of children that they be able to partake in the security of permanent nurturing and care that comes with the civil marriage of their parents, without regard to their parents' gender or sexual orientation." (p. 1381)

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or.../126/1/28.full

"Our studies show that adolescents who have been raised since birth in planned lesbian families demonstrate healthy psychological adjustment and thus provide no justification for restricting access to reproductive technologies or child custody on the basis of the sexual orientation of the parents." (that one's from 2010)

http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.ed...-2013-JFP1.pdf

"As expected, family type was unrelated to childrens' adjustment. This finding is consistent with earlier work, and provides support for arguments that prospective adopters should not be discriminated against, in policy or in practice, based on sexual orientation." (p. 440; this one's from 2013)

http://mccaugheycentre.unimelb.edu.a...on_report_.pdf
(This is an interim report form the Australian longitudinal study)

"On measures of general health and family cohesion children aged 5 to 17 years with same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared with Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health issues there were no significant statistical differences."

http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arti...mportant-their

" A new study by psychology researchers suggests that whether parents are gay, lesbian or straight, how well they work together as a couple and support each other in parenting is linked to fewer behavior problems among their adopted children and is more important than their sexual orientation". (from 2013)

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...dy-083010.html

"The census data show that having parents who are the same gender is not in itself any disadvantage to children," he said. "Parents' income and education are the biggest indicators of a child's success. Family structure is a minor determinant." (from 2010--penultimate paragraph is worth reading)

...and so on.

Perhaps you might consider addressing the divorce issue?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd November 2013, 11:31 PM   #15
Lukraak_Sisser
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,992
What I would also like to know is where the idea comes from that marriage is an institution that was implemented to create a stable environment for children?

Most cultures for the longest time raised children communally. Marriage had nothing to do with that and everything to do with property.
In fact, none of the religious commandments against homosexuality say anything about children. It all seems to boil down to the fact that the writers of the commands felt it was 'icky' and thus forbidden.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 07:40 AM   #16
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bęte noir. . . .
You appear to be unaware of what the Church is doing to reach out to lesbians and gays. Perhaps the following will help to remedy that.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23272471

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th November 2013 at 05:30 AM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 08:39 AM   #17
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 9,527
How is it, that a marriage sanctioned by the God of Love, Creator of the Universe, ends up in divorce?

Doesn't God know any better?

It looks as if He doesn't exist.
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 09:02 AM   #18
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,918
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'm sorry, but your syntax makes it impossible for me understand what you are saying. I'm not being evasive. Perhaps I can get at your meaning by asking some questions: 1) If I have said gay marriage laws should apply to two gay men who will not have children, how do you interpret that to mean
I'm not concerned about the rights of children (assuming that's what you mean?). 2) In at least two posts I have said that inasmuch as researchers have not reached consensus re. the effect of same-sex parenting on children, we should opt for the conservative approach and prohibit gay marriage; i.e., we shouldn't gamble with the welfare of children. I should note, however, that the Social Science Research peer-reviewed studies I posted a day or two ago cast serious doubt on the belief that same-sex parenting doesn't affect children negatively. As I noted, the old (2005) APA study, which has been cited by many pro-same-sex-marriage advocates for years, has at least one major methodological error that renders it all but useless.

I encourage you to restate your charge that I have not been concerned about children or women in this discusssion. Please use shorter sentences.
I will be pleased to respond.
See Dick and Jane.

See Mommy and Daddy.

Mommy and Daddy are poor.

See Dick and Jane get bad grades.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 10:48 AM   #19
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
. . . Does being sexually abused put one on welfare?
To the extent that being sexually abused destroys a person's self-esteem, that person could well end up on welfare. Obviously, however, there is no black-and-white answer to your question.

Quote:
Or does being on welfare and unemployed correlate with higher incidence of abuse?
Again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. I tend, however, to think there is a correlation between being on welfare/unemployed and a higher incidence of abuse.

Quote:
2.) Children from low economic families and divorce are worse off.
So, do you believe because of point 2 that we should outlaw divorce or prevent poor people from marrying? Please answer this question. it is very very important.
Regardless of what I believe, the actions you describe in your hypothetical scenario cannot be implemented in our representative democracy.

Quote:
Thank you. but, as you can see, one must read the original sources so that you can know what the limits are to the study.
Good point, and I don't disagree.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 11:04 AM   #20
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
. . . There are a great many same sex couples who are very obviously doing a much better job of raising children than a great many mixed sex couples.
A "great many" and "very obviously" require documentation. So what is your source for your claim?
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 11:55 AM   #21
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Regardless of what I believe, the actions you describe in your hypothetical scenario cannot be implemented in our representative democracy.
Why not? These are the exact actions that the Mormon church seek to do with gays in our society?

This is the exact thing you do when you cite supposed* child welfare concerns as a reason to object to gay marriage.

By selectively blocking Just gay marriage and not poor marriage, your reasoning becomes nothing more than simple bigoted prejudice.

*note that it is supposed. There is no evidence to suggest that children from stable gay marriages would be worse off than children from stable heterosexual marriages. If the goal is to provide the best chances for children, then the goal should be STABLE MARRIAGES. Advocating for anyone who could provide a stable home for children should be your goal, if your goal is, indeed child welfare. As stated, simply trying to prevent gay couples from marrying does nothing to protect children.
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 12:57 PM   #22
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bęte noir. . . .
You appear to be unaware of what the Church is doing to reach out to lesbians and gays. Perhaps the following will help to remedy that.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/
...in which we find that your sectarian superstitions are supposed to be valid to impose rules invented by your sect, to control the behaviour of members, upon people who are not members and do not fit your cookie-cutter biases.

"God has given us commandments that support family and individual happiness. One of these is the Law of Chastity — individuals should have no sexual relations except in marriage, which Latter-day Saints define as between a man and a woman. Sexual intimacy is a powerful and beautiful thing. For this very reason it should be treated with care, within the boundaries of commitment and responsibility."

(emphasesadded. Note the bald, unsupported assumption that "commitment and responsibility" can only be found within the LDS "definition" of marriage...Youmay be unaware of the evidence to the contrary in the studies you have not read.

What has that to do with the fact that divorced LDS are allowed to re-marry, even at the highest level of temple privilege--in diametrical opposition to what Jesus is said to have said (at least in the xianist canon) about divorce; particularly given what Jesus is NOT said to have said (at least in the xianist canon) about homosexuality? Are those phylacteries quite wide enough, yet?

Quote:
...non-functioning link.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
"The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel."

In which we again find the smug idea that rules invented by the CJCLDS to control members are meet and fit to impose upon non-members. No matter upon what sectarian superstition they are based.

In which we also see the dishonest implication that Jesus is said to have spoken against homosexuality, which he is not said to have done...at least in the xianist canon.

Why do you continue to avoid the divorce issue?

Why do you continue to ignore the results of the recent studies?
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest
"The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David
"Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 3rd November 2013 at 01:35 PM.
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 12:58 PM   #23
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,695
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bęte noir. . . .
You appear to be unaware of what the Church is doing to reach out to lesbians and gays. Perhaps the following will help to remedy that.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org/

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23272471

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction
I believe many of us here are aware of the content of these sites, and continuation of the discussion is not thereby ended. It is true enough that according to current Mormon thinking, persons having same sex attraction are accepted (and good on them for that at least), but it is just as true, and clear from these sites, that "homosexual behavior" is utterly forbidden. Insofar as the Mormon church itself or Mormons as individuals act to impose that viewpoint on non Mormons who do not consider homosexual behavior morally unacceptable, this remains a problem. In the case of the church acting as a lobbyist, it is a legal problem. In the case of individuals acting on belief, it is a subject for argument and persuasion. There has been plenty of the former here, but the latter is not in evidence.

It is more a problem in the case of the United States, where homosexual behavior is, in most instances, legally accepted, and where homosexual partnerships are, in most instances, allowed, and where, at least in many places, homosexual child custody and adoption have been sanctioned for a very long time. In this case, the moral argument is focused on marriage itself, and not on the abolition of homosexuality.

I do not want to suggest that dividing inclination from behavior is illegitimate, or persiflage. Many of us have inclinations to do things that are reasonably forbidden, and a large part of morality involves understanding the distinction between what you wish to do and what you really do. However, in this case, the focus is much narrower - any war waged by religious conservatives against gay behavior has long been lost in most areas of civil society.

It seems pertinent to note here that the sources cited (at least the two that worked - the second did not) are specifically related to how Mormons should view homosexual Mormons. Perhaps I did not read far enough, but I did not see much argument here that tells Mormons what to do about non-Mormons. The other thing that seems worth mentioning is that the last of these sites specifically refers to "the sacred institution of marriage." That is a religious term for a religious event. I am not aware of any law anywhere that forbids churches from deciding what they include in, or exclude from, their sacraments, rites, privileges and activities. In states where gay marriage is fully recognized, no church is required to participate against its policy. Civil marriage is not a sacred institution, and arguments about it do not enjoy the immunity that faith traditionally enjoys in its own sphere.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th November 2013 at 05:31 AM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 02:58 PM   #24
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
While I do not want to let skyrider use this as an opportunity to continue to avoid the valid question about why homosexuality is a CJCLDS bęte noir. . . .
I believe many of us here are aware of the content of these sites, and continuation of the discussion is not thereby ended. It is true enough that according to current Mormon thinking, persons having same sex attraction are accepted (and good on them for that at least), but it is just as true, and clear from these sites, that "homosexual behavior" is utterly forbidden.
You understand, I'm quite sure, that the LDS Church has a right, as part of its doctrine, to forbid homosexual behavior.

Quote:
Insofar as the Mormon church itself or Mormons as individuals act to impose that viewpoint on non Mormons who do not consider homosexual behavior morally unacceptable, this remains a problem.
How has the LDS Church actively endeavored to "impose" on others its viewpoint re. homosexual behavior? Are you thinking of California?

Quote:
In the case of the church acting as a lobbyist, it is a legal problem.
It may be, but to this point at least, the IRS has taken no action against the Church's 501(c)(3) status.

Quote:
In the case of individuals acting on belief, it is a subject for argument and persuasion. There has been plenty of the former here, but the latter is not in evidence.
Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th November 2013 at 05:37 AM. Reason: Fixed quote tags
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 03:27 PM   #25
deaman
Philosopher
 
deaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Here Now
Posts: 9,527
King James Bible
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."

How do you explain the fact that Temple Marriages, which are supposed to be for all time and eternity, are regularly granted a divorce by the Prophet?

Is he going against the word of God?

Fortunately, for me. I figured out long ago that there is no god.

Just man-made depictions of what a god should be like, and a lot of human, short comings of living up to those idealizations.
deaman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 04:49 PM   #26
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post

Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)
I have read it. It does nothing to help your case. Unless your case is to demonstrate pure bigotry. (Remember. You have yet to insist that poor people not marry)
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 05:55 PM   #27
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,103
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. I tend, however, to think there is a correlation between being on welfare/unemployed and a higher incidence of abuse.
Of course theres no one-size-fits-all, its a correlation. Its a statistical observation. When theres a statistical correlation it deosnt imply for example in this case that being on welfare ==> higher incidence of abuse does not mean that all famillies on welfare will abuse their children, just that statistically more likely.

It correlation doesnt even try to suggest the cause. Being on welfare is not necessarily the cause of the abuse.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 06:22 PM   #28
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
. . .Why are you avoiding the divorce issue?
What is the "divorce issue?" I confess I don't know the meaning of that term.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 08:24 PM   #29
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
 
BadBoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,103
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Again, there is no one-size-fits-all answer to your question. I tend, however, to think there is a correlation between being on welfare/unemployed and a higher incidence of abuse.
Obviously, since a correlation is just a statistical observation, that its not one-size-fits-all.

Note also the reason for such a correlation (if there is one) may not be due to people being on welfare that causes the abuse.
__________________
Go sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here
BadBoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2013, 08:55 PM   #30
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
. . . Why do you continue to ignore the results of the recent studies?
Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."
[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-less-healthy-than-married-heteros..."]

You can read the article, of course, but note these key findings:

["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."

I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 06:53 AM   #31
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,918
Skyrider44, I'd still like to pursue the following discussion:

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?
Originally Posted by skyrider44
That's certainly a major part of it. Marriage makes it possible to bring children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other.
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote
But there is no legal requirement that couples get married in order to raise children, nor is there a legal requirement that anyone who does marry must have children. And married couples are certainly not legally committed to each other in the sense that you are implying. If one or both parties are unhappy in the marriage, there is no legal requirement that they remain committed to one another.
So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 11:11 AM   #32
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by deaman View Post
King James Bible
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Therefore what God has joined together, man must not separate."

How do you explain the fact that Temple Marriages, which are supposed to be for all time and eternity, are regularly granted a divorce by the Prophet?

Is he going against the word of God?

Fortunately, for me. I figured out long ago that there is no god.

Just man-made depictions of what a god should be like, and a lot of human, short comings of living up to those idealizations.
That's actually a pretty simple one. It has to do with Mormon concepts of what it really means to be "bound" to someone. You have to keep in mind, back in the old days , Mormons would "bind" their employees, so they would still have use of their services in the afterlife. Acting as the proxy in a baptism of the dead binds the decedent to you. Some LDS founders married women who were already married, and to justify this behavior, it was deemed that a new binding superseded the old one.

The people are still bound, but to someone new, not to each other. The existence of a binding remains intact. In a married couple, the husband would already be bound to his other wives. Since adultery was the primary grounds for divorce allowed at the time, the woman was just shifting her binding from her old husband to the new one. Marrying someone new WAS a divorce, not a separate act. This saved Smith, Young and the other polygamist elements of the LDS a lot of paperwork.

A modern temple divorce, unbinding someone from one person and not immediately binding them to someone else, is a relatively new development. It probably grew out of polygamy being banned within the LDS church. Once Men were no longer bound to multiple wives, a loophole was needed to allow men to get divorced without immediately remarrying.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 12:17 PM   #33
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the increase or decrease of the number gays and lesbians having families.
__________________
Ego, ain't it a bitch?
RandFan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 12:45 PM   #34
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Skyrider44, I'd still like to pursue the following discussion:

So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?
Miracles.

Impossible pregnancies are a mark of divine blessing in the Bible. It's a proof of God, of divine intervention in human affairs. Sarah was a few decades past menopause when Abraham impregnated her with God's aid. Denying marriage to people who cannot have children would be denying God an opportunity to perform a miracle.

That's not to say marrying sterile partners is encouraged. There's still a good deal of blame attached to a "barren" woman. Despite the fact that it's assumed God can cause a pregnancy whenever it suits him, deliberately marrying someone sterile and then asking for a miracle amounts to demanding God provide proof. It's testing God, something you're not supposed to do.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 12:55 PM   #35
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."
[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-less-healthy-than-married-heteros..."]

You can read the article, of course, but note these key findings:

["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."

I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.
once again, you fell into the trap of looking at biased, bigoted sites attempting to use science to support their bigoted biases.

Here is the actual study "Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health The Role of Race-Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status" Journal of Health and Social Behavior March 2013 vol. 54 no. 1 25-45

It appeared on line in February (early access).

Note, here is the abstract from the paper: I shall bold some important points.

Quote:
A legacy of research finds that marriage is associated with good health. Yet same-sex cohabitors cannot marry in most states in the United States and therefore may not receive the health benefits associated with marriage. We use pooled data from the 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys to compare the self-rated health of same-sex cohabiting men (n = 1,659) and same-sex cohabiting women (n = 1,634) with that of their different-sex married, different-sex cohabiting, and unpartnered divorced, widowed, and never-married counterparts. Results from logistic regression models show that same-sex cohabitors report poorer health than their different-sex married counterparts at the same levels of socioeconomic status. Additionally, same-sex cohabitors report better health than their different-sex cohabiting and single counterparts, but these differences are fully explained by socioeconomic status. Without their socioeconomic advantages, same-sex cohabitors would report similar health to nonmarried groups. Analyses further reveal important racial-ethnic and gender variations.

Notice this????
their key point is to show that co-habitation correlates with worse health as compared to marriage. To claim that this paper supports the idea that gay lifestyle is unhealthy is the height of bigoted dishonesty. Especially when they point out that cohabitation of opposite sex couples were equal in their unhealthiness.


Are you not bothered that people who agree with you need to lie and be deceitful to support their arguments? I wonder what parallels exist in this kind of dishonesty and the kind that Joseph Smith must have used to commit the fraud he made in writing the BoA?
__________________
What's the best argument for UHC? This argument against UHC.
"Perhaps one reason per capita GDP is lower in UHC countries is because they've tried to prevent this important function [bankrupting the sick] and thus carry forward considerable economic dead wood?"-BeAChooser
joobz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 01:54 PM   #36
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,918
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Here's a recent study you seem to have ignored. It was published in February of this year in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. The study is titled "Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals."
No, it's not. That's the title of that article about the study that appears on the anti-gay LifeSiteNews.com site.

Quote:
[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-couple-less-healthy-than-married-heteros..."]

You can read the article, of course,...
We could, if you URL worked. Here's a link to the article.
Note that the article does not contain a single link to the actual study. It contains links to a couple of other LifeSiteNews.com articles, one to a right-wing blog, and one to an anti-gay Facebook page. The article is crap. It pretends to be a journalistic piece, but it's really just a propaganda piece.

but note these key findings:

Quote:
["The study] found that same-sex cohabiting men were 61% more likely to report "poor to fair" health than an equitable number of men reporting from heterosexual marriages. Same-sex cohabitating women were 46% more likely to report the same when compared to heterosexual married women. Indeed, black women in a lesbian relationship were likely to report being less healthy than single, divorced, and widowed black women. The study confirmed the mounting evidence gathered through decades of studies that homosexuals are living an unhealthy and risky lifestyle" [underlining added].

The author, Johanna Dasteel, adds: "Studies have consistently found that homosexuals have higher levels of depression, suicide, and alcohol or substance abuse than heterosexuals."
Did you think that we wouldn't actually read the article? Why did you omit the text near the end which states:
Quote:
The professor who led the newest health-related research, Dr. Hui Liu of Michigan State University, chalked up the discrepancy to the fact that homosexuals cannot marry, as well as the burden of stress and discrimination.

Liu told the press, “If marriage can promote health, it is reasonable for us to expect that if same-sex couples had the advantage of legalized marriage, their health may be boosted."

Liu proceeded to suggest that filing joint tax returns may also boost health of same-sex couples, should they be permitted to “marry.”
Quote:
I do not hate homosexuals. Some of them are among the most talented people I know. So please, curb the personal attacks. There are, no doubt, studies that counter what I have posted here.
Yes, there are. And often they've been the studies that you've presented in the belief that they support your position. You frequently cite studies that you clearly have not read. Did you pay the $32 to download the study? Did you even read the free abstract? If you'd bothered to pursue it, you'd have come across this:
Quote:
A legacy of research finds that marriage is associated with good health. Yet same-sex cohabitors cannot marry in most states in the United States and therefore may not receive the health benefits associated with marriage. We use pooled data from the 1997 to 2009 National Health Interview Surveys to compare the self-rated health of same-sex cohabiting men (n = 1,659) and same-sex cohabiting women (n = 1,634) with that of their different-sex married, different-sex cohabiting, and unpartnered divorced, widowed, and never-married counterparts. Results from logistic regression models show that same-sex cohabitors report poorer health than their different-sex married counterparts at the same levels of socioeconomic status. Additionally, same-sex cohabitors report better health than their different-sex cohabiting and single counterparts, but these differences are fully explained by socioeconomic status. Without their socioeconomic advantages, same-sex cohabitors would report similar health to nonmarried groups. Analyses further reveal important racial-ethnic and gender variations.
I'm sorry, but Johanna Dasteel is either an idiot, dishonest, or both. And if you are really just making an unbiassed, pragmatic assessment of the available scientific evidence, then why do you keep citing studies that you clearly haven't read in the belief that they support your position?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 02:40 PM   #37
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,695
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post

.....Apparently you missed the article "New Research on Children of Same-Sex Parents Suggests Differences Matter."

(Out of time. . .will return.)
I did not say the attempt to persuade has not occurred. You can flap your arms forever and not fly.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Last edited by zooterkin; 5th November 2013 at 05:38 AM. Reason: Fixed broken quote tags
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 04:56 PM   #38
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
. . . So why would you object to same-sex marriages on the grounds that the couples cannot naturally produce offspring with one another, yet not object to a heterosexual marriage in which the couple cannot naturally produce offspring of their own?
I'm quite sure you assign a position to me not of my making.

I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children. I haven't said that my rationale for opposing same-sex marriage is because the couple "cannot naturally produce offspring of their own."

Can you cite a post in which I say what you claim I said?
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 05:10 PM   #39
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Oh there are lots of non-Mormons with discriminatory prejudices against homosexuals.

Maybe you'd like to actually address post #8942. Or #8938 for that matter.
I assume your problem with Post 8938 is that Mormons, by themselves, passed a bill banning gay marriage in CA. Is that it? Even if they did (doubtful at best), would you deny them the right to vote their consciences? Would you deny them access to the ballot box because they are Mormons?

As for Post 8942, I don't know what I wrote that you apparently found objectionable. Perhaps you can explain.
skyrider44 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2013, 05:35 PM   #40
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,553
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
once again, you fell into the trap of looking at biased, bigoted sites attempting to use science to support their bigoted biases.

Here is the actual study "Same-Sex Cohabitors and Health The Role of Race-Ethnicity, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status" Journal of Health and Social Behavior March 2013 vol. 54 no. 1 25-45

It appeared on line in February (early access).

Note, here is the abstract from the paper: I shall bold some important points.




Notice this????
their key point is to show that co-habitation correlates with worse health as compared to marriage. To claim that this paper supports the idea that gay lifestyle is unhealthy is the height of bigoted dishonesty. Especially when they point out that cohabitation of opposite sex couples were equal in their unhealthiness.


Are you not bothered that people who agree with you need to lie and be deceitful to support their arguments? I wonder what parallels exist in this kind of dishonesty and the kind that Joseph Smith must have used to commit the fraud he made in writing the BoA?
This means the study supports gay marriage, as it would reduce the amount of unmarried cohabitation.

<snip>


Edited by LossLeader:  Edited. Moderated thread.

Last edited by Loss Leader; 4th November 2013 at 05:43 PM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:47 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.