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 4th November 2013, 06:53 PM   #41
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children.
Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
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?
Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view, you have linked to papers that make that exact argument. (Remember your reference to the Harvard paper?). You would do well to actually read the references you use. It would help you avoid making these kinds of embarrassing posts.
__________________
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, 07:52 PM   #42
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
No, it's not. That's the title of that article about the study that appears on the anti-gay LifeSiteNews.com site.


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.
Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.
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, 08:37 PM   #43
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
What is the "divorce issue?" I confess I don't know the meaning of that term.
Here are several posts you seem to have ignored:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...060#post958806

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...32#post9593632

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...01#post9594201

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...79#post9597279

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...23#post9598423

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...20#post9598220

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...39#post9599539

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...94#post9599794

Most of them are from the last few days. You can read them, of course, but note this key issue:

None of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) have anything to do with homosexuality at all. In fact, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is not said to have ever mentioned homosexuality.

On the other hand, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is said to have spoken directly, specifically, and restrictively about divorce, and about remarriage after divorce.

In spite of this, The CJCLDS sees fit to graciously "allow" individuals who are attracted to their own gender to be so, as long as they do not, in any way, act so. Mormons of apparently acceptable standing, with temple privileges and everything, see no problem identifying "homosexual behaviour as a "disgusting and abhorrent" lifestyle. Further, The CJCLDS has seen fit, as an organization, to become socially active in denying the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples, even when neither party of the couple is, in fact, a mormon, nor would ever choose to be.

At the same time, the CJCLDS provides counseling, support groups, and remediation for divorced mormons, up to and including allowing divorced mormons to re-marry at the highest level of temple privilege. Nor do we see the CJCLDS actively pursuing legal restrictions on, ot prohibition of, civil divorce, even for mormons.

Why is it that behaviour specifically proscribed, even forbidden, by Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) is allowed, supported, and remediated in the CJCLDS, while behaviour about which Jesus is not said to have said a word is reviled?

Again, I grant you, as I have allalong, that your sect may impose whatever standards it chooses upon its members. I do not grant that your sect's superstitions give them leave, authority, or permission to arrogate to enforce your rules, invented to control the behaviour of members, upon non-members and the public at large.

I do find it odd that your sect adopts the name "Jesus Christ" in its cognomen while so selectively applying the teachings attributed to Jesus, who was said to be said to be "the Christ".
__________________
"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 5th November 2013, 01:20 AM   #44
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
[quote=Foster Zygote;9600924]Skyrider44, I'd still like to pursue the following discussion:
Quote:
Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?
Quote:
=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.


[quote]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.


Quote:
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?
The defendants, in open court, were forced to concede that gay marriage could only help and strengthen the families of gays and lesbians.

There was never a mechanism proffered for why gays and lesbians couldn't marry. None
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 07:12 AM   #45
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.
You mean like astronomy is the other side of astrology, alchemey is the the other side of chemistry.

There are not tow scientific, reasonable sides based on science/

  1. Previewed.
  2. Published.
  3. Replicated.

Do you have that?
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 07:21 AM   #46
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'm quite sure you assign a position to me not of my making.
Then why did you write, "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"?

Quote:
I have said that traditional marriage appears to be the better arrangement for children.
But you've also said that there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Given your inability to cite any research actually supporting that claim, I can only assume that you have a prejudicial objection to same-sex marriages and you are attempting to find the evidence to justify it.

Quote:
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?
Yes.

Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9590689#post9590689"
skyrider44[/url]]Biology alone tells you what marriage is not about.
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9591744#post9591744"
Foster Zygote[/url]]Could you clarify the above statement? Are you implying that marriage is about producing offspring?
Originally Posted by [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9593413#post9593413"
skyrider44[/url]]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.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 07:25 AM   #47
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,482
What is the official LDS position on people like Warren Jeffs? He claims to be Mormon, practiced Polygamy, is serving a life sentence for sexual assault on underage girls and yet still wields considerable political clout in some areas of Utah. A mayor even asked him to nominate people for the job of sheriff. When he was free, he pretty much WAS the local government right down to having non-members denied water hookups to the municipal water supply.

I bring this up, because the LDS Church's political involvement in the Marriage Equality debate strikes me as not that different from what Jeffs did. We can see in the linked articles above what happens when fundamentalism is allowed access to government surveillance systems and overall local government. Is the control Jeffs had over the town the kind of control the LDS Church wants over the communities where they have members? If not, where is the line in the sand they current claim they do not want to cross?
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 5th November 2013, 07:33 AM   #48
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I assume your problem with Post 8938 is that Mormons, by themselves, passed a bill banning gay marriage in CA. Is that it?
No, that isn't it at all.

Here, let me link to it again.

It shows the absurdity of invoking, "bringing children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other" as any sort of test for marriage.

Quote:
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?
They can vote any way they want. But if they vote for bigoted policies against other members of society and the only justification they can offer is their personal religious beliefs based on the lies of a con-man, then I'm going to point out that fact.

Quote:
As for Post 8942, I don't know what I wrote that you apparently found objectionable. Perhaps you can explain.
Perhaps you could actually look at the post? It wasn't your post, it was made by joobz. It destroys your claim that two peer-reviewed articles support your argument.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 08:03 AM   #49
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Well, OK, here are some more articles that are "crap" because they are not from liberal sources:
Nice red herring, but this isn't about liberal vs. conservative. It's about the methodology employed. The LifeSiteNews.com article is a blatant propaganda piece that only pretends to be backed up by scholarship for the benefit of its homophobic readership that doesn't know the difference. Just like the links you provide below.

The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=ls01B1

On the Unhealthy Homesexual Lifestyle
www.home60515.com/4.html

The destructive nature of homosexuality
www.renewamerica.com/columns/cox/040315

Homosexual couples less healthy than married heterosexuals
www.thebible.net/cniglfg/TrueNature.html

Quote:
You seem to rely solely on liberal sources. That tendency forecloses on the possibility of getting a balanced perspective. Controversial issues have two sides. If you look only at one side, your angle of vision will be skewed.
What a ridiculous thing to say. The "liberal" sources that I've relied on have been the actual scientific studies that your sources claimed supported their position. The difference is that I actually took the time to look up those sources and learn what they actually have to say, instead of simply parroting some politically biased site that misrepresents them. Seriously, my "liberal" sources have been publications like Social Science Research and the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, the sources that you introduced.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 09:37 AM   #50
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,481
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
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.
Let us for the moment abandon any discussion of whether the LDS Church participated, as an institution, in the Prop. 8 issue, and pretend for the moment that paid advertisements and harangues from the pulpit, and the like, either did not happen or are not relevant. What IS relevant, if your statement is taken as written, is the inherent answer to the question you have asked over and over (and claim so insistently was simply a question and not a statement). You ask over and over, what harm is done to others if the Mormon founders were fraudulent and the gospels they authored false?

Well, here is your answer. Assuming that limited comprehension applies only to the reading and not to the writing of posts, the phrase "Mormons, by themselves," designates Mormons. Your post distinguishes the group so referenced from others, and the fact that they are Mormons is, thereby, made central to your argument about rights. It is clear from the manner in which it is written that you acknowledge the group in question acted as Mormons, because they are Mormons. And therefore, insofar as the group is acting on the basis of falsity and fraud, then the falsity and fraud are relevant to what they do. Nobody here is disputing the rights of "Mormons, by themselves," to voice their opinions or to vote their consciences. But when they do so, it is entirely relevant, and entirely permissible, for those who find their beliefs repugnant, to attack their beliefs and the basis of their beliefs. Nor does it matter whether or not they alone were responsible for the passage of the bill in question. If they participated, and if they did so openly as a result of their Mormon beliefs, then that is what they did.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 10:27 AM   #51
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
No, that isn't it at all.

Here, let me link to it again.

It shows the absurdity of invoking, "bringing children into the world under the protection of a father and a mother who are legally committed to each other" as any sort of test for marriage.
I didn't say it was a "test" for marriage; that is your unsupported, distorted interpretation.

Quote:
They can vote any way they want. But if they vote for bigoted policies against other members of society and the only justification they can offer is their personal religious beliefs based on the lies of a con-man, then I'm going to point out that fact.
Why do you imagine that the "only justification" for some LDS supporting the CA initiative was "their personal religious beliefs"? Are you unaware that some LDS are devoted Democrats and liberals who sometimes take issue with Church positions?

Quote:
Perhaps you could actually look at the post? It wasn't your post, it was made by joobz. It destroys your claim that two peer-reviewed articles support your argument.
It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.
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 5th November 2013, 10:36 AM   #52
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Then why did you write, "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"?
Because it's true.

Quote:
But you've also said that there isn't any evidence one way or the other. Given your inability to cite any research actually supporting that claim, I can only assume that you have a prejudicial objection to same-sex marriages and you are attempting to find the evidence to justify it.
A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."
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 5th November 2013, 11:34 AM   #53
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,574
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."

But you've admitted that the evidence does not identify any merit to the proposal. You've said that "the jury is still out". So you've formed an opinion before the jury has come back with a judgement. You've pre-judged the issue. That's the literal definition of prejudicial.

I, personally, would be much more satisfied if you came out and said you don't want gays to marry because you don't believe homosexuality is moral and you want to root it out of society entirely. That argument, while wrong, is at least consistent.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 5th November 2013, 12:03 PM   #54
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.
Argumentative.
Every bit of evidence that you have linked to in support of your anti-gay marriage view has been shown to be misinterpreted and fails to support your position. I have presented these arguments and you have failed to address them.

Most importantly, You have yet to address this clear question:

Do you support the banning of poor marriage(which your studies show is bad for children)?
If not, then why do you support the banning of gay marriage(which your studies show is not bad for 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 5th November 2013, 12:45 PM   #55
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,482
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Because it's true.
Assuming you're correct, so what?

Marriage is a human institution that has changed dramatically over the last few thousand years. For example, the so-called "Nuclear Family" is more of an Industrial Age truncation of what we now call the "Extended Family." Instead of marrying into a family, people splintered off to become moveable, obedient cogs for industrial work. The sudden lack of the extended family's support resulted in parenting being more stressful, as there were fewer adults available to help with the kids.

The Mormon church can of course ban its members from same sex marriage, but it has no right to demand non-members adhere to their dogma, no matter how many badly flawed, readily debunked arguments they use to try and create an imaginary reason why gay married couples are somehow "worse" than heterosexual ones.
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 5th November 2013, 12:54 PM   #56
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Because it's true.



A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."
Actually it does.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 01:19 PM   #57
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,482
The evidence is mounting that homosexuality is not a choice.

HAWAII: Geneticist Testifies To Blow Away Claims About Choosing To Be Gay

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


To the LDS members here, do you think the mounting evidence that homosexuality is, in fact, a natural phenomenon will influence the religious response to marriage equality and adoption by gay parents?

Do you personally feel your beliefs challenged by the mounting evidence that homosexuality is not a choice? If not, what standard of evidence WOULD challenge your attitudes about homosexuals and oppressing them by denying them the opportunity to marry and have families?
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 5th November 2013, 02:11 PM   #58
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I didn't say it was a "test" for marriage; that is your unsupported, distorted interpretation.
You clearly stated that "biology alone tells you what marriage is not about". Now you're backing out of it.

Quote:
Why do you imagine that the "only justification" for some LDS supporting the CA initiative was "their personal religious beliefs"? Are you unaware that some LDS are devoted Democrats and liberals who sometimes take issue with Church positions?
The LDS hierarchy strongly influenced its membership to vote to restrict the rights of non-Mormon citizens based on their religious convictions regarding homosexuality.

Quote:
It does no such thing. Perhaps you're engaged in wishful thinking.
You don't even know how to address the statistical issues that joobz points out, do you?
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 02:23 PM   #59
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Because it's true.
No, it's not. Married couples are not legally committed to each other. There is no requirement for a couple to get married before having children.


Quote:
A person can oppose a proposal based on its merits or lack thereof. That does not mean, as you suggest, that the person is ipso facto "prejudicial."
But so far, you've been completely unable to come up with any rational, scientifically based argument to oppose same-sex marriage. What else are we to make of the fact that you are clearly just Googling for anti-gay marriage sources and posting nothing but biased political websites that blatantly misrepresent studies that you have obviously not bothered to track down?

In science, you follow the evidence and see if it can lead you to a conclusion. Starting with a conclusion and then trying to make the evidence lead to it is the opposite of science, and is, by definition, prejudicial.
__________________
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 5th November 2013, 03:22 PM   #60
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.

Quote:
Yet, in your wanton attempt at finding any potentially credible source that supports your anti gay view, you have linked to papers that make that exact argument.
I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:
(Remember your reference to the Harvard paper?).
I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper. I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.
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 5th November 2013, 04:01 PM   #61
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
. . . the phrase "Mormons, by themselves," designates Mormons. Your post distinguishes the group so referenced from others, and the fact that they are Mormons is, thereby, made central to your argument about rights.
I don't disagree.

Quote:
It is clear from the manner in which it is written that you acknowledge the group in question acted as Mormons, because they are Mormons.
You make an unwarranted assumption. You cannot say with certitude that every Mormon voted the same way.

Quote:
And therefore, insofar as the group is acting on the basis of falsity and fraud, then the falsity and fraud are relevant to what they do.
So you believe that Mormons who voted on the issue didn't study it, discuss it, analyze it, research it. How would what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in the 1830s influence how LDS members voted on Prop 8 circa 170 years later?
The Church isn't a static institution. That's why it has a living prophet. Your argument is a tortured one at best.

Quote:
Nobody here is disputing the rights of "Mormons, by themselves," to voice their opinions or to vote their consciences. But when they do so, it is entirely relevant, and entirely permissible, for those who find their beliefs repugnant, to attack their beliefs and the basis of their beliefs.
No it isn't. Where do you intend to draw the line about voters you would target for attack? You advance a very dangerous idea; i.e., a litmus test for who does and does not have the unimpeded right to vote.

Quote:
Nor does it matter whether or not they alone were responsible for the passage of the bill in question. If they participated, and if they did so openly as a result of their Mormon beliefs, then that is what they did.
Do you realize what you are saying? Some citizens' beliefs may disqualify them from being eligible to vote. Do you really believe that?
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 5th November 2013, 09:21 PM   #62
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
. . . None of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) have anything to do with homosexuality at all. In fact, at least in the xianist canon, Jesus is not said to have ever mentioned homosexuality.
You overlook the fact that Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him an apostle who was to continue the earthly ministry of Jesus. Thereafter, Saul became Paul, and he--acting under the authority of the risen Savior--spoke out against homosexuality on at least three occasions: 1) Romans 1:26-28; 2) 1 Cor. 6:9; and 3) 1 Tim. 1:10 (King James version).

Quote:
Mormons of apparently acceptable standing, with temple privileges and everything, see no problem identifying "homosexual behaviour as a "disgusting and abhorrent" lifestyle.
You make a sweeping generalization.

Quote:
Further, The CJCLDS has seen fit, as an organization, to become socially active in denying the benefits of civil marriage to same-sex couples, even when neither party of the couple is, in fact, a mormon, nor would ever choose to be.
Religious organizations have a right to speak out on moral issues.

Quote:
At the same time, the CJCLDS provides counseling, support groups, and remediation for divorced mormons, up to and including allowing divorced mormons to re-marry at the highest level of temple privilege. Nor do we see the CJCLDS actively pursuing legal restrictions on, ot prohibition of, civil divorce, even for mormons.
I can't speak for the Church, but I believe it is committed to doing everything possible to help those who are divorced and to save marriages threatened by divorce. Rather than conflicting with Jesus' counsel, it seems to me this approach is supportive of it.

Quote:
Why is it that behaviour specifically proscribed, even forbidden, by Jesus (at least in the xianist canon) is allowed, supported, and remediated in the CJCLDS. . . .
(See above.)

Quote:
while behaviour about which Jesus is not said to have said a word is reviled?
As I point out above, Jesus did speak out against homosexuality through his commissioned apostle.

Quote:
Again, I grant you, as I have all along, that your sect may impose whatever standards it chooses upon its members. I do not grant that your sect's superstitions give them leave, authority, or permission to arrogate to enforce your rules, invented to control the behaviour of members, upon non-members and the public at large.
The Church doesn't have the authority to enforce rules designed for its members on non-members. It does have the right to make its voice heard on moral issues, just as some other religious and conservative organizations did re. Prop. 8 (and many years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment).

Quote:
I do find it odd that your sect adopts the name "Jesus Christ" in its cognomen while so selectively applying the teachings attributed to Jesus, who was said to be said to be "the Christ".
The ministry of Jesus Christ did not end with his mortal death. He commissioned his disciples, including Paul, to continue his work. As you may know, several of his disciples gave their lives in honoring that divine charge.
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 6th November 2013, 02:16 AM   #63
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,800
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Are non-believers devoid of prejudices?
No but they aren't codified into our defining documents, if we can even be said to have such things.
__________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeBentley is online now   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 6th November 2013, 06:17 AM   #64
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by joobz View Post
Yes. And you haven't presented anything that actually supports that argument. As such, you currently rely only on bigotry to support the view.
I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.
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 6th November 2013, 12:49 PM   #65
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,481
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I don't disagree.



You make an unwarranted assumption. You cannot say with certitude that every Mormon voted the same way.



So you believe that Mormons who voted on the issue didn't study it, discuss it, analyze it, research it. How would what Joseph Smith did or didn't do in the 1830s influence how LDS members voted on Prop 8 circa 170 years later?
The Church isn't a static institution. That's why it has a living prophet. Your argument is a tortured one at best.



No it isn't. Where do you intend to draw the line about voters you would target for attack? You advance a very dangerous idea; i.e., a litmus test for who does and does not have the unimpeded right to vote.



Do you realize what you are saying? Some citizens' beliefs may disqualify them from being eligible to vote. Do you really believe that?
Skyrider, you are utterly, completely and woefully misinterpreting (again) what I have said. I do not dispute anybody's right to vote, nor do I dispute the right to vote on the basis of belief. I dispute the right to state reasons and not have those reasons disputed. Nowhere at all, ever, nowhere, ever (really!) have I ever suggested that a person with any religious idea should not, or can not vote.

Nor am I saying every Mormon voted the same way. I never said that, and never meant to say that. That is absolutely and completely not what I said. I said that YOU in your post identified a voting bloc of same-voting people who did so because they are Mormons. The distinction was yours. It does not matter if other people despite being Mormons voted otherwise. YOU stated that a particular voting bloc was distinguished from others who voted otherwise and others who voted the same, by being Mormons. Read what you wrote.

Nor did I say the Mormons in question did not study the issue in depth. I do, however, say that insofar as their Mormon beliefs distinguished them as a voting bloc, as you so definitely stated, it is reasonable to question what part their Mormon beliefs had in the process, and one of those things to question is whether those beliefs are based on fraud. As you very well know, the fact that Joseph Smith operated long ago does not make him irrelevant to Mormon policy and thought. The LDS Church can hardly be said to have abandoned him or to have thrown out his teachings, and the LDS Church still defends the integrity and truth of the scriptures he uttered.

You keep saying not to put words in your mouth. Don't you put words in mine either.
__________________
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 6th November 2013, 01:22 PM   #66
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
You overlook the fact that Jesus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and commissioned him an apostle who was to continue the earthly ministry of Jesus. Thereafter, Saul became Paul, and he--acting under the authority of the risen Savior--spoke out against homosexuality on at least three occasions: 1) Romans 1:26-28; 2) 1 Cor. 6:9; and 3) 1 Tim. 1:10 (King James version).
Well, no.

At best, Paul is said to have said that Jesus appeared to him, after Jesus was said to have already been crucified. Overlooking the logical problems with a dead person being said to still be communicating with a living person, to say that "Jesus spoke out against homosexuality because Paul spoke out against homosexuality" is, at best, a sophistry. The "living saviour" superstition is unsupported by any kind of empirical fact. Jesus is never said to have spoken about the issue at all. Are those phylacteries quite broad enough, yet?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You make a sweeping generalization.
Well, no.

I refer to the words and behaviour of a member-in-good-standing of the CJCLDS, recorded in this very thread. Perhaps you weren't paying attention...

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Religious organizations have a right to speak out on moral issues.
What is the "moral issue" involved with marriage equality?

If it really were the "good of the children", why not oppose bad schools, abusive marriages, social barriers to SES improvement, and divorce? Why pick an issue that has yet to be shown to be detrimental to children, independent of SES?

If the "good of the children" is really the issue, why deny the children of same-sex cohabitants the demonstrated benefits resulting from their caregivers being allowed to marry?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I can't speak for the Church, but I believe it is committed to doing everything possible to help those who are divorced and to save marriages threatened by divorce. Rather than conflicting with Jesus' counsel, it seems to me this approach is supportive of it.
Well, no.

Do consider reading what Jesus is said to have said about divorce. For that matter, do consider reading what Paul is said to have said (evidently, with the "authority" of Jesus) about divorce.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
(See above.)
I looked above; you addressed neither issue.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
As I point out above, Jesus did speak out against homosexuality through his commissioned apostle.
As I said above, Paul is said to have claimed that a dead person spoke to him from beyond the grave. Jesus is not said to have said anything about the issue of homosexuality; nor is he said to have said that Paul would receive his authority. Taking what Paul is said to have said as indication of what Jesus said is the same silly error as taking the contents of the BoM as evidence that the ahistorical claims of the BoM are true, because the BoM says they are true.

Jesus is not said to have said anything about homosexuality. He is, on the other hand, said to have proscribed divorce, and remarriage after divorce...as well as some other irritating things that also get swept aside as inconvenient.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
The Church doesn't have the authority to enforce rules designed for its members on non-members.
For once, I agree.

And yet, your sect continues to act as if it is meet and proper to attempt so to do. Why do you suppose this is?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
It does have the right to make its voice heard on moral issues, just as some other religious and conservative organizations did re. Prop. 8 (and many years ago, the Equal Rights Amendment).
...and look how that turned out. It is no longer considered "moral" to own slaves; it is no longer considered "moral" to deny humans civil liberties based upon the color of their skins; it is no longer considered "moral" to deny humans civil liberties based upon their genetic gender; no matter with what, or whose, authority religious and conservative organizations pretended to justify these behaviours. I am old enough to remember when it was considered "moral" to deny humans the benefits of civil marriage if they had different-colored skins; and when it was considered "moral" to oppose remarriage after divorce. As a society, we outgrew those phases. We will outgrow this one, sooner or later.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
The ministry of Jesus Christ did not end with his mortal death.
Well, no.

Whoever, or whatever, the itinerant apocalyptic preacher upon which the Legend of JesusTM is based may have been, he died. The "ministry" of people claiming to speak with his authority, and in his stead, goes on--no matter how little he would have recognized the organizations formed "in his name".

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
He commissioned his disciples, including Paul, to continue his work.
...according to words attributed to Paul and to those disciples. And to the disciples of those disciples. Funny how the substance of that "ministry" keeps changing...

[/quote] As you may know, several of his disciples gave their lives in honoring that divine charge.[/quote]

Well, no.

Even if there were no disputes about which of the "disciples" actually existed, or about which of the "martyrs" were martyred, there is no empirical evidence of any "divine charge". Not only that, among those claiming to have received the "real" "divine charge", there is a notable lack of homogeneity.

Yes, people have decided to sacrifice their own lives in service of their ideas about a "divine charge"...some of them were even xianists. What has that to do with denying the civil right of marriage equality to adults capable of consent?
__________________
"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; 6th November 2013 at 02:48 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 6th November 2013, 02:05 PM   #67
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
But you've admitted that the evidence does not identify any merit to the proposal. You've said that "the jury is still out". So you've formed an opinion before the jury has come back with a judgement. You've pre-judged the issue. That's the literal definition of prejudicial.
The expression "the jury is still out" means that no decision has been reached; it has nothing to do with pre-judging; in fact, it is the opposite of pre-judging. The correct, literal definition of "prejudicial" is as follows: "1. tending to injure or impair: hurtful, damaging, detrimental. 2. obs. being or taking the form of prejudice: biased, possessed, or blinded by prejudice. 3. leading to a premature judgment or unwarranted opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 1,788)
[/quote]


Quote:
I, personally, would be much more satisfied if you came out and said you don't want gays to marry because you don't believe homosexuality is moral and you want to root it out of society entirely. That argument, while wrong, is at least consistent.
What makes you suppose I'm interested in satisfying you?
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 6th November 2013, 02:53 PM   #68
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,574
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
The expression "the jury is still out" means that no decision has been reached; it has nothing to do with pre-judging; in fact, it is the opposite of pre-judging. The correct, literal definition of "prejudicial" is as follows: "1. tending to injure or impair: hurtful, damaging, detrimental. 2. obs. being or taking the form of prejudice: biased, possessed, or blinded by prejudice. 3. leading to a premature judgment or unwarranted opinion." (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 1,788)


The thing you just quoted agrees with me completely and proves you wrong completely. Did you actually read it?

You have said that there is insufficient evidence regarding gay parenting. You have also said that you believe homosexual parenting hurts children. So, you have made a judgment based on insufficient evidence. That's prejudice.

You have expressed anti-gay prejudice. At the very least, own it.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 6th November 2013, 03:05 PM   #69
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
You clearly stated that "biology alone tells you what marriage is not about". Now you're backing out of it.
You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.

Quote:
The LDS hierarchy strongly influenced its membership to vote to restrict the rights of non-Mormon citizens based on their religious convictions regarding homosexuality.
Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?

Quote:
You don't even know how to address the statistical issues that joobz points out, do you?
Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.
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 6th November 2013, 03:10 PM   #70
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention.
Paying attention to what? Empirical evidence in support of your claims that same-sex couples should not be granted the same legal rights as heterosexual couples has been about as abundant as the evidence supporting your claim that faith is a component of the scientific method.

Quote:
I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.
No, you just think that gays should be legislated into a second class status that denies them equal rights with heterosexuals.

Quote:
I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper. I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? First of all, you didn't post either the Social Science Research or the Journal of Health and Social Behavior papers. You simply posted links to anti-gay websites that misrepresented what the studies actually said. If you'd actually bothered to read the studies you'd have known that. Then you turned around and offered a tu quoque fallacy accusing me of using "liberal" sources, when the only sources I'd referenced were the articles that you yourself claimed supported your argument.
__________________
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 6th November 2013, 03:43 PM   #71
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post

I am not anti-gay; please don't put words in my mouth.
You do not link to original papers, you link to bigoted analyses of actual studies. I have corrected you on this point, but you continue to do this same thing. (For example, your reference to the gay couples being unhealthy). this is the kind of behavior one who is against a topic would do. If you were truly not anti-gay, then you wouldn't use such biased sources to support your opinions.


Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I do, indeed, remember the Harvard paper.
Then perhaps you would understand why foster zygote is right when he says you used bearing children as a test for marriage. Your own sources do the same thing. I encourage you to actually read the papers you reference.

(Note, that it is very of you to respond to a side point and ignore the actual point I was making.)

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I also remember (but perhaps you don't) my subsequent posting of two additional studies, one of which was the largest of its kind re. the effect of same-sex marriage on children. As I recall, you didn't have anything to say about that one.
I didn't have anything to say on it because that study supported my understanding of the science. It was your source's bigoted position that wasn't supported by the study.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.
Yes, it is clear you rely on bigotry to support your views.
For example, you linked to a paper that claimed gay couples were less healthy then straight married couples, insinuating that gay lifestyle is not healthy. however, I pointed out that the actual study shows that there was no difference in health between straight and gay couples living together, only married and unmarked couples. In other words, the study didn't support the bigoted position that gay lifestyle is unhealthy.

A non biased person would have responded with a, "I apologize,I was wrong on that study. Clearly, the gay lifestyle is not unhealthy. ". Nor have you responded with something to the effect of "on the grounds of child welfare, clearly as we do not ban poor people from marrying, it would be wrong to ban gays from marrying for this reason."

Until you make these concessions, I am forced to stand by my statement.
__________________
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 6th November 2013, 04:56 PM   #72
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,468
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I rely on bigotry to support my views? You might want to reconsider that statement, inasmuch as it merits an apology.
I have held my water for a while, but to be blunt you have aligned yourself with an obnoxious and hate filled bigotry.

I do not see you correcting this in any way. I do not see you disagreeing with such view in any way.

It seems to me that you wish to impose your world view by legal fiat, on everyone.

What business is it of yours if two chicks tie the knot?
What business is it of yours if two dudes tie the knot?

What business is it of yours what such couples may get up to in the bedroom?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   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 6th November 2013, 05:01 PM   #73
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
. . . I said that YOU in your post identified a voting bloc of same-voting people who did so because they are Mormons.
Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."
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 7th November 2013, 05:02 AM   #74
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You misread that statement. Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.
this post is by far and away the clearest demonstration of your anti gay bigotry.

Have you ever heard of vaginal prolapse? What are the causes?
What does this say about your claims of health and heterosexuality?




Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?



Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.
It is insufficient to make this claim. You have to actually show where my critique is faulty. For every research paper you have presented, I have read it and shown where it doesn't actually support your argument.
You clearly haven't even read these papers.


I must ask, why haven't you read the original reports? Do you think you are qualified to argue about the science when you haven't even read them?
What are your motivations for not reading? Is it because you are already certain of your conclusion?

I do not expect you to answer these questions. I only make them with the hopes that you will begin to recognize what is clear to me and many others.
__________________
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 7th November 2013, 07:02 AM   #75
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You misread that statement.
Then why, in response to my query as to whether you were referring to procreation in marriage, did you reply, "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"? Clearly you are only now attempting to move the goalpost to disown your earlier statement.

Quote:
Let me say it as delicately as I can (I do not mean to give offense): Two males do not anatomically fit. If they have unnatural sex long enough, serious medical problems may develop. I say that regretfully, but it's a fact.
If it's a fact, then please back up your claim with actual evidence. And please, no links to homophobic websites. I want to see real medical evidence.

And what does this have to do with allowing consenting adults to marry? And what about females?

Here's the deal: Not all homosexual males engage in anal sex (sorry, I hope candid reference to sexual acts doesn't offend you). And many married heterosexual males engage in anal sex with their spouses. So anal sex is not an argument against legalizing same-sex unions. Are you in favor of laws proscribing anal sex between married heterosexual couples? And what about female same-sex couples? What argument about "unnatural" sex are you going to employ against them?

Quote:
Is gay marriage, under the law, a "right"?
Marriage is a right. Any two consenting, heterosexual adults can be married and have that relationship recognized by the state. There is no requirement that they have children. There are no requirements that they engage in, or refrain from, any consensual sexual activities. There is no restriction based on age, save for the requirement that they both be of legal age. There are no restrictions based on ethnicity. You are seeking to deny this right to same-sex couples because their behavior offends your religious morality. The same religious morality that once declared that marriage between men and women of different "races" was immoral.

Quote:
Whether I do or not, joobz challenged me to provide a peer-reviewed study showing that same-sex marriage is harmful to children. I provided that study, and his efforts to debunk it were less than convincing.
Just like the evidence from the ancient Egyptian language, regarding what the funerary texts "translated" by Joseph Smith actually said, is less than convincing?
__________________
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 7th November 2013, 07:03 AM   #76
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Please find in my post the terms "voting bloc" or "voting bloc of same-voting people."
Seeing as we're asking for evidence, would you be so kind as to point to the "liberal" sources that I cited?
__________________
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 7th November 2013, 07:25 AM   #77
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,482
If God is so important to marriage, why do Atheists have a substantially lower divorce rate than Conservative Christians?

Why are so many Christians pushing hard for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman, when such a definition spits in the face of the actual BIBLE?
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 7th November 2013, 07:48 AM   #78
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Nice red herring, but this isn't about liberal vs. conservative. It's about the methodology employed. The LifeSiteNews.com article is a blatant propaganda piece that only pretends to be backed up by scholarship for the benefit of its homophobic readership that doesn't know the difference.
Uh-huh. Well, what does the staff of the Mayo Clinic have to say about the medical risks of the homosexual lifestyle? The lead paragraph in the article "Health issues for gay men: Prevention first" reads: "All men have certain health risks. Gay men and men who have sex with men face an increased risk of specific health concerns, however. Included in Mayo's recommendations are "Tackle depression," "Seek help for substance abuse," "Be monogamous," and "Protect yourself from sexually transmitted infections." Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/hea...8/METHOD=print

Another article entitled "Health Risks of the Homosexual Lifestyle" reads (lead paragraph) "Sexual relationshiips between members of the same sex. . .expose gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to extreme risks [emphasis added] of sexually transmitted diseases, physical injuries, mental disorders, and even a shortened life span."
http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/hea...ual-lifestyle/

A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence.
http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-r...exuals/0006527

Being in denial and calling me names won't change the fact that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy.
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 7th November 2013, 08:29 AM   #79
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,574
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
A third article ("Higher Risk of Mental Health Problems for Homosexuals," published by PsychCentral) reads (first two paragraphs) "Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates," according to Dr. Apu Chakraborty, University College, London. "Rates of mental disorder among 7,403 adults living in the UK, whose details were obtained from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2007. . .were significantly higher in homosexual respondents." Those disorders included depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder, phobias, self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and alcohol and drug dependence. http://psychcentral.com/lib/higher-r...exuals/0006527


You did not quote the first two paragraphs of the article. If you had, you would have read past the first sentence:
Homosexual people tend to experience more mental health problems than heterosexual people, research indicates. Discrimination may contribute to the higher risk, believes lead researcher Dr. Apu Chakraborty of University College London, UK.
The researcher later states:

... although the level of discrimination was low, it was still significantly higher than against heterosexual people. This “lends support to the idea that people who feel discriminated against experience social stressors, which in turn increases their risk of experiencing mental health problems....
The study concluded:
There are a number of reasons why gay people may be more likely to report psychological difficulties, which include difficulties growing up in a world orientated to heterosexual norms and values and the negative influence of social stigma against homosexuality.

So, the very same source you quoted says that mental health problems in the homosexual population appear to be tied to discrimination, and are not an inherent property of homosexuality itself. If we relieve societal prejudice by fully embracing the concept that some people are gay and that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, the stress on homosexuals would decrease and their mental health would increase.

It's people fighting gay marriage who are causing the mental health issues.

The study goes on to say:
In addition, the gay commercial world in which some men and women may participate to find partners and friends may make misuse of alcohol and cigarettes more likely. The former in particular can have adverse effects on mental well-being.
Instead of just condemning homosexuals flat out, let's really read this sentence. Why are some homosexuals in public sphere which encourages alcohol and smoking? What can we do about it?

It appears to me that some homosexuals enter high-risk environments like bars because that's the only reliable place that they can go to congregate and associate with other homosexuals. It further appears that if we were more accepting of gay men and women, they wouldn't be forced into the dark corners of seedy bars. They could associate openly in healthier environments.

Their stress would go down, their mental health would improve and everyone would understand what the study meant instead of just reading the first line.


“Finally, our results add to evidence that sexual experiences in childhood in men classified as gay or bisexual may play a role in adult psychological adjustment,” they conclude.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader 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 7th November 2013, 10:03 AM   #80
Janadele
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
"ENDA would allow some biological males (who claim to be female) to enter and even appear nude before females in bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. Situations like this have already been reported in several states with ENDA like laws such as Maine, Colorado and California.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/warnings-...ljI3COV3e0B.99
Tip of the iceberg...
Janadele 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 02:07 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.