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 12th November 2013, 04:33 AM   #201
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 9,051
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem.
Once again: the behaviour of some members of a demographic group is not a reason to discriminate against all members of that democratic group, even when statistics tell you that the average behaviour of that demographic group is worse than that for another. Unless you think it's fair for an employer to refuse to consider any male applicants when recruiting for a position of trust, on the grounds that there are more male criminals than female ones?

Whatever the divorce rate or the promiscuity rate amongst different types of couples there will still be monogamous lifelong couples of every type who do not deserve to have basic human rights denied to them.
__________________
"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 12th November 2013, 05:06 AM   #202
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Eh?



Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?



It does? Well, I'll be danged.[/quote]

All of this is clearly a dodge. The topic of this thread is Mormon belief and the resulting impact it has on society. Gay rights is just on point. You are free to comment on poor people, but I am sure you will continue to avoid this as the implications are clear.

Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry. This is pure prejudicial bigotry.

Now, the question is how much does your Mormon beliefs feed this prejudice. The selective reasoning you have used to ignore the fraud in the BoA has been quite similar to your selective use of evidence to support your prejudice.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 05:09 AM   #203
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
Are child brides also righteous? At what age do you believe it acceptable for a girl to marry a man?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 06:14 AM   #204
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
 
Recovering Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I understand your point, and it's a valid one.

I applaud recent reports indicating that gay promiscuity is declining. I hope that reduction is the result of gay marriages. That may surprise you, but one of my reasons now for opposing gay marriage is the mordant example promiscuity sets for children (assuming they are involved). You may say that some heterosexual parents set bad examples because they, too, are promiscuous. True enough, but the data I looked at (before the recently reported reduction) showed same-sex couples were much more promiscuous than hetereosexual couples.
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.

If your concern is promiscuity, with a side-order of "won't someone think of the children", you should be wholeheartedly supporting same-sex marriage. It's a stabilising influence, anyone who isn't interested in making a lasting commitment won't bother with it, and not being married is no barrier to same-sex couples having children and being as promiscuous as they choose (which is typically not very, but that's another story).

You say same-sex couples are promiscuous, so your punishment for this perceived crime is to ensure that they can't get married and form lasting, stable, legally recognised relationships. You're enforcing a feedback loop of discrimination (and promiscuity, if your statistics are taken at face value), and you seem to be the only one who hasn't worked it out yet.

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem. Divorce has a devastating effect on most children, especially young children.
How are you going to gather data on this without letting them try? Why are you hoping to consider this in the absence of any evidence either way? What if straight couples get divorced at a faster rate - should straight marriage be banned?

When you start wildly throwing out possible ways that same-sex marriage may be inferior, not just without evidence, but without even the faintest prospect of gathering any evidence without allowing the very thing you're opposing, it's clear that you're losing the argument. But as we're playing this game, there's one thing that can seriously harm and even ultimately break marriages, which is infinitely more likely among straight couples. Unplanned pregnancy.
__________________
My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger
Recovering Agnostic 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 12th November 2013, 07:01 AM   #205
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I'm sure you're familiar with the Gay Star News. It isn't exactly a model of objectivity.
What are you talking about? Seriously, what does this have to do with anything that has gone on previously in this discussion? You are the one who introduced the Gay Star News, so what is your point?

Quote:
Your analogy strains credibility because I would have no basis on which to accuse a "just met" neighbor of being a sexual predator.
Just like you have no basis for accusing same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 07:33 AM   #206
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
Exactly. Different people define sin differently.

Similarly, the vast majority of those who support gay marriage do not recognize that the Lord says it's a sin.

If you think the FLDS should be left alone to commit sin (as defined by the LDS church) as long as they're doing their thing among consenting adults, then logic would indicate that gay people should also be left alone to commit sin (as defined by the LDS church)

There's evidence the FLDS church isn't confining their activities to consenting adults, but that's another issue.
Pup 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 12th November 2013, 07:55 AM   #207
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You reject out-of-hand any data that contradicts your position. In your post immediately preceding this one, for example, you find it expedient to besmirch Conservapedia. I believe it is every bit as responsible and credible as what one finds in Gay Star News.
I have rejected sources based on an analysis of their content, something you seem to find too challenging or time consuming to practice yourself. So you really think that Conservapedia, the website that has a paranoid fixation on all things "liberal", to the point that they feel the need to lie about the evidence for mass-energy equivalence and call a well tested physical theory "liberal claptrap", and "disproves" the theory by pointing out that light and matter are created at different times in the Book of Genesis, is a credible source? What does that tell us about your credibility?

Quote:
So, the public affairs office of the Mayo Clinic is populated by bigots who misrepresented what Mayo physicians and researchers said about taking a cautionary approach to gay sex. Is that your "point"?
You seem to be confusing the Mayo Clinic page you linked to with the Regnerus paper that you cited. Perhaps you should go back and read through those posts again so that you can address the criticisms that are actually being presented, rather than addressing an argument that has not been made by anyone. No one has expressed any disagreement with the Mayo Clinic's page, only with your claim that it supports your argument. That's what I meant when I wrote, "the only scientific sources you've cited have actually contradicted your arguments".

Quote:
Do you suppose you could have purposely raised a subject that doesn't belong on this thread because "you were so eager to post something denigrating" to the LDS Church?
Again, what is the subject of this thread? It may have been split because of the high number of posts causing loading issues for some viewers, but this is still the LDS thread. And what do we read in the very first post?
Originally Posted by Janadele
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence.
So if your Mormon faith really has nothing to do with the present topic, why are you discussing it here?

Quote:
What I have said is that research findings appear to be in conflict; therefore, we should opt for the conservative course.
Right, guilty until proved innocent. And we have pointed out that the only sources that you have been able to provide stating that homosexuals are bad parents have relied on misrepresenting the research that actually says differently, or biased sources with a well defined political agenda.

Quote:
You're off topic (again).
What was the topic? Oh, yes:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence."

Would you please address my point? Why do you claim that Joseph Smith needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt that the Book Of Abraham is a fraud, yet claim that homosexuals should be presumed to be harmful as parents when you haven't been able to produce any evidence that they are? Where is the intellectual consistency in that?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 07:57 AM   #208
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
That may surprise you, but one of my reasons now for opposing gay marriage is the mordant example promiscuity sets for children (assuming they are involved)
Now that we see marriage equality reduces homosexual promiscuity, I think we can agree that particular promiscuity argument is no longer relevant.

Given the role comprehensive sex education plays in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, what is your stance on sex education?

Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem. Divorce has a devastating effect on most children, especially young children.
It turns out in the USA homosexuals divorce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Specifically 1.1% per year for same sex couples and 2% per year for heterosexual couples.

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States (PDF). The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Overall, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates.

Gay Marriage: States That Allow Same-Sex Unions Have Lower Divorce Rates

Since I doubt the gay population is large enough to impact the statistics directly, it's probably a result of other cultural factors. For example, the more progressive states are not only more likely to have legalized gay marriage, but have an older median age for first marriages. People who marry in their late 20's or older are far less likely to divorce than people who marry right out of high school. Progressive politics correlates with older ages for first marriages.

By the way, I would advice against relying too heavily upon divorce rates as an argument. It's not exactly one that works out well for conservatives.

High divorce rates and teen pregnancy are worse in conservative states than liberal states

Red States Lead the Nation in Divorce

Atheism & Divorce: Divorce Rates for Atheists are Among the Lowest in America Why Do Conservative Christian Defenders of Marriage Get Divorced More Often?
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 12th November 2013, 07:58 AM   #209
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,060
A couple of points to mention here:

As far as the Gay Star News is concerned, I don't know whether other posters here had heard about it. I had not until Skyrider mentioned it, and I cannot quite fathom a reason other than the opportunity for a snarky comment why those arguing against his point of view would be expected to know about it or have read it. It's a British based organization, by the way. I, for one, support certain ideas without having to consult media to decide what they are. My personal interest in the "gay lifestyle" is nil, and issues other than rights are to me irrelevant. There was a gay-issues newspaper in Vermont for a number of years, called Out in the Mountains, but for reasons that should be clear to anyone who has a grasp of what how the past and the future relate to each other in the real world, it ceased publication some years ago when its objectives became reality. It's one of the few publications I've seen whose publishers celebrated its closing.

I see now that, with promiscuity proving an unpromising avenue, we are now being presented with the question of divorce.

As it happens, (for those of us who remember how past and future relate to each other) there are at least some preliminary findings on divorce rates among gay couples in this and other countries. Of course longer term speculation must remain speculation in the US, but one need not speculate about things that actually exist. Whoever wishes to argue the divorce issue seriously can cite facts instead of surmises.

I did also see in passing a remark that something around two thirds of the same sex couples marrying in places where this is permitted are women. A person making arguments against same sex marriage on the basis of what icky things some hypothetical men might do might well be missing the point if that statistic should happen to be true.

For me, I'm going to remain vague, at least in this post, and let others get embroiled in statistical quibbles and fine parsing of who does what to whom or what different people might prefer to put in what place, because that is, I think, secondary to the important issues in this dispute.

Unlike some, I am willing to admit that what I'm really arguing about is ideas and principles and beliefs, not raw facts and statistics. Marriage is a grand and wonderful institution. For some, at least, it counts as special and unique among human endeavors, and I think everyone who loves another person should have a shot at it, and every child who has parents, step-parents or adoptive parents who love each other should be allowed a part in it.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 08:24 AM   #210
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Be that as it may, the negative effects of poverty on children is not the topic of this thread. It is, I admit, an important topic; however, it should have a thread of its own.
You have argued that same-sex marriage should be prohibited, "for the good of the children", on the basis that you suspect that families with same-sex parents might by detrimental to children. There is overwhelming evidence that poverty is detrimental to children, yet you scoff at the idea that couples of low socioeconomic status be prohibited from marrying "for the good of the children". (Readers please note that I am not arguing for the prohibition of marriage based on socioeconomic status.) So, by your own introduction, "the good of the children" is on topic in this discussion. The fact that you are only applying this factor in regard to same-sex couples clearly demonstrates that your desire to see same-sex marriage prohibited has nothing to do with a pragmatic concern for the welfare of children, and everything to do with a bias against homosexuals. You are proposing legislation that would only apply to a certain class of citizens, but not others. Hence the very relevant references to Jim Crow laws.

Quote:
Eh?
Please stop focusing on editorial and typographical errors as a means of evading discussion.

Quote:
Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?
This raises the question of why you do want to talk against same-sex parents. When you make an argument based on a premiss (the welfare of children), and someone points out another situation involving the same premiss, it isn't "off topic" just because you don't want to address the inconsistency that it reveals in your stated position.

Quote:
It does? Well, I'll be danged.
Yes, it does. It shows that child welfare isn't really your concern.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 08:50 AM   #211
Recovering Agnostic
Back Pew Heckler
 
Recovering Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 745
Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.
I apologise. This is one of the worst sentences I've ever written. If you make the last bit read "...makes any meaningful comparison impossible, even if it were relevant", it at least makes some sort of sense.
__________________
My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection

The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger
Recovering Agnostic 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 12th November 2013, 09:04 AM   #212
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Once again: the behaviour of some members of a demographic group is not a reason to discriminate against all members of that democratic group, even when statistics tell you that the average behaviour of that demographic group is worse than that for another. Unless you think it's fair for an employer to refuse to consider any male applicants when recruiting for a position of trust, on the grounds that there are more male criminals than female ones?

Whatever the divorce rate or the promiscuity rate amongst different types of couples there will still be monogamous lifelong couples of every type who do not deserve to have basic human rights denied to them.
Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.
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 12th November 2013, 09:13 AM   #213
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Apparently, you overlooked Footnote 5 in the article. It refers you to agapepress.org/archives/9/152006g.asp. If you click on that link, you will, indeed, reach Agape Press, but with a note saying "Coming Back." Apparently they are updating their web site
So... they can't be found.

Quote:
I couldn't find it either,...
So that makes it pretty useless to this discussion.

Quote:
...but I did run across an interesting article entitled "No One Wants to Be Called a Bigot." Interesting.
You ran across it, but did you read it?
Quote:
Bigotry is such a savage curse because so often, its perpetrators tend to deny they're guilty of the act. Sometimes bigots know full well their hatred is wrong. And there are well-meaning folks who are just blind to gay rights and truly want to preserve marriage for heterosexuals. Those people donate big bucks to powerful advocacy groups that mask the donors' hatred of homosexuality. Either way, it's going to take a lot more time, effort, and money exposing antigay bigotry and pushing the forward momentum of marriage for all.

Quote:
Those questions can probably be answered when the agape site is again operational.
So it's useless to this discussion. Just like hypothetical affirmations of the Book Of Abraham are useless to the discussion of its fraudulent nature.

Quote:
That's true, it is decreasing.
And it is still of no relevance to the discussion of marriage for same-sex couples.

Quote:
You want detailed documentation from me,...
Actually, LL only pointed out that the source you cited didn't offer other relevant facts. But if you're going to advance an argument, it's really up to you to make sure that you fill in your own holes.

Quote:
...but here (above) the best you have to offer is "one source."
"One source" that shows that heterosexuals can be sexually promiscuous as well, as an example of why the lack of data in your cited source makes it impossible to frame an informed opinion based on a complete picture. Another factor that is missing from your source is the level of promiscuity over time. I know many people, of both genders, who had a number of sexual partners as young adults, only to settle into a monogamous relationship later in life.

And the "promiscuity" argument is still a red herring. It may be a dirty word to you, your religion may regard it as morally objectionable, but there is nothing illegal about having multiple sexual partners. Unless you are willing to prohibit a woman from getting married because she had a number of sexual partners prior to meeting the man she wants to marry, you're just making more special rules that only apply to homosexuals.

Quote:
That wasn't on my schedule.
So you admit that you have formed your opinion based on insufficient evidence.

Quote:
I don't know all the circumstances, so it's difficult for me to comment on the case.
As a hypothetical situation, what more information do you need? Is there some objection that you can raise, based on scientifically derived facts, that would not also apply to a heterosexual couple in the same situation? Sure, perhaps one of the pair has a criminal record, or is an alcoholic. But those sorts of issues would apply to a heterosexual couple as well. What objections can you raise that would apply only to a same-sex couple?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 09:28 AM   #214
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?

Quote:
All of this is clearly a dodge. The topic of this thread is Mormon belief and the resulting impact it has on society.
"Mormon belief" is far too broad a topic to be accommodated by one thread.

Quote:
Gay rights is just on point. You are free to comment on poor people. . .
I am free to comment on poor people on a thread dedicated to that discussion.

Quote:
but I am sure you will continue to avoid this as the implications are clear.
I'm sorry, but I don't get your "drift."

Quote:
Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry.
Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.

Quote:
This is pure prejudicial bigotry.
Perhaps you can elaborate.

Quote:
Now, the question is how much does your Mormon beliefs feed this prejudice. The selective reasoning you have used to ignore the fraud in the BoA has been quite similar to your selective use of evidence to support your prejudice.
Quite frankly, joobz, I'm unable to follow your line of reasoning.
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 12th November 2013, 09:33 AM   #215
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
True enough, but the data I looked at (before the recently reported reduction) showed same-sex couples were much more promiscuous than hetereosexual couples.
And how many had children? You really need to present this data if you want to advance this argument.

Quote:
Something else to consider: Will the divorce rate for same-sex "marriages" be higher, lower, or about the same as the rate for married heterosexual couples? If it is higher, and if children are involved, that's a problem. Divorce has a devastating effect on most children, especially young children.
Once again, couples with lower socioeconomic status have a higher rate of divorce, shorter duration of marriage, and are far less able to deal with the economic impact of divorce. This is very hard on the children involved in such broken families. This is undoubtedly a problem, but you aren't calling for a prohibition of marriages between poor couples, just same-sex couples. Why is that?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 09:41 AM   #216
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.
It shouldn't be a determinant at all. Unless you are willing to apply it to heterosexual couples of lower socioeconomic status, who are at greater risk of divorce that those in higher positions.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 09:51 AM   #217
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic View Post
And as has been repeatedly pointed out, same-sex couples are denied the opportunity to marry, and typically stigmatised for their sexuality, which makes any relevant comparison impossible, even if it were relevant.
I raise the point, which is relevant, because in 2001 (yes, it's old data) 80% of heterosexual couples remained married after five years; 66% after 10 years; and 57% after 15 years. For male homosexuals in relationships, less than 1% remained together after just a year; after 1-3 years, 31% were still together; and after 4-7 years, 29%.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfi=IS04C02

Yes, the homosexual couples did not have the benefit of marriage, which may, indeed, explain the differences. I'm simply asking if there is reason to believe that marriage will cause gay couples to stay together for periods that approximate the figures for married heterosexual couples.

Quote:
If your concern is promiscuity, with a side-order of "won't someone think of the children", you should be wholeheartedly supporting same-sex marriage. It's a stabilising influence. . . .
I sincerely hope that it will be a "stabilising" influence, but only time will tell.

Quote:
: When you start wildly throwing out possible ways that same-sex marriage may be inferior. . . .
I haven't thrown out anything, wildly or otherwise.
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 12th November 2013, 10:13 AM   #218
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Excellent point. I did not mean to suggest that the divorce rate of "married" gay couples should be the sole determinant for deciding whether one is for or against gay marriage.
Then what are your reasons?
So far, your reasons to opposing gay marriage is
1.) Child welfare (something that isn't supported by evidence, and you do not hold against other groups)
2.) Promiscuity (while this is a none of your business, marriage would decrease this)
3.) Divorce rates (gays have lower divorce than straight couples, so again this works against you).
4.) Anal sex is unnatural (yet, straight couples have anal sex and are allowed to marry.)



None of your arguments are valid. And even if they were, they would not be reasons to deny marriage to other couples.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 10:27 AM   #219
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
And yet the majority of Christians consider polygamy a sin. Whose religious values should "win" in defining marriage in this regard? How do you find a compromise in a country consisting of people of a variety of faiths?

Did you know there are FLDS members who FAVOR of gay marriage, because they see it as a gateway to legalizing Mormon polygamy?

Personally, I adhere to a more libertarian ideal of marriage. If it's going to convey civil benefits, such as taxation, shared property ownership, inheritance and medical proxy rights, then allow assorted combinations as long as all parties are consenting adults. That's the big problem the FLDS has, forcing underage girls to become sister wives. I say we legalize Mormon Polygamy, as long as all parties are legally adults. Legalize Muslim polygamy. Legalize gay marriage. Legalize plural marriages so my wife can marry her girlfriend and have both a husband and a wife, and then let her put both of us on her health insurance under the family plan.

Keep in mind, there are people who believe interracial marriages are as much of an abomination as gay marriage. Given the state of race relations in parts of the USA, I suspect the people who think interracial marriage is an abomination outnumber all Mormons combined. The Washington post just published a column that claims NYC mayor’s biracial family makes ‘conventional’ conservatives ‘gag’.

What's your view on interracial marriage Janadele? Keep in mind, the FLDS is very much opposed to interracial marriage.

FLDS added to list of hate groups
Quote:
FLDS President Warren Jeffs landed his church on the list by his descriptions of blacks in tape recordings apparently made in the mid- to late-1990s. In them, he contends that blacks "are low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind."

In addition, Jeffs warns against interracial relationships, saying they could lead to the loss of priesthood blessings.

Potok said Jeffs "has a completely racist ideology."

But Salt Lake City attorney Rodney Parker, who represents the church, said Jeffs' remarks come from a strict interpretation of the early teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The theological discussion does not equate to racism, he said. "These people are the fundamentalists," Parker said. "They take the teachings of the early Mormon prophets literally and seriously."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundame...ter-Day_Saints
Quote:
Racism

In its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report," the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing[87] because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships. Warren Jeffs has said, "the black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth."[88]
Historically, the LDS church had a very negative view of interracial marriage, at one point depicting it as a sin so vile it could only be redressed through blood atonement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_atonement
Quote:
The ritualistic elements involved in the execution of Coleman’s murder may have been in response to a public sermon made three years earlier by Brigham Young on March 3, 1863. In this sermon, Young states, “I am a human being, and I have the care of human beings. I wish to save life, and have no desire to destroy life. If I had my wish, I should entirely stop the shedding of human blood.”[47] Following this statement, however, Young makes a statement regarding interracial relations in which he continues, "Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." Young continues his sermon by condemning whites for their abuse of slaves with the proclamation, “for their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.”[48]
Of course, the LDS church softened its view on interracial marriage not long after that sermon. The list of quotes in this Wikepedia article nicely highlights the transition over time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_p...cial_marriages

While it hasn't been banned for a very long time, it's still discouraged in assorted church publications.
http://www.lds.org/manual/aaronic-pr...rnal-companion
Quote:
“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question”
It's easy to find quotes from church leaders condemning interracial marriage to varying degrees, but I don't think it's quite fair to use quotes that predate the 1978 position change. That said:

Quote:
The official newspaper of the LDS Church[99] – the Church News – printed an article entitled "Interracial marriage discouraged". This article was printed on June 17, 1978, in the same issue that announced the policy reversal for blacks and the priesthood.
I'll give the article mentioned above a pass as well, as the LDS church was still evolving its position.
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 12th November 2013, 10:40 AM   #220
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
What are you talking about? Seriously, what does this have to do with anything that has gone on previously in this discussion? You are the one who introduced the Gay Star News, so what is your point?
You and others have repeatedly attacked my sources as lacking in credibility and of being anti-gay marriage propaganda "rags." I have simply noted that you have your own propaganda "voice" in the form of Gay Star News.

Quote:
Just like you have no basis for accusing same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.
Correction: I have no basis for accusing all same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.
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 12th November 2013, 10:41 AM   #221
Cat Tale
Thinker
 
Cat Tale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 222
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
What is the official LDS position on people like Warren Jeffs?
The official Church policy on polygamy given by President Hinckley is this "Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church... They are in violation of the civil law... They are subject to its penalties..." He goes on to say any members caught practicing polygamy "are excommunicated... Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church." He said that there is an article of faith that shows we need to be obedient to the laws of the land.
Originally Posted by Article of Faith #12
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
President Hinckley continues, "More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God." And I find it particularly interesting how he says, "Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous..." So even in parts of the world where Church members could legally practice polygamy, the Church does not permit it.

Originally Posted by Janadele
They are entitled to their privacy, and there is no logical reason why any non member would or should want to intrude upon them.
I must respectfully disagree. The legal affidavit shows otherwise:
Originally Posted by Yearning for Zion ranch seizure affidavit, as published by the Salt Lake Tribune
1. Texas Penal Code. Section 22.02. Aggravated Sexual Assault $ first degree felony.
2. Texas Penal Code. Section 22.011. Sexual Assault $ first and second degree felonies.
3. Texas Penal Code. Section 25.01(a). Bigamy, (e) (2) $ first degree felony, if the person is 16 years of age or younger at the time.
4. Texas Penal Code. Section 25.01(a) (1) Bigamy, (e) (1) $ second degree felony, if the person is 17 years of age at the time.
5. Texas Penal Code. Section 34.01. Money Laundering $ first degree felony. if the value of the funds is $200,000 or more.
6. Texas Penal Code. Section 71(a)(1). Engaging in Organized Criminal Activity $ first degree felony.
Bigamy, sexual assaults against women and children... Warren Jeffs is right where he belongs, behind bars till he's 100 years old, which is when his first chance at parole will come up. We haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg concerning all the religious laws he broke, but those aren't punishable by earthly law.

Originally Posted by Janadele
The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.
The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
Right, but polygamy is not sanctioned by the Lord anymore on earth, in fact, now it's considered to be against the law of God. So there is no righteous practice of polygamy going on in the world today. Just because the FLDS church doesn't recognize God's order to discontinue the practice, doesn't make polygamy right. As the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Warren Jeffs is right where he belongs, too bad he had to hurt so many children along the way.
Cat Tale 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 12th November 2013, 10:46 AM   #222
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Be that as it may, the negative effects of poverty on children is not the topic of this thread. It is, I admit, an important topic; however, it should have a thread of its own.
Nothing about children is the topic of this thread. So why are you talking about children?

Quote:
Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?
Why would you want to talk against gay parents? How is it that you are not getting the analogy. Poor people have children. Gays and lesbians have children. Marriage can only help their families not hurt them. The fact is that you brought children into the discussion and children have nothing to do with the discussion.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 12:27 PM   #223
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,934
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
I raise the point, which is relevant, because in 2001 (yes, it's old data) 80% of heterosexual couples remained married after five years; 66% after 10 years; and 57% after 15 years. For male homosexuals in relationships, less than 1% remained together after just a year; after 1-3 years, 31% were still together; and after 4-7 years, 29%.
http://www.frc.org/get.cfi=IS04C02

You've completely misunderstood the graph. What it shows is that 58% of respondents had been in their current relationship for at least 4 years. 89% of respondents who were in a committed relationship had been with their partner for a year or more.

Note that your statistics for heterosexual couples add up to 203% while the graph for homosexual couples adds up to 100%. That's because they're measuring different things. They can't be compared.

Of course, none of this matters. What some or even most homosexuals may do has no bearing on whether some of them should be allowed to marry. You still haven't answered why the Mormon Church should involve itself in the issue of marriage between two people who don't care what the Mormon Church thinks.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 12th November 2013 at 12:28 PM.
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 12th November 2013, 12:36 PM   #224
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,865
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Why would I want to talk against poor parents, even if the topic of this thread were poverty and its effect on children?
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.
It comes down to internal consistency. Arguments such as divorce rate and infidelity can't be used against homosexuals without facing the fact that economically disadvantaged people and political conservatives are far more prone to facing those problems than homosexuals. When you use those claims as an argument against marriage equality, you are, intentionally or not, also attacking the groups that are more likely to face those ills than homosexuals.

Each of the arguments made against gay marriage have been chipped away by statistics, until all that's left is religious belief. You have failed to demonstrate actual societal harm to children or families from gay marriage. As the sources from my recent posts have demonstrated, the very ills you proclaim as reasons to deny gays the right to marry, such as promiscuity, are REDUCED by the legalization of gay marriage.
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 12th November 2013, 12:54 PM   #225
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,865
Thank you Cat. Most of what I knew about the LDS stance on polygamy is from the Irreligiosophy podcast and a few people I know in some of the splinter groups. Those sources made it sound like the modern LDS church was denying they ever sanctioned polygamay. From what I can gather, the LDS church did issue such denials during the time period when there were a lot of legal headaches around polygamy, but the modern church no longer denies it as part of their past. Is this a correct description of the situation?

Originally Posted by Cat Tale View Post
And I find it particularly interesting how he says, "Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous..." So even in parts of the world where Church members could legally practice polygamy, the Church does not permit it.
I can see a number of practical considerations for that decision. The primary one being immigration. What happens when a man with three wives moves to the US from a country where his marriage was legal? Canada has this problem with Muslim families. The end result is a set of laws granting the additional wives legal recognition under Canadian law. They also need to have a set of additional criteria to prevent people from doing things like flying to Iraq, marrying their three girlfriends and then flying back to Canada demanding recognition of their new brides.

As an additional complication, allowing polygamy in some areas would cause a migration of conservative Mormons, much like the one that lead Mitt Romney's grandfather to Mexico. This would drastically skew the church's membership, essentially creating a moderate home base in the US and extremist factions in areas where polygamy was legal. In the end, those members would probably sheer off into their own church, causing the LDS to hemorrhage members. They'd basically be creating and then exporting a new version of the RLDS.

Finally, there's the fact that in many of the nations where polygamy is legal, it's restricted to practitioners of particular religions. A Moron man probably COULDN'T fly to Iraq, marry a couple good Mormon girls and fly back, because I don't think Iraq allows that kind of shenanigan.
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 12th November 2013, 01:00 PM   #226
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Next door to Florida Man, world's worst superhero.
Posts: 13,879
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
Pup, your quoted remark of Dallin H. Oaks was directed to present members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who at this specific time are commanded by the Lord to not enter into polygamous relationships, not because it is against Eternal Law, but because the laws of the land in the US were changed by the satanic enemies of the LDS Church in order to persecute both LDS members and the LDS Church itself.

The righteous practice of polygamy at a time when sanctioned by the Lord is in keeping with Eternal Law.

The FLDS do not recognise that the Lord withdrew His commandment to practice polygamy.
That's okay. The state of Arizona and the FBI are very clear on the point of its illegality.
Craig4 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 12th November 2013, 01:16 PM   #227
Janadele
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
...What's your view on interracial marriage Janadele?
The confounding of the language and racial characteristics did not happen by chance. The Lord God has His reasons for initiating such segregation. What our circumstances of race and language would be whilst in mortality was first determined in our pre mortal existence. Personally, my family, friends, and acquaintances are of Anglo-Saxon descent.
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
Old 12th November 2013, 01:22 PM   #228
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.
You have a thesis about the health and well being of children. To arrive at this thesis, I posit, you have, in ad hoc fashion, linked the well being of children to whether or not gays and lesbians can marry. It's a very weak link. A stronger link would be the financial status of parents. To go out of your way to dismiss the financial status of parents but include the sexual orientation of parents as consideration for whether or not two people who love each other can marry is by definition special pleading.

To be morally consistent and intellectually honest you cannot pick and choose which groups we can allow to marry based on outcomes. Once we consider the affect of poverty on children the argument against gay marriage based on outcome of child well being quickly evaporates. No one would look at the facts (it is trivially true that poor children are disadvantaged) and conclude that poor people should not marry. So, even if we granted you the premise that gay parents would result in increased bad outcomes for children (I reject the premise, see below), it then requires special pleading to say gays and lesbians should not marry.

That said:
  • *It's a finding of legal fact that that there is a scientific consensus that children reared in gay and lesbian households are no more at risk than heterosexual couples (see prop 8 trial finding of facts or links for discussions below).
  • There is no evidence that forbidding gays and lesbians to marry would result in fewer children with gay and lesbian parents. Likewise, there is no evidence to demonstrate that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will result in an increase of children of gays and lesbians.
Any argument about children and allowing gays and lesbians to marry is fatuous at best and fallacious at worst. It's a non-sequitur, would require special pleading and is simply an attempt to find a rationale against gay marriage ad hoc.



*in the following pod cast (irreligiosophy), the hosts (two former Mormons), disect the evidence provided by the plaintiffs and defense in the prop 8 trial. Please note that it contains coarse language and is NSFW. I will also provide an additional link for those who would otherwise be offended.

Irreligiosophy: roposition 8

The Prop 8 Decision: The Findings of Fact (Everything We Should Learn From This Trial)

Originally Posted by Judge Vaughn Walker
Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 01:38 PM   #229
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
You and others have repeatedly attacked my sources as lacking in credibility and of being anti-gay marriage propaganda "rags." I have simply noted that you have your own propaganda "voice" in the form of Gay Star News.
Here's the difference: I haven't quoted that publication.

Quote:
Correction: I have no basis for accusing all same-sex couples of being detrimental to any children they may be raising.
Then why is this about same-sex marriage? If you are willing to allow heterosexual marriage, and rely on the already existing laws regarding child welfare to deal with individual cases as needs be, then why aren't in favor of allowing same-sex couples the right to marry and raise children, allowing the same laws regarding child welfare to apply to them as well?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 02:08 PM   #230
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
"Mormon belief" is far too broad a topic to be accommodated by one thread.
Well then why don't you concentrate on why homosexuals should have their rights restricted because of your Mormon beliefs?

Quote:
I am free to comment on poor people on a thread dedicated to that discussion.
You obviously realize how damaging your double standards regarding the source of detrimental factors in child welfare (however real or imagined) are to your argument.

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I don't get your "drift."
I'm sure you do, as do the rest of us.

Quote:
Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.
But the part that you are focusing on, the welfare of children, is the same issue. Ironically, you argue to prohibit same-sex marriage on these grounds without pointing to any scientific evidence of detriment. But when the well established fact that children are disadvantaged by a poor upbringing is mentioned, you claim that it doesn't apply. This is a double standard that discriminates against homosexuals. You may not like to have your arguments called bigoted, but that's the only description I can apply to your advocacy of unfair discrimination against homosexuals.

Quote:
Perhaps you can elaborate.
The reasons for calling your arguments bigoted have already been clearly laid out for you. Relegating a class of citizens to second class status, unequal under the law because you don't approve of their sexual orientation, is bigotry.

Quote:
Quite frankly, joobz, I'm unable to follow your line of reasoning.
You followed it just fine.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 02:32 PM   #231
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Now that we see marriage equality reduces homosexual promiscuity, I think we can agree that particular promiscuity argument is no longer relevant.
The sample size is much too small to justify your conclusion. Also, the time period gay marriages have been in effect is too short.

Quote:
Given the role comprehensive sex education plays in reducing teen pregnancy and STD rates, what is your stance on sex education?
I'd like to see some statistics from geographically dispersed areas of the country before making a judgment.

Quote:
It turns out in the USA homosexuals divorce at a lower rate than heterosexuals. Specifically 1.1% per year for same sex couples and 2% per year for heterosexual couples.
That's true--for now. But will it remain that way if gay marriage becomes legal nationwide?

Badgett, M.V. Lee; Herman, Jody L. (November 2011). Patterns of Relationship Recognition by Same-Sex Couples in the United States (PDF). The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Quote:
Overall, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates.

Gay Marriage: States That Allow Same-Sex Unions Have Lower Divorce Rates

Since I doubt the gay population is large enough to impact the statistics directly, it's probably a result of other cultural factors. For example, the more progressive states are not only more likely to have legalized gay marriage, but have an older median age for first marriages. People who marry in their late 20's or older are far less likely to divorce than people who marry right out of high school. Progressive politics correlates with older ages for first marriages.
Nice, thoughtful analysis.

Quote:
It's difficult to know what impact nationwide gay marriage might have on
those statistics.
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 12th November 2013, 03:18 PM   #232
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,937
How is promiscuity any kind of argument? Good ol' Joe and Brigham and a slew of LDS founding fathers were (and will again if Janadelle has her way) using their total authority to screw whatever woman/girl they desired.

How does this compare to what two consenting adults do? Consent vs coercion. Sickening. The LDS has no moral authority to dictate anything anyone else does in the bedroom.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab 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 12th November 2013, 03:21 PM   #233
skyrider44
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 979
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
. . . No one has expressed any disagreement with the Mayo Clinic's page, only with your claim that it supports your argument.
How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument? How does it contradict my argument?

Quote:
Again, what is the subject of this thread? It may have been split because of the high number of posts causing loading issues for some viewers, but this is still the LDS thread.
Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.

Quote:
So if your Mormon faith really has nothing to do with the present topic, why are you discussing it here?
My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage. But how, for example, do the garments Mormons wear relate to gay marriage (you probably saw the post). How is the character of Joseph Smith relevant to gay marriage? What part does anachronism in the BoM play in a debate about gay marriage? How is the B/A
conformant with a discussion about gay marriage?

[quote]: Right, guilty until proved innocent. And we have pointed out that the only sources that you have been able to provide stating that homosexuals are bad parents have relied on misrepresenting the research that actually says differently, or biased sources with a well defined political agenda. [quote]

Kindly note that I haven't said "homosexuals are bad parents." I have
quoted sources indicating that children do better when raised by a father and a mother. Please don't misquote me (which you do again in the next para.).

Quote:
Why do you claim that Joseph Smith needs to be given the benefit of the doubt when there is no doubt that the Book Of Abraham is a fraud, yet claim that homosexuals should be presumed to be harmful as parents when you haven't been able to produce any evidence that they are? Where is the intellectual consistency in that?
Forgive me, but you take a leap of logic here wider than the mouth of the Grand Canyon. You also illustrate (far better than I can describe) your tendency to go off topic. Whether or not the B/A is a fraud and Joseph Smith is responsible for engineering that fraud, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.
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 12th November 2013, 03:32 PM   #234
joobz
Tergiversator
 
joobz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 17,995
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Originally Posted by joobz
Clearly, you are reluctant to claim poor people shouldn't marry for the exact same reason why you say gays shouldn't marry.
Pro/con arguments re. marriage for poor people as contrasted with marriage for gays are not parallel.
Please explain why you believe these arguments are not parallel?
What is different with gays that would make the argument apply to them and not to poor people?


Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Originally Posted by joobz
This is pure prejudicial bigotry.
Perhaps you can elaborate.
Once you answer the questions above, I believe I will be able to explain this point.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 03:53 PM   #235
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by Janadele View Post
The confounding of the language and racial characteristics did not happen by chance. The Lord God has His reasons for initiating such segregation. What our circumstances of race and language would be whilst in mortality was first determined in our pre mortal existence.
So you speak Ænglisc? Do you know anything about the history of the language you speak? Do you know anything about how much it's changed?

Have a listen to this reading of the Lord's Prayer in Old English, and then tell me how pure your language is.
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



Quote:
Personally, my family, friends, and acquaintances are of Anglo-Saxon descent.
Are you saying that you won't even be friends with someone who isn't what you consider Anglo-Saxon? What if you found out that there was some Norman in their genealogy?
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 04:09 PM   #236
Empress
Piggish
 
Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Blandings Castle
Posts: 2,210
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.
Seriously? It means that the thread had gotten so long that some people were having trouble loading it, so it was closed and a second thread on the same topic was opened. That's all. It is SOP on message boards.
__________________
One prefers, of course, on all occasions to be stainless and above reproach, but, failing that, the next best thing is unquestionably to have got rid of the body.
― P.G. Wodehouse
Empress 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 12th November 2013, 04:17 PM   #237
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
 
RandFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 60,134
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument?
What is your argument? You don't consider the well being of children when it is pointed out to you that financial status is a strong predictor of the well being of children. You want us to consider the well being of children when it comes to being raised by gays and lesbians.

That's called moral inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. Further, the consensus of experts is that children raised by gays and lesbians are no more at risk of harm than any other group, your cherry picked study not withstanding.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 04:20 PM   #238
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,934
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage.


You know what, skyrider44? I'm going to take up your cause for you. This is my best argument against gay marriage:

1. The goal of all humans should be to be righteous in the eyes of God and united with him in death.
2. Only through the Mormon faith may people truly be righteous and all that stuff I said in #1.
3. It is the obligation of the righteous to bring others to God through the Mormon church.
4. It is the obligation of those with sin to live righteously and to be faithful to the teachings of the Mormon church.
5. Homosexuality is a sin which prevents individuals from union with God in this life or in death.
6. Thus, it is the duty of Mormons to convince people to renounce their homosexuality and practice the Mormon faith (and it is the duty of sinners to be convinced).
7. Anything that makes it easier or more acceptable to be homosexual makes it more difficult to convince homosexuals to do that stuff I said in #1 and #5.
8. Gay marriage makes it easier for people to be homosexual.
9. Thus, gay marriage should not be allowed.

This appears to be the only honest, logically consistent argument against gay marriage that I can construct. Those who are so inclined may attack my logic. Don't bother attacking the truth value of any of the premises as I obviously don't believe they are true.

However, if the truth value of the premises is assumed, it would appear to be the duty of every right-thinking individual to actively make life as difficult for homosexuals as possible.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 04:24 PM   #239
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 22,934
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Have a listen to this reading of the Lord's Prayer in Old English, and then tell me how pure your language is.

I believe she was referring to the Tower of Babel. God, I think she was saying, separated the races on purpose because it suited him. I'm not sure if she's saying the races should remain separate but that seems to be what she's driving at.


Originally Posted by Empress View Post
Seriously? It means that the thread had gotten so long that some people were having trouble loading it, so it was closed and a second thread on the same topic was opened. That's all. It is SOP on message boards.

As a moderator: This is exactly correct.
__________________
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 12th November 2013, 04:27 PM   #240
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 16,897
Originally Posted by skyrider44 View Post
How does the Mayo Clinic page not support my argument? How does it contradict my argument?
You stated "Mayo suggests those are special vulnerabilities for gay men". That is not true. At no point does the Mayo Clinic ever make a statement about "special vulnerabilities for gay men". That is your fabrication.

Quote:
Yes, and why was it split? Answer: The issues raised (I'll use your language here) "[caused] loading issues for some viewers." What that means is that the subject matter exceeded the boundaries of the thread. You contradict yourself.
No.

Let's look at what Loss Leader had to say at the end of the old thread:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader
Due to size, this thread has been split. This should make the topic easier on the JREF server and quicker to load for our members. The continuation thread may be found HERE. The cut-off point was an arbitrary artifact of how pages load. Please do not read anything into it.
And how he opened the new thread:
Originally Posted by Loss Leader
Welcome 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.
Quote:
My Mormon faith relates to the present topic insofar as the Church has taken a position against gay marriage. But how, for example, do the garments Mormons wear relate to gay marriage (you probably saw the post). How is the character of Joseph Smith relevant to gay marriage? What part does anachronism in the BoM play in a debate about gay marriage? How is the B/A
conformant with a discussion about gay marriage?
If you really don't want to bring the Mormon religion into this discussion, then you need to ask that it be split off to a new thread.

Quote:
Kindly note that I haven't said "homosexuals are bad parents." I have
quoted sources indicating that children do better when raised by a father and a mother. Please don't misquote me (which you do again in the next para.).
I see you're falling back on semantic games again

Quote:
Forgive me, but you take a leap of logic here wider than the mouth of the Grand Canyon. You also illustrate (far better than I can describe) your tendency to go off topic. Whether or not the B/A is a fraud and Joseph Smith is responsible for engineering that fraud, has nothing to do with the issue of same-sex marriage.
It has everything to do with the double standards that you apply. You just don't want to address that problem.
__________________
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
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 05:40 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.