LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

Matter in fact, where do you think YOU came from Auto? from a homosexual union? that's laughable.

YOU came from a heterosexual union. YOU have alot to be greatful for heterosexuality. if YOUR mother or Father chose to go a homosexual path YOU would not even be in existence. so what do YOU have against heterosexuality? Why do YOU want to stop your bloodline from progressing? why do YOU want your progeny to stop with you. No matter who you are adoption does not create progeny. you are just caring for another person's child because either they coulnd't or didn't want to (both of which are equally sad cases). that does not make your child a part of your bloodline. it's still from thier parents bloodline.

This is silly. I don't have anything against heterosexuality. Am I advocating against straight marriage? If I weren't gay, my oldest daughter would not be born. She has a lot to be grateful to homosexuality for, and she is accordingly respectful and appreciative of it.

I'm not primitive. I don't care what happens to my "bloodline." What's important to me is doing the right thing, not carrying on my "bloodline." I have children because I love them and want to care for them, not to carry on my bloodline. What a barbaric notion!

 

[madhatter85]

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Loving v. Virginia

Since our past decisions make clear that the right to marry is of fundamental importance,...the Court went on to hold that the laws arbitrarily deprived the couple of a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, the freedom to marry...By reaffirming the fundamental character of the right to marry,...
Zablocki v. Redhail

Fundamental to our survival means bearing and producing children, homosexual unions do not have this advantage seeing as they do not add to the survival of the human race.


Your posts verge on the imcomprehensible. It was in response to your assertion that the matter could be one of federal law. It can't and wasn't.[/quote]
Only incomprehensible to those who are uneducated. His posts are the most rational and logical posts i have ever read.

 

[Autodidact]

Statistically, children of same-sex parents may "turn out fine", but they have had something less than children who grew up with a mother and father.

They didn't have something less, they had something different. Every family is different, with strengths and weaknesses. I'm not concerned with what they may have had, I'm concerned with what they had, which was a good solid upbringing. The only who's grown is doing outstandingly, thank you very much.

This is not "Mormon theocracy" but the joint effort of many religions in California. There is no discussion about limiting the activities of homosexuals. They are free to do whatever. To live with whomever, love whomever, set up legal benefits with whomever.

No, they're not. They're not free to marry. Do you not think marriage is important?

It's about upholding the definition of marriage as voted by the majority of the people.

So you also disagree that it is the role of the court to strike down unconstitutional statutes?

It also involves keeping marriage for the blend of male and female, as it always has been, for the benefit of children--their conception, and raising.

The fact that something has been going on for long time doesn't make it any more right. Slavery would be an excellent example. So, children of gay parents don't need this benefit?

 

[Autodidact]

[/i]
Fundamental to our survival means bearing and producing children, homosexual unions do not have this advantage seeing as they do not add to the survival of the human race.

1. Maybe you should tell my 3 kids.
2. Reproducing is not the only or even the most important ways we can contribute to humanity.
3. Right now, our problem is over-population, no under-population. Mormons are not helping with this problem. A little less reproduction would be a good thing for the human race.

Your posts verge on the imcomprehensible. It was in response to your assertion that the matter could be one of federal law. It can't and wasn't.

Only incomprehensible to those who are uneducated. His posts are the most rational and logical posts i have ever read.[/quote] I rest my case.

 

[Orontes]

The above doesn't address my point which was that a jurisprudential argument may be couched under Federal or California law. This is due to the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. As to my arguments: as explained: they concern California's Constitution.

I'm not sure who "We're" is, but if you are familiar with basic arguments on the law, my statement should be quite clear. If it is not, ask and I can explain.

In general, arguments may be couched that way. However, in this case, it is purely a question of state law, so it doesn't matter what other arguments may be couched that way. The case was decided by the California Supreme court applying the California Constitution to a California statute. There are other Constitutional and policy arguments, but they are not at issue here. Now please explain IN PLAIN ENGLISH why you think the court's interpretation of their Constitution was incorrect.

Arguments may indeed be couched that way, that was my point. My post specifically distinguished general questions on jurisprudence and California law. I have dealt with both subject matter in this thread. I don't understand your issues with language. I haven't used any complex English, as a lawyer you should be even better placed to understand the rather basic terms I've used. To your question: The California Supreme Court's ruling was incorrect because:

It invents rights that do not exist
It creates protected class status that does not exist.

Love is irrelevant to Proposition 8.

Only if you think that love and marriage are not related.

As a matter of law they are not.

 

[madhatter85]

This is silly. I don't have anything against heterosexuality. Am I advocating against straight marriage? If I weren't gay, my oldest daughter would not be born. She has a lot to be grateful to homosexuality for, and she is accordingly respectful and appreciative of it.

how? it was not homosexuality that concieved her. It was still male parts and female parts that created life. you just happened to be the vessel in which she grew.

I'm not primitive. I don't care what happens to my "bloodline." What's important to me is doing the right thing, not carrying on my "bloodline." I have children because I love them and want to care for them, not to carry on my bloodline. What a barbaric notion!

Then why did you get inseminated? why not just adopt isntead of goign through the pains of childbirth? if bloodline means ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to you, you would have to be a masochist to go through the 9 months of pregnancy.

 

[madhatter85]

1. Maybe you should tell my 3 kids.
2. Reproducing is not the only or even the most important ways we can contribute to humanity.

Actually it is, without offspring humanity will die off ina single generation. Simple as that.

3. Right now, our problem is over-population, no under-population. Mormons are not helping with this problem. A little less reproduction would be a good thing for the human race.

Over crowding Cities, not over-population. have you even driven on a freeway? there is tone and tons of open space where there are no trees to cut don, but instead just land to build on. Famrs, cities, everything. "Overpopulation" is a myth generated by wackos who don't want to live outside the City.

I rest my case.

I'm not the only one who feels that way =)

 

[Starfish]

They didn't have something less, they had something different. Every family is different, with strengths and weaknesses. I'm not concerned with what they may have had, I'm concerned with what they had, which was a good solid upbringing. The only who's grown is doing outstandingly, thank you very much.

No, they're not. They're not free to marry. Do you not think marriage is important?
So you also disagree that it is the role of the court to strike down unconstitutional statutes? The fact that something has been going on for long time doesn't make it any more right. Slavery would be an excellent example. So, children of gay parents don't need this benefit?

Children of same-sex parents either lacked a mother or father. Also children conceived in a same-sex family have an additional parent somewhere. This adds confusion and complication into a child's life. Some adults who were conceived through fertility clinics eventually seek out the sperm donor. They want to know their roots. They related that it has brought some emotional turmoil into their lives, and not all approved of their mother's decisions.

As you said earlier, there ARE differences between males and females. This difference is beneficial to the raising of children. Children need to be exposed to both. Boys raised without a father will likely seek a male mentor eventually, and therein lies the danger of whom he may choose. We see this with Obama who was raised by two women, his mother and grandmother, and he gravitated to his mentor, Reverend Wright. He could have done much worse. Today he speaks of the importance of responsible fathers because he knows what it's like not to have one.

Many churches today see this and feel it's important in society to maintain this as much as possible. Children need the best possible. We need to strive to give them this.

 

[Autodidact]

To your question: The California Supreme Court's ruling was incorrect because:

It invents rights that do not exist
It creates protected class status that does not exist.

What rights?
What class?

Marriage is a fundamental right.
The California constitution, unlike the U.S. Constitution, mandates that
(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens...

This provision was the basis of the court's ruling.

 

[Magic Man]

you just sated it again that gender does not matter and therefore there is absolutely NO difference between men and women.

There is always a difference between the genders. Sometimes, the difference is very important, sometimes it's irrelevant. In the case of love and marriage, it is irrelevant.

 

[Autodidact]

how? it was not homosexuality that concieved her. It was still male parts and female parts that created life. you just happened to be the vessel in which she grew.

don't tell her that; she thinks I'm her mom. That may be because I concieved, bore and raised her, but what does she know?
Her father and I would never have reproduced "the old fashioned way."

Then why did you get inseminated? why not just adopt isntead of goign through the pains of childbirth? if bloodline means ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to you, you would have to be a masochist to go through the 9 months of pregnancy.

Actually, it was great. At the time (20 years ago) it was the most reliable way to get a baby. Seven years ago, when I adopted, that was more available to me.

Don't get me wrong, I love her very much, but I didn't have her to carry on my bloodline, but to raise a child.

 

[Starfish]

There is always a difference between the genders. Sometimes, the difference is very important, sometimes it's irrelevant. In the case of love and marriage, it is irrelevant.

Maybe so, but it is important for children.

 

[Autodidact]

Actually it is, without offspring humanity will die off ina single generation. Simple as that.

So do you honestly worry that suddenly everyone will turn gay?

Over crowding Cities, not over-population. have you even driven on a freeway? there is tone and tons of open space where there are no trees to cut don, but instead just land to build on. Famrs, cities, everything. "Overpopulation" is a myth generated by wackos who don't want to live outside the City.

Well, we better take this to a separate thread as well.

I'm not the only one who feels that way =)

anyone else? Find Orontes' posts hard to grasp?

 

[Autodidact]

Children of same-sex parents either lacked a mother or father.

So do children of different-sex parents. Your kids have one less mom than mine.

Also children conceived in a same-sex family have an additional parent somewhere. This adds confusion and complication into a child's life.

Not mine.

Some adults who were conceived through fertility clinics eventually seek out the sperm donor. They want to know their roots. They related that it has brought some emotional turmoil into their lives, and not all approved of their mother's decisions.

My kids know their dad; he just isn't the parent that's raising them. The point is, the kids do just fine.

As you said earlier, there ARE differences between males and females. This difference is beneficial to the raising of children.

Provide facts to back up your claims.

Children need to be exposed to both.

Well I'm not raising them in some kind of Amazon compound.

Boys raised without a father will likely seek a male mentor eventually, and therein lies the danger of whom he may choose.

It's his moms job to provide them.

Many churches today see this and feel it's important in society to maintain this as much as possible. Children need the best possible. We need to strive to give them this.

They may feel this, but they're wrong. The best possible is for every child to be born to caring parents who chose to have them. Sadly, heterosexuality often operates against this; homosexuality does not. All of my kids were chosen and wanted by me. My youngest was abandoned by her irresponsible heterosexual parents who did not want or care for her. Who's doing a better job of parenting?

 

[Autodidact]

Maybe so, but it is important for children.

Cites?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Women are not required to sign up for selective service, Men are. Women cannot bare thier chest and nipple in public, men can.

BTW (and slightly off-topic): this is not the case in Ontario. Here, there are no longer any differences in the law between the clothing requirements for men and women.

Society here has yet to collapse.

Statistically, children of same-sex parents may "turn out fine", but they have had something less than children who grew up with a mother and father.
This is not "Mormon theocracy" but the joint effort of many religions in California. There is no discussion about limiting the activities of homosexuals. They are free to do whatever. To live with whomever, love whomever, set up legal benefits with whomever.

Marriage is not an activity?

How would a same-sex couple "set up" the rights afforded by law to married couples that are denied by law to unmarried ones?

How would a same-sex couple "set up" survivorship rights for the pension of one of the spouses all on their own?

 

[Magic Man]

Judicial overreach refers to any act by the court that moves beyond its basic charge: legislating from the bench would be one example. Inventing rights would be another. The rationale used by the California Supreme Court to overturn Proposition 22 was an example of rights invention.

What do you mean "legislating from the bench"? The Supreme Court is specifically meant to judge whether or not a proposed law, or any law, really, follows the Constitution. That's what they did here.

I still don't understand what you mean by inventing rights. You can call it what you want, but when one group of people is legally allowed to do something (call it a right, a privilege, or whatever), then every group needs to be able to do that same thing, unless there are rational grounds for disallowing it. There are no rational grounds in the case of same-sex marriage.

Marriage is not a right. That is correct. The government cannot prejudice based on religious affiliation. Such would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Fine, you want to not call marriage a right. Call it a privilege, call it whatever you want. It is still something that some people can do and others can't and there's no good reason to discriminate. If it makes it easier, think of it as them being denied the right to the "pursuit of happiness", and their right to "liberty" even. You can redefine it as anything you want, but the point still stands that they are being denied something that others have for no legal reason.

The "equity claims error" was in assuming equal means "exactly the same". You are arguing my point.

Then, you are saying that same-sex marriage is ok? That's what my argument leads to. So, have you come over to my side, or are you just admitting your inconsistency?

Actually the counter claim was that it was illegitimate for the LDS Church to express political opinions. It was a flawed claim.

You mean for church officials to promote political opinions? As in go against the very idea of separation of church and state? I would say it would be a flawed claim to say that the church should do such things.

As to imposing beliefs on others: law is the imposing of beliefs on others.

Right, which is why the beliefs need to have a rational basis, so that, even if you don't like them, you can at least see the need for them. Someone who wants to kill people may not like the imposition of the law against killing, but you can explain it's need rationally, and, if they are a rational person, they can accept that.

The law against homosexual marriage has no rational basis. It is only an imposition of a religious belief on people who don't necessarily even care about the religion. It all goes back to the harm aspect. Everything that is illegal harms someone in some way, which is why it's illegal. Homosexuality doesn't, so it is inconsistent.

 

[Magic Man]

Maybe so, but it is important for children.

Not really. It is much, much less important than the temperament and personality of a person. So much so, as to be insignificant.

 

[idea]

Cites?

for families with no father figure (raised just by females)

Scores of research studies have documented the positive effects of involved fathers (www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm). Here's just a sampling of the benefits:

• The National Center for Educational Statistics reported that when fathers are involved in their children's education, the kids were more likely to get As, enjoy school, and participate in extracurricular activities.
• Kyle Pruett concluded that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate "a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control."
• When these boys grew up, they were more likely to be good dads themselves.

But when fathers are disenfranchised by misguided government programs, here's the result:

• Their children have a higher rate of asthma, headaches, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.
• Teenagers are at greater risk of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, and suicide
• Adolescent girls are 3 times more likely to engage in sexual relations by the time they turn 15, and 5 times more likely to become a teen mother.

from link, link

Kids raised only by dads:
Based on a sample of 1,503 children with nonresident mothers from the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) report similar problems in households without mothers (lower school scores, emotional problems, etc.) link

link
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.[/FONT]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Do you think homosexual couples are a bit ... sexist? You are supposed to love everyone, not just people who are like yourself...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

for families with no father figure (raised just by females)


Scores of research studies have documented the positive effects of involved fathers (www.fatherhood.org/fatherfacts.htm). Here's just a sampling of the benefits:

• The National Center for Educational Statistics reported that when fathers are involved in their children's education, the kids were more likely to get As, enjoy school, and participate in extracurricular activities.
• Kyle Pruett concluded that kids with engaged fathers demonstrate "a greater ability to take initiative and evidence self-control."
• When these boys grew up, they were more likely to be good dads themselves.

But when fathers are disenfranchised by misguided government programs, here's the result:

• Their children have a higher rate of asthma, headaches, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.
• Teenagers are at greater risk of alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drug use, and suicide
• Adolescent girls are 3 times more likely to engage in sexual relations by the time they turn 15, and 5 times more likely to become a teen mother.

from link, link

Kids raised only by dads:
Based on a sample of 1,503 children with nonresident mothers from the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF) report similar problems in households without mothers (lower school scores, emotional problems, etc.) link

link
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems/concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.[/FONT]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Those studies seem to deal mainly with single parents, not two-same-sex-parent families. You're comparing lone apples to pairs of oranges.

Do you think homosexual couples are a bit ... sexist? You are supposed to love everyone, not just people who are like yourself...

How is it any more sexist for a lesbian woman to restrict herself to female partners than it is for you to restrict yourself to men?

Also, by similar logic, anyone who marries within their ethnic group is racist.