LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

To those speaking out against gay parents in this thread: Do you actually know any gay families? Did you read this research before forming an opinion? Or did you make up your mind with no reference to reality at all?

 

[Orontes]

You disagree with the holding in Marbury v. Madison?[/size][/font]

Of course. Law is the product of the people, not unelected judges or a minority. This is what distinguishes democratic states from autocracies.

As I said, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. If you don't mind, I think I will give greater weight to their view than yours. This can be traced back to the fundamental concept on which our nation was founded, that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights by our creator, that the state derives its power from the governed, that rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the people, and that families are the foundation of any society.

If you wish to claim gay marriage is a inalienable right, make the argument. Inalienable rights claims are based on natural law. Natural law exists within a larger metaphysic entailing eternal law and a Divine law giver. Which metaphysic are you appealing to?

That's fascinating. As someone who has argued both kinds of law in both kinds of courts, it goes without saying. However, why on earth mention it as regards a holding by a state court concerning a state statute governed by a state Constitution?

As I explained, not all comments in the thread have been necessarily tied to Proposition 22 or the proposed Proposition 8. Some have been more basic legal question/claims.

I don't think the problem's at my end.

You have mentioned it as a problem. No one else has. Therefore, if you do not understand something ask.

The court did not find such a right.
The court did not so hold.

Have you read the Court ruling

The discrimination in question was subject to strict scrutiny not because sexual preference is a protected class, but because gay people were denied a fundamental right.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right.

No, it doesn't. Your point?

The point would be the quote doesn't support your claim gay marriage is a fundamental right.

There is a fundamental right to marriage, which cannot be denied to gay people without a strong state purpose.

There is no fundamental right to marriage.

Of course it's undemocratic; that's what the courts are for. You seem very confused about how our political system works.

Thus the divide is clarified: those who believe in democratic process and those who usurp it for private agendas.

Why not?

Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage.

Of course they can. Mine has. Further, many heterosexual marriages do not.

You and your partner conceived together? Have you contacted Oprah or the National Enquirer?

 

[Orontes]

No, the issue is over what marriages the state may not fail to recognize, absent a compelling state interest.

Alas, no. Rights claims do not have force simply in the assertion, but must pass democratic muster i.e. popular will.

 

[Orontes]

[/font]No, my comment turns on your liberty notion. A liberty is something that bars state interference. If you wish to claim gay marriage as a liberty that is fine. It removes any duties from the state. A right places demands on the state. It is the assumption of a right claim that I reject. Rights are products of the democratic process: not something imposed from above.

Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? The part I've bolded makes it seem like you haven't.

Edit: I suppose there's the possibility that you've read it but disagree with it. Is that what it is?

I don't understand your post. Are you suggesting the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified by a democratic process, but was simply imposed from above?

 

[idea]

My Aunt is a lesbian, I also have a cousin who is gay... yes, I know gay and lesbian families...

As for data comparing homosexual vs heterosexual couples raising children, it is hard to come by. For one, “ few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.”
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

another difference:
“Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:”
again, very different from a stable heterosexual relationship. Please read this:
http://www.frc.org/content/comparing-the-lifestyles-of-homosexual-couples-to-married-couples


If you want to compare a stable home to a stable home – you can’t – there just are not many stable gay and lesbian homes… There are many happily married heterosexual couples to take data from, few happily married homosexual couples to get data from… I will not comment more on this.

Here is an article comparing every possible type of family. They try to be nice to gays and lesbians in the last sentence – but notice that heterosexual couples win by far in raising children. Sorry, you would have to pay for the entire article, pay attention to bold statements though… the rare stable gay/lesbian relationship is better than unstable single parent, but still does not come close to results of happily married heterosexual couple.

Dufur, Mikaela., McKune, Benjamin., Hoffmann, John. and Bahr, Stephen. "Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2008-07-15 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p184075_index.html

Abstract: Multiple studies suggest that children benefit by being raised in families where the child&#8217;s biological parents (biological = mother + father) are married to each other. Examinations of academic outcomes, deviant behavior, and sexual behavior all show that children in two biological parent families do better than children in stepfamilies or single-parent families. Explanations for why these patterns exist, however, are less well outlined. Popular explanations include the idea that mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics and parenting styles to families, and children in single-parent or same-sex parenting models will face deficiencies because they lack a parent of one gender. Other explanations, however, focus on the number of parents, arguing that parents of any gender are hard-pressed to provide for all of a child&#8217;s needs on their own. Of particular interest is how adolescents raised by gay parents might shed light on these competing explanations. Comparisons across explanations have been hampered by scholars&#8217; inability to compare various family types. In this study, we provide the first empirical analysis using national representative data that compares adolescents from these various family types on several different social outcomes. We utilize data from the National Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) to compare a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes across seven family types: two-parent biological, single mother, single father, father/stepmother, mother/stepfather, two gay male parents, and two lesbian parents. Comparisons across these family types show that adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like (more like is verry differnt than as good as - still, not enough data to say much of anything) youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories. (biased article, but they still cannot get any data to support anything but "more like" from a very few minority couples)

some points from paper:
the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration - homosexuals don't tend to commit to one another for long time periods
· monogamy vs. promiscuity - homosexuals are promiscuous.
· relationship commitment - homosexuals are not committed to eachother
· number of children being raised - data hard to come by, not many want children (Thankfully)
· health risks - AIDS, suicides, mental health probs in homosexual couples.
· rates of intimate partner violence - much much higher with homosexuals
Family Research Council

Does this sound healthy for kids to be raised under?

Implications for Homosexual Parenting
Gay activists attempt to minimize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual households in order to make homosexuality look as normal as possible. However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. ...only a small minority of gays and lesbians choose to live in partnered relationships, and furthermore, only a small percentage of partnered homosexual households actually have children. The evidence thus does not support the claim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children. - (Thank G**!)

PS - I am not bi - I celebrate diversity by being married to someone who is different from me, whose strengths make up for my weaknesses, whose weaknesses I can help with my strengths. Together we make a whole.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't understand your post. Are you suggesting the Bill of Rights wasn't ratified by a democratic process, but was simply imposed from above?

Okay... let me be more specific. Have you read and do you understand the meaning of the Ninth Amendment? Here it is:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The highest law of the land of the United States identifies that the people retain rights not necessarily ratified by any democratic process.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course. Law is the product of the people, not unelected judges or a minority. This is what distinguishes democratic states from autocracies.

As I said, why do you hate America?

If you wish to claim gay marriage is a inalienable right, make the argument. Inalienable rights claims are based on natural law. Natural law exists within a larger metaphysic entailing eternal law and a Divine law giver. Which metaphysic are you appealing to?

If I did, I would.

Have you read the Court ruling

Yes.

Gay marriage is not a fundamental right.

Marriage is.

The point would be the quote doesn't support your claim gay marriage is a fundamental right.

I have not claimed that it is.

There is no fundamental right to marriage.

As I said, I will give more weight to the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Thus the divide is clarified: those who believe in democratic process and those who usurp it for private agendas.

Or those who believe in the American system, and those who oppose it.

Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage.

Please don't tell my kids.

You and your partner conceived together? Have you contacted Oprah or the National Enquirer?

Oh my God you're so witty! So funny! So clever! Would you make such an insensitive remark to a straight couple who conceived by insemination, or is your crude humor reserved for gay people?

 

[Autodidact]

Alas, no. Rights claims do not have force simply in the assertion, but must pass democratic muster i.e. popular will.

You're entitled to your opinion, however odd. What I don't understand is your habit of announcing it as though it was fact. You have a very unusual legal position.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My Aunt is a lesbian, I also have a cousin who is gay... yes, I know gay and lesbian families...

As for data comparing homosexual vs heterosexual couples raising children, it is hard to come by. For one, “ few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.”
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

another difference:
“Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:”
again, very different from a stable heterosexual relationship. Please read this:
http://www.frc.org/content/comparing-the-lifestyles-of-homosexual-couples-to-married-couples

I'd suggest you don't cite the Family Research Council if you want to be taken seriously. They are an extremely untrustworthy group who aren't so much of a research body as a clearinghouse for anti-homosexual propaganda. I've gone into detail about the reasons for saying this in other threads; if you'd like I can give you a link.

 

[Autodidact]

My Aunt is a lesbian, I also have a cousin who is gay... yes, I know gay and lesbian families...

with kids?

As for data comparing homosexual vs heterosexual couples raising children, it is hard to come by. For one, “ few homosexual relationships achieve the longevity common in marriages.”
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

No it isn't. You've been reading those liars, the Family Research Council. Can you cite any mainstream academic sources, as opposed to right-wing anti-gay hate groups?http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

another difference:
“Research indicates that the average male homosexual has hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime:”

Again, how would this be relevant to the subject at hand?
again, very different from a stable heterosexual relationship. Please read this:
http://www.frc.org/content/comparing-the-lifestyles-of-homosexual-couples-to-married-couples

If you want to compare a stable home to a stable home – you can’t – there just are not many stable gay and lesbian homes…

That's ridiculous. There are thousands. Of course there are few married gay couples--in most places, gay people can't marry. But there are thousands of whole lesbian and gay families. You cited one study yourself.

There are many happily married heterosexual couples to take data from, few happily married homosexual couples to get data from… I will not comment more on this.

Why not, ashamed of yourself?

Here is an article comparing every possible type of family. They try to be nice to gays and lesbians in the last sentence – but notice that heterosexual couples win by far in raising children. Sorry, you would have to pay for the entire article, pay attention to bold statements though… the rare stable gay/lesbian relationship is better than unstable single parent, but still does not come close to results of happily married heterosexual couple.

Dufur, Mikaela., McKune, Benjamin., Hoffmann, John. and Bahr, Stephen. "Adolescent Outcomes in Single Parent, Heterosexual Couple, and Homosexual Couple Families: Findings from a National Survey" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City, Aug 11, 2007 Online <PDF>. 2008-07-15 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p184075_index.html

Abstract: Multiple studies suggest that children benefit by being raised in families where the child’s biological parents (biological = mother + father) are married to each other. Examinations of academic outcomes, deviant behavior, and sexual behavior all show that children in two biological parent families do better than children in stepfamilies or single-parent families. Explanations for why these patterns exist, however, are less well outlined. Popular explanations include the idea that mothers and fathers bring unique characteristics and parenting styles to families, and children in single-parent or same-sex parenting models will face deficiencies because they lack a parent of one gender. Other explanations, however, focus on the number of parents, arguing that parents of any gender are hard-pressed to provide for all of a child’s needs on their own. Of particular interest is how adolescents raised by gay parents might shed light on these competing explanations. Comparisons across explanations have been hampered by scholars’ inability to compare various family types. In this study, we provide the first empirical analysis using national representative data that compares adolescents from these various family types on several different social outcomes. We utilize data from the National Survey of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) to compare a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes across seven family types: two-parent biological, single mother, single father, father/stepmother, mother/stepfather, two gay male parents, and two lesbian parents. Comparisons across these family types show that adolescents raised by gay and lesbian parents typically behave more like (more like is verry differnt than as good as - still, not enough data to say much of anything) youth in two parent biological families, providing little support for gendered-deficit theories. (biased article, but they still cannot get any data to support anything but "more like" from a very few minority couples)

This article concludes the opposite of your position: it found no significant difference.

some points from paper:
the evidence indicates that "committed" homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples in several key respects:
· relationship duration - homosexuals don't tend to commit to one another for long time periods
· monogamy vs. promiscuity - homosexuals are promiscuous.
· relationship commitment - homosexuals are not committed to eachother
· number of children being raised - data hard to come by, not many want children (Thankfully)
· health risks - AIDS, suicides, mental health probs in homosexual couples.
· rates of intimate partner violence - much much higher with homosexuals
Family Research Council

This explains why you lie so much. You've been lied to. FRC are a bunch of liars. They lie. They don't tell the truth.http://www.frc.org/content/comparing-the-lifestyles-of-homosexual-couples-to-married-couples

Does this sound healthy for kids to be raised under?

Implications for Homosexual Parenting
Gay activists attempt to minimize the differences between homosexual and heterosexual households in order to make homosexuality look as normal as possible. However, as already shown, only a small minority of gay and lesbian households have children. ...only a small minority of gays and lesbians choose to live in partnered relationships, and furthermore, only a small percentage of partnered homosexual households actually have children. The evidence thus does not support the claim that significant numbers of homosexuals desire to provide a stable home for children. - (Thank G**!)

Wow, you're even more immoral than I thought.

PS - I am not bi - I celebrate diversity by being married to someone who is different from me, whose strengths make up for my weaknesses, whose weaknesses I can help with my strengths. Together we make a whole.

I see, you celebrate diversity by choosing one kind of partner, while expecting others to be open to all. There's a word for this. It's "hypocrisy."

 

[Riverwolf]

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

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

Okay, I've read up to here, and I can clearly say that you do not live in California. You've never driven on the freeways here. It's traffic at least one way. No open space.

You statement about over-population being wrong is just wrong. There is over population. Seven billion individuals on this tiny planet, most of which is uninhabitable by humans at the moment? I don't live in a big city. I live in a suburban town that is next to a marsh. Trust me, there are far too many people here. There shouldn't be more than... a thousand individuals living downtown. Instead, there's tens of thousands just in the downtown area alone. (I don't know the actual numbers) Besides, America isn't the most crowded country in the world. Ever been to China? There are one billion individuals alone there. That large earthquake they had recently did nothing to hurt the population.

 

[idea]

I'd suggest you don't cite the Family Research Council if you want to be taken seriously. They are an extremely untrustworthy group who aren't so much of a research body as a clearinghouse for anti-homosexual propaganda. I've gone into detail about the reasons for saying this in other threads; if you'd like I can give you a link.

Data is data wherever it comes from. Some people are willing to publish it, some are not.

I’m sorry – I don’t mean to be harsh. I feel very sorry for people who are homosexual – I see it as a physical handicap, like cancer, or a missing limb, a mental illness – it is the same thing. You don’t tell someone with cancer to celebrate their disease, you do what you can to fight it, and if you can’t fight it, you support them the best you can, fighting the disease the best you can. It is so sad, marriage is such a big part of life, I know it would be so hard. I see single people, and it is hard for them too. I can only know that this life is not the only place where marriage can happen. Those who go without now will have added appreciation for what they one day can have.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Data is data wherever it comes from. Some people are willing to publish it, some are not.

I have yet to see data from the Family Research Council.

 

[idea]

Okay, I've read up to here, and I can clearly say that you do not live in California. You've never driven on the freeways here. It's traffic at least one way. No open space.

You statement about over-population being wrong is just wrong. There is over population. Seven billion individuals on this tiny planet, most of which is uninhabitable by humans at the moment? I don't live in a big city. I live in a suburban town that is next to a marsh. Trust me, there are far too many people here. There shouldn't be more than... a thousand individuals living downtown. Instead, there's tens of thousands just in the downtown area alone. (I don't know the actual numbers) Besides, America isn't the most crowded country in the world. Ever been to China? There are one billion individuals alone there. That large earthquake they had recently did nothing to hurt the population.

And most in China are all crowded together along the coast. Much of China is sparsely populated...

My father in law (father of 6 kids) used to tell people that "his kids were going to solve the world's hunger and energy problems. My husband is currently working with energy

 

[fantome profane]

Race as an illegitimate category for preference was set by the various Reconstruction Era Amendments, notability the 14th and 15th Amendments. Gender has no such legal standing.

But it should.

 

[Autodidact]

Data is data wherever it comes from. Some people are willing to publish it, some are not.

And so far, you've cited data that from a single relevant article that shows that children of gay parents behave the same as children with straight parents.

I’m sorry – I don’t mean to be harsh. I feel very sorry for people who are homosexual – I see it as a physical handicap, like cancer, or a missing limb, a mental illness – it is the same thing. You don’t tell someone with cancer to celebrate their disease, you do what you can to fight it, and if you can’t fight it, you support them the best you can, fighting the disease the best you can. It is so sad, marriage is such a big part of life, I know it would be so hard. I see single people, and it is hard for them too. I can only know that this life is not the only place where marriage can happen. Those who go without now will have added appreciation for what they one day can have.

Dont feel bad; I feel the same way about Mormons. They suffer from a mental handicap of irrationality.

It's not that you're harsh, idea, it's that you lie. You're slandering a perfectly fine group of people to advance your agenda of discrimination. It's morally wrong, but I see that doesn't bother you. Being Mormon, you already have a handicap as regards truthfullness.

 

[idea]

I have yet to see data from the Family Research Council.

US census is not data? see refs at bottom of article.

like I said, some are willing to see it, others are not.

And so far, you've cited data that from a single relevant article that shows that children of gay parents behave the same as children with straight parents.

Dont feel bad; I feel the same way about Mormons. They suffer from a mental handicap of irrationality.

It's not that you're harsh, idea, it's that you lie. You're slandering a perfectly fine group of people to advance your agenda of discrimination. It's morally wrong, but I see that doesn't bother you. Being Mormon, you already have a handicap as regards truthfullness.

I don't discriminate against homosexuals just as I don't discriminate against people with cancer. They can be nice people, I just feel sorry for them.

I feel sorry for atheists too... :sorry1:

 

[madhatter85]

Okay, I've read up to here, and I can clearly say that you do not live in California. You've never driven on the freeways here. It's traffic at least one way. No open space.

You statement about over-population being wrong is just wrong. There is over population. Seven billion individuals on this tiny planet, most of which is uninhabitable by humans at the moment? I don't live in a big city. I live in a suburban town that is next to a marsh. Trust me, there are far too many people here. There shouldn't be more than... a thousand individuals living downtown. Instead, there's tens of thousands just in the downtown area alone. (I don't know the actual numbers) Besides, America isn't the most crowded country in the world. Ever been to China? There are one billion individuals alone there. That large earthquake they had recently did nothing to hurt the population.

i have lived in all over the country (including San Diego, CA)and trust me, people can live anywhere ont he planet, they jsut have to get over the enviroment.

Even Death Valley is habitable, heck there's even towns there, it get's no hotter there than in the middle east.

There is plenty of room for everyone on this planet. you just have to be willign to move.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

US census is not data? see refs at bottom of article.

like I said, some are willing to see it, others are not.

Okay... let's have a look:

I stand corrected; they apparently got the population of Vermont correct (ref. 22).

As for ref. 24, their conclusions just don't make sense. Here's what the FRC says:

USA Today reports that, as of January 2004, only 936 homosexual or lesbian couples (for a total of 1,872 individuals) have entered into civil unions.[23] This indicates that only about 21 percent of the estimated homosexual and lesbian population of Vermont has entered into civil unions. Put another way, 79 percent of homosexuals and lesbians in Vermont choose not to enter into civil unions.
By contrast, in Vermont, heterosexual married couples outnumber cohabiting couples by a margin of 7 to 1, indicating a much higher level of desire on the part of heterosexual couples to legalize their relationships.[24]

For same-sex couples, they compare couples in civil unions to the total number of homosexual people in Vermont. For opposite-sex couples, they compare married couples to unmarried cohabitating couples.

They're using crappy, biased, hateful arguments and sprinkle them with enough references to real documents that it makes it seem like they're actually portraying them honestly.

If you want me to go over the few other references they have to that Census report, let me know. Hopefully showing you one example of their dishonest tactics will be enough to convince you that their real intent is slagging homosexuality, not furthering science.

I don't discriminate against homosexuals just as I don't discriminate against people with cancer. They can be nice people, I just feel sorry for them.

I feel sorry for atheists too... :sorry1:

I'm not sure if you read the earlier post where I expressed how I feel sorry for people who treat homosexuality as an illness through a misguided attempt to do the right thing.

I guess between us, we're a pretty sorry bunch. Maybe we could start a mutual apology society.

 

[Autodidact]

US census is not data? see refs at bottom of article.

like I said, some are willing to see it, others are not.

You have U.S. census data on how well children of gay parents do as compared to straight parents?

I don't discriminate against homosexuals just as I don't discriminate against people with cancer. They can be nice people, I just feel sorry for them.

Fascinating. Now, about that data?

I feel sorry for atheists too... :sorry1:

Why would we be interested in your personal emotional reactions to people who are different from you? Unless we were doing a study of intolerance or something?

So now that we're all feeling sorry for each other, can we go back to the facts?

The facts are that children of gay parents do as well as children of straight parents. Do you have some data that show differently? Because I have a ton that shows just that.