LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

Thanks for sharing. My mother died from cancer which took a couple of years, so we had a long time to prepare emotionally and I had learned to cope with life without her. Also my support system was tremendous. I don't know if that makes it easier or not.
Did your mom die suddenly, or due to illness?

(Sorry to everyone for deviating from the topic. It's only momentary. Thanks.)

Car accident, died same day.

Now, I was a huge tomboy and am pretty masculine, as women go. But when I think back on everything that was horrible about that, it wasn't not having "a woman" or "a mom." Really. It was that my mum, who loved me, was gone. My loss was not of a female role-model, but of someone that I loved and who took care of me and loved me.

Also, on the puberty thing, not only my sister, but my friends just knew all that stuff. It wasn't mysterious or impossible to handle because of not having a mom.

 

[Starfish]

Car accident, died same day.

I can't even imagine. How horrible. I'm so sorry.

 

[MoonWater]

59 pages and still no one has given any specifics as to why both genders are so necessary. Can anyone give me anything, anything that a mom can provide for a child and a father cannot and vice versa(other than auto's comment about breast-feeding). And idea your comments about hair and those other girly things don't count, a father is more than capable of teaching a girl how to braid her hair and all about puberty as well.

 

[Starfish]

59 pages and still no one has given any specifics as to why both genders are so necessary. Can anyone give me anything, anything that a mom can provide for a child and a father cannot and vice versa(other than auto's comment about breast-feeding). And idea your comments about hair and those other girly things don't count, a father is more than capable of teaching a girl how to braid her hair and all about puberty as well.

Frankly, I don't think we can give you anything you will accept. And it isn't for lack of trying.
For what it's worth, I'd agree that a difficult-to-place child, one who is not easy to adopt, is far better in a loving same-sex home, than in foster care. And there are many same-sex homes that ARE better than many two-sex homes. But this has nothing to do with gender, it has everything to do with irresponsible people.

 

[MoonWater]

I found this helpful.
Why Children Need Father-Love and Mother-Love, Part 1

I 'm afraid that article doesn't really support your position Star. It rellies on stereotypes to draw it's conclusions and is therefore innacurate at best. All those things that it mentioned that mothers provide(nurturing, security, "soft-hand") can also be provided by a father as well and vice versa. I happen to have personal experience that directly contradicts it, in fact. It says that when fathers play with their children they'll play the big monster, run around with them, rough-house, tickle more, etc. while the mother will be more quiet when it comes to playing with her kids. Except when I play with my little cousins, I play the big monster, run around, rough-house, tickle, wrestle, I'm not "quiet" by any means. and when it comes to discipline I can assure you that I would be just as concerned with "justice, fairness and duty" as I would be with "sympathy, care and help" I see no need to give either category special consideration. And I'm sure I'm not the only woman who's like this. If every man and woman actually fit into the societal stereotypes of their "gender roles" and "gender behavior" then your argument would have more validity. However the main reason why it doesn't work out that way is because very few men and women actually fit into these stereotypes and most of the one's who do, do so because they feel pressured to conform to society's views of them or be outcasted. The truth of the matter is that there are "femenine" boys and "masculine" girls and everything else in between. I personally tend to lean more towards the masculine stereotype then I do the femenine simply because I find all that girly girl stuff superfluous. Because people cover such a wide range of personalities and don't fit nicely into the boxes that society seems to want them to you will find that just about every child with two parents will be recieving those "masculine" and "femenine" influences even if they do happen to have two moms or two dads.

 

[MoonWater]

Frankly, I don't think we can give you anything you will accept. And it isn't for lack of trying.

The only reason why I haven't accepted what you've given so far is because what you've given is not gender exlusive and is based on stereotypes and societal "gender roles". As I said to idea a father is more than capable of teaching his daughter how to braid her hair and teaching her all about puberty. Its not like a father doesn't know anything about or is inccapable of learning anything about these sorts of things. The same goes for a mother with a son who say wants a moehawk and is entering puberty as well. The mother is more than capable of teaching him these things as well. A mother can be a harsh disciplinarian just as a father can be a soft nurturer. It all depends on their personality, on who they are. While gender certainly does influence this it is not the sole determining factor and I'd say the influence is minor when compared to those other determining factors(up-bringing, environment, experience, etc.)

 

[Orontes]

Per the Supremacy Clause and 15th Amendment, Federal and Constitutional law trumps state or local law. The District of Columbia cannot overreach its mandate. It cannot declare war, issue its own currency, or overrule the Constitution.

State Constitutions are relevant to States. California's State Constitution says nothing about a gay marriage right. The U.S. Constitution speaks directly to the right to bear arms.

We've been over this before. The California State Constitution speaks directly to the right of all citizens to receive government benefits on equal terms.

We have have indeed been over this, so you shouldn't make the same mistake. This was the earlier corrective(s):

" A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. CA Constitution"

-"There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "on the same terms to all citizens" means."

-"As to marriage "equally granted to all citizens": it isn't. One cannot marry one's sibling. One cannot marry if currently married to another. One cannot marry a seven year old without a special court order grant. One cannot marry outside the species etc. There are many restrictions. Now the gender line of thinking has been refuted since there are clear divides by gender under the law. If your question is why heterosexual marriage is not similarly situated with homosexual marriage, I can explain that is you wish."

-"As to what the California Constitution does say: "(O)n the same terms" is a "similarly situated" legal positioning. Heterosexual marriages and gay marriages are not similarly situated. Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage."

For the same reasons the state has mandatory education, and benefits for owning a house etc.

Heterosexual marriage is the means by and through with new citizens may be produced and fostered. Feral children are not desirable.

No, they're not the same reasons. Without mandatory education, the general level of education of society is heavily diminished. Benefits for home ownership are a bit different (after all, plenty of people will own their own home just out of sheer economics even without the government intervening) - they have deemed, rightly or wrongly, that the increase in home ownership associated with state programs represents a societal good.

As noted by your own reply, each is considered a benefit to the state, thus the wherefore is the same. Marriages may produce children and form a stable basis for raising them. Quite simple.

In the case of marriage and families, people have done this for thousands of years. For most of that time, there was no state sanction of marriage, yet most people would have children and raise families anyhow.

That is right. Our concern is state sanction wherein there is a duty imposed on the state and the state draws a benefit.

Heterosexual marriage is the means by and through with new citizens may be produced and fostered. Feral children are not desirable.

Feral children? :sarcastic

How many people do you know who, if not for state-sanctioned, opposite-sex marriage, would have dumped their kids in the forest to fend for themselves? Do you really think these are the sort of people that the state should be enticing into marriage and parenthood?

Regardless of the legalities of opposite-sex marriage, the vast majority of people on the planet will continue to get married and raise their kids within the confines of a marriage. What reason do you have to say that an increase in marriages and children over and above what would happen anyhow is beneficial, or is anything that the state should be concerned with?

Yes feral children or any variant of the same.

If people wed and produce and aren't seeking state endorsement or benefit they are a separate topic. Arguing whether the state should be concerned with marriage is a separate discussion. Insofar as the state is concerned with marriage, the rationale is because there is a benefit the state derives. That benefit is new citizens and new tax payers. Relations that cannot produce new children therefore are outside the bounds of a state vested interest

 

[Riverwolf]

We have have indeed been over this, so you shouldn't make the same mistake. This was the earlier corrective(s):

" A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens. CA Constitution"

-"There is no privilege of gender in what you reference. Further, your assertion is undercut because it does not take into account the base operative for any "unequal treatment" charge. That operative is known in law as "similarly situated". This is what "on the same terms to all citizens" means."

-"As to marriage "equally granted to all citizens": it isn't. One cannot marry one's sibling. One cannot marry if currently married to another. One cannot marry a seven year old without a special court order grant. One cannot marry outside the species etc. There are many restrictions. Now the gender line of thinking has been refuted since there are clear divides by gender under the law. If your question is why heterosexual marriage is not similarly situated with homosexual marriage, I can explain that is you wish."

-"As to what the California Constitution does say: "(O)n the same terms" is a "similarly situated" legal positioning. Heterosexual marriages and gay marriages are not similarly situated. Gay marriages cannot produce citizens or future tax payers. The state has no vested interest in gay marriage."



As noted by your own reply, each is considered a benefit to the state, thus the wherefore is the same. Marriages may produce children and form a stable basis for raising them. Quite simple.

That is right. Our concern is state sanction wherein there is a duty imposed on the state and the state draws a benefit.



Yes feral children or any variant of the same.

If people wed and produce and aren't seeking state endorsement or benefit they are a separate topic. Arguing whether the state should be concerned with marriage is a separate discussion. Insofar as the state is concerned with marriage, the rationale is because there is a benefit the state derives. That benefit is new citizens and new tax payers. Relations that cannot produce new children therefore are outside the bounds of a state vested interest

So, basically, the state should also not care about marriages that have no intentions of having kids, either? Some people want to get married simply to spend the rest of their lives with their significant other, not for children. Should the state deny rights to them as well?

And yes you can marry your sibling. You can simply lie about the fact that they're your sibling, and it will be done. You could marry another person using the same tactic. Sorry, but that argument was very weak. And homosexuality doesn't compare either with bestiality or pedophilia, as those tend to be non-consented.

 

[Father Heathen]

Orontes has a pretty creepy concept of marriage if he thinks it exists only for the State to harvest babies.

 

[Riverwolf]

Orontes has a pretty creepy concept of marriage if he thinks it exists only for the State to harvest babies.

Either that or he really sucks at explaining his stance.

 

[Orontes]

So, basically, the state should also not care about marriages that have no intentions of having kids, either? Some people want to get married simply to spend the rest of their lives with their significant other, not for children. Should the state deny rights to them as well?

States pass laws and assume positions that are self interested. Most marriages produce children. Laws are not typically legislated from the margins, but toward a general pattern. A state may pass legislation that distinguishes infertile from fertile couples, but that would be up to the citizenry. The issue is why the state would have an interest in marriage? The rationale for why the state should provide any endorsement of marriage and/or assume any duty is because it is a vehicle for new citizens to be produced and fostered.

And yes you can marry your sibling. You can simply lie about the fact that they're your sibling, and it will be done. You could marry another person using the same tactic. Sorry, but that argument was very weak. And homosexuality doesn't compare either with bestiality or pedophilia, as those tend to be non-consented.

These issues are concerned with legality. Bigamy and incest are illegal.

 

[Orontes]

Orontes has a pretty creepy concept of marriage if he thinks it exists only for the State to harvest babies.

You are confused. I haven't made any claims marriage only exists for the state. I have explained marriage as it relates to the state and why the state would have any interest in marriage.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I don't see what the big deal is. There are good parents who raise terrible children and there are terrible parents that raise exceptional children. Children have a mind of their own. None of us have been raised the same way and most of us turned out OK.

I believe as long as you provide a stable home and have competent adult supervision that really cares about the children, that is all that is required to raise a child. There is no wrong way or right way as long as the children live in a healthy environment and receive love.

Nothing upsets me more than someone else trying to tell someone how to raise their children or saying they possess the superior method and everyone else is wrong. Families come in many shapes and sizes. This is not a one size fits all situation.

I don't care who the family is, they all make mistakes and get other things right.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't see what the big deal is. There are good parents who raise terrible children and there are terrible parents that raise exceptional children. Children have a mind of their own. None of us have been raised the same way and most of us turned out OK.

I believe as long as you provide a stable home and have competent adult supervision that really cares about the children, that is all that is required to raise a child. There is no wrong way or right way as long as the children live in a healthy environment and receive love.

Nothing upsets me more than someone else trying to tell someone how to raise their children or saying they possess the superior method and everyone else is wrong. Families come in many shapes and sizes. This is not a one size fits all situation.

I don't care who the family is, they all make mistakes and get other things right.

I think, Rick that you are a political conservative, correct? This to me is an authentic conservative position, in that it respects the liberty of everyone, and seeks to limit the power of the state to encroach on all families. It is rare to see a consistent conservative, so consider your self fruballed again. :clap:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have have indeed been over this, so you shouldn't make the same mistake. This was the earlier corrective(s):

Meh. Seeing how the California State Supreme Court doesn't agree with your "corrective", I'm not willing to put much stock in it myself.

As noted by your own reply, each is considered a benefit to the state, thus the wherefore is the same. Marriages may produce children and form a stable basis for raising them. Quite simple.

No, not so simple. The question isn't whether marriages in general provide societal benefit, it's whether the regulation of marriages (and its effects in terms of quality or quantity) provides societal benefit.

That is right. Our concern is state sanction wherein there is a duty imposed on the state and the state draws a benefit.

Which is what, exactly?

And again, we're not talking about the overall benefit of marriage in general, we're talking about the incremental effect of state sanctioning of marriage vs. not.

Yes feral children or any variant of the same.

How big an issue do you think feral children might be? :sarcastic

If people wed and produce and aren't seeking state endorsement or benefit they are a separate topic.

No, it's not, because they directly apply to the issue at hand: people who would marry and have kids regardless of state sanction are a sunk cost (or "sunk benefit", if that's a real term). They're common to all alternatives, so they cannot be considered to be part of the benefit of state sanction of marriage.

Arguing whether the state should be concerned with marriage is a separate discussion.

No, it's not. The purpose of marriage, and therefore the needs or wants that state sanction of it are intended to address, are at the core of the issue.

Insofar as the state is concerned with marriage, the rationale is because there is a benefit the state derives. That benefit is new citizens and new tax payers. Relations that cannot produce new children therefore are outside the bounds of a state vested interest

Why exactly would increasing the population be of benefit to the state? New citizens represent new taxpayers, but they also represent new costs to the state. In an ideal situation, the net effect of an additional taxpayer on the state would be neutral: over his or her life, on average, the cost to the government associated with each citizen would be exactly offset by the money that citizen pays in taxes.

In practice, though, the situation is often not neutral. In the case of continual state deficit budgets (e.g. the US for the past several decades), each taxpayer represents a net cost to the state on average. I once read a line that was originally about retail, but it applies here: "if you lose money on every sale, you're not going to make up the difference on volume." If every taxpayer costs the state money, more taxpayers will cost the state more money.

And this still ignores external costs that don't directly translate into monetary terms to the government itself, but are still within the area of responsibility of the state: as the population of a country, state or city increases, the cost of many things increases at a much greater rate than the population increase.

But setting aside all these problems with your argument, for a moment, let's assume that the purpose of state sanction of marriage is as you describe: to provide benefit to the state. If this is the case, then why would countries with runaway population have the same marriage policies as ones with negative population growth? If the objective is maximization of state revenue, why aren't the incentives of marriage tied to the anticipated income or tax revenue from the future citizens the state is supposedly promoting?

Relations that cannot produce new children therefore are outside the bounds of a state vested interest

There are plenty of vested interests of the state that have nothing to do with production of new children. Just because you feel that a relationship does not provide benefit in that specific area does not mean that they do not provide benefits in other areas in which the state has an interest.

 

[Sunstone]

Can anyone give me anything, anything that a mom can provide for a child and a father cannot and vice versa....

As far as I can recall offhand, the effect that growing up fatherless has on girls was found by one study to vary depending at how old the girl was when she became fatherless. Girls who became fatherless before the age of six, for instance, show different effects than girls who became fatherless after the age of six. Those who became fatherless before the age of six tend to be more promiscuous as teenagers and young adults than either girls who became fatherless after the age of six, or girls who were raised with fathers. That information is as I recall it and it comes from a cross-cultural study conducted in the US and New Zealand.

As for what a father can provide for a girl that a mother cannot, I would only be able to offer you some anecdotal information. So, I'll skip that. But if you're genuinely interested in my anecdotal information, PM me.

 

[MoonWater]

As far as I can recall offhand, the effect that growing up fatherless has on girls was found by one study to vary depending at how old the girl was when she became fatherless. Girls who became fatherless before the age of six, for instance, show different effects than girls who became fatherless after the age of six. Those who became fatherless before the age of six tend to be more promiscuous as teenagers and young adults than either girls who became fatherless after the age of six, or girls who were raised with fathers. That information is as I recall it and it comes from a cross-cultural study conducted in the US and New Zealand.

As for what a father can provide for a girl that a mother cannot, I would only be able to offer you some anecdotal information. So, I'll skip that. But if you're genuinely interested in my anecdotal information, PM me.

Except you're speaking of girls who lost their father and thus are being raised by a single mother(and sometimes a step-dad). And in this situation the trouble often comes, not from having no father, but since the mother is single she has to work in order to support her child and as such is not able to spend as much time with said child. It's the typical problem you see in all movies and tv shows that portray single parents, the parent deosn't have enough time in the day and is often stretched to her limits trying to hold down a job and raise a child at the same time and ends up needing the help of other relatives or family friends in order to "take up the slack". And in cases where a step-father enters the picture this often causes tension between the daughter and her "new daddy" and sometimes even between her and the mother. This wouldn't be a problem in a family with two parents as (ideally) there would always be one to take up the "slack" of the other, i.e. when one is working the other is with the kids and vice versa. This would be true regardless of the parents gender. As for the girls being more promiscuous I can certainly see why that is a concern but personally I don't see it as a "bad" thing, but then I'm not as sexually repressed as most other people tend to be

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, DisneyMan, why aren't you taking issue with all your fellow Mormons who have called me immoral, degenerate, and so forth?

We do you assume that I haven't? If you look at the LDS threads about the issue you'll see I went head to head with them plenty of times.

 

[Orontes]

Meh. Seeing how the California State Supreme Court doesn't agree with your "corrective", I'm not willing to put much stock in it myself.

Those who allow their personal passions to invent rights and undermine the demoncratic process do tend to stick together.

No, not so simple. The question isn't whether marriages in general provide societal benefit, it's whether the regulation of marriages (and its effects in terms of quality or quantity) provides societal benefit.

The regulation of marriage is assumed in my reply. You asked why the state would have a vested interest. That interest is in the production and fostering of the future.

Which is what, exactly?

And again, we're not talking about the overall benefit of marriage in general, we're talking about the incremental effect of state sanctioning of marriage vs. not.

I don't understand your question. It doesn't have a subject.

This is why what you quote from me explicitly noted duties on the state and benefits the state may draw.

How big an issue do you think feral children might be? :sarcastic

That would depend on the state. In Western Europe up until the mid-Nineteenth Century there were fair numbers of children without parents, either through death or some other issue that lived on the margins of society. In Sub-Saharan Africa today this same issue persists.

No, it's not, because they directly apply to the issue at hand: people who would marry and have kids regardless of state sanction are a sunk cost (or "sunk benefit", if that's a real term). They're common to all alternatives, so they cannot be considered to be part of the benefit of state sanction of marriage.

You have missed the point. If the state issues marriages licenses. The reason the state is the issuer of a license and acts as the guarantor of the wedding contract is because the state has a vested interest in the marriage. The licensing alone demonstrates the interest. That vested interest is in the common product of marriage: babies and the environment they are raised in. If there are people who declared themselves wed on a mountain top or other locale that the state isn't aware of, it doesn't change the fact the state has demonstrated an interest in marriage.

No, it's not. The purpose of marriage, and therefore the needs or wants that state sanction of it are intended to address, are at the core of the issue.

Again you are confused. In the U.S. the state does license marriage. It is a political reality. Whether states should be involved in marriage may be interesting to consider, but it is divorced of the situation at hand.

Why exactly would increasing the population be of benefit to the state?

Because people are mortal. A state with negative population growth will eventually cease to exist.

(L)et's assume that the purpose of state sanction of marriage is as you describe: to provide benefit to the state. If this is the case, then why would countries with runaway population have the same marriage policies as ones with negative population growth? If the objective is maximization of state revenue, why aren't the incentives of marriage tied to the anticipated income or tax revenue from the future citizens the state is supposedly promoting?

I don't know of any countries with run away populations. Population growth world wide is trending downward. Even in Third World Nations growth rates are markedly down from say fifty years ago. Even so, not all countries do have the same marital policies: some countries recognize polygamy, some states give money to women to quit working and have babies in wedlock etc. Regardless, different states approach problems and goals in different ways. States that sanction marriage by and through the sanction demonstrate an interest in marriage. One of the reasons for this is to provide for the future of the state.

There are plenty of vested interests of the state that have nothing to do with production of new children.

Yes there are, but the focus here is the state interest in and sanction of marriage and more specifically that gay marriage is distinct from heterosexual marriage on a fundamental level.

 

[Sunstone]

Except you're speaking of girls who lost their father and thus are being raised by a single mother(and sometimes a step-dad). And in this situation the trouble often comes, not from having no father, but since the mother is single she has to work in order to support her child and as such is not able to spend as much time with said child. It's the typical problem you see in all movies and tv shows that portray single parents, the parent deosn't have enough time in the day and is often stretched to her limits trying to hold down a job and raise a child at the same time and ends up needing the help of other relatives or family friends in order to "take up the slack". And in cases where a step-father enters the picture this often causes tension between the daughter and her "new daddy" and sometimes even between her and the mother.

If what you say is relevant to the findings of the study, then how does your notion account for the differences between girls who become fatherless before the age of six and girls who become fatherless after the age of six?

For all the limits of the study, I think it does suggest the presence of a father up to the age of six might influence a girl's later behavior in ways that cannot be duplicated by step-fathers, other male figures, role-models, or mothers.

As for the girls being more promiscuous I can certainly see why that is a concern...

"Promiscuity" in this context simply means the girls who lost their fathers before the age of six tended to have more sex partners in their teens and early twenties than either the girls who didn't loose their fathers or the girls who lost their fathers later on in life. That could be an indication of any number of things, and more work will need to be done before it can be said why those girls have more sex partners.