LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Tau]

Starfish's comment: Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.

Starfish: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Everyone is not entitled to their own facts. The fact is that you are mistaken. For that reason, it would be wrong, simply wrong, to use it as a basis for public policy. You can use it as a basis for action in your own life, but not as a basis for legislation or voting. That should be based on the facts, don't you agree?

Starfish is right here Autodidact.
This species has two sexes and a child's first school is the home, thus it would be impossible to say that two loving parents one male one female is not advantageous.

However many people only have one parent, dad's up and left or whatever, so two loving parents even if both male or female is twice as good as a single loving parent (in theory)
I just think that it is important that little boys have adult males to look up to and little girls have adult females to look up to.

I am gay as you might be aware, but even I accept that a man and a woman raising a child together is optimum in our society, but that by no way means that it should be the rule.
For it takes for granted that neither both mum and dad are sociopaths of some kind.

Each case on its own merits.

 

[Magic Man]

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

Yeah, that's why we're trying to get the emotion out of it from your side. That's why our side of the argument is always asking for more than "It's disgusting" or "It's unnatural" or "God said so". We are looking for a rational reason, rather than an emotional one.

By the way, I hope I never have you as a lawyer.

 

[McBell]

Starfish is right here Autodidact.
This species has two sexes and a child's first school is the home, thus it would be impossible to say that two loving parents one male one female is not advantageous.

Advantageous?
for what?

However many people only have one parent, dad's up and left or whatever, so two loving parents even if both male or female is twice as good as a single loving parent (in theory)
I just think that it is important that little boys have adult males to look up to and little girls have adult females to look up to.

Fair enough.
However, why do they HAVE to be 'parents'?

I am gay as you might be aware, but even I accept that a man and a woman raising a child together is optimum in our society, but that by no way means that it should be the rule.
For it takes for granted that neither both mum and dad are sociopaths of some kind.

Accept?
Don't you mean "believe?"
There has not been anything legit presented to 'accept'.

Each case on its own merits.

I agree.

 

[Starfish]

However, why do they HAVE to be 'parents'?

A parent is in the home, with close contact and maximum exposure to the child. Other adults in a child's life are good, but none can compare with the parents in the home. The day-in day-out relationship, there in the morning, there at night, is important to children. That's how the close bonds form and the child learns to trust, and feel important in the world.

This is one reason why divorce is so harmful to children.

 

[Starfish]

Starfish's comment: Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.



Starfish is right here Autodidact.
This species has two sexes and a child's first school is the home, thus it would be impossible to say that two loving parents one male one female is not advantageous.

However many people only have one parent, dad's up and left or whatever, so two loving parents even if both male or female is twice as good as a single loving parent (in theory)
I just think that it is important that little boys have adult males to look up to and little girls have adult females to look up to.

I am gay as you might be aware, but even I accept that a man and a woman raising a child together is optimum in our society, but that by no way means that it should be the rule.
For it takes for granted that neither both mum and dad are sociopaths of some kind.

Each case on its own merits.

I appreciate this. So much of this is simply common sense. Anyone can see that there are things a boy needs a man for, and things a girl needs a woman for. Details beyond that are not necessary, because they are obvious. As a girl, I could not talk to my Dad about everything--I needed a mom. Simple as that. My sons could not come to me over personal male matters, where they could talk to their dad.
In addition, boys need mothers as daughters need fathers. Most children are heterosexual. The day by day example and exposure to male/female relationships that they learn at home is valuable. We learn how to treat each other by watching our parents. Men are the stronger sex, yet they must learn to be respectful to women. Girls who are raised with a good dad, have higher self-esteem and tend to not gravitate to boyfriends at a too-early age.

Most of this doesn't come from any study. It's just plain old common sense. It comes from life experience of growing up and raising children. Men and women exist in this world and the proper respectful relationship between them is best learned at home.

 

[Nessa]

But sex isn't necessarily a good indicator of gender role. Perhaps even more so in the context of a gay or lesbian marriage. But generally speaking, gender roles are moving towards the center like a scroll bar. I do not believe that the sex of a parent defines his or her ability to be a good parent.

But, my review of current research and experience with gender dysphoric, gay and traditional clients has led me to see gender not as a bimodal male or female dichotomy but as a matrix—a possible mix of male and female development within the same individual.

I cannot post links yet.

 

[MoonWater]

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?

My guess is that because most of a child's development occurs within those first six years said development isn't effected as much by the loss of the father. That's not to say it's any less tragic or traumatizing. Aside from that we're still talking about a mom and dad houshold turning into a single parent household. And as has already been said such a thing cannot be used to draw conclusions about a same-sex two parent household.

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.

Perhaps but you also have to keep in mind that said children have suffered a rather tragic and traumatic experience having lost a close member of their family at a young age and this is definitely going to influence them regardless of whether or not having both genders really is that vital. And again what sort of bearing does a study about children who lost their fathers have on children who grew up with two mother's instead.

"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.

edit: I know what promiscuity means and I know what the context was referring to. I said that I could see how being more promiscuous would be a concern because the risks involved in sex in general become more likely the more partners one has. But as I said I don't see it as a "bad" thing

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

The other possibility is that your assessment of the law is wrong. Again, if I had to choose between you and the California State Supreme Court on the issue of interpretation of California law, I'm picking them over you.

And I don't exactly considering the enforcement of the democratically ratified California state constitution to be undermining the democratic process.

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.

That benefit is associated with marriage, not with the regulation of marriage. Try again.

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

Try harder. You said the state derives a benefit. What is this benefit, exactly?

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

You noted benefits that would have occurred whether or not state sanction of marriage existed. Therefore, these benefits cannot be considered to be associated with the state sanction.

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.

And state sanction of marriage would influence the mortality of parents how, exactly?

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, I think you're missing the point. For a state program to have some benefit associated with it at all, the presence of that program must create some positive change. People getting married and raising a family who would have gotten married and raised a family no matter what is not a change.

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.

No, the purpose of marriage is at the very heart of the issue, since what that purpose is determines whether it's served by same-sex marriage.

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

One with no immigration, maybe, where that negative population growth continues until nobody's left.

I'll re-phrase: without state sanction of marriage, you'd have some population growth; let's call it "X" (might be positive, might be negative, might be zero - at this point we don't know). Let's call the increase in population growth due to state sanction of marriage "Y" (might be positive, might be negative, might be zero - at this point we don't know). Your argument basically amounts to the claim that for every society, a population growth rate of X + Y is always better for the state and society than a growth rate of X alone. I wonder how you can be so sure of this in all cases.

I don't know of any countries with run away populations.

India. China.

There - now you know two.

Population growth world wide is trending downward. Even in Third World Nations growth rates are markedly down from say fifty years ago.

They're still very safely on the positive side of the graph, though. The world population rate has decreased from near-catastrophic population growth to merely unmanageable population growth. This does not mean that we need to start gearing our public policy to increasing the population as much as possible.

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.

And yet in every case, marriage itself has benefits, rights and privileges associated with it. In no case worldwide do you find any legal system where the benefits of marriage don't start flowing until the first child is conceived or born. They're tied to marriage itself, not to "providing for the future of the state" at all.

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.

IOW, you don't discount the possibility that the state may very well have a vested interest in and derive benefit from same-sex marriage, but you want to limit the scope of your argument so it seems like these things do not exist.

 

[MoonWater]

I appreciate this. So much of this is simply common sense. Anyone can see that there are things a boy needs a man for, and things a girl needs a woman for. Details beyond that are not necessary, because they are obvious. As a girl, I could not talk to my Dad about everything--I needed a mom. Simple as that. My sons could not come to me over personal male matters, where they could talk to their dad.
In addition, boys need mothers as daughters need fathers. Most children are heterosexual. The day by day example and exposure to male/female relationships that they learn at home is valuable. We learn how to treat each other by watching our parents. Men are the stronger sex, yet they must learn to be respectful to women. Girls who are raised with a good dad, have higher self-esteem and tend to not gravitate to boyfriends at a too-early age.

Most of this doesn't come from any study. It's just plain old common sense. It comes from life experience of growing up and raising children. Men and women exist in this world and the proper respectful relationship between them is best learned at home.

Except again your relying on stereotypes and traditional societal gender roles to draw your conclusions. I'm sure that if my dad had been the one to teach me about puberty and sex rather than my mom and my aunt I would have felt more comfortable going to him with my questions rather than going to my mother. I think this has more to do with the fact that parents themselves are uncomfortable talking to their kids about these things, especially in terms of opposite gender, and the kids pick up on that. Men are only the "stronger sex" in the sense that they tend to be physically stronger than women but I fail to see what that has to do with any of this. I have a female friend who is much physically stronger then most other men I know and my own boyfriend is physically weaker than the average woman. There are people on all sides of the spectrum. As I said in earlier posts there are masculine women and femenine boys and everything in between. I do see where your coming from star and how you could draw such conclusions but as I have also said such conclusions only hold if every man and woman were to fall into the societally designated stereotypes and gender rolls however this is rarely the case. In all my life I have known two people who seemed to fit into these gender roles. A female friend of mine and my dad and even they didn't fit entirely into the "box"

 

[Starfish]

Except again your relying on stereotypes and traditional societal gender roles to draw your conclusions. I'm sure that if my dad had been the one to teach me about puberty and sex rather than my mom and my aunt I would have felt more comfortable going to him with my questions rather than going to my mother. I think this has more to do with the fact that parents themselves are uncomfortable talking to their kids about these things, especially in terms of opposite gender, and the kids pick up on that. Men are only the "stronger sex" in the sense that they tend to be physically stronger than women but I fail to see what that has to do with any of this. I have a female friend who is much physically stronger then most other men I know and my own boyfriend is physically weaker than the average woman. There are people on all sides of the spectrum. As I said in earlier posts there are masculine women and femenine boys and everything in between. I do see where your coming from star and how you could draw such conclusions but as I have also said such conclusions only hold if every man and woman were to fall into the societally designated stereotypes and gender rolls however this is rarely the case. In all my life I have known two people who seemed to fit into these gender roles. A female friend of mine and my dad and even they didn't fit entirely into the "box"

There are always exceptions. But I was speaking of the majority. Most men are physically stronger than most women. All boys, be they masculine or feminine, need to be taught respect for women at home, because society certainly isn't teaching it. Girls, masculine or feminine, do benefit from close relationships with fathers--I do think there is a study for that one. How could any child, no matter the personality, not benefit from a loving healthy relationship with a mom and dad? Receiving the full and balanced exposure to both genders.

Every child needs and deserves a loving, responsible mother and father, both raising him/her together. We, as adults, have the moral duty to do our best to see that that happens.

 

[MoonWater]

There are always exceptions. But I was speaking of the majority. Most men are physically stronger than most women. Boys need to be taught respect for women at home, because society certainly isn't teaching it. Girls do benefit from close relationships with fathers--I do think there is a study for that one. Most of what I wrote is speaking for the majority. Most fit into this "box".

However, every child needs and deserves a loving, responsible mother and father, both raising him/her together. We, as adults, have the moral duty to do our best to see that that happens.

It has been my experience with stereotypes that they usually only apply to the minority of a group at best and are just portrayed as being the majority by media and people outside the group because everyone knows the stereotypes, but not everyone knows the reality. If the majority of people do fit into this "box" then how do you explain my experience where of all the people I've known only two actually fit into it. And even they were causing some tears and creases here and there. Yes most men are physically stronger than most women, but again what does that have to do with raising children. And as for our moral duty I think the first moral duty should be to make sure every child has a loving home to begin with. I know if I were an orphan I'd care more about getting adopted period then I would about making sure those who adopted me were opposite gendered. You've also yet to show any studies to back up what your saying. At least Idea tried even though the best ones she could find merely showed that there were differences and the study concluded that it could not be determined if those differences were deficits or not. Different does not mean worse star.

 

[Starfish]

It has been my experience with stereotypes that they usually only apply to the minority of a group at best and are just portrayed as being the majority by media and people outside the group because everyone knows the stereotypes, but not everyone knows the reality. If the majority of people do fit into this "box" then how do you explain my experience where of all the people I've known only two actually fit into it. And even they were causing some tears and creases here and there. Yes most men are physically stronger than most women, but again what does that have to do with raising children. And as for our moral duty I think the first moral duty should be to make sure every child has a loving home to begin with. I know if I were an orphan I'd care more about getting adopted period then I would about making sure those who adopted me were opposite gendered. You've also yet to show any studies to back up what your saying. At least Idea tried even though the best ones she could find merely showed that there were differences and the study concluded that it could not be determined if those differences were deficits or not. Different does not mean worse star.

Actually, I don't understand what boxes you're talking about. Feminine girls? Masculine boys? I think I addressed that . . .

As far as men's typically greater physical strength, what I'm really talking about is the basic differences between males and females, physical, mental, and emotional. It's about learning to respect the opposite sex, in spite of those differences, by modeling behavior learned at home.

 

[Autodidact]

We do you assume that I haven't?

I'm not assuming; I'm responding to the thread. Mormons have been quick to criticize me for using the same kinds of words that Mormons have used against me, first, in this thread. I suggest that you direct your primary attention to your co-religionists. Among other things, this would prevent me from having to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

Starfish's comment: Gay parents can and many do provide quality parenting. But I maintain that quality parenting from a mom and dad is better. The children grow up with a balanced view of both genders, from close loving relationships with both.



Starfish is right here Autodidact.
This species has two sexes and a child's first school is the home, thus it would be impossible to say that two loving parents one male one female is not advantageous.

No it is not impossible; it is quite possible. Here's what you do. You take a bunch of mom/dad families. Then you get a bunch of mom/mom families. You do your best to match for all other factors you can think of, such as income and education. Then you administer every test you can think of to the kids, and document every difference you can between the kids, using good protocols and blind assessment. Then you see what you find out. And what you find out is NO DETRIMENT. None. At this point we have hundreds of such studies, from many countries, and none of them have found any detriment whatsoever. It turns out that what kids really need is parenting.

However many people only have one parent, dad's up and left or whatever, so two loving parents even if both male or female is twice as good as a single loving parent (in theory)

Yes, that's a different case. Research shows that this actually is detrimental to kids.

I just think that it is important that little boys have adult males to look up to and little girls have adult females to look up to.

It is; it's not important that one of each be their parent.

I am gay as you might be aware, but even I accept that a man and a woman raising a child together is optimum in our society, but that by no way means that it should be the rule.
For it takes for granted that neither both mum and dad are sociopaths of some kind.

Each case on its own merits.

You are mistaken. Read the research.

 

[Autodidact]

I appreciate this. So much of this is simply common sense. Anyone can see that there are things a boy needs a man for, and things a girl needs a woman for. Details beyond that are not necessary, because they are obvious. As a girl, I could not talk to my Dad about everything--I needed a mom. Simple as that. My sons could not come to me over personal male matters, where they could talk to their dad.
In addition, boys need mothers as daughters need fathers. Most children are heterosexual. The day by day example and exposure to male/female relationships that they learn at home is valuable. We learn how to treat each other by watching our parents. Men are the stronger sex, yet they must learn to be respectful to women. Girls who are raised with a good dad, have higher self-esteem and tend to not gravitate to boyfriends at a too-early age.

Most of this doesn't come from any study. It's just plain old common sense. It comes from life experience of growing up and raising children. Men and women exist in this world and the proper respectful relationship between them is best learned at home.

The thing about common sense, when it comes to the real world, is that if often turns out to be wrong. That's what science was invented for; to test common sense and see whether it turns out to be correct. It turns out that in this case it wasn't.

As I said before, if your life experience doesn't include gay parents, then it cannot possibly tell you anything about gay parents.

 

[Autodidact]

Every child needs and deserves a loving, responsible mother and father, both raising him/her together. We, as adults, have the moral duty to do our best to see that that happens.

Every child deserves to be raised by loving parents who wanted, planned for and care for that child.

 

[MoonWater]

Actually, I don't understand what boxes you're talking about. Feminine girls? Masculine boys? I think I addressed that . . .

I said "feminine BOYS and masculine GIRLS"

As far as men's typically greater physical strength, what I'm really talking about is the basic differences between males and females, physical, mental, and emotional. It's about learning to respect the opposite sex, in spite of those differences, by modeling behavior learned at home.

So your saying that it's important for kids to grow up in opposite gendered homes because otherwise they will be unable to learn how to have respect for the opposite gender. You don't think it's possible for kids to learn this by seeing how their parents react towards the opposite gender outside the home or opposite gendered family members? It's not like kids spend their whole childhood inside the house. In fact I'm willing to bet that especially one a kid starts school they'll be spending most of their time OUT of the house

 

[Starfish]

The thing about common sense, when it comes to the real world, is that if often turns out to be wrong. That's what science was invented for; to test common sense and see whether it turns out to be correct. It turns out that in this case it wasn't.

As I said before, if your life experience doesn't include gay parents, then it cannot possibly tell you anything about gay parents.

I don't need to know Chinese parents to know they can be good parents. I don't have to know a Muslim family to know they are good parents. I do know adult women. I do know adult men. I do know gay men and women. I don't have to spend time in their home to understand home life. As I've said, and said, and said, I don't doubt that you are a good parent. I don't doubt that your children are well-adjusted. However, your children are lacking a father, and you set that up.

Two parents are better than one. One parent is better than none. But no woman can substitute for a father. And no man can substitute for a mother. There is no way in this world you can convince me that a boy is just as well off with two mothers as he would be with a mother and father. Again, we are measuring quality parenting against quality parenting. Men and women are different. That fact is non-negotiable. That difference is there for a purpose.

You don't need a man in your life because of your orientation. That's your choice for yourself. But you've made that choice for your children. They may have needed something different. You want your children to fit into your choice. You want to deny that you've deprived them of anything, because you love them. That's understandable. But the fact is, you have. Your kids will never know what it's like to grow up with a father. Fathers are indispensable in our society. Mothers are indispensable. Both are necessary. The loss of either is a loss to a child.

In addition to that, all children of gay parents, have a third parent floating out there somewhere. Does this matter to the child? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you've set this situation up with all the risks involved. Custody issues and rights of the bio-dad are all risks to the stability of that child's life. All bringing confusion into that child's life.

My point is that we, as adults, have to put children's needs before our own.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't need to know Chinese parents to know they can be good parents. I don't have to know a Muslim family to know they are good parents. I do know adult women. I do know adult men. I do know gay men and women. I don't have to spend time in their home to understand home life. As I've said, and said, and said, I don't doubt that you are a good parent. I don't doubt that your children are well-adjusted. However, your children are lacking a father, and you set that up.

Two parents are better than one. One parent is better than none. But no woman can substitute for a father. And no man can substitute for a mother. There is no way in this world you can convince me that a boy is just as well off with two mothers as he would be with a mother and father. Again, we are measuring quality parenting against quality parenting. Men and women are different. That fact is non-negotiable. That difference is there for a purpose.

You don't need a man in your life because of your orientation. That's your choice for yourself. But you've made that choice for your children. They may have needed something different. You want your children to fit into your choice. You want to deny that you've deprived them of anything, because you love them. That's understandable. But the fact is, you have. Your kids will never know what it's like to grow up with a father. Fathers are indispensable in our society. Mothers are indispensable. Both are necessary. The loss of either is a loss to a child.

In addition to that, all children of gay parents, have a third parent floating out there somewhere. Does this matter to the child? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you've set this situation up with all the risks involved. Custody issues and rights of the bio-dad are all risks to the stability of that child's life. All bringing confusion into that child's life.

My point is that we, as adults, have to put children's needs before our own.

And again, you seem to be assuming that all children are the same and have the exact same needs. Some children don't want to have a father. I was raised primarily by my mother, and it didn't have any negative effect on me. When my parents first got divorced, I was obviously upset as I was only seven at the time(I think) and was used to having dad around; I could at the time only see him every other week since. (not anymore, but at the time and pretty much until high school) It hasn't had any negative effects on me.

Now, here's what you're getting at. Children raised by gay parents will be different. Of course they will! It'd be stupid to think they wouldn't be. But is different really bad? I grew up deprived of a lot of things that are so-called "needs." But I didn't suffer because of it. Saying a child needs a father and mother is the same as saying a child also needs a brother if he's a boy or a sister if she's a girl, so that they could have someone roughly their age to play with all the time. Same argument. My brother was ten years older than me, and though we got along quite well, he had problems ever since junior high, and dropped out of high school. He was anything but a role model for me.

I'm different from everyone else because I was raised differently than everyone else. I didn't have this so-called "optimum." AND I TURNED OUT JUST FINE!!!!! Sure I've got my problems, but I don't think these problems have anything to do with anything, and mostly I blame them on addiction to video games, which I had ever since I can remember. (I'm twenty now, and still working on it... )

 

[McBell]

A parent is in the home, with close contact and maximum exposure to the child. Other adults in a child's life are good, but none can compare with the parents in the home. The day-in day-out relationship, there in the morning, there at night, is important to children. That's how the close bonds form and the child learns to trust, and feel important in the world.

This is one reason why divorce is so harmful to children.

You really need to get out and view life in the real world.
Your Ozzie and Harriet dream family is the exception in the real world, not the rule.