LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Riverwolf]

I didn't get that from your post. I came here to let you know not every Mormon is the way you portray them. Your response? To come after me.

Or, maybe I misinterpreted.

I agree that Auto has been degrading Mormons on this thread a lot, but I really don't blame her; her experience with them has been unpleasant at best. They're telling her that she's wrong and doing bad things simply because she's in a lesbian relationship.

I think the Mormons who don't think homosexuality is bad here should just sit back, and understand you're not all like that. And she knows it, too. But she's so passionate that she forgets to say it in her posts.

 

[McBell]

As such, the onus is on the one making the demand, not the state (and by state one is referring to the larger citizenry who compose the state).

I agree.
And thus far those wanting the government to ban same sex marriage have failed miserably.

 

[emiliano]

sorry, don't understand your post. Can you try again? Thanks.

Well, we are discussing the adoption of children by gay couples, aren’t we? What I mean is that we don’t have enough data to say that they are successful in raising normal kids, since this right was conferred to gays only recently, we can't say they are as successful, better or worst than heterosexuals, they are adopting, so we have to wait and see. Traditionally boys want to grow up and be just like daddy, and little girls want to grow up and be just like their mothers. Could this be a problem? What would they want to be when they grow up? Also the numbers present a problem as some 3% of humans are homosexuals (I am not sure about this figure), and not all of them want to adopt, this marriages are not for the purpose of establishing families.

 

[Starfish]

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.

It's the attitude that such families ("Ozzie and Harriet") are unrealistic that we stop trying to achieve them. We think they aren't real, so why try?

I'm here to tell you that they are possible. I've seen them, I've lived in them. It takes two people who put their children above themselves, and years before the children arrive of good choices, that makes it possible. This requires generations of parents teaching their children how to be good parents--the best they can be.

Our society today has taught the opposite lesson. It has taught us that these "perfect" families (and no family is perfect) are a myth. Promiscuity is inevitable. Divorce is the norm. Affairs happen. We have gradually been taught to lower our standards and expectations, hence our behavior, and our children now pay the price.

 

[Starfish]

And yours are lacking additional mothering, and you set that up.

True. Also true. This says it all. You are not open to evidence of any kind, whether from talking to such boys, meeting such families, reading the research. Even if every piece of evidence in the world was to the contrary, you would continue to hold to your false belief. And that is what is immoral about Mormonism in particular and religion in general--it habituates people to believing things without or even in defiance of the evidence. O.K., let's do that. Let's measure it. Oh yeah, a bunch of people did, and found they were functionally equivalent. But I understand that won't change your mind, because you prefer not to be confused with the facts. Correct. This is not a fact, and is quite negotiable. This is your personal opinion, based on your religious belief, with no foundation in reality whatsoever.

Did you know that in many human societies the most important man in a boy's life is his mother's brother? These are called "matrilineal" societies and are not at all rare.
They may have, but they didn't Your children may have needed three parents, or a parent who's musical, or unusually patient, or who is willing to breastfeed, or any number of things that you've chosen to deprive them of. Every family provides what it does and deprives children of everything else. The question is, does that choice affect the children negatively? This one doesn't. No, it's because I didn't. Remember, I had my kids by choice. If I thought that wouldn't be best for all, I wouldn't have done it. Sorry, not a fact, a lie. Key difference: fact/lie. Night/day. Yours will never know what it's like to grow up with two moms. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But don't let reality spoil your false beliefs. After all, you're Mormon, so you're used to believing things in defiance of the evidence.

It's a non-issue. I assure you. Not that you would believe me, or my kids, or anyone who knows anything about it.

I agree. That's why it's time for you to put aside your personal prejudice and decide what's best for the children on the basis of the facts.

One of my kids is rather confused and has issues about other parents. That's the youngest and most troubled, the one born to heterosexual parents who were not available to parent her. She doesn't know where either of them is and never will, although she was with one of them till she was 2. This is a huge issue for her and will probably never be resolved satisfactorily. This is just one of the several ways that her irresponsible heterosexual parents have caused problems for her. But it's not because she has two moms now, that is completely clear and unconfusing, a source of stability and security for her. The other two have zip issues. They know exactly who their family is, and what role their biological father has in their lives. They know that they were both planned for, wanted and loved from birth. The youngest one is understandably envious of them.

While we're on the subject of deprivation, research has shown that the average mom spends more time with her children than the average dad. There are some studies that indicate that in lesbian families, the children receive more actual parenting than in heterosexual families. That is, while there may or may not be special benefits that only dads provide, there is an actual benefit that moms tend to provide, which is time with their kids. So to whatever extent kids of lesbian families are "deprived," they also receive a benefit of which kids in straight families are "deprived." I wasn't kidding when I said your kids are deprived of having two moms. It turns out that having two moms is a good thing. But I respect your choice to raise your children in that parentally deprived environment, and will not try to use it to deprive you of the right to marry. Would be nice if you could do the same.

You continuously bring my religion into this discussion, when I have purposely kept it out. Yes, it is a great deal of who I am and what I believe, but everyone has been influenced by their religion, personal philosophies and/or belief systems, which we all have.

Another point: you also continuously compare positive parenting in gay households to irresponsible parenting in heterosexual households. Your youngest child is the victim of irresponsible and selfish people, and not because they were heterosexual. Besides, if they had been homosexual, she would not be here today.

Many children grow up to be "just fine" in any type of household. Children can be very strong and resilient little creatures. But many don't. Is the risk worth it? We set up the household that we want for ourselves, but what are the best odds for the child? The bio-dad, involved in the child's life or not, may become an issue. The child will likely want a relationship eventually. It's human nature to seek out our roots. Why set up the confusion? Do we have the right to put risks into a child's life?
I have heard the angst over having had a bad mother. I have heard many times the sadness, loss, and anger over having no father. I've never heard of anyone regretful that they only had one mom, instead of a mom and dad. Have you?

Finally to the study of two moms giving more parental time to children. What about families of two dads? You must give them equal standing in your world; however, by that study, those children are really missing out.

 

[Autodidact]

Interrupt request.

I mentioned that the lack of a man or equilivant authoritarian figure resulted in disharmony.

That does not infer at all that there are any disciplinary problems in homosexual families if at least one or more parents assumes that role.

I was merely highlighting an example of where gender or perhaps gender roles are relevant.

And therefore different-sex parent families are NOT better than same-sex parent families.

 

[Autodidact]

9-10ths, you do know you are talking about a religious organization that has been know for racism and polygamy till only the last few decades. The group only recently changes these practices when they became widely known. After looking into what the church believes, I wouldn't put to much stock in what the LDS church condems.

On the positive side, at some point in the future the LDS church can embrace gay marriage. That's one of the cool things about LDS; their doctrine is completely flexible. They can have something fundamental to their doctrine at one point, get a divine revelation (usually coincidentally just when they need it for some external reason) and throw it out the window. So political pressure on the LDS leadership is important in this struggle.

 

[Autodidact]

I didn't get that from your post. I came here to let you know not every Mormon is the way you portray them. Your response? To come after me.

Or, maybe I misinterpreted.

O.K. However, we see that in fact the position of the LDS leadership, whom I understand under your doctrine and theology have a special position of authority regarding Mormon understanding of these matters.

 

[Autodidact]

I agree that Auto has been degrading Mormons on this thread a lot, but I really don't blame her; her experience with them has been unpleasant at best. They're telling her that she's wrong and doing bad things simply because she's in a lesbian relationship.

I think the Mormons who don't think homosexuality is bad here should just sit back, and understand you're not all like that. And she knows it, too. But she's so passionate that she forgets to say it in her posts.

Mostly it's rhetorical hyperbole; trying to give them a taste of their own medicine, in the hope it will break through their smug comfort with the way they talk about others, specifically, my family.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, we are discussing the adoption of children by gay couples, aren’t we? What I mean is that we don’t have enough data to say that they are successful in raising normal kids, since this right was conferred to gays only recently, we can't say they are as successful, better or worst than heterosexuals, they are adopting, so we have to wait and see. Traditionally boys want to grow up and be just like daddy, and little girls want to grow up and be just like their mothers. Could this be a problem? What would they want to be when they grow up? Also the numbers present a problem as some 3% of humans are homosexuals (I am not sure about this figure), and not all of them want to adopt, this marriages are not for the purpose of establishing families.

But the research that we do have seems to indicate that we're doing an outstanding job. That is why every national child welfare organization, including the National Council on Adoptable Children, is in favor of gay adoption. I can tell you that when we contacted our local Department of Human Services to apply, they were thrilled to hear from us, and encouraged us to ask our friends to consider applying too. Those were our local adoption professionals.

 

[Autodidact]

It's the attitude that such families ("Ozzie and Harriet") are unrealistic that we stop trying to achieve them. We think they aren't real, so why try?

I'm here to tell you that they are possible. I've seen them, I've lived in them. It takes two people who put their children above themselves, and years before the children arrive of good choices, that makes it possible. This requires generations of parents teaching their children how to be good parents--the best they can be.

Our society today has taught the opposite lesson. It has taught us that these "perfect" families (and no family is perfect) are a myth. Promiscuity is inevitable. Divorce is the norm. Affairs happen. We have gradually been taught to lower our standards and expectations, hence our behavior, and our children now pay the price.

This includes gay as well as straight families.

 

[Autodidact]

You continuously bring my religion into this discussion, when I have purposely kept it out. Yes, it is a great deal of who I am and what I believe, but everyone has been influenced by their religion, personal philosophies and/or belief systems, which we all have.

And that's why I keep bringing it into the discussion.

Another point: you also continuously compare positive parenting in gay households to irresponsible parenting in heterosexual households. Your youngest child is the victim of irresponsible and selfish people, and not because they were heterosexual. Besides, if they had been homosexual, she would not be here today.

Exactly.

Many children grow up to be "just fine" in any type of household. Children can be very strong and resilient little creatures. But many don't. Is the risk worth it?

THERE IS NO RISK. Same-sex parenting is not bad for children. We know this now. The kids are grown. They're fine. At least as good as kids of straight families. Facts, facts, facts.

We set up the household that we want for ourselves, but what are the best odds for the child?

The best odds are two parents who want and care for the child. We know that.

The bio-dad, involved in the child's life or not, may become an issue. The child will likely want a relationship eventually. It's human nature to seek out our roots. Why set up the confusion? Do we have the right to put risks into a child's life?

As I predicted, my assurance to you that this is not a problem for actual kids in actual families did not dent your preconceived notion.

I have heard the angst over having had a bad mother. I have heard many times the sadness, loss, and anger over having no father. I've never heard of anyone regretful that they only had one mom, instead of a mom and dad. Have you?

I've never heard a child of gay parents regretful over that, and wishing they had one of each instead. Never. Not once. And I know dozens.

Finally to the study of two moms giving more parental time to children. What about families of two dads? You must give them equal standing in your world; however, by that study, those children are really missing out.

I haven't read any research on the subject. My limited personal experience of gay dads is that they do an outstanding job, not conforming to the data on straight dads. I would withold judgment till I see the research.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I would be willing to bet that many folks who have a problem with same sex couples raising children would have absolutely no problem with a Grandmother and a Mother doing the exact same thing in a household.

We really need to be careful going down this road people. What is next? Saying if a little girls mother dies it is inappropriate for the father to live alone with her? If you want to say that some parents are more qualified than others, that would be correct, but it has little to do with sexual preference of the parents.

 

[Gentoo]

Boys base their entire perception of women on mum.
Girls base their entire perception of men on dad.

If what I learned about men came from my dad, and what I learned about women from my mom, I'd be a hermit living in a cave FAR away from other human contact. It takes much more than two parents to raise a child, the old saying: "it takes a village to raise a child"? Friends, neighbors, teachers, relatives, random people on the street all have an influence on children, not just the parents.

Both sexes are equally important and thus when a child has both a man and women to learn from he/she is learning about humanity.
Heterosexual parent families are the most common multi gender type of family, thats all, nature seems to favour it

I beg to differ. In fact, the mourning dove female has nothing to do with her chicks! She lays the eggs, and the male takes over the nest, and the female goes to mate with another male. Male seahorses are the ones to carry the eggs until they hatch. There's a whole species of lizard that is entirely female too.

If you ask me, nature prefers no-parents. Insects, fish, reptiles and amphibians have been around MUCH longer than birds and mammals. They usually just lay their eggs and leave. On occasion you'll come across species that guard the eggs, but that's usually it in terms of parenting.

why argue?

You're basically asking, why change what works? Because if there was no change, there'd be no life at all. Life (in terms of modern, societal life) is based on change, it's the only constant there is. Without change, the society would stifle and eventually die.

 

[gnomon]

I'm quite sure I learned far more about men, women and relationships than just from my parents. I guess the LDS are raised without peers.

 

[Reverend Rick]

"it takes a village to raise a child"

What a pile of horse dung!

Everything else "you said" I agreed with. :yes:

 

[Tau]

And therefore different-sex parent families are NOT better than same-sex parent families.

Not better, different.

 

[Tau]

If what I learned about men came from my dad, and what I learned about women from my mom, I'd be a hermit living in a cave FAR away from other human contact. It takes much more than two parents to raise a child, the old saying: "it takes a village to raise a child"? Friends, neighbors, teachers, relatives, random people on the street all have an influence on children, not just the parents.

I am sorry to say but your parents and those other adults that are/were present in your home are your primary environmental influence, whether you realise/believe/understand it or not.

I beg to differ. In fact, the mourning dove female has nothing to do with her chicks! She lays the eggs, and the male takes over the nest, and the female goes to mate with another male. Male seahorses are the ones to carry the eggs until they hatch. There's a whole species of lizard that is entirely female too.

Don't be absurd I am discussing the nature of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, not of all creatures, they do vary you know, human nature is completely unique to humans...human nature not NATURE nature, some animals dont even have two genders....

If you ask me, nature prefers no-parents. Insects, fish, reptiles and amphibians have been around MUCH longer than birds and mammals. They usually just lay their eggs and leave. On occasion you'll come across species that guard the eggs, but that's usually it in terms of parenting.

Again, parenting is an evolutionary tactic that some but not all animals employ, nature prefers what is best for any given species, with humans that seems to be small to medium sized heterosexual families as THEY ARE THE MOST COMMON.

You're basically asking, why change what works? Because if there was no change, there'd be no life at all. Life (in terms of modern, societal life) is based on change, it's the only constant there is. Without change, the society would stifle and eventually die.

Why fix what isnt broken?

Too much change is as bad as too little.

 

[Starfish]

And that's why I keep bringing it into the discussion.

Exactly.

THERE IS NO RISK. Same-sex parenting is not bad for children. We know this now. The kids are grown. They're fine. At least as good as kids of straight families. Facts, facts, facts. The best odds are two parents who want and care for the child. We know that. As I predicted, my assurance to you that this is not a problem for actual kids in actual families did not dent your preconceived notion.
I've never heard a child of gay parents regretful over that, and wishing they had one of each instead. Never. Not once. And I know dozens.

I haven't read any research on the subject. My limited personal experience of gay dads is that they do an outstanding job, not conforming to the data on straight dads. I would withold judgment till I see the research.

As tempting as it has been, I've never brought up your atheism in this discussion. But the OP is about the LDS Church, even though many churches are of the same mind in this. As usual my religion receives the brunt of the criticism. So be it.

Of course there is risk. I've seen some of the adults who came from never-to-be-involved bio-fathers. They did not approve of their mother's decision.

Is it possible that boys raised by two mothers who intentionally omitted any man in their home, are learning that men don't matter? That is, beyond donating sperm? Men don't matter, women don't matter, as long as there are two beings in charge? Gender doesn't matter? Yet those children come with a gender. They come with all the innate identities, differences and needs.

Children learn from a father that men can be gentle and loving. That men can be safe, wise, tender, and even invincible (at least I though my dad was). That men can be strong and firm, immovable in righteousness, yet loving unconditionally. That men can be trusted to never harm or betray, yet will protect and defend in any situation. That men can weep over a sorrow or disappointment, and weep over the joys. That men can be honest beyond doubt, fair, hard-working and funny. Children can learn this from a teacher, uncle, grandpa. But they learn it best from Dad.

 

[Starfish]

I'm quite sure I learned far more about men, women and relationships than just from my parents. I guess the LDS are raised without peers.

I don't believe anyone said you only learn from your parents. But they definately have the strongest impact, or at least they should.