LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Riverwolf]

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

There's a difference between the way things should be and the way things are.

 

[Starfish]

There's a difference between the way things should be and the way things are.

Can't disagree with you there. Unfortunately.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not to mention everyone has different views on what should be.

Who's to say who's right?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

You know adult children of two-parent families?

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.

I think that what they learn is:
There are all kinds of families. What matters is loving and caring for each other.
People can make their own life decision and choices.
It's O.K. to do things that society frowns on, if you know in your heart it's right.
Families matter. Your family is the people you love and live with.
And stuff like that.

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.

Some do. Some learn that it's O.K. to hit a woman, or it's more important to do what you want than take care of your family, or that alcoholism is horrible, or that when you're tired of your wife you leave her for a younger woman, or all kinds of different things. Because men can be all those things. They can also be cruel, callous, screwed-up, violent, criminal and all kind of other things. Just like women. Idealizing them doesn't shed any light on the question.

 

[Starfish]

You know adult children of two-parent families?

I think that what they learn is:
There are all kinds of families. What matters is loving and caring for each other.
People can make their own life decision and choices.
It's O.K. to do things that society frowns on, if you know in your heart it's right.
Families matter. Your family is the people you love and live with.
And stuff like that.

Some do. Some learn that it's O.K. to hit a woman, or it's more important to do what you want than take care of your family, or that alcoholism is horrible, or that when you're tired of your wife you leave her for a younger woman, or all kinds of different things. Because men can be all those things. They can also be cruel, callous, screwed-up, violent, criminal and all kind of other things. Just like women. Idealizing them doesn't shed any light on the question.

Here you go again. I am not talking about disfunctional fathers and you know it. I said to compare Quality Parenting, remember? The men you describe are irresponsible, selfish, immature, and inexcusable. This has nothing to do with their orientation. I hope you're not teaching your children that men have a tendency to be like this. This is exactly why we have the huge responsibility to choose our spouses carefully and wisely, because we are choosing our children's other parent. This is why WE must be the kind of person that a good/honorable person will want to be with, again to give our children the best parents possible. It's all part of our personal choices in life. They all affect our children deeply.

Have you been closely exposed to the type of men you describe in your last paragraph? I hope not. No child should be subjected to that. We adults must protect them from any form of evil. But deliberately cutting all men out of the family, CAN send the wrong message, especially to boys. No, on second thought, to girls just as much.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think Auto has trouble expressing her views and being specific, which is why you're having trouble accepting her view, Starfish. While I do agree with Auto on this, she's really not doing a good job defending her views, at least from what I've read. Sorry, Auto, but simple passion doesn't get the message across these days. :sorry1:

I think what she's getting at is that the so-called "optimum" isn't possible because everyone's different(not to mention it's simply a point of view, not a fact), and I see no reason to strive for it unless we want all children to end up exactly the same, which doesn't sound like a desirable future to me. I think giving different children different backgrounds will help in the long run towards acceptance.

 

[Starfish]

I think Auto has trouble expressing her views and being specific, which is why you're having trouble accepting her view, Starfish. While I do agree with Auto on this, she's really not doing a good job defending her views, at least from what I've read. Sorry, Auto, but simple passion doesn't get the message across these days. :sorry1:

I think what she's getting at is that the so-called "optimum" isn't possible because everyone's different(not to mention it's simply a point of view, not a fact), and I see no reason to strive for it unless we want all children to end up exactly the same, which doesn't sound like a desirable future to me. I think giving different children different backgrounds will help in the long run towards acceptance.

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying and I appreciate your effort to help. But it sounds to me as we should quit trying to give our kids the very best because the best doesn't exist? It's easy to excuse poor parenting and poor examples to children if we convince ourselves that "Ozzie and Harriet" never existed and never will.

It does exist, for I've seen it. I've lived it. Children born into stable loving homes with a mom and dad, married, and committed forever to each other. Where the parents, mom and dad, nuture, love, and teach their children how to behave as adult men and women. This is the best environment for children. This is the traditional nucleus family throughout history in all major societies. And within this basic framework, then we can add all the diversities that enrich society, such as culture, religion, ethnicity, etc.

If, as you say, it benefits society for children to come from different backgrounds, (and I don't think you're talking about culture, nationality, etc.), then which children would you put in the non-optimum home? Which children would you deprive a father, or a mother?

Circumstances and tragedies happen and children lose parents, as Auto and I did. Then we just do the best we can. Then relatives step in and try to fill the void. But we don't set up this up deliberately. Do we?

 

[Storm]

What Auto is trying to get across, Starfish, is that every reputable study finds that children of same-sex parents do just as well as those of heterosexual couples. IOW, the one-dad, one-mom model ISN'T "optimal", it's just what works for YOU.

 

[McBell]

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying and I appreciate your effort to help. But it sounds to me as we should quit trying to give our kids the very best because the best doesn't exist? It's easy to excuse poor parenting and poor examples to children if we convince ourselves that "Ozzie and Harriet" never existed and never will.

It does exist, for I've seen it. I've lived it. Children born into stable loving homes with a mom and dad, married, and committed forever to each other. Where the parents, mom and dad, nuture, love, and teach their children how to behave as adult men and women. This is the best environment for children. This is the traditional nucleus family throughout history in all major societies. And within this basic framework, then we can add all the diversities that enrich society, such as culture, religion, ethnicity, etc.

If, as you say, it benefits society for children to come from different backgrounds, (and I don't think you're talking about culture, nationality, etc.), then which children would you put in the non-optimum home? Which children would you deprive a father, or a mother?

Circumstances and tragedies happen and children lose parents, as Auto and I did. Then we just do the best we can. Then relatives step in and try to fill the void. But we don't set up this up deliberately. Do we?

Problem here is that you have nothing but your opinion to support that the "Ozzie and Harriet" family is the "perfect" or even "ideal" family.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't disagree that we should give our children the best we can offer. This "optimum" you speak of does exist as you've seen it, but it's not as common as you believe, nor is it always the "optimum;" only in your case it is.

The only optimum I believe in in terms of raising children is the loving environment that is fun, disciplined, educational, healthy, and eventually(I stress eventually) insecure. (need to teach children once they get older to let go of security, so they don't end up like me. That's just my opinion, though) Why can't same-sex couples supply this as much as different-sex couples? What can a mother give that a father can't give equally and vice-versa. So far you haven't given any tangible things to support that part save for things that only comply with fictional stereotypes.

 

[Autodidact]

Here you go again. I am not talking about disfunctional fathers and you know it. I said to compare Quality Parenting, remember? The men you describe are irresponsible, selfish, immature, and inexcusable. This has nothing to do with their orientation. I hope you're not teaching your children that men have a tendency to be like this. This is exactly why we have the huge responsibility to choose our spouses carefully and wisely, because we are choosing our children's other parent. This is why WE must be the kind of person that a good/honorable person will want to be with, again to give our children the best parents possible. It's all part of our personal choices in life. They all affect our children deeply.

My point is that if you're being objective and scientific (which is of course the best way to get at the truth) you have to include in the group "fathers" all the fathers, including not only the ideal ones, but the mediocre and terrible ones as well. Sure, the ideal dad and ideal mom are great, but in the real world we have all kinds of moms and dads. So the question is, when you take all the mom/dad families, with all kinds of dads, and put a number on their "parenting quality," say you get 57.5. (This is an arbitrary and ridiculous example, just to get my point across.) And if you do the same thing to all the lesbian families, you get around 57. 5. They average out to be functionally equivalent. And when you say, in effect, "I don't care about the facts, I just 'know' that families with dads are better, and there is no information you could possibly give me that would change my mind," you are demonstrating the epitome of a closed mind and anti-scientific mentality. Which, frankly, is one of my pet peeves.

You do meet some non-religious people with the same infuriating mind-set, mostly New Age types, who are equally frustrating, but it is an attitude that many religious people have. And I content it's because someone who views the world primarily from a religious perspective does not value or understand science and its importance in getting at the truth. Science is nothing but a method, a method that has been proven to work, and it's a method for preventing us from lying to ourselves. So when you reject data in favor of common sense, you are (in this instance) rejecting the best method we have for keeping ourselves honest.

That's why I say, in all seriousness, it's immoral. Because truth is central to any coherent morality. And when someone is willing to get casual and careless about the truth, that to me is fundamentally immoral. Not having anal sex, not one man loving another man, but lack of willingness to be rigorous in pursuit of the truth.

For example, if the research showed that gay parents do a lousy job and screw their kids up, I would accept that fact and probably not have had kids. That's because I care profoundly about the truth. My attitude and value-system is fundamentally scientific.

Further, doing this actually gives the straight families the benefit of the doubt, because to compare apples to apples (intact two-parent families) you have to exclude a huge number of straight "family" situations that don't exist in the gay community, which is all of those in which the child was not planned for or wanted. I believe this represents something like 1/3 kids of heterosexuals that you leave out of your study, to be "fair" to the straight people. If you go one by one, and compare all the kids of heterosexuals to all the kids of lesbians, the lesbian families outperform the straight families dramatically.

Have you been closely exposed to the type of men you describe in your last paragraph? I hope not. No child should be subjected to that. We adults must protect them from any form of evil. But deliberately cutting all men out of the family, CAN send the wrong message, especially to boys. No, on second thought, to girls just as much.

Of course, we all have. Well, I work at a non-profit social service agency, so every day I hear about drunks, schizophrenics, and a lot of people who have screwed up theirs and their children's lives. It's common for us to get an intake from a 23-year old with 3 kids, oldest one 7, 3 different dads, who comes to us for custody of the youngest, whose dad is in jail. But sure, I've met all kinds of dads and all kinds of moms, from great to horrible, haven't you? Again, take my youngest. If her birth-mom is to be believed, her dad was an anonymous rapist. I certainly don't see homosexuality as at the root of the world's problems, that's for sure.

But that's no reason to leave men out of the picture. Some men are great. Some of the greatest people I know are men. I don't go by gender, I go by quality. I try to keep my kids around good people of all genders, sexual preferences and races, don't you?

 

[Autodidact]

Starfish: So, those adults you were talking about who grew up without dads were NOT kids of lesbians or gay men, right? So why the heck did you bring them up? It's so misleading as to be dishonest, and it drives me nuts. You can't distinguish between a one-parent family and a two-parent family? Or is it your habit to play fast and loose with the facts?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying and I appreciate your effort to help. But it sounds to me as we should quit trying to give our kids the very best because the best doesn't exist? It's easy to excuse poor parenting and poor examples to children if we convince ourselves that "Ozzie and Harriet" never existed and never will.

It does exist, for I've seen it. I've lived it. Children born into stable loving homes with a mom and dad, married, and committed forever to each other. Where the parents, mom and dad, nuture, love, and teach their children how to behave as adult men and women. This is the best environment for children. This is the traditional nucleus family throughout history in all major societies. And within this basic framework, then we can add all the diversities that enrich society, such as culture, religion, ethnicity, etc.

If, as you say, it benefits society for children to come from different backgrounds, (and I don't think you're talking about culture, nationality, etc.), then which children would you put in the non-optimum home? Which children would you deprive a father, or a mother?

Circumstances and tragedies happen and children lose parents, as Auto and I did. Then we just do the best we can. Then relatives step in and try to fill the void. But we don't set up this up deliberately. Do we?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I think I've been extremely clear, so much so that you will find this post annoyingly redundant. What I'm saying is that straight does not equal better, it equals the same quality. Some straight families are better than some gay families, some gay families are better, and on average, if you compare intact, two-parent families, they're about the same. There is no advantage to having each parent be a different sex.

Obviously, the kids I would put in gay homes are the kids of gay people, and the kids I would put in straight homes are the kids of gay people.

Of course, in my dream world I would not have to put any kids in the homes of people who would indoctrinate them in religious "thinking," but that would be immoral of me to discriminate on the basis of my personal values, so I would never do it.

 

[MoonWater]

Hey star if you won't take our word for it what about the American Psychological association(APA)

I'VE HEARD PASTORS AND POLITICIANS SAY THAT RESEARCH SHOWS CHILDREN DO BEST WITH A MOTHER AND A FATHER. IS THAT ACCURATE?

Marriage equality and same-gender parenting are currently hot topics of conversation in the United States. The question of whether children are better off with parents of the same or different genders is a valid one. It is also an area in which distortion and misinterpretation of existent research studies is most blatant. The problem is so widespread that the American Psychological Association addressed the distortion in detail. Its statement is quoted in its entirety in the following paragraphs.
"The American Psychological Association has found that groups opposing marriage rights for same-sex couples repeatedly mischaracterize the implications of the existing scientific research for public policy on gay and lesbian parenting. They do so by relying on studies that simply do not address gay and lesbian parents and their children, because the research that has directly studied gay and lesbian parents and their children has not found any evidence to justify discrimination against them. Opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples argue that children without both a mother and father have poorer physical and mental health, poorer academic achievement, greater likelihood of substance abuse, higher risk of suicide, and greater criminal propensity. The studies they cite, however, examined children of divorced parents and of single parents, and thus support the conclusion that -- all else being equal -- children fare better when raised by two parents than by one.
he following examples of how opponents of civil marriage for same-sex couples mischaracterize research are illustrative. For instance, opponents of same-sex marriage rights cite Amato (1991), for the proposition that children need both a mother and a father and that any development that weakens the traditional man/woman family is likely to increase children's risks of mental illness and poor educational attainment, among other things. But Amato's conclusion is that children with divorced parents are likely to score lower in various measures (including academic achievement) than children with continuously married parents. Amato's focus is research on the effects of divorce. He does not review studies that compared children of heterosexual parents with children of gay parents, and it is inappropriate to rely on his meta-analysis to draw the conclusion that children of married or committed same-sex couples are in any way disadvantaged compared to the children of married or committed different-sex couples.(continued on site under question number 8 for those who are interested What the Science Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality)

And from their official site, some highlights of their resolution on the topic of homosexual parenting.

WHEREAS APA supports policy and legislation that promote safe, secure, and nurturing environments for all children (DeLeon, 1993, 1995; Fox, 1991; Levant, 2000);


WHEREAS Discrimination against lesbian and gay parents deprives their children of benefits, rights, and privileges enjoyed by children of heterosexual married couples;


WHEREAS some jurisdictions prohibit gay and lesbian individuals and same-sex couples from adopting children, notwithstanding the great need for adoptive parents (Lofton v. Secretary, 2004);


WHEREAS there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children (Patterson, 2000, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999);


WHEREAS research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish (Patterson, 2004; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001);
(for the rest of it see here APA Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children)

 

[emiliano]

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.

How big a sample are we talking in this ? How many generation does it involve?
When you compared a tiny group (some 3%) of the poplulation to a much larger group ofcourse it would look better. As I said not enough data.

 

[Riverwolf]

Using that logic, the opposite cannot be said, either.

 

[emiliano]

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.

</I>
Here we go again, we are nothing like irrational animal. What doves. Seahorses , lizards etc, do got nothing that we rational being should imitate, we are humans and are influenced to imitate human behaviours, we do not react to impulses in an instinctive way as animals do.

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.

And what possible relationship can this have with human’s parenting? Contemporary human societies have nothing of the natural state they once lived.

 

[Riverwolf]

</I>
Here we go again, we are nothing like irrational animal. What doves. Seahorses , lizards etc, do got nothing that we rational being should imitate, we are humans and are influenced to imitate human behaviours, we do not react to impulses in an instinctive way as animals do.

And what possible relationship can this have with human’s parenting? Contemporary human societies have nothing of the natural state they once lived.

I beg to differ. My experience is that humans have barely evolved since we left the wilderness. We still fight over trivial things, including territory; deify or throw stones at that which we don't understand, among other things.

And just because we happen to be able to build things doesn't make us any "higher" than other animals; if anything, we are lower than them in some areas.

For example, when a human is wronged or forgotten, their first inclination is to hold a grudge, and when the cause of that wrong is seen again, violent action is again the first inclination. However, dogs don't hold grudges. When a dog is yelled at, the moment the human shows any hint of playfulness, the dog will immediately start wagging its tail and play. They instantly forgive.

Whose the more evolved?

 

[emiliano]

I beg to differ. My experience is that humans have barely evolved since we left the wilderness. We still fight over trivial things, including territory; deify or throw stones at that which we don't understand, among other things.

I think that you have the evolution thing all mixed up, and the fact that you differ from my views is that I believe in creation, human were created to be human, endowed we intelligence, reason and free choice (a free agent) to have the capacity to fight for any, a rational agent need to have the capacity to reason, it is trough reasoning that a human decides if a thing is worth a fight or not, what is trivial to you can a vital necessity to another, eg. Territorial fight, a human will reason how important a territory is, how much power it posses, analyses the situation and predict the outcome of the fight, throwing stone involves reasoning as well, there are differences in the way humans react to external stimuli, a human receives the stimuli, propose A,B,C actions, assesses the chances of success, then acts, brutes have a direct line of action, external stimuli, eg. Territorial invasion, action regardless of consequences (eg. Defeat) brutes do not understand the signals send by other brutes=> offensive action, there is no reasoning, no plan, no analysis, no assessment, no measure of possibility of success or failure, humans act as human, as reasoning intelligent beings, brutes act as brutes.

And just because we happen to be able to build things doesn't make us any "higher" than other animals; if anything, we are lower than them in some areas.

There is a reason to why humans have been able to subdue all the other creatures even though they are not the strongest or swiftest, they realised what they had and used it even against their own kind.

For example, when a human is wronged or forgotten, their first inclination is to hold a grudge, and when the cause of that wrong is seen again, violent action is again the first inclination.
However, dogs don't hold grudges. When a dog is yelled at, the moment the human shows any hint of playfulness, the dog will immediately start wagging its tail and play. They instantly forgive.

I don&#8217;t know what your experiences have been, when I was a boy I use to tease a dog that I knew was in an enclosure till it was raving mad, years later I had to pass in front of the house where this dog lived and somebody left the front gate open, it was free, as soon as it sighted me, he went for me, I still have the scares on my buttock. I was a teenage by then and had lost all interest in the stupid beast and didn&#8217;t tease it for years, I was to busy chasing teenage girls. So much for dog forgiveness, love and understanding. I was also cruel to other boys, when we grew up we became friends, we reason together, admit our wrongs and forgave each other, How is that for an example?Whose the more evolved?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly, this is why this comment was apropos: "Those who allow their personal passions to invent rights and undermine the democratic process do tend to stick together."

Yes, because any difference of opinion between you and the California Supreme Court must be a matter of them being wrong, because your superior legal interpretation is unquestionable.

There is no gay marriage right in the California Constitution. To assert one exists and demand state compliance, absent the explicit will of the majority, is to contravene democratic principles. If gay marriage advocates want legal standing then they should convince a majority of their fellow citizens and pass legislation to that effect.

The will of the majority is present in the California Constitution. To uphold a law in California that violates it would itself be undemocratic.

Same-sex marriage is not explicitly addressed in the California Constitution; neither is the requirement to have equal driver's licence qualifications for men and women. Both are included in the higher-level language of the Constitution that covers how a variety of rights and privileges are handed out.

Your comment doesn't relate to what you quote from me.

I don't think you realize what you said, then. You attributed the existence of feral children to them ending up "without parents, either through death or some other issue." You've already said that state sanction of opposite-sex marriage causes a reduction in feral children; now, the only specific cause you've given for feral children is the death of their parents. The implication, then, is that opposite-sex marriage reduces mortality of parents, but I'm still a bit fuzzy on what the mechanism for this effect might be.

It also errs on another level. The existence of a thing isn't the issue. The issue is does the state have a vested interest in a thing: vested interest is not the same as creation. For example, the state giving benefits for home ownership does not mean that no one would own homes if the state gave no benefits. It means the state sees such as beneficial to the state and promotes and fosters that thing.

It would mean that the state would see benefits in increasing home ownership. When a government doles out benefits for home ownership, it's not because they want people who would own homes anyway to know that the government approves of what they're doing; programs like that are designed to encourage more people to buy homes than would have otherwise.

This has been explained: more citizens and an enviroment for their foster.

You didn't do a very good job of explaining, then.

If we look at things in terms of costs and benefits to government, how would a deficit-budgeted government (i.e. where, on average, each taxpayer represents a net cost to the state) realize a benefit from increasing the population? More people would just help the country dig itself deeper into its hole faster.

If we look at things in terms of costs and benefits to society as a whole, how is there a clear benefit from population growth, when society's costs and benefits are subject to both economies and diseconomies of scale?

And if, for whatever reason, we accept your assessment of increase in the number of citizens as an absolute good in all cases, isn't this as strong an argument for open immigration as it is for natural population growth? After all, more citizens are better, period, right?

This is a perpetuation of an error already addressed earlier.

The principle that government programs and expenditures should be measured by their actual net effects is an error? How so?

As explained: The issue is does the state have a vested interest in a thing: vested interest is not the same as creation. For example, the state giving benefits for home ownership does not mean that no one would own homes if the state gave no benefits. It means the state sees such as beneficial to the state and promotes and fosters that thing.

The state giving benefits for home ownership means that they have deemed the increase in home ownership that those benefits would cause is a good thing. It says nothing about their approval of or the value they place on homes that people would own anyway.

Your comment doesn't connect to what you quote from me. You asked about feral children, I explained this applies to children on the margins of society. Commensurate with a marriage contract, parents are identified and held responsible from their children. Absent this legal protocol children may be abandoned etc. as has happened historically and thus left to no one's care.

That has nothing to do with marriage. In our society, the responsibilities of parenthood are tied to parenthood itself, not marriage. If an unmarried single parent were to abandon his or her child, that parent would be just as liable under the law as if a married parent were to do the same thing.

Apparently, I've hit the character limit for a post. Continued below...