LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[Autodidact]

The editorial about book was showing some of the weaknesses to the claims of the book.

Or trying to. And editorial is some guy's opinion, in this case, some anti-gay guy. We wouldn't really expect him to enjoy a book on the advantages of lesbian parenting, would we? Nor did I cite that book in support of the fact that lesbian and gay parents do a good a job as straight.

As for the sperm donor people, any of them kids of same-sex parents? Wouldn't that be important in this discussion?

So I gather that you can't find a single study anywhere in the world that shows that children of heterosexual parents do better in any way than children of homosexual parents? Interesting.

However, you've already told us that mere facts will not change your opinion. I would appreciate you responding to my post regarding this attitude. The term for this is "close-minded."

 

[MoonWater]

More:
Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples

Except that article is comparing homosexual relationships in general to married heterosexual couples and thus is not an accurate comparison to draw conclusions about homosexual and heterosexual relationships. In order to do that the study would have to either compare all kinds of homosexual relationships with all kinds of heterosexual relationships, or limit the study to a comparison between MARRIED homosexual couples and married heterosexual couples only.

 

[Starfish]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This says it well.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why
Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough![/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.[/FONT]

 

[Starfish]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Continued . . .[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.[/FONT]

 

[MoonWater]

I'm afraid you did not read all the links, and simply dismissed them on their appearance. My post was about the potential complications and risks placed into a child's life.

Heterosexual parenting has "the potential complications and risks" of unwanted chrildren, so shall we bar them from having kids too? The thing is star there are "potential complications and risks" for EVERY child regardless of who their family is or how they were born. Are you suggesting keeping all children inside a bubble to avoid these complications and risks?

There is evidence that adult children of sperm donations are not in favor of it. These are real people who described their experience. They weren't studied or researched, but they just shared their feelings.

"They may also not be representative of feelings of DI youth and adults in general. The study sample was small (16 individuals) and had been recruited through DI support networks, thus potentially biasing the sample toward those with negative experiences and a need for support. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, participants discovered their origins as adults and often in difficult circumstances (e.g. divorce or death). In contrast, it is likely that learning of one’s origins early on (e.g. pre-school), in positive circumstances and with donor information readily available, will help to dispel many of the negative feelings experienced by Turner and Coyle’s study participants. "

This is the last piece of the article YOU cited. Do you really think that citing the experiences of 16 individuals is enough to draw conclusions about a group that includes at least thousands of people?

 

[Storm]

[plaintive whine] Can we please stop posting entire multi-post articles? Links will do fine. [/plaintive whine]

 

[Starfish]

Or trying to. And editorial is some guy's opinion, in this case, some anti-gay guy. We wouldn't really expect him to enjoy a book on the advantages of lesbian parenting, would we? Nor did I cite that book in support of the fact that lesbian and gay parents do a good a job as straight.

As for the sperm donor people, any of them kids of same-sex parents? Wouldn't that be important in this discussion?

So I gather that you can't find a single study anywhere in the world that shows that children of heterosexual parents do better in any way than children of homosexual parents? Interesting.

However, you've already told us that mere facts will not change your opinion. I would appreciate you responding to my post regarding this attitude. The term for this is "close-minded."

Point taken. But I see equally closed minds between us. Any supportive opinions I post are quickly dismissed as "anti-gay".
I'm reading your research. And I'm searching for additional research. I'm finding both sides represented, but many of the experts agree that there are flaws in ALL the research. This is a highly charged subject, and it's difficult to separate emotion from facts to produce truly fair and unbiased studies. I do see that there is a small increase of homosexual offspring, compared to heterosexual offspring, of gay parents, and increased sexual activity among the children.

What I haven't seen you respond to is the matter of the third parent. Your children may be "fine". But do they represent ALL children fathered by a "friend", sperm bank, or former partner? Where is the long-term research on how that affects children?

 

[Starfish]

Heterosexual parenting has "the potential complications and risks" of unwanted chrildren, so shall we bar them from having kids too? The thing is star there are "potential complications and risks" for EVERY child regardless of who their family is or how they were born. Are you suggesting keeping all children inside a bubble to avoid these complications and risks?

My point is to place the least amount of potential risks into a child's life as possible. Unwanted children are a result of irresponsibility, not heterosexuality. Children produced for a homosexual couple must be planned, to be sure, but this requires a third parent, without exception. This brings complication and potential risk into a child's life.

"They may also not be representative of feelings of DI youth and adults in general. The study sample was small (16 individuals) and had been recruited through DI support networks, thus potentially biasing the sample toward those with negative experiences and a need for support. In addition, and perhaps most importantly, participants discovered their origins as adults and often in difficult circumstances (e.g. divorce or death). In contrast, it is likely that learning of one’s origins early on (e.g. pre-school), in positive circumstances and with donor information readily available, will help to dispel many of the negative feelings experienced by Turner and Coyle’s study participants. "

This is the last piece of the article YOU cited. Do you really think that citing the experiences of 16 individuals is enough to draw conclusions about a group that includes at least thousands of people?

Yes, I'm aware of what it said. But nevertheless, these people did not favor it and this risk exists for ALL children of DI. I'm purposely trying to find middle-of-the ground, unbiased information. It's very difficult. So I'm posting articles that seem the most fair to both sides. That's why some of you think my sites are in favor of gay parenting, when, if you really read them, you can see problems.

 

[Autodidact]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This says it well.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Love Isn’t Enough: 5 Reasons Why
Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

except that it isn't an assumption. It's a conclusion based on the evidence, which is the exact opposite of an assumption.[/FONT]

All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father.

Dr. Hansen: Can you cite any research in support of this false assertion?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.[/FONT]

So you say, but is this true? Is this what actual research actually shows? [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

Does this make any difference to the children? It does not.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:[/FONT]

First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

Sex stereo-type much, Dr. Hansen? What a pile of baloney. Got any research in support of this ridiculous sex-role stereotype? Doubt it.

Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

so therefore, daughters of lesbians should in fact be less empathetic and more narcisstic. Here's an idea, let's look at the research and see if it's true. Oh, wait, it isn't. It's false. So stop saying it.

Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

And we should be able to see the difference in outcome, right? It should be measurable. These men should not do as well as sons of straight families. Is this true? No, it's not. Maybe there's something wrong with your assumptions, Dr. Hansen.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.[/FONT]

Now this is what I mean by an outright lie. Why would you give any credence to someone this dishonest. This is the same scummy, lying tactic that these anti-gay bigots use over and over. They take data about single heterosexuals and use it to smear lesbians. It really makes me angry, and it should make you just as angry. Would you like someone to use data on FLDS boys to smear your parenting?[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls.[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]..blah blah blah.[/quote] Same thing. If there were any truth to any of this, we would see the results in reality. You know, reality, that place where are the non-crazy, non-prejudiced people live.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.[/FONT]

What a gay-hating pile of garbage. No, it doesn't. It implicit message isn't that any choice is O.K., it's that this choice is O.K. How stupid would you have to be to confuse one with all?[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]

There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

Oscar Mayer Baloney! Think about what she's saying here. Homosexuality is so fabulous, so utterly fun and superior, that if we let people do it, many more will choose it! Do you believe that? If so, no wonder you're so insecure about this issue.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.[/FONT]

No, it won't. Ever heard the term "slippery slope?"

btw I think it's pretty funny when Mormons try to act horrified about the idea that society would accept polygamy.

"Licensed Psychologist" Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D. was not based on her own research nor was her work published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Instead, her analysis of research by other scientists represents another step in the far right#s campaign to blur the distinction between real science and the kind practiced by this self-styled "cultural commentator."

from here.

so, as I was saying, you have no research whatever in support of anything that you or "Dr." Hansen are saying?

So far we've got:

Gay parenting is fine for kids side: Too many studies to count, had to be broken up into several posts.
Gay parenting is not good for kids side: 0. Goose egg. Bupkis. Nada.

Hmmm...what should we conclude from this?

 

[Autodidact]

Opinion vs. Science Dr. Hansen's article was fortunately labeled "opinion," since none of her remarks are based upon psychological science. In fact, her entire article is based upon beliefs and values that have little been influenced by psychological research or theory. One would hardly know she is a clinical psychologist, given her presumptions that are flawed. It appears that she engages in reverse reasoning: "I believe that a child should have a mother and father as parents, so let me design some reasoning to support this thesis."
Dr. Hansen's reasoning is flawed on 4 fundamental points. First, she engages in sexism by presuming that mothers are primarily permissive and fathers are primarily limit setters. Clinical psychologists spend much of their time dealing with patients who have been psychologically wounded by the conditional love of their mothers, and the passive and uninvolved relationships with their fathers. Alternatively, and even more destructively, we treat adult children who had unattached mothers. One of the single most destructive environmental influences a child can have during their development is lack of attachment (Bolby's research shows lifelong interpersonal disability for children who were raised by their primary caretaker's inability to attend to the emotional nuances of an infant's behavior). While it is true that traditionally such attachment experiences inhere in the mother's behavior, this is a sociological factor (that mother's are identified by society as the primary caretaker of the infant) that is learned behavior based upon expectation and social demands. There is nothing preventing a male from performing similar functions.
Second, she engages in artificial bifurcation of parenting functions (one as being unconditional love and the other as conditional love). Certainly children need both love and limit-setting. But the kind of bifurcation Dr. Hansen suggests could easily result in "splitting," a psychological defense mechanism whereby the child begins to identify one parent as "all good" and the other as "all bad." In fact, the best parenting involves both love and rule-setting behavior on the part of both parent. It is the ability of the parent to exhibit both kinds of behavior that predicts mental health in the child. So gender is not the relevant variable; parenting behavior is the relevant variable to examine.
Third, Dr. Hansen draws upon the developmental aspects of a child's growth to predict that an infant needs a mother more and an older child needs a father more. Developmental research indeed predicts that a child's needs change over time. This only makes sense. An infant is totally dependent on the caretaker for basic nurturance, comfort, and security. These functions depend on attachment and the observational skills and commitment of the caretaker, rather than being gender dependent. Developmental psychology research suggests that the changing needs of the child demand changing behaviors on the caretaker. These functions are not gender specific. A father can soothe a child, and a mother can provide disapproval for dangerous and inappropriate behavior. It is the skill of the parent in matching guidance and nurturance behaviors to the developmental needs of the child that predict success. This again is not gender specific. It is skill specific.
Lastly, Dr. Hansen begs the question when she posits that same-sex parents will increase the sexual confusion of the child they raise. Her argument presumes that sexual orientation is a lifestyle choice made by individuals based upon learning experiences in society. The research does not support this notion. Research clearly indicates that sexual orientation is not learned behavior. Nothing "makes you" gay, other than genetic influences. The research on "sexual re-orientation" comes primarily from prison settings, using aversive conditioning techniques. This research base provides clear results. The reasoning is that learned behavior can be unlearned. Large groups of individuals, mostly men in prison, have undergone research. They are presented with pictures of nude men or boys. They have been connected to plethesmographs that measure engorgement of the penis. As the penis begins to engorge, the research subject is electrically shocked. Repeated pairings of arousal from watching nude males, to subsequent electric shock, eventually results in suppression of the erotic response. However, invariably, within two weeks the erotic response returns. This is not the case with other, truly learned behaviors. Spontaneous reversal of the newly conditioned response rarely is over-ridden without new conditioning experiences: except when the behavior (in this case, sexual arousal) is not learned behavior at all but basic biological processes. We like to think, as advanced humans with high-order cognitive powers, that most of our behavior is choice-based. This gives us a sense of freedom. However, research clearly indicates that much of our behavior is biologically driven. We are not as free as we would like to presume.
The real debate here should focus on what the issue really is about: values. Dr. Hansen values having a male and a female as parents for her child. There is nothing wrong with this belief system. It is what most people believe and value. However, values are about what you want and what you find meaningful in life. There is no "science" to which one should have to submit their values for validation that their values are the correct ones to hold. Rather, this "appeal to authority" logical fallacy represents insecurity and what science is precisely designed to rule out: bias and personal expectation. There is no scientific evidence that same-sex parenting is harmful. Dr. Hansen may disapprove of same-sex parenting as not in her value system, but she should clearly put forth that this is based on her personal preferences and bias (not on the science of psychology she presumably studied to obtain her Ph.D.).
Thomas Marra, Ph.D.
​

 

[Autodidact]

My point is to place the least amount of potential risks into a child's life as possible. Unwanted children are a result of irresponsibility, not heterosexuality. Children produced for a homosexual couple must be planned, to be sure, but this requires a third parent, without exception. This brings complication and potential risk into a child's life.



Yes, I'm aware of what it said. But nevertheless, these people did not favor it and this risk exists for ALL children of DI. I'm purposely trying to find middle-of-the ground, unbiased information. It's very difficult. So I'm posting articles that seem the most fair to both sides. That's why some of you think my sites are in favor of gay parenting, when, if you really read them, you can see problems.

No you're not. You're posting biased, anti-gay opinion pieces from right-wing anti-gay hate sites. You haven't given us a single article from a single scientific journal that supports your assertions. Not one.

 

[McBell]

Because of the Supreme Courts' ruling in Roe v. Wade which is another illustration of Judicial overreach and a good example of the societal chaos that erupts when law/rights are not based on popular will.

Majority rules is not a legitimate legal argument.

Do you disagree with this idea: "Laws and rights claims need to reflect popular will not the penchants of the few alone" ?

yes, i disagree with majority rules.

Is it your idea that a marriage is only a marriage if recognized by the state so that any religious marriage ceremony isn't actually a marriage ceremony? If so, I understand your idea, but I don't think all would agree.

Marriage is a legal contract.
All the ceremony, ritual, fluff and glitter that surrounds marriage is nothing more that window dressing.
ESPECIALLY when you are talking about the legality of marriage.

The purpose of Proposition 8 is to overturn the California Supreme Court's declaration that there is a right to homosexual marriage.

The sole purpose of Proposition 8 is to prevent same sex marriage.
Funny how you quibble over the semantics.

 

[Sententia]

No you're not. You're posting biased, anti-gay opinion pieces from right-wing anti-gay hate sites. You haven't given us a single article from a single scientific journal that supports your assertions. Not one.

The LDS view and most religious views on homosexual relationships are immoral and disrespectful.

In the USA extra rights are obtained by marriage. Denying those rights becuase of sexual preference is wrong.

If the sanctity of marriage is in question an equivalent union that bestows the same rights upon same sex couples as it does upon differing sex couples must be formed in answer to this inequality.

The fact that heterosexual couple MAY produce children after banging is irrelevant as some do not or will not and still enjoy said rights.

In short these people are prejudiced, biased and thrusting and forcing their relgious beliefs on others and arguing that they are correct. They are wrong. They should be used to it.

 

[Watchmen]

The LDS view and most religious views on homosexual relationships are immoral and disrespectful.

In the USA extra rights are obtained by marriage. Denying those rights becuase of sexual preference is wrong.

If the sanctity of marriage is in question an equivalent union that bestows the same rights upon same sex couples as it does upon differing sex couples must be formed in answer to this inequality.

The fact that heterosexual couple MAY produce children after banging is irrelevant as some do not or will not and still enjoy said rights.

In short these people are prejudiced, biased and thrusting and forcing their relgious beliefs on others and arguing that they are correct. They are wrong. They should be used to it.

Please don't stereotype. Not all LDS are as you paint them to be.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't care what the LDS church thinks. I don't care if they disagree with homosexual marriage. They have a right to cast their vote based on what they think is right, however warped it might be. We should not force our own views on them simply because we believe them to be right, and I know there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual marriage or homosexual adoption.

But do we have the right to prevent the LDS church members from expressing their views simply because we don't agree? If we do that, we're no better than them. Is that what we want?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Please don't stereotype. Not all LDS are as you paint them to be.

Maybe BalanceFX could clarify whether "these people" means LDS Church members generally, or just the members of the Church leadership who produced the letter.

But do we have the right to prevent the LDS church members from expressing their views simply because we don't agree? If we do that, we're no better than them. Is that what we want?

Personally, it's not what I want. All I want is the right to express my own views as well, which include certain views about the LDS Church's stated position in the letter from the OP.

"You're wrong" isn't the same as "shut up".

 

[Magic Man]

But do we have the right to prevent the LDS church members from expressing their views simply because we don't agree? If we do that, we're no better than them. Is that what we want?

No, we don't have the right to prevent them from that. I don't want to prevent them from expressing their opinions. I want to prevent them from imposing their ideas and morality on everyone else, regardless of their religion, through law.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't care what the LDS church thinks. I don't care if they disagree with homosexual marriage. They have a right to cast their vote based on what they think is right, however warped it might be. We should not force our own views on them simply because we believe them to be right, and I know there's nothing wrong with homosexuality or homosexual marriage or homosexual adoption.

Of course they have the right to be wrong, we all do. The purpose of forums like this one, and public debate on the subject, is to persuade them otherwise.

But do we have the right to prevent the LDS church members from expressing their views simply because we don't agree? If we do that, we're no better than them. Is that what we want?

Who has suggested that they not express their views. What is being suggested is that their views are mistaken, which is quite different.

 

[Orontes]

Last time I checked, 4 was greater than 3.

It is, and 39 is greater than 4.

And what bearing do the actions of state legislatures outside California have on California-specific law?

Under the Common Law Tradition, Courts typically look to the rulings of other Courts on similar issues. This includes across state lines

And these rights did not appear by "fiat". They appeared based on the application of the democratically-ratified California State Constitution. To disregard the State Constitution would be making things appear (or in this case, disappear) by fiat.

The California State Constitution does not mention any right to Gay Marriage. The four judges ruled there is such a right. The Judiciary is not where rights are created. Rights are the product of popular will via a ratification process. If judges declare there is a right to some thing independent of popular will then they are doing so by simple assertion. This is what by fiat entails. Rights must reflect popular will or there is a usurpation of the democratic process.

Same-sex marriage is addressed by the California Constitution just as much as strangulation is in criminal law, even though you likely won't find the word "strangulation" anywhere in the law itself. When the law covers a high-level concept, it implicitly covers all lower-level applications of that concept.

Strangulation isn't addressed in the California State Constitution. There is no right to or concerning strangulation.

No, but like same-sex marriage, there is the responsibility in the California Constitution for the California state government to dole out the privilege of drivers licences on equal terms if it chooses to give the privilege to some citizens or groups of citizens.

Equity arguments require similar situations. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are not similarly situated: one can produce people the other cannot.

And again, not all heterosexual marriages can or will produce children. In that regard, a same-sex marriage is similiarily situated with a marriage between an infertile heterosexual couple.

Laws are not typically legislated from the margins, though they may, provided there is a popular will to do so. Equity claims are based off of general positioning. Heterosexual marriage has the potential to produce. Homosexual marriages do not.

It's also based on the idea that parents are identified by marriage and not by parentage itself, which to me seems absurd.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

- if the state institutes a home owner benefit in order to increase the number of home owners in some area from 1,000,000 to 1,500,000, the demonstrated vested interest is in the 500,000, not the 1,000,000.

- if the state institutes a home owner benefit to prevent the number of home owners from dropping from 1,000,000 to 800,000, the demonstrated vested interest is in the 200,000, not the 800,000.

State benefits do not operate off of target numbers. They are generally applied. State sanction of marriage is not area specific, but state wide.

Any government policy or benefit that, at its core, says "we approve of what you're doing and want you to keep doing it, despite the fact that you'd do it no matter what" is a bad policy. It's a waste of money, effort and liberty (since every law represents some constraint on liberty, however small) on a program with no purpose whatsoever.

Your sense of waste is not the issue. If you feel the state should not endorse marriage then you should work to see it overturned through the democratic process.

You've stated that you consider more citizens to be a benefit for its own sake. You haven't adequately explained why you believe this to be so.

I haven't made any personal observations on the issue. I have stated that from a state's perspective having citizens is a good thing, the reason being if there are no people the state would cease to exist.

And increase the demand on services at the same time. Citizens represent a source of revenue to government, but they also represent the costs a government incurs. Try again: why would more citizens always be a good thing for a government's coffers?

Demands on services and costs are relative and do not speak to the point that a state cannot exist without people and that people are the base by and through which revenue derives. In general, more citizens is a good thing for government coffers because government coffers depend on citizens and citizens eventually die.

The state has a demonstrable interest in ensuring that the Capitol Building doesn't fall down. Should it be structurally reinforced regardless of whether the need to do so exists?

If the state has a demonstrable interest in ensuring the State Capital Building doesn't fall down, then it should pass laws making sure that any building must meet the proper building codes. This would be prudent independent of a given builder's competence.

My point is that the purpose of government laws and actions is to create desired effects for society, not to endorse what the government as some sort of entity considers to be good or bad.

For a free people: the government is construed by and through the society: one is a reflection of the other. The government/society has an interest in continuing. State endorsements of things reflect that interest.

So... let's see what you're saying: in cases where a child is raised by a couple that includes at least one parent who's not biologically related to the child in question, marriage helps to foster responsibility and a stable family environment, which is beneficial to society by reducing the number of feral children.

The bizarre nature of the "feral children" argument aside, this seems like a check mark in the same-sex marriage column. After all, the feral children who are products of opposite-sex marriages in the normal way are already protected by child abandonment laws that are linked to parenthood. It seems that it's those poor feral children from homes where one of the parents isn't biologically related to the child are the ones who would benefit from this sort of measure.

No, that isn't what I said. What I said was if someone marries they can be held responsible for the children of the household.

As far as stability: parents: single, gay, straight etc are preferable to children without someone to care from them. If you don't believe children should have parents that is fine, but the point was society in general has held that children with parents is better than not. Historically this has not always been the case.

 

[Magic Man]

Strangulation isn't addressed in the California State Constitution. There is no right to or concerning strangulation.

And yet, I'd bet that if I strangle someone in California, I'd be arrested. Funny, isn't it?

Equity arguments require similar situations. Heterosexual and homosexual marriages are not similarly situated: one can produce people the other cannot.

And? How is that a relevant distinction? I know, I know...I've heard your "The government supports marriage because it produces more citizens" argument. I'd like to hear something that makes sense, though.