LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[gnomon]

Perhaps.

My comments have been mostly concerned with rights manufacture and equity claims. What you quote from me relates to the current situation and why the two are not similarly situated and thus why the state may distinguish.

Aye. I actually believe that the state should only hold any interest in two things:

1) Filing a record of biological parents. I think every individual should be able to eventually have some form of access to information regarding their genetic heritage. Primarily for any possible medical uses that individual may need.

2) Parents and their children. No matter the sexual make-up. Our society can begin with the experiment of one or two primary guardians. This doesn't force a new expectation on current single parent households nor does it raise any issue of joint custody beyond two parties. The only interest the state has is in maintaining that the child is receiving the proper care needed.

As far as the rest.....the state has zero interest. Man and woman fall in love, move in together and maybe get married. State shouldn't care. Unless they, or anyone, is actually in the role of parenting the state should treat them as individuals. Leave all issues of private property to those couples. Only if they raise a child by whatever means, biological parents or adoption, the states only interest is the welfare of that child.

Now that's just an initial concept. I don't spend any time going beyond that because this guy has zero plans of ever getting married or raising a child.

 

[Starfish]

Homosexual parents just want the same thing heterosexual parents want.

They want to believe that they are giving their children everything that heterosexual parents can give.
They want to believe that fathers or mothers don't matter. They want to believe that their children are not missing out on a basic emotional need. They want to believe that extra bio-parents place no risk or confusion to a child. They want a lot of things. I don't blame them for wanting this.

But wanting doesn't make it true or right.

 

[Storm]

Yes, they do. There is nothing in California's Legal Code that excludes the children of gays from goods and services or denies them legal protections etc.

One protection they're denied is visitation should the couple dissolve. Another is child support.

No, it is not. One has potential to produce the other has no such potential. This is a base difference and one the state may take interest in.

So, children of same sex couples don't exist? Lesbians are incapable of being artificailly inseminated? Bisexuals don't have children of previous couplings?

 

[Storm]

They want to believe that they are giving their children everything that heterosexual parents can give.
They want to believe that fathers or mothers don't matter. They want to believe that their children are not missing out on a basic emotional need. They want to believe that extra bio-parents place no risk or confusion to a child. They want a lot of things. I don't blame them for wanting this.

The difference is, what research there is says that those "wants" are reality. You're the one who wants it to be false, and as you say:

But wanting doesn't make it true.

 

[Starfish]

Allow me to rephrase the question.

When interracial marriage was illegal, was it immoral for interracial couple to reproduce? Or was it immoral to deny them equal protection under the law?

I would not have agreed with such a law. However that said, if society was hostile to interracial couples, and also hostile to children of such, do people have the moral right to produce a child under those circumstances, knowing what the child would be up against? I'm not saying yes or no. But if I were facing that situation, I'd hope I'd consider what's best for my children above my own wants.

 

[gnomon]

They want to believe that they are giving their children everything that heterosexual parents can give.
They want to believe that fathers or mothers don't matter. They want to believe that their children are not missing out on a basic emotional need. They want to believe that extra bio-parents place no risk or confusion to a child. They want a lot of things. I don't blame them for wanting this.

But wanting doesn't make it true.

Why are there homeless children in this nation?

Why are there so many divorces among parents in this nation?

Why are infants at greater risk of being killed by their biological mother? Usually adolescents. Should laws be passed punishing adolescents who get pregnant, should they be denied any equivalent access any other pregnant woman would receive. Should they be discriminate against because they do not meet your ideal of LDS perfection.

The most likely perpetrator of a sex crime against children is a member of their own biological family. What about that?

You are basing your opposition solely on the belief that you think a child might not get the perfect family so therefore they must be denied possible access to a family at all.

That's malicious.

 

[Orontes]

Aye. I actually believe that the state should only hold any interest in two things:

1) Filing a record of biological parents. I think every individual should be able to eventually have some form of access to information regarding their genetic heritage. Primarily for any possible medical uses that individual may need.

2) Parents and their children. No matter the sexual make-up. Our society can begin with the experiment of one or two primary guardians. This doesn't force a new expectation on current single parent households nor does it raise any issue of joint custody beyond two parties. The only interest the state has is in maintaining that the child is receiving the proper care needed.

As far as the rest.....the state has zero interest. Man and woman fall in love, move in together and maybe get married. State shouldn't care. Unless they, or anyone, is actually in the role of parenting the state should treat them as individuals. Leave all issues of private property to those couples. Only if they raise a child by whatever means, biological parents or adoption, the states only interest is the welfare of that child.

Now that's just an initial concept. I don't spend any time going beyond that because this guy has zero plans of ever getting married or raising a child.

I have no issue with people putting forward various ideas and allowing the public to discuss, support or reject the merits. I disagree with the manufacture of rights and their imposition from above. Those who will sacrifice democratic process in order to secure their pet idea are disturbing to me and undercut the democratic tenets of the nation.

 

[Starfish]

The difference is, what research there is says that those "wants" are reality. You're the one who wants it to be false, and as you say:

I don't WANT anything, other than for all children to have the best possible. I don't WANT homosexuals to suffer or be denied anything. I don't WANT their children to be denied anything.

What is, is, and not because I WANT it.

 

[Orontes]

One protection they're denied is visitation should the couple dissolve. Another is child support.

I don't think so, I think all this is covered under the Civil Unions legislation: it is quite extensive.

So, children of same sex couples don't exist? Lesbians are incapable of being artificailly inseminated? Bisexuals don't have children of previous couplings?

I don't understand your comments. Children of gay couples exist and are given legal protection simply by their existence. This is distinct from gay marriage equity claims which was what I was addressing. Gays cannot produce alone. Insemination, donors etc. all require appealing to someone beyond the relationship. Therefore any of those actions are distinct from the relationship.

 

[Storm]

I don't WANT anything, other than for all children to have the best possible. I don't WANT homosexuals to suffer or be denied anything. I don't WANT their children to be denied anything.

Then support gay marriage.

 

[Storm]

I don't think so, I think all this is covered under the Civil Unions legislation: it is quite extensive.

I'm not familiar with California law, so maybe. However, I'm speaking nationally. After all, what if the family has to move. Civil unions also lack the protection of portability.

I don't understand your comments. Children of gay couples exist and are given legal protection simply by their existence. This is distinct from gay marriage equity claims which was what I was addressing. Gays cannot produce alone. Insemination, donors etc. all require appealing to someone beyond the relationship. Therefore any of those actions are distinct from the relationship.

The reality is that, one way or another, same sex pairings do find themselves responsible for children. Therefore, your rational of denying them equal protection under the law is flawed.

 

[Starfish]

Why are there homeless children in this nation?

Why are there so many divorces among parents in this nation?

Why are infants at greater risk of being killed by their biological mother? Usually adolescents. Should laws be passed punishing adolescents who get pregnant, should they be denied any equivalent access any other pregnant woman would receive. Should they be discriminate against because they do not meet your ideal of LDS perfection.

The most likely perpetrator of a sex crime against children is a member of their own biological family. What about that?

You are basing your opposition solely on the belief that you think a child might not get the perfect family so therefore they must be denied possible access to a family at all.

That's malicious.

That is not true. Here again is the comparison of irresponsible selfish people to loving same-sex families. I want the optimum for all children. There is more needed than just a man and woman in what I'm saying. Also needed is maturity, responsibility, selflessness, stability, in addition to love.

All children deserve the best we can give them, and protection from harmful situations. I'm not denying access to a family to anyone. Just that we as adults must do all we can to give the best to our kids.

Why is a married, stable, loving, father and mother family, an LDS ideal? I know many families who have created all this and are not LDS.

 

[Storm]

Why is a married, stable, loving, father and mother family, an LDS ideal? I know many families who have created all this and are not LDS.

Noone's denying that what you describe is a good thing. We're denying that a married, stable, loving, same-sex family is inferior. (What research there is backs us up.)

 

[gnomon]

That is not true. Here again is the comparison of irresponsible selfish people to loving same-sex families. I want the optimum for all children. There is more needed than just a man and woman in what I'm saying. Also needed is maturity, responsibility, selflessness, stability, in addition to love.

All children deserve the best we can give them, and protection from harmful situations. I'm not denying access to a family to anyone. Just that we as adults must do all we can to give the best to our kids.

Why is a married, stable, loving, father and mother family, an LDS ideal? I know many families who have created all this and are not LDS.

Well I'm glad you posted that because it did clear up some confusion on my part.

I would state the best family is.....the more the merrier. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc. The extended family, in our modern society which requires all of us to do such extensive commuting and being away most of the time, opens more opportunity in raising children.

I just don't see any need to differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals. I have seen no evidence showing that. Also, many people just do not have that same avenue of an extended family many of us have or had ourselves.

Being straight or gay should ultimately be irrelevant.

 

[Autodidact]

Yes, they do. There is nothing in California's Legal Code that excludes the children of gays from goods and services or denies them legal protections etc.

Other than the legal protection of protecting their parent's custody of them, that is.

 

[Autodidact]

They want to believe that they are giving their children everything that heterosexual parents can give.

It's not about what I want to believe, Starfish, it's about the truth. That happens to be the truth.

They want to believe that fathers or mothers don't matter. They want to believe that their children are not missing out on a basic emotional need. They want to believe that extra bio-parents place no risk or confusion to a child. They want a lot of things. I don't blame them for wanting this.

But wanting doesn't make it true or right.

No, what makes it both true and right is the actual scientific research that shows just this. Which you've read, right?

 

[Autodidact]

I would not have agreed with such a law. However that said, if society was hostile to interracial couples, and also hostile to children of such, do people have the moral right to produce a child under those circumstances, knowing what the child would be up against? I'm not saying yes or no. But if I were facing that situation, I'd hope I'd consider what's best for my children above my own wants.

Well, if you're Mormon and you're living in Illinois in the 19th century, and your neighbors are hostile to you and your way of life, do you have the moral right to produce a child under those circumstances, knowing what the child would be up against? If you were facing that situation, I hope you'd consider what's best for the children.

As a Jew, Starfish, I would never consider society's desire to wipe us off the face of the earth as a justification for not having children. Quite the contrary. Nor did my mother, concentration camp survivor and mother of four. She felt that having four children was all the revenge she needed against the Nazis. I agree with her. Prejudice is not a moral basis for self-discrimination.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't WANT anything, other than for all children to have the best possible. I don't WANT homosexuals to suffer or be denied anything. I don't WANT their children to be denied anything.

What is, is, and not because I WANT it.

Well good. Since the evidence shows that gay families are among those best families, and their children do quite well, I take it that you're in favor of gay families then.

 

[Autodidact]

Why is a married, stable, loving, father and mother family, an LDS ideal?

Who cares?

I know many families who have created all this and are not LDS.

So do I. I also know many stable, loving, mother and mother families. Did you have a point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Society should treat all people, along with their children, with respect. But society has the right to vote according to what it sees as best. Best for children especially. The best for children is a father and mother, married, raising their children together. No divorce, no pre- or extra-marital sex. Keeping as much risk out of a child's life as possible. No third bio-parent floating in or out of the child's life. No replacement adult figures. No confusion or complication, if at all possible.

When things beyond our control happen, we do the best we can through adoption, help from outside family, etc.

I will continue to speak out for the optimum for children.

But the whole problem here is that the courses of action available do not address whether children will be raised in what you consider to be less-than-optimum situations. What they do address is how the children in those situations will be treated.

Eliminating same-sex-parented families is not an option. Your choices are between giving those families proper support or not. Regardless of your opinion of the parents, the children in these families will still have needs and wants that are best met by the state. It's up to you whether you want to extend to these children the benefits and protections that, IMO, every child is equally entitled to.

No, it is not. One has potential to produce the other has no such potential. This is a base difference and one the state may take interest in.

It is a difference. You haven't demonstrated that it's relevant.

Same-sex marriages can't produce children directly. This is different from some, but not all, opposite-sex marriages, either by biology or by choice.

OTOH, there is a common thread in all marriages: that two consenting adults have declared their intention to join their lives physically, emotionally, and spiritually in a (hopefully) permanent partnership of love. When this happens, the state recognizes their intent to do so and joins them legally as well.

Please explain why your factor (i.e. that same-sex couples can't have kids the same way some opposite-sex coples can) is relevant but the one above (i.e. that in both cases, two consenting adults are making an official, binding declaration to join their lives together) is not.