Really disappointed in the Church's latest political adventure

[Robin]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/arc...ws/13206.shtml

http://www.futureofchildren.org/news...?doc_id=307164

http://www.dadsindistress.asn.au/information_stats.html (this one cites many studies)

When you said the science doesn't exist, you meant except for the studies cited in the links above, presumably.

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

1st. Thank you for posting links to actual studies.
2nd. As others have pointed out, most of these studies examine differences between two parent homes vs. single parent homes, and make no claims about the sex of the parents...

3rd... except for the first study, which suggests that a child's biological parents are statistically best suited to raise a child. This obviously infers a mother and father situation. However, I think the results of the study can be read in several ways. Perhaps the results of the study suggest that children in families where the parents are deeply invested in the role of parenting produce better results than foster homes, homes where unwanted/unexpected orphans join the family, homes with unwanted stepchildren, etc. Since the study compares biological families to all of these other situations, I think the results are rather predictable. Since homosexual couples are not going to have biological children (at least gay male couples won't) the results don't really apply... the study doesn't say anything about adoption situations.

As an adopted child, with two parents who were deeply committed to their roles as parents, I can say this from personal experience -- I never had any reason to feel like I was not a full part of the family. Adoptive parents can be great, and I would assume homosexual parents could be just as good as any other parents... as least I haven't seen any science to suggest otherwise.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Robin

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

1st. Thank you for posting links to actual studies.
2nd. As others have pointed out, most of these studies examine differences between two parent homes vs. single parent homes, and make no claims about the sex of the parents...

3rd... except for the first study, which suggests that a child's biological parents are statistically best suited to raise a child. This obviously infers a mother and father situation. However, I think the results of the study can be read in several ways. Perhaps the results of the study suggest that children in families where the parents are deeply invested in the role of parenting produce better results than foster homes, homes where unwanted/unexpected orphans join the family, homes with unwanted stepchildren, etc. Since the study compares biological families to all of these other situations, I think the results are rather predictable. Since homosexual couples are not going to have biological children (at least gay male couples won't) the results don't really apply... the study doesn't say anything about adoption situations.

As an adopted child, with two parents who were deeply committed to their roles as parents, I can say this from personal experience -- I never had any reason to feel like I was not a full part of the family. Adoptive parents can be great, and I would assume homosexual parents could be just as good as any other parents... as least I haven't seen any science to suggest otherwise.

That's all fine. I think there is much work to be done on this issue as well. just giving you the other side of it which you seemed to be unaware of.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Hoya is right. You're being absurd. I don't know where you get the idea that I elevate the principle of states' rights to the point of sacrificing individual liberties to preserve the will of a local majority. On the contrary, I believe we have really bad, oppresive behavior by unenlightened majorities and private citizens in some states to thank for the fact that, for example, the Supreme Court and Congress have turned the dormant Interstate Commerce Clause into an all-purpose means to exercising federal control over states' soverignty and even private conduct. However, given a choice I'd rather have a Civil Rights Act that prohibits Jim Crow than not even if it did unleash the dormant Commerce clause on the states.

Actually, when confronting a choice I'd probably favor erring on the side of protecting individual liberties over the will of the local majority the majority of instanaces the issue comes up. I don't approve of creating liberties out of whole cloth that aren't fairly explicit in the Constitution--for example, I'd probably disapprove of a Supreme Court decision holding that the RIGHT to same sex marriage is in the Constitution--but I'd probably support a federal statute that required states to recognize gay marriage. I only support states' rights because I believe in our federalist system as laid out in the Constitution, and it is a specie of liberty, though not on the exalted level of an individual's interest in being free of discrimination based upon an immutable characteristic.

I thought my point was obvious. It was simply that not only does the proposed amendment limit a prospective individual liberty; it also abridges states' rights. Pulling off those those usually incompatible twin evils is quite a feat, and it's extraordinary that exponents of the amendment, who usually cry about the Supreme Court disenfranchising local majorities such as with Roe v. Wade, don't even blush at their hypocracy.

Finally, your hypotheticals are silly for the further reason noted by Hoya that a law permitting murder of gays would certainly violate the Equal Protection Clause and probably the Due Process Clause applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. In fact, that's exactly my point: the purpose of Amendments to the Constitution has been to limit the will of the majority to abridge certain fundamental rights such as free speech, freedom of religion and the right to not be discriminated against based on race or even enslaved. The purpose of amendments to the Constitition has not been to enable the red states to impose their religious absolutism on majorities in the blue states.

The Church looks bad supporting this amendment for the reason that all it is is snake oil sold by certain Senators from places like Alabama and Mississippi (I doubt Orin Hatch supports it) to their religious extremist constituents. Most thoughtful, intelligent people from either party know the proposed amendment would be bad for the country and it will never be adopted unless or until the moral and intellectual quality of the public discourse and virtue in this country declines sustantially.

I wrote a paragraph by paragraph response and then my computer froze so I will sum up:

1. Go back and look at my 13th amendment analogy. I think that the objection to the 14th amendment analogy is a dodge but the other one is cleaner.

2. Majority tyranny is not the only kind the founders worried about. Minority tyranny or "faction" was an equal worry and it effects were to be controlled by none other than....the republican principle (read here majority rule). Read federalist 10.

3. Religious absolutism huh? Now we've reached the heart of your objection I think, and its not really about the procedure being employed to strike at it is it? Its about the substance of it and the politics of it right?

4. Again, the church doesn't look bad to any but those who disagree with its stance on gay marriage. I get that it looks bad to you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Most thoughtful, intelligent people from either party know the proposed amendment would be bad for the country and it will never be adopted unless or until the moral and intellectual quality of the public discourse and virtue in this country declines sustantially.

I'm surprised nobody has taken Seattle to task for this logical fallacy, often employed by him.

If you disagree with him, he climbs his aristocratic high horse, stating "most thoughtful persons" argument, thereby hoping to eliminate any actual analysis of the argument, hoping to shame somebody into avoiding being "thoughtful" or "thoughtless."

It appears to be a version of "everybody knows" or "the reason Rome fell". It is a very plebian form of argument that a patrician such Seattle should be loathe to use.

I can see people hoping to use the Amendment, (a) to succeed, (b) to galvanize Republican voters to stave off potential losses to the Democratic party (which in my mind is devoid of economic policy beneficial to the masses and are usually loathe to protect the right to contract except in the gay rights debate, and (c) to divert attention from harmful issues to the Republican Party. There really were people who wish to have it succeed.

And he can wax on about the benefits of libertarian thought, but they do not reach their pinacle in gay marriage. That's just an afterthought, not a central thought.

And his refusal to debate will usually just degenerate into, "you're cruel." So where's the thoughtful approach?

The bottom line for any legislation is one should ask, what's in it for me? If you don't admit to asking that, you're a liar.

In the FMA, we stave off one more benefit's class, and thereby stave off financial harm to heterosexuals. If we allow gay marriage, heteros gain nothing. Nothing tangible. That's the long and short of it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

4. Again, the church doesn't look but to any but those who disagree with its stance on gay marriage. I get that it looks bad to you.

Who would we be trying to impress?

Gays will never like the Church. Some gays may have origins in the Church, but they're never going to be enthused by the Church.

Should we try to impress Washington, Boston or Wall Street?

The Church will impress people by its people being economically successfully, professionally reliable, rearing successful families independent of government assistance and generally being good citizens. Disagreeing on a political issue will not make the Church look bad. Afterall, the Church is unlikely to become involved in any other issues for another couple decades.

The goal of the Church is to promote the welfare of its members, and provide information about a way of life beneficial to others.

Those who are on the gay marriage side will have nothing or little in common with us, so the message will fall on deaf ears anyway. Our message is meaningless to Bohemians.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Who would we be trying to impress?

Gays will never like the Church. Some gays may have origins in the Church, but they're never going to be enthused by the Church.

Exactly what evidence do you have to support such a broad, bold statement?

I ASSURE you there are MANY gays within the church that are very enthused by the church. They may feel alienated and betrayed at times, but there are lots that remain enthused about the church anyways. Your statement reflects an incredible naivete about that class in general. Instead of attempting to dismiss gay church members as non-enthusiastic individuals (implying their loss from the church would not be a big deal), you ought to actually try to speak with a few and see if YOUR emotions on this issue are blinding you to a serious problem within the church that needs to be addressed.

Originally Posted by archaea

The goal of the Church is to promote the welfare of its members, and provide information about a way of life beneficial to others.

I think the three fold mission of the church is actually the goal of the church, but attempting to summarize those goals into one sentence would more accurately state that the goal is to promote the welfare of all individuals, current, past, and future. Your statement makes the church appear to be nothing more than a nifty club with membership benefits.

Originally Posted by archaea

Those who are on the gay marriage side will have nothing or little in common with us, so the message will fall on deaf ears anyway. Our message is meaningless to Bohemians.

More logical fun. You begin by making a tremendous generalization about a class of people, followed by an assumption that your "message" is correct, followed by a baseless prediction, immediately followed by assigning a name to the class intended to make them look bad. Nice.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Exactly what evidence do you have to support such a broad, bold statement?

I ASSURE you there are MANY gays within the church that are very enthused by the church.

I have only met a few guys who pursued active gay lifestyle on their way out the door.

You have no ability to assure me. You have no credibility, unless you're part of the BYU sociology or part of the LDS Church special committee studying such matters. Your anecdotal experience is no more persuasive than mine.

If somebody is gay and wishes to pursue that lifestyle, the Church has nothing to offer. It makes no logical sense for somebody investing in gay marriage or gay activities to waste any time with the Church or vice versa.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

More logical fun. You begin by making a tremendous generalization about a class of people, followed by an assumption that your "message" is correct, followed by a baseless prediction, immediately followed by assigning a name to the class intended to make them look bad. Nice.

Thought I'd throw you an easy bone which you would bite on. Most of the gay men I know are the artsy fartsy types that have nothing in common with me, so Bohemian seemed an appropriate sobriquet.

I come from blue collar types working themselves by brute force. Based on your ivory tower type comments, my origins, even if you have some somewhere in your background, are now alien to you. And although we common folk can visit the "elitists", we are there only on vacation.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I have only met a few guys who pursued active gay lifestyle on their way out the door.

You have no ability to assure me. You have no credibility, unless you're part of the BYU sociology or part of the LDS Church special committee studying such matters. Your anecdotal experience is no more persuasive than mine.

If somebody is gay and wishes to pursue that lifestyle, the Church has nothing to offer. It makes no logical sense for somebody investing in gay marriage or gay activities to waste any time with the Church or vice versa.

Again with the assumption that all gay church members must be practicing homosexuals.

I do enjoy your statements where you attemt to claim that the only people who have authority to speak on a certain issue are a small class of individuals (which has yet to stop you from attempting to speak authoritatively on the issue). Let me guess, though- you have read lots from the "BYU sociology" and "LDS special committee on such matters."

How dare I disagree?

My anecdotal evidence is sufficient for my argument, whereas yours is not. Your argument is that "Gays will never like the Church. Some gays may have origins in the Church, but they're never going to be enthused by the Church." That is a statement that applies universally to a class (with no room for exceptions). My statement is that "I ASSURE you there are MANY gays within the church that are very enthused by the church." This is easily verifiable with anecdotal evidence.

Originally Posted by archaea

I come from blue collar types working themselves by brute force. Based on your ivory tower type comments, my origins, even if you have some somewhere in your background, are now alien to you. And although we common folk can visit the "elitists", we are there only on vacation.

Ivory tower type comments? You are entertaining.

[Archaea]

Ivory Tower?

What is more pompous than "Hey I went to Georgetown" except, "hey" I went to Harvard."

You speak from your tower, but you condescend not.

Simply put, I don't believe you that there are numerous gays who want to be affiliated with the Church. The Church life is an anathema to gay life.

If I were an atheist, I would see the simplicity of this truth. It makes no sense why once one is committed to gay life why they even look back. The philosophies serve differing purposes.

Once again, it is great to be service to you, to amuse you, as you descend from your ivory throne of omniscience, one of apriori knowledge but no real experience.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by archaea

What is more pompous than "Hey I went to Georgetown" except, "hey" I went to Harvard."

Are you actually suggesting that attending Gtown automatically places a person in an ivory tower? Sheesh. What would be more pompous... hmm. Perhaps statements like, "I know a lot more about this subject than you do, so I am qualified to speak on it and you aren't because you are a mere architect/liberal/young lawyer/other."

Originally Posted by archaea

Simply put, I don't believe you that there are numerous gays who want to be affiliated with the Church. The Church life is an anathema to gay life.

Then I suppose President Hinckley is wasting his time by saying the church has a place for homosexuals who don't practice.

There are numerous gays who ARE affiliated with the church. Many more who want to be. Unfortunately, even though they aren't practicing homosexuals, members frequently make horrible statements about homosexuals as a class without caring about the internal struggle many of their brethren are fighting.

Originally Posted by archaea

If I were an atheist, I would see the simplicity of this truth. It makes no sense why once one is committed to gay life why they even look back. The philosophies serve differing purposes.

Still holding to the assumption that homosexuals must be practicing homosexuals?

Originally Posted by archaea

Once again, it is great to be service to you, to amuse you, as you descend from your ivory throne of omniscience, one of apriori knowledge but no real experience.

Yet another shot at a person who can't be as knowledgeable as Archaea because of a lack of experience. My how quickly those ivory towers can be constructed.