Jump to content
Daniel2

Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Happens to me once in a while, so it isn't a conspiracy.

Well, I just failed a third time. This time I tried to post it in the "reply to this topic" field.

Sorry, California Boy, I guess you won't be seeing what I had to say. I made an earnest effort.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I read a talk by Elder Oaks today wherein he said a reason for eroding support for religious liberty is that those who don't value faith or religion tend not to value freedom of religion 

That stands to reason, I guess, but it's a good reason for people of faith to combine their support for this First Amendment liberty. If we don't, who else will?

 

 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Scott, I think you would be the best person to ask this question.  Has religious belief ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past?  Or is this a new right that religion is trying to assert.

German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller’s poem, “First they came…” is often cited in discussions about the clash between the emerging recognition of equal civil rights for LGBT citizens and alleged infractions on others’ religious liberty.  The poem reads:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
 
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
 
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
 
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
 

According to Wiki, the poem itself is “about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.”

While Scott’s post above doesn’t directly quote from the poem, his comments certainly dovetail with the sentiments the poem expresses: that if we don’t ‘speak up/out’ in defense of rights, that we collectively are putting ourselves and potentially others at risk of losing additional civil rights which may come ‘under attack’ in the future.

Ironically, both sides of this issue—those promoting equal civil rights in the realm of public accommodations for LGBT citizens, and those contesting that business owners should be allowed to refuse goods or services to same-sex weddings based on their sincerely-held religious beliefs—have invoked this poem in defense of their motivations to act in their respective but diametrically-conflicting views (either as justification to add “sexual orientation” as a protected class and deserving of protection in public accommodations law, OR in fighting against adding “sexual orientation” as a protected class and refusing it’s inclusion as deserving of protection in public accommodation law).

Are both sides EQUALLY justified in invoking the principles of Niemoller’s poem?  Are it’s principles truly applicable to both sides’ defense of their motivations?

I’m going to argue that both sides CANNOT justifiably use the poem to defend their actions (note: I’m not saying one side should be prohibited from invoking the poem, because we all have freedom of speech… I’m suggesting that one side’s invocation of the poem is justifiable and makes sense, and the other side’s invocation of the poem is illogical and nonsensical).

First, let’s examine the rationale of those invoking the poem as a reason to fight against adding “sexual orientation” as a protected class and refusing it’s inclusion as deserving of protection in public accommodation law…

For those claiming that denying goods and services in same-sex weddings is a matter of preserving religious liberty, and invoking the poem to suggest that if we don’t preserve business owners’ and/or employees’ abilities to deny goods and services based on sincerely held religious beliefs, their use of the poem implies that if we don’t allow business owners to discriminate based on religion, then other additional groups’ abilities to discriminate will likewise be at risk. This line of thinking encompasses Scott's employment of Oak's claims that those who don't value faith or religion tend not to value freedom of religion.

However, I submit the above logic is not sound and simply does not holds up.

Since public accommodation laws have been enacted approximately 50 years ago, business owners have never been allowed to discriminate (that is, refuse to provide goods/services for events to which they may personally object) based on religion, anyway. 

Since the issue is about wedding goods and services, let’s examine how this plays out in weddings.  Many religions disagree with/disapprove of weddings based on a variety of issues, including race (an immutable trait) and religion (a deeply-held, yet still mutable, personal choice).  Christian business owners may disapprove of teachings (and weddings) overseen by adherents of the Jewish Faith, the Muslim Religion, or even The Church of Satan.  Atheist business owners may disapprove of teachings (and weddings) by members of any religious Faith, and vice versa.  Either religious or non-religious business owners may disapprove (either religiously or agnostically) of interracial marriage. 

Despite these clear differences of ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ based on religion or race, no lawmaker, lawmaker, or judge has been successful in demonstrating that religious liberty or business owners’ ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ are legally-valid, legitimate reasons to deny goods and services for weddings between members of other Faiths (or no Faith at all, if they’re agnostic/atheist), or for weddings between members of mixed race. 

Whether one views marriage between members of the same gender as a matter of “sexual orientation” or as a matter of “gender,” both have been described as “immutable traits” in rulings by The Supreme Court of the United States.  But even if one were to allow for the argument that sexual orientation isn’t a chosen trait, but that the decision to marry someone of the same gender still is “a matter of a deeply-held, but still mutable, personal choice,” that doesn’t mean it can’t also qualify for protection, since “immutability” itself isn’t the defining characteristic of protected classes or those qualifying for public accommodations protections, since religious affiliation is likewise still “a matter of choice,” as is the decision to serve in the Armed Forces (resulting in the protected class of “veteran status.”).

In it’s brief, the LDS church (and it’s co-signers, who I’ll acknowledge here but won’t keep mentioning in future references to the brief for the sake of brevity) argues that “now that the court has protected the liberty of same-sex couples, it is equally important to protect the religious liberties of conscientious objectors.”  However, as I mentioned above and CaliforniaBoy pointed out in his previous post, “religious belief [has n]ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past,” but rather, it is “a new right that religion is trying to assert.”  Religions aren’t suggesting that “religious liberty” should be construed to allow these so-called “conscientious objectors” to withhold wedding goods and services based on the deeply held religious beliefs objecting to interracial weddings, weddings between members of other Faiths to which they object, weddings between interfaith couples to which they may object, weddings between members of no Faith to which they may object, weddings between member of divorcees to which they may object, etc.  Nope… the LDS church’s brief ONLY seeks out the ability to elevate Faith’s religiously-based objections to same-sex marriage as a unique, specially-protected ability to discriminate based on gender and/or sexual orientation. 

That alone indicates that no one’s “coming after” business owners based on curtailing their religious liberty, because no one is arguing or suggesting that “religious liberty” (as it relates to public accommodations) should be understood to be an ability to discriminate against (or “withhold goods and services,” if you find that term more palpable) couples which violate the “deeply-held religious beliefs of business owners” based on religious objections to (ironically) weddings of other religions themselves (ironically), of interracial couples, of non-religious couples, of previously-divorced couples, of mixed-Faith couples, of infertile/barren couples, etc. etc. etc.  And that is why it’s dishonest and disingenuous (in my view) to suggest this is ultimately about “preserving religious liberty.”  It’s not—it’s about preserving the ability to deny services based ONLY on ONE religious idea—that of objecting to same-sex marriage. 

And in singling out that one belief to elevate into a protected class, these religions are actually asking for a SPECIAL right—a SPECIAL privilege—to deny goods and services based on THEIR religious beliefs, but still maintaining their right to NOT be discriminated against based on THEIR religious beliefs.

On the flip side of the coin, then, considering the counter argument:  that “sexual orientation” should be considered as a protected class and same-sex weddings are deserving of protection in public accommodations law: those of us advocating that weddings between same-sex couples should be treated the SAME as any other type of wedding (whether the couples be religious of any/all Faiths, atheist, interracial, same-race, interfaith, infertile, etc.) are not asking for “SPECIAL treatment,” but are rather asking that we be “treated the same” as any other type of wedding; and by “the same,” I literally mean that business owners shouldn’t be allowed to deny goods and services based on their gender and/or sexual orientation—which isn’t a violation of religious freedom, the same way that business owners shouldn’t be allowed to deny goods and services based on race, religion, national origin, veteran status, ethnicity, etc. without those inability to discriminate being a violation of religious freedom or ‘taking away rights of [so-called] conscientious objectors.’

If EITHER side is “coming after” anyone/any group to single them out, it’s the side seeking to carve out it’s own unique ability to define “religious liberty” as a license to discriminate “because we religiously object/disapprove of same-sex marriage,” while maintaining it’s own status of protection by saying “but the law should still maintain that you can’t discriminate against our marriages/weddings, even if your religious beliefs disapprove of us.”

If we allow some religions to object and refuse goods and services based on one particular religious objection, where do we stop?  Where does the law draw the line?  Why stop at weddings between people of the same gender…?  Why not also allow business owners to object to weddings between members of other Faiths, to which business owners also object “based on their deeply held religious liberties”?  or to weddings between members of mixed races, or divorces, or pagans, or atheists, or any other group to which business owners object?  Because, in reality, a license to object based on religion ironically undermines the very foundations of the protections given to religion by prohibiting and preventing discrimination based on religion.  In short, in response to Oaks, the best way to preserve religious freedom is to protect against religious persecution/discrimination/a special right or ability to deny equal access to everyone by singling out a singular belief to elevate over all others.

The two groups invocations of this poem and its ideals are NOT equal.  ONE side is truly seeking to treat all citizens equally and maintain TRUE religious liberty.  The other is seeking SPECIAL privileges that actually UNDERMINE true religious liberty.

My thoughts... I certainly invite and welcome any and all respectful comments, critiques, criticisms, etc.

D

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I just tried to respond to this, but my response disappeared when I posted it.

Maybe I've been banned because Hestia didn't like the last thread I opened.

 

The same thing was happening to me yesterday, Scott...  I tried later on and it worked... Don't give up! :)

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I just failed a third time. This time I tried to post it in the "reply to this topic" field.

Sorry, California Boy, I guess you won't be seeing what I had to say. I made an earnest effort.

I really appreciate your effort.  Maybe it is just a glitch that will disappear tomorrow.  

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, rongo said:
17.3.16

Surrogate Motherhood

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsibility for the decision rests solely upon them.

If parents want a child who was born to a surrogate mother to be sealed to them, the stake president refers the matter to the Office of the First Presidency.

I wasn't aware the church had this position in their handbook.

Can you clarify if the prohibition barring single sisters from serving as surrogates and being subject to discipline still part of the newer, more-current policy?

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, this is current policy.

Like with tubal ligation and vasectomy (also current policy; also strongly discouraged per policy), few members know it's a policy. It's in the handbook, but I'd wager that many bishops don't know about it. 

I think there is probably much stronger natural and internal resistance to surrogacy within LDS culture than for vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Share this post


Link to post
54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well, I just failed a third time. This time I tried to post it in the "reply to this topic" field.

Sorry, California Boy, I guess you won't be seeing what I had to say. I made an earnest effort.

 

27 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

The same thing was happening to me yesterday, Scott...  I tried later on and it worked... Don't give up! :)

 

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really appreciate your effort.  Maybe it is just a glitch that will disappear tomorrow.  

It has happened to me before. I finally just gave up, and the message never did get posted.

The strange thing is that other stuff I post gets through just fine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Calm said:

Most people I know don't get that far, they have made the decision on how to view it before knowing the Church's position on it.

Handbook 2 advises against, but leaves it open if not involving a single sister it appears:

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies?lang=eng#21.4.16

"Surrogate Motherhood

The Church strongly discourages surrogate motherhood. However, this is a personal matter that ultimately must be left to the judgment of the husband and wife. Responsiblity for the decision rests solely upon them."

"Artificial insemination of single sisters is not approved. Single sisters who deliberately refuse to follow the counsel of Church leaders in this matter are subject to Church discipline."

Same question as my previous post: can you confirm if the last line here still current?

Just saw this was already answered--thanks, Rongo.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, this is current policy.

Like with tubal ligation and vasectomy (also current policy; also strongly discouraged per policy), few members know it's a policy. It's in the handbook, but I'd wager that many bishops don't know about it. 

I think there is probably much stronger natural and internal resistance to surrogacy within LDS culture than for vasectomy or tubal ligation.

I knew a sister serving as a surrogate in my ward and she had a temple recommend and her and her spouse had leadership roles. I don't think anyone thought or knew it was cautioned against or discouraged. I did but my husband had a vasectomy and I had read that section of the handbook and even though it was discouraged per church policy, it was the right decision for my family. These policies are in handbook 2. This is not something I would ever think to seek counsel from the Bishop about.  I think many church members do not know these guidelines in this section of the handbook. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4?lang=eng&_r=1#214

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, this is current policy.

Like with tubal ligation and vasectomy (also current policy; also strongly discouraged per policy), few members know it's a policy. It's in the handbook, but I'd wager that many bishops don't know about it. 

I think there is probably much stronger natural and internal resistance to surrogacy within LDS culture than for vasectomy or tubal ligation.

Wow... I have devout friends and family members who've served in bishoprics and stake presidencies and have had vasectomies.  I presume they weren't aware of that, either (as I also wasn't).

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

It has happened to me before. I finally just gave up, and the message never did get posted.

The strange thing is that other stuff I post gets through just fine.

 

I find that sometimes if I try to post pasted text from elsewhere, and don't remove the formatting, the post doesn't go through. Not sure if that applies here.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I responded with that one line because I thought your question was based more on a straw man argument than on an argument anyone was actually making. I was just pointing that out.  As for how women and men view the world differently, here you go: 

Study finds significant differences in brains of men and women

The cognitive differences between men and women

Men and Women really do have different brains

Males and females differ in parenting skills

Men and Women really do see the world differently

 

 

 

I am not sure if you actually read the articles or just Googled and copied and pasted.  This is what the research that you linked to said.

 

Quote

 

Study finds significant differences in brains of men and women

The controversial—and still unsettled—question is whether these patterns mean anything to intelligence or behavior. Though popular culture is replete with supposed examples of intellectual and behavioral differences between the sexes, only a few, like higher physical aggression in men, have been borne out by scientific research.

For the moment, Ritchie says his work isn’t equipped to answer such heady questions: He is focused on accurately describing the differences in the male and female brain, not speculating on what they could mean.

 

The second study is based more on animal behavior and is trying to make a link to human behavior.  This seemed to be the most relevant part of the study.

 

Quote

 

The cognitive differences between men and women

Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They out­perform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.

Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.

Navigation studies in both humans and rats show that females of both species tend to rely on landmarks, while males more typically rely on “dead reckoning”: calculating one’s position by estimating the direction and distance traveled rather than using landmarks.

 

I am perfectly willing to accept the results of this study, but how does that relate to the need for a mother/father to raise a child.  It seems that the study is saying that the differences are hard wired and nothing a parent could do to change such behavior.  In other words, it doesn't take a mother to "activate" the way the womans brain functions.  Nor does it take a father to "activate" the way a male brain functions.  Do you see something different in this study?

 

Quote

 

Men and Women really do have different brains

According to the findings, male brains had stronger connections in areas associated with motor and spatial skills, meaning they were more likely to perform better in tasks associated with spatial awareness and hand-eye co-ordination.

But in the female brains, areas associated with social cognition, attention and memory had higher connectivity, which could give them the edge in terms of memory and social cognition skills.

 

Same kinds of hardwire study.

Males and females differ in parenting skills

This is just an opinion piece.  There is no scientific data connected with it.  

Men and Women really do see the world differently

Another piece on how humans minds are hardwired differently.  Similar results.

Maybe I am missing the point of your post.  I am not sure how the brain is hardwired transfers to raising children with different outlooks.  Whether a father/mother are raising a child, according to these studies, their brain will still have the same outlook on how it functions.  Parents have no influence on that.  How that hardwiring transfers to how a child is raised is, as the first study states, a matter of complete speculation.  

I actually am interested in this subject.  I am not trying to be argumentative.  I am just someone who doesn't do well when people speculate on something and then claim it to be fact.  So I am totally open to any study that you might have that confirms your position.  I just have never seen anything other than opinion pieces.  What we do know, since multiple studies have been done on this is that there appears to be no difference in child development between children raised in mixed or same sex couples.  I hope what I have written is helpful.  Let me know if you have a different point of view and what you base it on.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

It has happened to me before. I finally just gave up, and the message never did get posted.

The strange thing is that other stuff I post gets through just fine.

 

If you ask Samuel the Lamonite, he will tell you it is Satan that is changing your posts.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Gray said:

I find that sometimes if I try to post pasted text from elsewhere, and don't remove the formatting, the post doesn't go through. Not sure if that applies here.

It doesn't. I wrote it from scratch on the board.

Then I tried to delete a word I thought might have triggered a firewall or something. To no avail.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not sure if you actually read the articles or just Googled and copied and pasted.  This is what the research that you linked to said.

 

The second study is based more on animal behavior and is trying to make a link to human behavior.  This seemed to be the most relevant part of the study.

 

I am perfectly willing to accept the results of this study, but how does that relate to the need for a mother/father to raise a child.  It seems that the study is saying that the differences are hard wired and nothing a parent could do to change such behavior.  In other words, it doesn't take a mother to "activate" the way the womans brain functions.  Nor does it take a father to "activate" the way a male brain functions.  Do you see something different in this study?

 

Same kinds of hardwire study.

Males and females differ in parenting skills

This is just an opinion piece.  There is no scientific data connected with it.  

Men and Women really do see the world differently

Another piece on how humans minds are hardwired differently.  Similar results.

Maybe I am missing the point of your post.  I am not sure how the brain is hardwired transfers to raising children with different outlooks.  Whether a father/mother are raising a child, according to these studies, their brain will still have the same outlook on how it functions.  Parents have no influence on that.  How that hardwiring transfers to how a child is raised is, as the first study states, a matter of complete speculation.  

I actually am interested in this subject.  I am not trying to be argumentative.  I am just someone who doesn't do well when people speculate on something and then claim it to be fact.  So I am totally open to any study that you might have that confirms your position.  I just have never seen anything other than opinion pieces.  What we do know, since multiple studies have been done on this is that there appears to be no difference in child development between children raised in mixed or same sex couples.  I hope what I have written is helpful.  Let me know if you have a different point of view and what you base it on.

 

 

 

I actually read each one.  They are pretty clear and i'm not sure why you are even arguing against it.  Men and women's brains are different.  

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Wow... I have devout friends and family members who've served in bishoprics and stake presidencies and have had vasectomies.  I presume they weren't aware of that, either (as I also wasn't).

I also know of such men. I had to conclude they were clueless about that portion of the handbook content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I actually read each one.  They are pretty clear and i'm not sure why you are even arguing against it.  Men and women's brains are different.  

While I'm not CaliforniaBoy, my responses is this: I believe that men and women's brains are hardwired differently, and that there ARE generalized differences between genders.  Additionally, studies indicate there are generalized differences between the brains of straight men vs, gay men, and the same for straight women vs. lesbian women.  In fact, there's probably a LOT of differences between EVERYONE's brains, depending on a whole host of personality traits, genetics, biology, genetic expression, nutrition, development, drug/alcohol use, etc.  NO two parents are EVER going to be the same, whether they share the same gender, same Faith, same genetics, etc.  It seems over simplistic to focus in on gender differences as THE primary defining characteristic guiding what parents can (or can't) provide to their children.

I think CaliforniaBoy's point may be: even allowing for the fact that different peoples' brains are wired differently what essential differences between the genders do you believe are essential/vital to parenting/raising children that aren't or can't be otherwise provided by same-sex parents?  What essential characteristic(s), traits, lessons, etc. can't be effectively taught? 

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Wow... I have devout friends and family members who've served in bishoprics and stake presidencies and have had vasectomies.  I presume they weren't aware of that, either (as I also wasn't).

I had a tubal and I was aware of the policy.  My friend's husband had a vasectomy and they were aware of it as well.  Though, these are the kinds of policies that should be in Handbook 2 if our leaders expect everyone to know about them.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think CaliforniaBoy's point may be: even allowing for the fact that different peoples' brains are wired differently what essential differences between the genders do you believe are essential/vital to parenting/raising children that aren't or can't be otherwise provided by same-sex parents?  What essential characteristic(s), traits, lessons, etc. can't be effectively taught? 

I don't think it's a matter of 'can't be taught' but more of 'less likely to be taught.'

Men can learn to see the world in the same way that women do (and vice-versa) with varying results, just like a right handed person can learn to write with their left (and vice-versa) with varying results.  It's a matter of training, desire, and need though; without training and desire, and someone actually believing it's necessary, it's not very likely to just happen on it's own.  

I think that same sex parents can provide everything that a child needs.  But I doubt that most same-sex parents (who's children do not have a relationship with their biological parent not in the relationship) automatically pull that off and a lot that i've read, don't even see the need to try.  I think that fathers are important and that mothers are important, for children, and everything else being equal, I think that heterosexual couples come out a head because they automatically provide both of those for their children.  

(I'm talking about parents/couples where everyone involved is a conscientious parent.  Bad parents aren't good for kids, regardless of the gender make up of the family).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I knew a sister serving as a surrogate in my ward and she had a temple recommend and her and her spouse had leadership roles. I don't think anyone thought or knew it was cautioned against or discouraged. I did but my husband had a vasectomy and I had read that section of the handbook and even though it was discouraged per church policy, it was the right decision for my family. These policies are in handbook 2. This is not something I would ever think to seek counsel from the Bishop about.  I think many church members do not know these guidelines in this section of the handbook. https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4?lang=eng&_r=1#214

I know a few guys who had a vasectomy, I doubt they told the bishops and I doubt the Bishops would even care if they did tell the, I think it was Quentin L. Cook who said we shouldn't judge others by the size of their families and if that's the case then vasectomies are a non issue.

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's a matter of 'can't be taught' but more of 'less likely to be taught.'

Men can learn to see the world in the same way that women do (and vice-versa) with varying results, just like a right handed person can learn to write with their left (and vice-versa) with varying results.  It's a matter of training, desire, and need though; without training and desire, and someone actually believing it's necessary, it's not very likely to just happen on it's own.  

I think that same sex parents can provide everything that a child needs.  But I doubt that most same-sex parents (who's children do not have a relationship with their biological parent not in the relationship) automatically pull that off and a lot that i've read, don't even see the need to try.  I think that fathers are important and that mothers are important, for children, and everything else being equal, I think that heterosexual couples come out a head because they automatically provide both of those for their children.  

(I'm talking about parents/couples where everyone involved is a conscientious parent.  Bad parents aren't good for kids, regardless of the gender make up of the family).

I understand and respect that the above reflects your opinion and values, even if it doesn't reflect the results of the social, scholastic, and psychological data about how children fare in studies comparing children raised by committed opposite-sex vs. committed same-sex parents. 

I also think the issue will probably never really truly be answered, because there's no actual case in which "everything else will be equal."  EVERY family, every parent/set-of-parents comes with their own entirely different and entirely unique strengths, challenges, predispositions, abilities, faults, personality traits, etc.  Not to mention that every child comes with their own entirely unique personalities, needs, etc.  What my brothers may have needed is entirely different that what I need, so there's no universally-applicable answer.   And every set of parents is a combination of a whole bundle of characteristics, from potentially either similar or different social, financial, racial, religious, cultural, familial, professional (etc...) backgrounds.  And in humans, you can't really have a 'control group' to measure by, when it comes to trying to "set up a (perceived) ideal family" vs. any of the unique alternatives.  I imagine it will be almost impossible to ever find a way to measure the ultimate authority of one view vs. the other, and we'll all likely form or own opinions based on our values and beliefs based on what we may imagine if "all things were otherwise equal."

My view,

D

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I actually read each one.  They are pretty clear and i'm not sure why you are even arguing against it.  Men and women's brains are different.  

I agree with you.  Men and women seem to have slightly different brain functions.  But the difference has NOTHING to do with how children are raised or what effect the differences would have on their brain development since according to the studies, those differences seem to be hardwired into the brain, not taught by a parent.  And just to be clear, these are the differences that the studies have found.

 

Quote

 

The cognitive differences between men and women

Halpern and others have cataloged plenty of human behavioral differences. “These findings have all been replicated,” she says. Women excel in several measures of verbal ability — pretty much all of them, except for verbal analogies. Women’s reading comprehension and writing ability consistently exceed that of men, on average. They out­perform men in tests of fine-motor coordination and perceptual speed. They’re more adept at retrieving information from long-term memory.

Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. They have superior visuospatial skills: They’re better at visualizing what happens when a complicated two- or three-dimensional shape is rotated in space, at correctly determining angles from the horizontal, at tracking moving objects and at aiming projectiles.

Navigation studies in both humans and rats show that females of both species tend to rely on landmarks, while males more typically rely on “dead reckoning”: calculating one’s position by estimating the direction and distance traveled rather than using landmarks.

 

I am in agreement with these findings.  I stated that earlier.  They sound reasonable to me, and they do have scientific studies that seem to support those differences.But what does that have to do with raising children?  That is the question.

 

I originally was responding to this post

I've often wondered what will happen when a state approves a child from foster care being adopted by a same sex couple and the child sues for neglect or even intentional harm when they reach majority, not because their same sex parents were bad or awful to them, but because the state refused to recognize that both a mom and a dad are a superior choice for development of a child, absent some specific reason that isn't so for a particular child (for instance a foster child who has been abused by one sex, might fare better in an adoptive home with two parents of the other gender).

 See the bold part?  That is the statement I am disputing with my comment.  And this is my statement.

Quote

I think this whole father/mother scenario is nonsense.  Can anyone name one attribute or life lesson that only a father or a mother could teach?

The difference in brain structure does not answer the question that I originally asked. The studies do not support the idea that children receive some special knowledge, skills, outlook, or anything from only the father because he is male or only the mother because she is female.  Which is exactly what I stated in the post that you responded to.  

I am more than happy to be corrected on this, but you have yet to name one thing that only a father can teach or influence or show or whatever a child.  And the same goes with naming something only a mother can teach a child.  

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't think it's a matter of 'can't be taught' but more of 'less likely to be taught.'

Men can learn to see the world in the same way that women do (and vice-versa) with varying results, just like a right handed person can learn to write with their left (and vice-versa) with varying results.  It's a matter of training, desire, and need though; without training and desire, and someone actually believing it's necessary, it's not very likely to just happen on it's own.  

I think that same sex parents can provide everything that a child needs.  But I doubt that most same-sex parents (who's children do not have a relationship with their biological parent not in the relationship) automatically pull that off and a lot that i've read, don't even see the need to try.  I think that fathers are important and that mothers are important, for children, and everything else being equal, I think that heterosexual couples come out a head because they automatically provide both of those for their children.  

(I'm talking about parents/couples where everyone involved is a conscientious parent.  Bad parents aren't good for kids, regardless of the gender make up of the family).

Daniel got it exactly right. Yet you make the claim that I have bolded.  WHAT is less likely to be taught?

How do women see the world different than men do?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While I'm not CaliforniaBoy, my responses is this: I believe that men and women's brains are hardwired differently, and that there ARE generalized differences between genders.  Additionally, studies indicate there are generalized differences between the brains of straight men vs, gay men, and the same for straight women vs. lesbian women.  In fact, there's probably a LOT of differences between EVERYONE's brains, depending on a whole host of personality traits, genetics, biology, genetic expression, nutrition, development, drug/alcohol use, etc.  NO two parents are EVER going to be the same, whether they share the same gender, same Faith, same genetics, etc.  It seems over simplistic to focus in on gender differences as THE primary defining characteristic guiding what parents can (or can't) provide to their children.

I think CaliforniaBoy's point may be: even allowing for the fact that different peoples' brains are wired differently what essential differences between the genders do you believe are essential/vital to parenting/raising children that aren't or can't be otherwise provided by same-sex parents?  What essential characteristic(s), traits, lessons, etc. can't be effectively taught? 

EXACTLY!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Daniel got it exactly right. Yet you make the claim that I have bolded.  WHAT is less likely to be taught?

How do women see the world different than men do?

In a lesbian household, I think that seeing and understanding the world the way a man does is less likely to be taught and modeled. 

In a gay household, I think the opposite would be true. 

That is significant to me because the same sex parent is the most important and powerful role model in a child's life, while seeing the opposite sex parent work and interact with the family/world is also beneficial.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rivers
      In the same-sex marriage debate, I have heard it argued that the government should have no involvement whatsoever.  Let individuals and churches define marriage for themselves.  Its an intriguing idea and seems ideal from a libertarian perspective.
      I don't see this ever happening, but if it did, I am curious about how the LDS church would handle such a situation.  The church currently recognizes all legal heterosexual marriages as valid.  How would the church decide what or what is not a valid marriage if marriage were privatized?
    • By Daniel2
      I came across two articles today and I was struck by the contrast:
       
       
       
      "Free thought?" 
       
      How is anyone's freedom to think being threatened by same-sex marriage...??
       
      "Religious liberty"?
       
      Ironic that the church is still beating their drum to the tune that legal recognition of same-sex marriage to be a matter of “religious liberty,” given that the denial of legal recognition of same-sex marriage refuses to equally recognize and respect those religions that recognize and sanction marriages between same-sex couples.
       
      Now contrast the above tone and rhetoric with the thoughts brought up by this second article, which struck me as very applicable:
       
    • By Analytics
      Several people have noticed a pattern—when the tension between mainstream society and the Church becomes too large, the Church modifies to ease the tension.  The two most obvious examples are polygamy and the racial priesthood ban.  Many people think that society will continue to become more and more accepting of same-sex families as a normal, healthy variation of families, leading to more and more tension between mainstream society and the Church.  Several predict this tension will be resolved by the Church updating its position on same-sex families.  Others say this will never happen and anybody who thinks in might doesn’t understand the clear doctrine behind the Church’s current position.
       
      I’d like to discuss a counter-argument to this: the theory of evolution.  Apparently, a BYU professor and 84.26% of the participants on this message board think that faithful members of the Church can believe in evolution.  On the one hand, I agree—faithful Mormons can believe anything they want—as long as they pay their tithing, don’t smoke or drink, attend church, and don’t make waves, they can believe pretty-much anything they want about anything and still get a temple recommend.  But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean their beliefs are consistent with doctrine.
       
      The doctrinal point in question has been called by Bruce R. McConkie "The Three Pillars of Eternity."  In his own words:
       
      The three pillars of eternity, the three events, preeminent and transcendent above all others, are the creation, the fall, and the atonement. These three are the foundations upon which all things rest. Without any one of them all things would lose their purpose and meaning, and the plans and designs of Deity would come to naught.
       
      If there had been no creation, we would not be, neither the earth, nor any form of life upon its face. All things, all the primal elements, would be without form and void. God would have no spirit children; there would be no mortal probation; and none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no fall of man, there would not be a mortal probation. Mortal man would not be, nor would there be animals or fowls or fishes or life of any sort upon the earth. And, we repeat, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      If there had been no atonement of Christ, all things would be lost. The purposes of creation would vanish away. Lucifer would triumph over men and become the captain of their souls. And, we say it again, none of us would be on the way to immortality and eternal life.
       
      https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_three-pillars-eternity/
       
      That’s classic Mormon doctrine and is absolutely central.
       
      Here is a quote from the book Straight Answers to Tough Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding McConkie:
       
      Q: Is the theory of evolution compatible with the doctrine of the Fall?

      A: No. We can tug, twist, contort, and sell our birthright, but we cannot overcome the irreconcilable differences between the theory of organic evolution and the doctrine of the Fall.
       
      This is of course true, and is supported by multiple books of scripture, the temple ceremony, and multiple generations of latter-day Prophets.  Despite all of that, thanks to our modern sensibilities 84.26% agree that Mormons can believe in evolution.
       
      So if Mormon doctrine can evolve enough to make room for organic evolution, why can’t it evolve in a way that makes room for same-sex families?  The change to the core doctrine to make room for evolution is by far the more drastic.
    • By Coreyb
        I really don't have any doubt that in the future the LDS church will change its policy regarding same sex marriage. I am sure that will be disputed by many, and thats fine, just start a new thread on it. If I, and others, are right about this,I think allowing Gay couples to fully participate in the Sunday experience will be relatively easy to do. The real question becomes, is there ANY WAY to fit homosexual marriage into a traditional(ish) Mormon exaltation theology, or will it have to be discarded to accommodate, should this prediction come true?  I am a strong believer in exaltation, but I also am fairly convinced that for many individuals, there is no way they will be happy or whole with a spouse of the opposite gender. Your serious thoughts on this are appreciated...
    • By DJBrown
      I have been interested in this question for quite some time.  Does reading the Book of Mormon affect whether a person supports same-sex marriage?  
       
      I will state up front that I believe there is a link between these two things- reading the Book of Mormon and not supporting same-sex marriage.  I ask for your honesty in this poll.
       
      Update- sorry.  I changed the poll because I realized that I could not capture any correlation or lack thereof between reading the Book of Mormon and support of same-sex marriage.  Should have seen that before.  Sorry.
×