What Is The Damage That Gay Marriage Does To Children

[Rodeo]

God can do whatever wants, and I follow the rules of his Church as best I can. Heterosexual parents are here to stay. Lets change your scenario a bit and make heterosexual couples the 2-3% minority. Would humanity cease to exist? Probably not, but there would be far fewer people than there are today. That's simple biology. Given that homosexuality has been around for millions of years, and in humans since there were humans, it is premature to postulate its demise any time soon.

Do you think heterosexual parents are better in general rather than homosexual parents in general? (please no wishy-washy answer)

[Daniel2]

Can a male replace a female or a female replace a male?

If the female gives her child up for adoption by others, then yes, another parent can replace her, regardless of gender/race/religion/etc.

Of course, every parent, regardless of any one specific trait, is unique in their own ways, and will have both strengths, challenges, and deficits.

In that sense, no individual is entirely "replaceable"--and the child's new adoptive parent would be equally irreplaceable, in his or her own ways.

Is there any real difference between the two genders?

Statistically, I believe that there are--though any given child isn't affected by general statistics so much as the reality of his or her own actual circumstances, and every situation should be evaluated not based on generalities, but on the unique and specific needs and options available to each child.

Is the only real difference needed for the archaic demand for reproduction

I've never heard same-sex marriage supporters suggest that sexual reproduction is "archaic."

and now we can almost do that without either sex; so why have them?

Gender is an important component of individual identity and personal expression within relationships of all couples, whether straight or gay.

Does a male and a female really create an ideal unit for raising children

Successful parenting depends on a variety of factors and isn't singularly dependent on the gender of the parents involved.

or does all it really take is a village?

Depends on the circumstances, I would think...

How do any of you know what the impact is on a child when they are not raised by both genders?

A great question...

As I mentioned previously, patenting depends on a variety of factors, and cannot be boiled down to one single trait (I.e. "the gender of the parents involved").

What is the impact when they are raised by a single gender?

How do any of you know what the impact is on a child when they aren't raised by both genders?

I was raised overseas because my parents were military. Here in the states, it's common for people to ask me, "wow... how was thst...?!" To which my only answer is: it was all I ever knew, so for me, it was normal. I never knew anything differently. There were great benefits, and some severe disadvantages. As with everything in life, you take the good with the not-so-good, and of you're lucky, learn to appreciate and find value in both.

I prefer to think of how do we do our best rather than conclude that all we really need to do is no worse than the worst among us.

I agree; we should be doing everything we can to encourage all parents to do the best that they can, when it comes to raising their children. That's another reason I support same-sex marriage--to strengthen the familial relationships of gay couples raising children, and ensuring such kids have the protections that come from having parents that are married.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

I know of no studies that says they are statistically different. That is probably due to its small sample size, and relative newness in our culture.

[JAHS]

Kids can be cruel to other kids sometimes. I would imagine that there could be some problems with other kids teasing or bullying the child who has same sex parents. It depends on how strong of a personality the kid has and his own self-esteem as to how much damage such teasing could do. 

[JLHPROF]

My parents smoked, my dad drank heavily, my family is full of people breaking the law of chastity.  I have been unharmed (other than the second hand smoke).  I am not talking about religious belief but rather physical, emotional, or other harm to the child.  You can protest a public issue with a spiritual repercussions, but that is another arena.  It simply won't fly.   

 

Then why is this being posted on a religious discussion board?  The sociological damage (physical/emotional) are a subject for another place.  This board is to discuss the gospel doctrine.

You asked what damage is done to children of homosexuals.  I would argue that under the religious belief we are supposed to discuss here there is much damage done spiritually.

 

Protesting a public issue with spiritual repercussions is exactly this arena.  Debating psychology is NOT a mormon topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

Then why is this being posted on a religious discussion board?  The sociological damage (physical/emotional) are a subject for another place.  This board is to discuss the gospel doctrine.

You asked what damage is done to children of homosexuals.  I would argue that under the religious belief we are supposed to discuss here there is much damage done spiritually.

 

Protesting a public issue with spiritual repercussions is exactly this arena.  Debating psychology is NOT a mormon topic.

This morning, In my re-reading of last April's general conference talks, I came across this bit from Elder Neil L. Andersen:

 

 

Recently, I spoke with a Laurel from the United States. I quote from her email:

“This past year some of my friends on Facebook began posting their position on marriage. Many favored same-sex marriage, and several LDS youth indicated they ‘liked’ the postings. I made no comment.

“I decided to declare my belief in traditional marriage in a thoughtful way.

“With my profile picture, I added the caption ‘I believe in marriage between a man and a woman.’ Almost instantly I started receiving messages. ‘You are selfish.’ ‘You are judgmental.’ One compared me to a slave owner. And I received this post from a great friend who is a strong member of the Church: ‘You need to catch up with the times. Things are changing and so should you.’

“I did not fight back,” she said, “but I did not take my statement down.”

She concludes: “Sometimes, as President Monson said, ‘You have to stand alone.’ Hopefully as youth, we will stand together in being true to God and to the teachings of His living prophets.”¹¹

 

Sometimes, those among us who demand sociological justification for clear direction given to us from prophets and apostles remind me of the "strong member of the Church" who criticized the young woman in the incident related by Elder Andersen.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

This morning, In my re-reading of last April's general conference talks, I came across this bit from Elder Neil L. Andersen:

Sometimes, those among us who demand sociological justification for clear direction given to us from prophets and apostles remind me of the "strong member of the Church" who criticized the young woman in the incident related by Elder Andersen.

I'm not sure what it means to "believe in" marriage between one man and one woman, in the context of an unexplained FB post.

I mean, I 'believe in' marriage between a man and a woman, too--my parents are a great example of it; I also demonstrate my 'belief in' and support for marriage between a man and a woman every time I attend weddings and celebrate anniversaries of my friends and family who so-marry.

'Believing in' or supporting man and woman marriage doesn't negate belief in or support for marriages between two men; or marriages between two women.

Sadly, what many people mean when they say they 'believe in marriage between a man and a woman," though, is that they also support preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The unspoken and increasingly uncomfortable truth is they are actually saying they support proactive efforts to refuse to allow others to marry.

That's an entirely different thing that benignly "believing in" marriage between a man and a woman.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

This morning, In my re-reading of last April's general conference talks, I came across this bit from Elder Neil L. Andersen:

 

 

Sometimes, those among us who demand sociological justification for clear direction given to us from prophets and apostles remind me of the "strong member of the Church" who criticized the young woman in the incident related by Elder Andersen.

I suppose some 50 years ago a Mormon could have stood firm in the clear direction given to us from the prophets and apostles about black people being less valiant in the pre-mortal world. But that Mormon in trying to be faithful would have been wrong, standing firm in the assumption that the clear direction was God's will.

There is just as much, if not more, nobility in those who are willing to seek our personal inspiration to know God's will in certain matters than there is for those who will follow the leaders.

[tonie]

This morning, In my re-reading of last April's general conference talks, I came across this bit from Elder Neil L. Andersen:

 

 

Sometimes, those among us who demand sociological justification for clear direction given to us from prophets and apostles remind me of the "strong member of the Church" who criticized the young woman in the incident related by Elder Andersen.

 

 

A religious justification is not an acceptable constitutional justification or sociological justification.

 

As was published in BYU Universe:

Viewpoint: Defending Proposition 8 — It’s time to admit the reasons

Cary Crall

 

"It is time for LDS supporters of Prop 8 to be honest about their reasons for supporting the amendment. It’s not about adoption rights, or the first amendment, or tradition. These arguments were not found worthy of the standards for finding facts set up by our judicial system. The real reason is that a man who most of us believe is a prophet of God told us to support the amendment. [This is a privately held religious belief that we are using to support legislation that takes away a right from a minority group. If our government were to enact legislation based solely on such beliefs, it would set a dangerous precedent, possibly even more so than allowing a homosexual to marry the person he or she loves.] We must be honest about our motivation, and consider what it means to the delicate balance between our relationship with God and with His children here on earth. Maybe then we will stop thoughtlessly spouting arguments that are offensive to gays and lesbians and indefensible to those not of our faith."

 

I do not agree with all that Cary Crall wrote, he does have a point. How many LDS knew about Prop 8 prior to the Letter from the First Presidency and the nationwide LDS campaign to raise funds to support Prop 8? 

 

What we LDS will have to accept, is that God laws are not mans laws - and it borders on violating our own religion to make what we believe are God's laws into mans laws

 

 

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Many religions accept same sex marriage, forcing our religious beliefs into law (without constitutional justification for said laws) leaves other religions "proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

 

What is legal to man is not always acceptable to God. We can maintain our religious beliefs that same sex relations and same sex marriage are wrong in Gods eyes, and thus our religious beliefs are opposed to such; and at the same time accept that there is not a constitutional justification for prohibiting same sex relations or same sex marriage.

 

And as I stated earlier, "What, if any, temporal harm befalls children raised by same sex couples, is yet to be seen."

Edited September 22, 2014 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm not sure what it means to "believe in" marriage between one man and one woman, in the context of an unexplained FB post.

I mean, I 'believe in' marriage between a man and a woman, too--my parents are a great example of it; I also demonstrate my 'belief in' and support for marriage between a man and a woman every time I attend weddings and celebrate anniversaries of my friends and family who so-marry.

'Believing in' or supporting man and woman marriage doesn't negate belief in or support for marriages between two men; or marriages between two women.

Sadly, what many people mean when they say they 'believe in marriage between a man and a woman," though, is that they also support preventing same-sex couples from marrying. The unspoken and increasingly uncomfortable truth is they are actually saying the support refusing to allow others to marry---and that's an entirely different thing that benignly "believing in" something else.

The sense I get from the story as Elder Andersen related it was that the young woman was expressing her belief in marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman, and, from the harsh response her post got, this was obvious from the context.

[Scott Lloyd]

I suppose some 50 years ago a Mormon could have stood firm in the clear direction given to us from the prophets and apostles about black people being less valiant in the pre-mortal world. But that Mormon in trying to be faithful would have been wrong, standing firm in the assumption that the clear direction was God's will.

 

I have a clear memory of being a Mormon 50 years ago, and I don't recall such "clear direction" from prophets and apostles to the effect that black people were less valiant.

 

On the other hand, it has always been the teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ -- unanimously expressed by prophets and apostles who have had anything at all to say on the matter -- that homsexual behavior is contrary to the laws and commandments of God and is a grave sin.

 

There is just as much, if not more, nobility in those who are willing to seek our personal inspiration to know God's will in certain matters than there is for those who will follow the leaders.

 

This presupposes that those who follow the leaders have not also received personal inspiration about God's will in the matter. In fact, I deem it presumptuous to insinuate that they have not.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[bcuzbcuz]

There is this report from Canada

 

http://www.imfcanada.org/issues/children-parents-who-have-same-sex-relationships-new-study

Sorry, but that article is "crap"! Check out the criticisms, included at the bottom of the article,

Largely negative commentaries about the study include:

Box Turtle Bulletin

John Corvino in The New Republic

based on what the article itself states was used to "define" the parameters of the study.

It is as useful as studying the "link between wearing white leather sailing loafers and homosexuality".

If you read the opening comments from John Corvino´s article in the New Republic, all becomes clear why the "research" intended a certain outcome, even before it was conceived..

[Scott Lloyd]

A religious justification is not an acceptable constitutional justification or sociological justification.

 

Well, I suppose this gets back to JHLPROF's challenge about putting up a thread demanding sociological justification on what primarily is a religious-based message board.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry, but that article is "crap"! Check out the criticisms, included at the bottom of the article,

Largely negative commentaries about the study include:

Box Turtle Bulletin

John Corvino in The New Republic

based on what the article itself states was used to "define" the parameters of the study.

It is as useful as studying the "link between wearing white leather sailing loafers and homosexuality".

If you read the opening comments from John Corvino´s article in the New Republic, all becomes clear why the "research" intended a certain outcome, even before it was conceived..

Who made the New Republic  the Great Determiner of what is or is not "crap"?

 

Do you work for them or something?

[Daniel2]

The sense I get from the story as Elder Andersen related it was that the young woman was expressing her belief in marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman, and, from the harsh response her post got, this was obvious from the context.

That's the sense that I got, too.

And if such people actually mean they support banning civil marriage for gay couples, they can and should expect to be challenged to defend and probably criticized for supporting such bans.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Daniel2

[Rodeo]

"Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of society.

The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

AMEN and AMEN!

[Scott Lloyd]

That's the sense that I got, too.

And if such people actually mean they support banning gay marriage, they can and should expect to be challenged to defend and probably criticized for their unjust discrimination against against others who hold a different belief.

I think the idea that one can expect such backlash for upholding principle is part of the crux of Elder Andersen's conference talk.

 

That doesn't mean such backlash is just or right, particularly when it takes the form of labeling someone as selfish, or judgmental, or, in this instance comparing that person to a slave owner or, an ostensibly "strong" member of the Church pressuring another member to "change with the times" by rejecting the teachings of prophets and apostles.

 

It's one more instance of calling evil good and good evil.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Kids can be cruel to other kids sometimes. I would imagine that there could be some problems with other kids teasing or bullying the child who has same sex parents. It depends on how strong of a personality the kid has and his own self-esteem as to how much damage such teasing could do. 

 

One's own bad behavior is always the fault of somebody else.

[stemelbow]

I have a clear memory of being a Mormon 50 years ago, and I don't recall such "clear direction" from prophets and apostles to the effect that black people were less valiant.

hm...So when that teaching prevailed among the saints, you did not view it as clear direction from the prophets and apostles?

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

Here's a clear direction from the First Presidency telling us that blacks are cursed by the seed of Cain, that they (black people) were among those in the pre-mortal world who took upon themselves a handicap in order to get to come here because of their poor conduct.

Anyway, whether you heard it or not, whether you listened or paid attention is not the issue. it clearly was taught, that which is now disavowed. How can we escape the incredible amount of confusion this precedent has set?

 

On the other hand, it has always been the teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ -- unanimously expressed by prophets and apostles who have had anything at all to say on the matter -- that homsexual behavior is contrary to the laws and commandments of God and is a grave sin.

Perhaps we have been doing nothing but working with less knowledge and have thus made assumptions, which assumptions have led us to create revelation and doctrine on the matter when none such has come?

 

This presupposes that those who follow the leaders have not also received personal inspiration about God's will in the matter. In fact, I deem it presumptuous to insinuate that they have not.

Not my intention, nor did I try to suggest as much.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you have a link to this source?  I didn't know that same sex marriage has been legal for 20 years (at least in the States.)  I was under the impression that early statistics showed a lower divorce rate in same sex marriages.

You are correct, katherine, and the source did compare gay relationships to legally married heterosexuals.  The 62% versus 5% figure was contained in “Why Gay Marriage Doesn't Matter, Sort Of,” Aug 1, 2012, online at http://promormon.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-gay-marriage-doesnt-matter-sort-of.html , by some guy named Bob (not me), but he didn't give a specific source.

 

However, Ana Samuel, “New Family Structures Research and the ‘No Differences’ Claim,” Family Structures Studies, online at http://www.familystructurestudies.com/summary , concluded that 

 

This strongly suggests that the parents’ same-sex relationships were often short-lived, a finding consistent with the broader research on elevated levels of instability among same-sex romantic partners. For example, a recent 2012 study of same-sex couples in Great Britain finds that gay and lesbian cohabiting couples are more likely to separate than heterosexual couples.⁸ A 2006 study of same sex marriages in Norway and Sweden found that “divorce risk levels are considerably higher in same-sex marriages”⁹ such that Swedish lesbian couples are more than three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples, and Swedish gay couples are 1.35 times more likely to divorce (net of controls). Indeed, sociologists Timothy Biblarz and Judith Stacey, two of the most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage in the U.S. academy, acknowledge that “preliminary data hint that their [lesbian] relationships may prove less durable.”¹⁰

 

notes:

8  Strohm, Charles Q., “The Stability of Same-Sex Cohabitation, Different-Sex Cohabitation, and Marriage.” California Center for Population Research, UCLA, 1 Feb 2012 .

9  Andersson, Noack, Seierstad and Weedon-Fekjaer, “The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden.” Demography, Volume 43 Feb 2006: 79-98. “We found that divorce risks are higher in same-sex partnerships than opposite-sex marriages and that unions of lesbians are considerably less stable, or more dynamic, than unions of gay men….In Norway, 13% of partnerships of men and 21% of female partnerships are likely to end in divorce within six years from partnership registration. In Sweden, 20% of male partnerships and 30% of female marriages are likely to end in divorce within five years of partnership formation. These levels are higher than the corresponding 13% of heterosexual marriages that end in divorce within five years in Sweden.” p. 95.

10  The demographics of same-sex marriages in Norway and Sweden, Gunnar Andersson, Turid Noack, Ane Seierstad and Harald Weedon-Fekjær 2006. And Bibliarz and Stacey, 2010: 11: “preliminary data hint that their relationships may prove less durable.” Journal of Marriage and Family.

 

This was likewise the conclusion of Peter S. Sprigg, “Homosexual Parent Study: Summary of Findings,” Family Research Council, online at http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/homosexual-parent-study-summary-of-findings , excerpt:

 

4) Homosexual relationships are intrinsically "unstable." The fact that only two of over two hundred children with a parent who had a same-sex relationship lived with that parent and his or her partner from birth to age 18 shows how extraordinarily rare "stable gay relationships" really are.

 

That instability of relationships has long been a homosexual characteristic.  As psychologist Allen E. Bergin pointed out, long before the HIV/AIDS crisis began, 50% of white male homosexuals in San Francisco had each had at least 500 sexual partners, 28% had had 1,000 partners, and fully 25% of the adult homosexual males of San Francisco had actually had sex with minors under the age of 16 – while many more retained that as an objective and used a variety of means to obtain access to young boys. --Bergin, “Bringing the Restoration to the Academic World: Clinical Psychology as a Test Case,” BYU Studies, 19/4 (1979):449-473 (esp. 467, citing Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg [1978]).  Cf. Eli Schuster, “Study Shows Link Between Homosexuality and Pedophilia,” The Interim, Sept 2002 (http://www.lifesite.net/interim), citing Timothy J. Dailey, Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse (2002).

 

It may not be politically correct to mention such data, but we should be aware of the problem.

[Robert F. Smith]

hm...So when that teaching prevailed among the saints, you did not view it as clear direction from the prophets and apostles?

Here's a clear direction from the First Presidency telling us that blacks are cursed by the seed of Cain, that they (black people) were among those in the pre-mortal world who took upon themselves a handicap in order to get to come here because of their poor conduct.

Then there is Bruce McConkie saying: "Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.*

 

*  McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137; republication of original address of Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike Unto God," address at CES Religious Educators Symposium, 18 August 1978.

 

Anyway, whether you heard it or not, whether you listened or paid attention is not the issue. it clearly was taught, that which is now disavowed. How can we escape the incredible amount of confusion this precedent has set?

Perhaps we have been doing nothing but working with less knowledge and have thus made assumptions, which assumptions have led us to create revelation and doctrine on the matter when none such has come?

 ..........................................................  

You make a valid point, if and only if we believe in the theory of the infallibility of prophets.  As pointed out recently by President Dieter Uchtdorf, 

 

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past.  We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church History, along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events, there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.  Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience.  When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there’s a difference of opinion as to what the facts really mean.  A question that creates doubt in some, can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes.  There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings.  God is perfect and his doctrine is pure.  But he works through us, his imperfect children.  And imperfect people make mistakes.*

 

*  Uchtdorf, October 5, 2013, LDS General Conference, Ensign, 43/11 (Nov 2013):22.

[JAHS]

One's own bad behavior is always the fault of somebody else.

 

Whatever, but I still see this as one potential source of damage that could happen to a kid with same sex parents.

[Daniel2]

I think the idea that one can expect such backlash for upholding principle is part of the crux of Elder Andersen's conference talk.

 

That doesn't mean such backlash is just or right, particularly when it takes the form of labeling someone as selfish, or judgmental, or, in this instance comparing that person to a slave owner or, an ostensibly "strong" member of the Church pressuring another member to "change with the times" by rejecting the teachings of prophets and apostles.

 

It's one more instance of calling evil good and good evil.

Being challenged in one's beliefs and enduring criticism isn't "backlash."

Even so, I imagine the other aspects of what you describe above is almost as unpleasant as the epithets and insults that gays and lesbians have endured and continue to endure, so I can certainly sympathize how uncomfortable it is.

[tonie]

Well, they are raised accepting sin as ok.  That's pretty harmful.

 

According to LDS beliefs, but what of other religions that do not consider it sin? Do we then deny our own religious principles - let everyone worship God according their the dictates of their own conscience (Articles of Faith) and not foster our religious beliefs while proscribing others and deny them freedom of woriship (Doctrine and Covenants Section 134:9) - in seeking to legislate our belief in God?

Edited September 22, 2014 by tonie

[katherine the great]

 

You are correct, katherine, and the source did compare gay relationships to legally married heterosexuals.  The 62% versus 5% figure was contained in “Why Gay Marriage Doesn't Matter, Sort Of,” Aug 1, 2012, online at http://promormon.blogspot.com/2012/08/why-gay-marriage-doesnt-matter-sort-of.html , by some guy named Bob (not me), but he didn't give a specific source.

 

 

With all due respect, if he didn't give a specific source then why are you quoting him?  Without a study to look at and analyze, I have to assume that the data is not accurate.  I didn't look at your third source (I will try when I have more time), but the second one relies heavily on the study Duncan linked to which I looked at very carefully and I can find no correlation to gay marriage at all.  When it comes to studies that make sweeping generalizations about a population, I'm kind of a bulldog.  In my line of work, I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing population studies (which I hate but someone has to do it.)--some are good and some are horrendously awful and border on libel.