thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 6 hours ago, rongo said: I know more than one such couple in my town in south-central Arizona of 50,000. Only 200 couples in all of California (and California is . . . California), of all states, seems like a really, really low estimate. California really isn't all that different than other states. We just have a very large population to start with.
ERMD Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 On 1/26/2017 at 10:21 AM, rockpond said: The same way OSM couples procreate when one of the two has infertility issues. Look up the definition of procreate.
ERMD Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 On 1/26/2017 at 10:28 AM, thesometimesaint said: It is a simple question with a complex answer. If the only function of marriage is to produce children(Reproduction), what happens when we're well past the age for having children? Must we be required by law to divorce? IE; My wife is 64 and I'm 65. Quite frankly we don't want any more children, at least in this life. I'm quite content with my Grandchildren. I get to spoil them rotten and send them home to their parents. No one said it's the only function. The claim was that SSM couple marry for the same reasons as heterosexual couples.
ERMD Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 23 hours ago, Buckeye said: The real question is whether someone can have eternal increase - children - in a SS relationship. And the answer to that is clearly yes. CFR
rockpond Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, ERMD said: Look up the definition of procreate. to beget or bring forth offspring It doesn't matter how couples get their children - they love them all equally. And gay couples marry for the same reasons as heterosexuals. How many couples do you know who said: "we are only getting married so that we can have children exclusively through natural childbirth." Edited January 27, 2017 by rockpond
rockpond Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife so long as she can conceive naturally and give birth to babies through her own uterus... Sounds right.
Jeanne Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 13 minutes ago, rockpond said: Do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife so long as she can conceive naturally and give birth to babies through her own uterus... Sounds right. And this Rockpond..is how a lot of women feel is their genuine worth. 1
rockpond Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: And this Rockpond..is how a lot of women feel is their genuine worth. Very sad.
thesometimesaint Posted January 27, 2017 Posted January 27, 2017 18 minutes ago, rockpond said: Very sad. Agreed.
Bob Crockett Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 On 1/27/2017 at 4:08 AM, rongo said: I know more than one such couple in my town in south-central Arizona of 50,000. Only 200 couples in all of California (and California is . . . California), of all states, seems like a really, really low estimate. You have to factor out households with children who are the biological offspring of one of the couple.
Calm Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 I believe I posted data that showed significant numbers of adopted children in same sex couple families. You said you have seen studies demonstrating your view. Could you please provide some of these studies? 2
rockpond Posted January 28, 2017 Posted January 28, 2017 4 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: You have to factor out households with children who are the biological offspring of one of the couple. Why? Step-parents don't count? I second Calm's request.
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 Kids being brought into a marriage is different than a childless couple seeking to add a child to their family. The step parent may not want the child, not always that willing, but take the kids along as a necessary accessory of their partner. Less likely to happen with adoption when screened. Sostep is harder to determine motivation. Still need the numbers though.
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Lost my post so just posting two links that someone else can take the data out of: https://www.lifelongadoptions.com/lgbt-adoption/lgbt-adoption-statistics https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-census-still-doesnt-know-how-many-same-sex-couples-there-are/ The 13% compared to 3% seems to be what is being asked for, but I can't tell if that includes step adoptions or not. However given that opposite couples have the option usually of raising children without adoption, this is not really an apples to apples relationship. Not sure how to measure that... Probably need a questionnaire to couples..."do you want kids?" Edited January 29, 2017 by Calm
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 Additional info on what might influence children choices for same sex couples that are different than opposite sex: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/08/economist-explains-0
carbon dioxide Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/26/2017 at 2:51 PM, Buckeye said: At the present, SS couples cannot procreate in the biological sense (though those boundaries are being pushed and, IMO, will be breached in my lifetime). But that's besides the point. The real question is whether someone can have eternal increase - children - in a SS relationship. And the answer to that is clearly yes. SS can't procreate in a biological sense. They never have and never will. They would always need a third party to have some involvement in the process. As to the question will a SS couple have in eternal increase in children. The answer is clearly NO. All SS couple relationships end at death and there is no provision to ever seal them for eternity in the resurrection. Since there is no SS couples in the resurrection sealed together, there can be no eternal increase since that relationship does not exist.
Bob Crockett Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 16 hours ago, Calm said: Kids being brought into a marriage is different than a childless couple seeking to add a child to their family. The step parent may not want the child, not always that willing, but take the kids along as a necessary accessory of their partner. Less likely to happen with adoption when screened. Sostep is harder to determine motivation. Still need the numbers though. It is very hard to parse the numbers. It is very rare for a gay couple to go through an adoption agency (or private adoption). My own gay friends seem to use normal, artificial or host conception if they really want children. Before same-sex marriage that would require an adoption process for the other member of the relationship, which is not the kind of adoption I'm saying is rare.
Yirgacheffe Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 4:06 PM, rongo said: Honestly? Both my wife and I would say for our kids. We love each other very much, but we can't separate our love for our children from our "couples love." And they aren't mutually exclusive. I think that's the problem. Most modern people, including most LDS, see marriage, contra the Brethren's teachings, just as the world does: as a thing that is primarily about the parents and secondarily about the children. And what do we have to show for it? A lot of messed up kids and messed up adults trying to meet their needs. Our needs are met as mom and dad, husband and wife, as we meet our children's needs. It isn't zero-sum or either/or. I know people who genuinely cultivate their marriage and courtship to the detriment of their family. One extended family member, an outstanding and wonderful person who has served in a stake presidency, married his high school sweetheart in the temple right out of high school. He didn't serve a mission because he couldn't risk losing her, and they have been in love and absolutely devoted to each other throughout their life. True love if there ever was! Each of their children are completely inactive, and when I've discussed this with my parents, they have both told me that they were "too much in love with each other." They were so devoted to each other that their children didn't get the focus they should have. And the family was raised fully active in the Church. My wife and I roll our eyes and gag a little at the near-constant "weekly date night" culture in the Church (or, on another level, "girls' night out" or "boys night out"). To us, every night is date night, and date night almost always means having our kids with us --- and it's been this way since they were babies. We took them everywhere --- and still do. I know that most couples think this is stifling, and they "just need some time alone, without the kids." We always missed our kids, even if they were only gone for a couple of hours. We've been the same about date nights, we hired a baby sitter to go do something without the kids (other than things like shopping, financial dealings and so forth) once in 15 years. We do make time everyday to sit and talk with each other with out interruption from the kids, so it would not be unusual for my kids to be told to "go play I'm talking to your mom/dad right now". I would say our marriage was formed, for us, it is maintained for us, and is currently directed towards our children. They will grow up move out and live their own lives, marriages, kids, and so forth, "raising children" is not a permanent part of a marriage, it's just one stage of it. 3
bluebell Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 3:06 PM, rongo said: My wife and I roll our eyes and gag a little at the near-constant "weekly date night" culture in the Church (or, on another level, "girls' night out" or "boys night out"). To us, every night is date night, and date night almost always means having our kids with us --- and it's been this way since they were babies. We took them everywhere --- and still do. I know that most couples think this is stifling, and they "just need some time alone, without the kids." We always missed our kids, even if they were only gone for a couple of hours. I know a lot of people in the church who role their eyes and gag a little when they here couples talking about how they miss their kids after a couple of hours and won't go anywhere just as a couple. What you and your wife, and the people i wrote about, don't seem to have realized yet is that there are a LOT of different ways to be great parents and great spouses and that just because something works for you (or is what you need) does not mean that that is the only right way to be and those who feel differently or need differently are worthy of eye rolls and gags. 3
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 5 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: It is very rare for a gay couple to go through an adoption agency (or private adoption). CFR 1
rockpond Posted January 30, 2017 Posted January 30, 2017 23 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: SS can't procreate in a biological sense. They never have and never will. They would always need a third party to have some involvement in the process. As to the question will a SS couple have in eternal increase in children. The answer is clearly NO. All SS couple relationships end at death and there is no provision to ever seal them for eternity in the resurrection. Since there is no SS couples in the resurrection sealed together, there can be no eternal increase since that relationship does not exist. It's certainly true right now that gay couples can't be sealed. There was a time not so long ago that couples couldn't be sealed if one or both was a member of a certain race either. The Lord changed that.
ERMD Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 On 1/27/2017 at 3:18 PM, rockpond said: to beget or bring forth offspring It doesn't matter how couples get their children - they love them all equally. And gay couples marry for the same reasons as heterosexuals. How many couples do you know who said: "we are only getting married so that we can have children exclusively through natural childbirth." I've been away from computers for a couple of weeks. I didn't claim it matters how they get their children, but we are talking about procreation. That is not the same as adoption. You said reasons. That is plural, so your "we are only getting married so that we can have children exclusively through natural childbirth" does not apply. Having children is one of the reasons heterosexual couples get married. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. They cannot be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.
rockpond Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 45 minutes ago, ERMD said: I've been away from computers for a couple of weeks. I didn't claim it matters how they get their children, but we are talking about procreation. That is not the same as adoption. You said reasons. That is plural, so your "we are only getting married so that we can have children exclusively through natural childbirth" does not apply. Having children is one of the reasons heterosexual couples get married. Homosexual couples cannot procreate. They cannot be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Having children is one of the reasons heterosexual couples get married. But it is not the only reason. AND, it is not even a reason at all for many couples. My grandpa was married and sealed in the temple to his second wife long after either them had the desire/ability to procreate. Some hetero couples marry knowing that they will need to adopt. I know at least one such couple. I stand by my statement. There are many reasons heterosexual couples get married. And there are many reasons homosexual couples get married. And if you put all of those reasons into a Venn diagram, they would be almost entirely overlapping circles. 1
ERMD Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 19 minutes ago, rockpond said: Having children is one of the reasons heterosexual couples get married. But it is not the only reason. AND, it is not even a reason at all for many couples. My grandpa was married and sealed in the temple to his second wife long after either them had the desire/ability to procreate. Some hetero couples marry knowing that they will need to adopt. I know at least one such couple. I stand by my statement. There are many reasons heterosexual couples get married. And there are many reasons homosexual couples get married. And if you put all of those reasons into a Venn diagram, they would be almost entirely overlapping circles. The delusion continues.
rockpond Posted February 6, 2017 Posted February 6, 2017 3 minutes ago, ERMD said: The delusion continues. Good counter argument. 2
Recommended Posts