New Article Marking 25 Years Since Family Proclamation

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

this is all in Canada or all over the world, where are we talking here? I am only talking about Canada

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  The Church teaches that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.  Polygamy is a unique expression of that man-woman pairing.  In contrast, same-sex marriage is not a man-woman pairing.  Group marriages is not a man-woman pairing.

I think it's odd you keep trying to describe polygamy as something of a degree different from monogamy rather than something different in type.  Odd?  sure.  But also problematic.  Of course polygamy and monogamy are different types of marriage.  

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your remarks are increasingly unserious.

Perhaps that's for the best.  We don't seem to get very far in our discussions.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you bring up old arguments when you know they have been rebutted?

They haven't been rebutted.  But I didn't bring up Jacob 2 Robert did, then smac did again.  

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, Duncan said:

this is all in Canada or all over the world, where are we talking here? I am only talking about Canada

I do genealogy too, I find the that yes, the amount of kids born to some families is quite high but so is the death rate. My European Grandfather's family had 11 children but only 5 lived, whereas my Canadian Grandfather's family, exact same time period, 7 kids all lived, with 2 dying as adults. It seems to depend on where one lived I guess. 

Your individual experience is merely anecdotal, and anecdotes don't tell us what the statistics are.  Family size has rapidly diminished in recent centuries.  One LDS family today having a lot of kids makes no difference at all in the overall stats.  Even individual state figures won't make much difference.  It has to be an overall figure to be useful in assaying our present and future dilemmas.  The official Canadian figures I gave you showed a clear drop in the rate of marriage in Canada.  This is also true of the USA, and has been for quite some time.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I think it's odd you keep trying to describe polygamy as something of a degree different from monogamy rather than something different in type.  Odd?  sure.  But also problematic.  Of course polygamy and monogamy are different types of marriage.  

In a sense, you are correct.  In terms of strict taxonomic designations, polygamy is materially "different" from monogamy.  But if we go further up in the nomenclature, I think they merge.  As in "different species, same genus."

In contrast, same-sex marriage is a wholly different species and genus.  No man-woman pairing, no procreative intent, no procreative capacity.  It is a fundamentally distinctive kind of "marriage."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your individual experience is merely anecdotal, and anecdotes don't tell us what the statistics are.  Family size has rapidly diminished in recent centuries.  One LDS family today having a lot of kids makes no difference at all in the overall stats.  Even individual state figures won't make much difference.  It has to be an overall figure to be useful in assaying our present and future dilemmas.  The official Canadian figures I gave you showed a clear drop in the rate of marriage in Canada.  This is also true of the USA, and has been for quite some time.

Even LDS families are shrinking. I know many of my sons' age groups, they are 28 and 31, that marry in the temple and are very active, and have been married several years, and haven't had children yet. I wonder if many don't want to bring children into the world as it is now. My niece is one but they went ahead and now have three. 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Even LDS families are shrinking. I know many of my sons' age groups, they are 28 and 31, that marry in the temple and are very active, and have been married several years, and haven't had children yet. I wonder if many don't want to bring children into the world as it is now. My niece is one but they went ahead and now have three. 

I think it's more socially acceptable in the Church these days to wait.  In the past it I think it was more socially "expected" (but not really required) to not delay having kids.

For me, I am very grateful that my wife and I did not wait.  Having them drew my wife and I closer together, made us more committed to each other and our family, and helped us focus on education, employment, elimination of debt, and other important considerations.  It also made having a large family more feasible, as my wife was in her young 30s when we decided that six kids was a sufficient amount of multiplyin' and replenishin'.  I have reasonable expectations of becoming a grandfather before 50.  And my grandchildren will very likely have the chance to get to know not only their grandparents, but their great-grandparents, all four of whom are still alive and kicking.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In a sense, you are correct.  In terms of strict taxonomic designations, polygamy is materially "different" from monogamy.  But if we go further up in the nomenclature, I think they merge.  As in "different species, same genus."

In contrast, same-sex marriage is a wholly different species and genus.  No man-woman pairing, no procreative intent, no procreative capacity.  It is a fundamentally distinctive kind of "marriage."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Males and females are different species, as if species is determined by gender?  Where did you get that idea?  I hope it isn't contagious.

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

Show me a mutigenerational (extended) family that doesn't have a man & woman & children and then tell me how that equates to a family.  Please.

This is the type of rhetoric that alienates many of us from the LDS Faith, and especially many young LGBT members (and who affirm the inherent goodness of their own innate romantic and sexual identities) who unsuccessfully try to find a place for themselves and their same-gender relationships within LDS belief and culture (a failure that I'm fully aware is what many straight members of the LDS Faith feel is entirely as it should be, given their belief that such relationships are contrary to God's will).

My husband and I have four children, one of whom is single, two of whom are married to opposite-gender spouses, and one of whom is married to a same-gender spouse.

I'd wager that most people in the US are able to see and understand that  my husband and I and our daughter and her wife are all accurately considered to be "a family," whether or not one considers the genders of the spouses of our other kids. 

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s pretty clear your post was motivated by your fantasy that the Church will one day bless homosexual relations and homosexual marriage as acceptable before God. Hadn’t happened, and it ain’t gonna happen. 

Not yet.... That clock is still counting down.   But it will, though it will likely only happen after a few rotations of the members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.  In the end, there isn't really a way for either of us to prove our respective positions on this point, other than waiting it out.  

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it's more socially acceptable in the Church these days to wait.  In the past it I think it was more socially "expected" (but not really required) to not delay having kids.

For me, I am very grateful that my wife and I did not wait.  Having them drew my wife and I closer together, made us more committed to each other and our family, and helped us focus on education, employment, elimination of debt, and other important considerations.  It also made having a large family more feasible, as my wife was in her young 30s when we decided that six kids was a sufficient amount of multiplyin' and replenishin'.  I have reasonable expectations of becoming a grandfather before 50.  And my grandchildren will very likely have the chance to get to know not only their grandparents, but their great-grandparents, all four of whom are still alive and kicking.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree, it's nice to be at a younger age to have a family. And be able to be grandparents, and even great grandparents. I am holding out hope that I'll get more than three grands! Not looking good for my last three, they aren't desiring children quite yet. Two are single, one is married. The married one is desiring to adopt, they feel there are many children that don't have a family. So that's really honorable! My two single sons, don't have their sights on having families yet, bummer. 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This is the type of rhetoric that alienates many of us from the LDS Faith, and especially many young LGBT members (and who affirm the inherent goodness of their own innate romantic and sexual identities) who unsuccessfully try to find a place for themselves and their same-gender relationships within LDS belief and culture (a failure that I'm fully aware is what many straight members of the LDS Faith feel is entirely as it should be, given their belief that such relationships are contrary to God's will).

My husband and I have four children, one of whom is single, two of whom are married to opposite-gender spouses, and one of whom is married to a same-gender spouse.

I'd wager that most people in the US are able to see and understand that  my husband and I and our daughter and her wife are all accurately considered to be "a family," whether or not one considers the genders of the spouses of our other kids. 

If truth and righteousness were determined by majority rule then you would have a fair point, but they're not, so you don't.  What you have is the stereotypical he said she said argument and since one person's opinion is not as good as another's because some people are right and some people are wrong regardless of how many people agree with them.  And while I have the microphone for a moment I'd also like to point out that the quip "Might make right" is also wrong and this is not a popularity contest.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

This is the type of rhetoric that alienates many of us from the LDS Faith, and especially many young LGBT members (and who affirm the inherent goodness of their own innate romantic and sexual identities) who unsuccessfully try to find a place for themselves and their same-gender relationships within LDS belief and culture (a failure that I'm fully aware is what many straight members of the LDS Faith feel is entirely as it should be, given their belief that such relationships are contrary to God's will).

My husband and I have four children, one of whom is single, two of whom are married to opposite-gender spouses, and one of whom is married to a same-gender spouse.

I'd wager that most people in the US are able to see and understand that  my husband and I and our daughter and her wife are all accurately considered to be "a family," whether or not one considers the genders of the spouses of our other kids. 

I think this will soon be accepted more and more as they see that the children are no different than children with man/woman combos. I admit at the beginning, a few years ago, it was an uneasy feeling, but only because of my exposure. The more exposure of these families and how wonderful those children's lives are and comparable to other non same sex couples, will eventually get here. Slowly but surely. And really the non same sex married couples aren't a guarantee of a happy family. 

[Daniel2]

22 hours ago, Ahab said:

Or another way of looking at it is a man & woman & children when the children become parents while remaining children of their Mother & Father.  The only kind of family any of us have ever been a part of if we are children of a man & woman who had parents.

In other words, YOUR view of "family" is more focused around the fact that a male and female are (currently) required to sexually reproduce, and their gonads are what define the status of a group of people as 'a family,' even if the man and woman who created them are never in the picture after the child is born.  Got it. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

In a sense, you are correct.  In terms of strict taxonomic designations, polygamy is materially "different" from monogamy.  But if we go further up in the nomenclature, I think they merge.  As in "different species, same genus."

In contrast, same-sex marriage is a wholly different species and genus.  No man-woman pairing, no procreative intent, no procreative capacity.  It is a fundamentally distinctive kind of "marriage."  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course there is something very disagreeable to me with your ad hoc designations.  gay marriage is so much closer to monogamy than polygamy is, it is monogamy...hah.  Polygamy is quite different from monogamy.  But again that's why we call polygamy polygamy and we call both heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage monogamy.  The branch that separates monogamy and polygamy is farther up the tree, somewhere above marrying your horse, exclusively.   

I can see you will remain stuck by the dogma on this, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.  

Edited September 25, 2020 by stemelbow

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I think this will soon be accepted more and more as they see that the children are no different than children with man/woman combos. I admit at the beginning, a few years ago, it was an uneasy feeling, but only because of my exposure. The more exposure of these families and how wonderful those children's lives are and comparable to other non same sex couples, will eventually get here. Slowly but surely. And really the non same sex married couples aren't a guarantee of a happy family. 

It doesn't really matter whether same sex marriage becomes more accepted by people who live on this planet.  It would still be an abomination of what a "true" family is even if everyone on this planet, but me, thought a same sex relationship could produce a true family.  A true family being, by definition, a male and a female who through marriage (the actual sexual union) are capable of reproducing themselves.

And again it does not matter if you agree with me or not, even if the whole world disagrees with me.  Opinions don't really matter on things like this because truth and righteousness are not determined by popular opinion.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In other words, YOUR view of "family" is more focused around the fact that a male and female are (currently) required to sexually reproduce, and their gonads are what define the status of a group of people as 'a family,' even if the man and woman who created them are never in the picture after the child is born.  Got it. 

No it doesn't look as if you have got the idea yet. A true family is a man & woman who marry and are at least capable of reproducing themselves.  It's a bonus if the family members love each other and treat each other respectfully.

But even same sex couples can love each other and treat each other respectfully and that doesn't mean they can form a true family. 

People called "friends" can love and respect each other too but that in itself doesn't make them part of the same family either.

Edited September 25, 2020 by Ahab

[california boy]

30 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course there is something very disagreeable to me with your ad hoc designations.  gay marriage is so much closer to monogamy than polygamy is, it is monogamy...hah.  Polygamy is quite different from monogamy.  But again that's why we call polygamy polygamy and we call both heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage monogamy.  The branch that separates monogamy and polygamy is farther up the tree, somewhere above marrying your horse, exclusively.   

I can see you will remain stuck by the dogma on this, so I'm happy to agree to disagree.  

I call it LDS pretzel twisting logic. By far the vast majority of the world would consider gay marriage closer to straight marriage than they would polygamy.  67% of Americans support gay marriage.  Only 17% support polygamy.  So just which one is wholly different species and genus. Only a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who opposes gay marriage would present an argument that polygamy is more like a monogamous straight marriage than a gay marriage.

[california boy]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No it doesn't look as if you have got the idea yet. A true family is a man & woman who marry and are at least capable of reproducing themselves.  It's a bonus if the family members love each other and treat each other respectfully.

But even same sex couples can love each other and treat each other respectfully and that doesn't mean they can form a true family. 

People called "friends" can love and respect each other too but that in itself doesn't make them part of the same family either.

I would love to put this statement out on social media stating this as a Mormon view of marriage.  I am sure that would go over well.  This is so insulting, it is the kind of statement that would go viral.

 

Only 44% of families are married couples with children.  Are the rest not considered "true families" in your narrow mind?  Telling others they don't have a "true family" because it is not exactly like yours is insulting and WRONG.   I personally find you are so wrapped up in your LDS point of view that you are willing to trash other peoples families to be quite disgusting.  There are all kinds of families in this world.  

Edited September 25, 2020 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Of course there is something very disagreeable to me with your ad hoc designations. 

I don't think my designations are ad hoc.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

gay marriage is so much closer to monogamy than polygamy is, it is monogamy...hah. 

I quite disagree.  Gay marriage is a novelty.  It essentially sprung into existence just a very few years ago, as opposed to the thousands of years of monogamy (and polygamy).

Same-sex marriage has no procreative intention or capacity.

Same-sex marriage marriage necessarily and by design deprives any child in such a household of a father or a mother.

Same-sex marriage lacks gender complementarianism.

And so on.

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Polygamy is quite different from monogamy. 

I've acknowledged this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I agree, it's nice to be at a younger age to have a family. And be able to be grandparents, and even great grandparents. I am holding out hope that I'll get more than three grands! Not looking good for my last three, they aren't desiring children quite yet. Two are single, one is married. The married one is desiring to adopt, they feel there are many children that don't have a family. So that's really honorable! My two single sons, don't have their sights on having families yet, bummer. 

I have three adopted siblings.  My wife and I repeatedly discussed the possibility of adopting (I wanted to), but ultimately determined we should not.

I very much admire parents who adopt.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Males and females are different species, as if species is determined by gender? 

I never said this.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Where did you get that idea?  I hope it isn't contagious.

The reference to "species" was a taxonomic reference to contextualize SSM.  Not a literal one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think my designations are ad hoc.

I quite disagree.  Gay marriage is a novelty.  It essentially sprung into existence just a very few years ago, as opposed to the thousands of years of monogamy (and polygamy).

Same-sex marriage has no procreative intention or capacity.

If a marriage is unable to reproduce the marriage is just a novelty?  A sham?  You are aware, I'm sure, of all of the options available to people unable to procreate right?  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same-sex marriage marriage necessarily and by design deprives any child in such a household of a father or a mother.

Not really.  Makes me wonder, is a child who has an abusive father better off than a child who is loved and supported by two women who are married?  If say, it is shown in time, that children raised by two married women are better of than are children raised by a father and mother, shall we not conclude that children raised in a heterosexual household are deprived of two moms?  An interesting thought, to me, wondering what happens when all of your assumptions kind of melt away into nothingness.  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same-sex marriage lacks gender complementarianism.

And so on.

I've acknowledged this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ah well.  

[Bob Crockett]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Same-sex marriage has no procreative intention or capacity.

Same-sex marriage marriage necessarily and by design deprives any child in such a household of a father or a mother.

Same-sex marriage lacks gender complementarianism.

Marriage used to be a religious covenant until co-opted by the Roman state.  Marriage should revert to religion in all respects.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If a marriage is unable to reproduce the marriage is just a novelty? 

If a heterosexual marriage is "unable to reproduce," then it's an exception to the rule.  Categorically, heterosexual marriages contemplate and facilitate procreation.  Categorically, same-sex marriages do not.

I don't think we can or ought to argue from the margins.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Quote

Same-sex marriage marriage necessarily and by design deprives any child in such a household of a father or a mother.

Not really. 

Yes, really.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Makes me wonder, is a child who has an abusive father better off than a child who is loved and supported by two women who are married? 

Special pleading.  And argument from the margins.  Anecdotal exceptions to the rule do not overcome the rule.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If say, it is shown in time, that children raised by two married women are better of than are children raised by a father and mother, shall we not conclude that children raised in a heterosexual household are deprived of two moms? 

The sociological data are overwhelming in terms of the benefits of a child being raised in a home with a mother and a father.

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

An interesting thought, to me, wondering what happens when all of your assumptions kind of melt away into nothingness.  

I try to go by data as much as possible.  I've previously laid out some thoughts about SSM, and how it substantively differs from heterosexual marriage, here.

Thanks,

-Smac