Comments about ‘Symposium battles trends that damage traditional family’

this is what i took away from this story.

"blah, blah, blah, same sex marriage is not divisive, just ask any of my friends. no not those guys over there. ask my friends, they all agree with me. blah, blah, blah, fear monger, fear monger, blah, blah, we're losing our humanity, blah, blah, blah."

It must be sad to be so hateful of couples and families who just want to be left alone with their dignity intact.

Please stop hating on non-traditional families. History will not judge you well.

I didn't detect hatred in this piece, BYU alum. I think it's worthwhile to investigate the deeper sociological impact of gender homogenization before we embrace it. In my experience, there are vital differences between mothers and fathers that combine to create functional families.

Guess they better make divorce illegal, huh? It's not as if our society is made up of Beaver Cleaver families, and Janey has two Mommies families and NOTHING in between. Get a clue people. And stop dragging your knuckles. Families come in every color of the rainbow. Rational people know that love is all that matters, not make up.

It is obvious that you didn't actually attend any of the sessions and are not familiar with the research that was presented. What I am hearing is a lot of negative platitudes, "families come in all colors blah blah blah blah. Any one who is concerned about sociatal changes must be a hate monger, blah blah blah." Actually the two day seminar focused on presenting well documented, ACTUAL RESEARCH rather than one line catch phrases branding either side of the argument. The presenters were clear to indicate that families do come "in every color of the rainbow," however we should be aware of what research suggests regarding societal ramifications of specific options. Reading a brief summary of one 20mn presentation does not give an accurate picture of a 2 day seminar. Maybe you should attend before commenting. P.S. Any rational person knows that love is NOT all that matters. Lots of loving, well meaning people mess up thier families all of the time.

"Maybe you should attend before commenting."

I'm commenting on the article. It would have been great to have better information about the sessions and the research that was presented. Unfortunately, the reporter didn't give that to us. I'm left with quite a hollow feeling after reading it.

Since you were there June Cleaver, I'd like to know if you believe the story represents the sessions well and accurately?

The news story represented that single presenter's comments accurately although somewhat over-simplistically. However her presentation was about 20 minutes out of the 13 hours I sat through. It didn't come close to giving a "taste", let alone accurate picture of the rest of the symposium. Dr. Hilton's hour-long presentation on the physical changes in the brain that result from natural addictions such as compulsive gambling, pornography or food addiction was amazing. Dr. Allen's presentation on finding an economically and legally more functional way of handling divorce was great and provided concrete suggestions given the fact that divorce is a reality in our society. The student research papers that were presentated were extremely impressive and insightful. My regret was that out of the 36 professional presenters and the dozens of student papers I was only able to attend 14 of them in the alloted time frame. I appreciated the fact that a group of students worked so hard to provide a forum for discussing issues from a research-based point of view. I am, by the way, not a BYU student. I attended the symposium from out of state.

I was there as well. Here were just 2 of my favorite points:
1. The same justifications used to advance same-sex "marriage" also justifies polyamorous unions. This is not a slippery slope because the desire for polyamorous recognition is likely.

2. Changing marriage law changes marriage and family behavior. The rationale behind no-fault divorce was that it would only affect "dead" marriages that would lie to justify their divorces (because establishing "fault" was necessary to obtain a divorce). Though it succeeded on deincentivizing people to lie, it did not just affect "dead" marriages, but all marriages. Marriage is now something that can be ended at by only one partner. This not only gives all of us pause in entering marriage (average age of marriage increased because we fear our trust being betrayed) but also increased the divorce rate way beyond already "dead" marriages because one party could choose to initiate an opportunistic divorce--not because the marriage was bad--but because he or she stood to gain materially from a divorce. The child suicide rate dramatically increased because of the affects of these divorces. Likewise, SSM does not only affect homosexuals, it changes marriage for everyone.

It concerns me when those who present well articulated arguments and replicable research that support a traditional understanding of the family institution are instantly ignored as "hatemongers." This is a weak-minded argument...an ad hominem logically fallacy. Further, it supposes, without justification, that those who advocate for a traditional understanding of the family do not know, associate with, or come from "alternative" families. It fails to see that love for other people does not mandate condoning all behavior.

what research do you all keep referencing? I see references to research about gambling and pornography and such but nothing specifically about homosexual headed families. All the research i have seen coming from the American Psychological Society, the American Pediatric Society, the National Association of Social workers all show the same thing and that is that there is no ill effects on the children or the family structure.

I really thought this was going to be a conference to STRENGTHEN traditional families. It turns out to be a conference to WEAKEN non-traditional families.

When we will ever learn that we need to improve what we have and quit trying to degrade what others may desire that have nothing to do with our lives.

So sad.

"It concerns me when those who present well articulated arguments and replicable research that support a traditional understanding of the family institution are instantly ignored as 'hatemongers.'"

i believe i said fearmonger and this article did not present well formed arguments or research. some commenters have mentioned that the presentations at the conference were well researched, you would just never know it based on this article.

" Lots of loving, well meaning people mess up thier families all of the time."

And this is an argument against letting non-traditional loving people be married why?

Dr J here:
Contrary to what you might think from these comments, the conference was not primarily about same sex marriage. The panels addressed various aspects of marriage and marriage policy that are not well understood, and that should be, before we go making major policy changes. And redefining marriage from a gendered, child-centered institution, to a gender neutral, adult-centered institution does amount to a major policy change.

You gay guys and gals: Chill. it isn't All About You All the Time.

" And redefining marriage from a gendered, child-centered institution, to a gender neutral, adult-centered institution does amount to a major policy change. "

Can two heterosexuals who do not want to have children marry? Yes.

It is already both, isn't it?

You're right, this article was not representative of the whole conference, enough said about that.

It's clear that non-traditional families and legislation concerning them have an effect on other families. As Kendel said, no-fault divorce had an impact on more families than who was initially intended, therefore we must consider the impact other legislation concerning the family would have on others. just check out research by dr. stanley kurtz or lynn wardle's book. There's a lot of information out there that you can't sum up in an article.

The intent is not to suppress people. While we do have to protect the minority, we also must consider what impact the majority would face and there is research based evidence to show that this is a valid concern. I've listed some sources, now go find out for yourself.

Anonymous,

Dr J used the word "policy" three times and the phrase "major policy change" twice in her comment. (You even quoted her once...) What would be good public policy is what we are talking about here, not just what people can do in their personal lives.

The government's only interest in (or justification for) encouraging and privileging marriage between a man and a woman is not that those who wed always produce the next generation of citizens, but rather because the bonding (at least genetically) of men to women is the *only* way the next generation of society can come into existence. And also because bonding men and women to their own offspring is by far the best way to ensure the welfare of children.

The fact that not all couples will chose to have children does not change the state's interest in marriage at all. Yes, it would be completely impractical try to prohibit those who do not want kids form marrying. But even infertile marriages fulfill a public good by bridging the gender gap of our species.

Same-sex so-called marriage segregates men from women and parents from their biological children. Not good!

How does weakening non-traditional families strengthen traditional families? And who is trying to eliminate genders differences in society? Not those of us who support same-sex marriage! Live it up! Be a man or be a woman! But marry the person you love!

"The government's only interest in (or justification for) encouraging and privileging marriage between a man and a woman is not that those who wed always produce the next generation of citizens, but rather because the bonding (at least genetically) of men to women is the *only* way the next generation of society can come into existence. And also because bonding men and women to their own offspring is by far the best way to ensure the welfare of children."

But legally, marriage has NOTHING to do with having children. The commitment of two individuals does not insure a new generation nor is it the reason that marriage was instituted by governments. That is a religious statement. Read the history of marriage, if you do not believe me.

And biologically, having children has NOTHING to do with marriage. Over 40% of children are being raised by a single parent today. When we understand how to get parents to PARENT their children, in or out of marriage, we can start discussing 1% of the population that is same gendered and wants to marry.

Really people, we have our priorities skewed. Let's work on the 40%!

"The commitment of two individuals does not insure a new generation nor is it the reason that marriage was instituted by governments. That is a religious statement."

Anonymous,

Government did not invent marriage. The bonding of men to women (and of parents to their children) derives naturally from the heterosexual form of our species. At most the government can only facilitate the process.

Also please explain what is any way religious about any of that.