Letter: Scientifically unsound?

@Stormwalker Welcome to the 25%. And yes, I could be wrong, I am just throwing a number out there. But don't deny there are many who's sympathies, morals and ideals change when your close to the situation, and your friend and loved one is in the wrong.

@HaHaHaHa: "75 percent of society would defend and tolerate murder, if their child or best friend were the guilty party."

When a loved one commits a crime like murder there is shock and disbelief and even, at times, a claim they didn't do it. But when it is shown that they did do it there is no sudden desire to defend or tolerate the act of murder, as you claim.

Trust me on this. I've been there. Twenty-five years later there is still grief for the lives lost - including the one who will die in prison. But there is no defense of or tolerance for what was done.

Trust me.

Oh how precious, gays promoting gays. The sociology "teacher" should be as knowing as anybody about the validity of "science", where you go out an try to prove what you want to believe. There is no valid long term evidence one way or the other, and you can't be accurate when you are always adjusting the standard. Funny how society has evolved.
As we all get the blessing of knowing, being related to, or being friends with a homosexual, we get to develop sensitivities. 75 percent of society would defend and tolerate murder, if their child or best friend were the guilty party. Thats what we are facing here, just bigger numbers. The problem is that right and wrong are still right and wrong, and society is going to have to come to grips with that. We are no longer dealing with the idea of rounding up gays and banishing them to their own island. now we are all about bestowing special right for them, and that isn't the answer.

Wow confused, I don't know where your kids go to school but at my son's high school here in Washington, Eastern Washington mind you, red as red as red gets politically, the young lady with two dads got the loudest applause at senior night. I'm not naive enough to think bullying never happens here, but kids from all kinds of families get bullied unfortunately, however to make a blanket statement that all kids from same sex families have that issue IS naive and a little scandal mongerish.

@Ginger, that is priceless!! Blessings to you and yours.

@Confused

Because this case has national implications. Also, the conversation here is mostly polite. I don't know why some things are censored, though.

If my kids are bullied because they have two mommies, that says a lot about the parents of the other kids in the class and what they are teaching their children. Kids are honest, but if they have prejudice they are leaning it from home and church, or from other kids who learned it from home or church.

I work hard with my oldest to be nice to and about all the kids in her class.

@Bendana

LOL! My kids get McDonalds sometimes. Usually when we have too much going on or I am being lazy. This year they got homemade Halloween costumes, but only because we have friends who dress up for comic book conventions, and they convinced our parents group that making costumes for the kids would be fun... my kids went dressed as "Mommy Is Not A Crafter" and "Mommy's Hot Glue Disaster." It was fun and we'll probably do it again if our friends are up for it.

But thanks for being sweet.

Wow!

Looking through all the comments and noticing how many out of state posters there are.... Why would someone living in another state care what a "Mormon" Newspaper happen to say about gay marriage.

The letter writer makes some interesting points, it does matter what type of family a child is raised in.

Here is the point I would like to make. Right now all you pro gay posters are correct, there is no definitive data that says that gay couple has a good or bad affect on a child. That is mostly because up until the past decade, there has never really been an in depth research done on this issue.

I know for a fact, that having a gay couple as your parents, does have a negative impact on what the child goes through in school. Don't just blame the parents, it is not always their fault, because children are brutally honest with each other and it can cause all types of problems for children raised by gays couples.

Not saying it is right or wrong, just the way it is.

@Mike Richards, Funny that you refuse to answer the original question. Ginger has a family structure that even I am envious of. Good grief, I bet she makes her kids Halloween costumes and has never seen a McDonalds drive thru, talk about a great mom! But you look right past all the positive and reaffirming aspects of her family and strike out at her and her wife because they don't match up with YOUR version of the bible and religion. So answer the original question Mike? They have taken in children that all of YOU did not want. Created by heterosexuals and tossed aside, only to lanquish in foster care because there was no line of 'good' Christians waiting to take them home, so would you have those kids stay in foster care until they age out (at which time many of these kids end up on the street) or now that they've known what a loving home and family are, to please all you 'good and kind' Christians, should they give them back? You know, for the 'good of the kids'. The same kids that none of you wanted.

Mr. Richards - You failed to grasp the rather simple point of my post which is the harm that often is used to legally justify marriage restrictions among siblings/cousins is based on the physical impediments that are likely to result in the bearing of children, not the rearing of those children.

The argument you make, which is that harm is caused during the rearing of children, has never been convincing in the court of law, hence all the recent losses your side has suffered in the gay marriage debate when you drone on and on about "think of the children." Further, the reason cousins can often marry once they are past the age of being able to bear children is proof positive of this because it is likely that one or both may already have children at that stage but the state is not convinced there will be any harm at the "rearing" stage of that child's life.

It's very important you and other conservatives understand this basic concept because you'll soon be living in a Nation wherein SSM is the law of the land and you'll need to comprehend the world you live in.

The 'Modern Family' is not funny.

It is a tragedy.

Utefan60

"Two reasons I'm proud of this letter, The writer has the education and the guts to say his opinion!"

But the writer of the original piece did the same thing, yet you aren't proud of that ;etter.

Total hypocrisy!

Robert - Right on! What is next for the LGBT? Demand the state repeal the law of gravity?

Mike Richards,

Do you shun clothes made of mixed fabrics? Do you stone to death disobedient children? Do you think it's a sin for a man to shave his face? The Bible teaches us these things, too. Isn't the Bible "the word of God"?

Look, every Christian picks and chooses the parts of the Bible that work for them and disregard the parts that don't, and that includes you. You can't lecture Candied Ginger on what God really wants without coming off as a hypocrite. I know this is a concept you struggle with on these boards, but it is possible to believe in God (and revere the Constitution, while we're at it) without necessarily agreeing with you.

No, really...

@Mike Richards:

Oh, I see what you are asking.

We are teaching our children that the Bible is a collection of stories and poetry an ancient tribe used to establish their identity as a nation - like the stories of Rome or Greece or China. In our home we tell stories about David and Goliath, and Coyote and Thor and the Monkey King and other myths. Some are fun, most are teaching parables.

We talk about Bible teachings - some are universal teachings (Good Samaritan, Golden Rule, etc). Our Church includes Christians, as well as Buddhists, Pagans and others.

Our family uses the Tao Te Ching as our inspirational text, as well as teachings from the Dali Lama. My wife leans to Buddhism. So there is no conflict about what we teach our children - we have a big emphasis on respect and how you treat others.

The kids see us involved in activities that help others, things that matter in real ways. They don't see a conflict between what we do and what we teach and the biggest teaching in the Bible is "Do unto others," which we try to live.

Two reasons I'm proud of this letter, The writer has the education and the guts to say his opinion! And frankly I'm surprised it was published by the DN, but I'm proud that they finally did it! We just can't live on half truths espoused by so many.

@Mike Richards
"Are you going to teach that child that God has told us that marriage is between a man and a woman?"
"Does that church preach the true word of God, or does it teach something else?"

You should probably just wiki unitarian universalism. Besides, who is going to say their own religion isn't true or most true?

"What do "sociologists" tell us about children who have "caught" their "parents" teaching something other that the complete truth?"

They cry over Santa not existing and feel somewhat betrayed. Here's the problem though... there's a difference between being wrong and lying. I think your religion is wrong, but I don't think you're lying when you make a religious assertion; I just think you're wrong. I left your church because I thought it was wrong and didn't want to lie (since for me it would be lying if I asserted things I didn't believe were true as opposed to you who can't be lying since you sincerely believe it). This would apply to others of other faiths who believe what they say but end up being wrong, they aren't lying.

@Mike Richards
"In all States, marriage is prohibited between siblings or close cousins."

Roughly half of states allow marriage between cousins.

"Are they being discriminated against because they are forbidden by law to share that love?"

Possibly, I just don't care about those people.

"Those who support same-sex unions tell us that the children will not be affected."

Unlike sibling couples, same-sex unions can't make children on their own (the source of the perceived harm to children in those sibling unions), and so the only way to get children for a same-sex couple is through some alternative means. Since we let single people use in-vitro fertilization or adopt, we've determined there's not sufficient harm to the children involved so the only logical consistency is to allow same-sex marriage. Plus there's really not much of any proof that same-sex couples children are harmed and if there is well... it's the same statistical averages that say children of poor parents of black parents score worse on average on the SAT. Want to ban those marriages too, you know... to be consistent?

Re: ". . . to claim . . . that 'girls in a home with homosexual fathers had a 15 percent chance of graduating . . .' is . . . scientifically unsound . . . ."

While we're on the subject of unsound, your political argument is -- unsound.

The only issue before the Court is whether a rational basis exists for Utah's Amendment 3. Since homosexual marriage is not a fundamental right, if it's true that kids are disadvantaged by being raised in a homosexual home, that's as far as the Court need go to decide the issue.

On the other hand, if it were true that girls raised by Mormons are less likely to graduate from college, while that would also be a rational basis for discriminatory action against Mormons, freedom of religion [fortunately] is a fundamental right. So a mere rational basis would be insufficient to uphold religious discrimination. For that, the Court would apply a strict scrutiny standard, likely prohibiting discrimination.

The soundness or unsoundness of science, however, is based solely on facts. If, in fact, girls are 15% disadvantaged in homosexual homes, the science is sound. It's liberal politics that bear close examination.

Because they're unsound.

It seems to me that same-sex couples have opted out (or have been opted out) of the child-rearing part of Nature; therefore, it makes no Natural sense to give children to same-sex couples.

Candied Ginger,

Okay, you have an extended family who will help, but what are YOU going to tell your child about the proper role of a man and a woman? Are you going to teach that child that God has told us that marriage is between a man and a woman? (You told us that you are active in your church. Does that church preach the true word of God, or does it teach something else? I'm assuming that you have Genesis 1:27-28 in your Bible and that you have Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-28.) How will that child "feel" about a "parent" who teaches them the opposite of what the Bible teaches? Will that "scar" the child? What do "sociologists" tell us about children who have "caught" their "parents" teaching something other that the complete truth?

I have eight children. I also had many relatives who helped. I never had to tell them to do as I said and not as I did. I never had to tell them that the Bible was wrong or that God just didn't understand our times.

Open minded Mormon... I don't care if your a mormon or not, I did not say anything about couples that get divorced... pay ATTENTION, I said, that children that are raised with a Mother and a Father in the traditional Family.. .. Children that come from divorce are not children being raised by a Mother and a Father in the home.. children from divorce suffer just as much as other children that come from what we like to call MOdern Families...

@Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

LDS Liberal, Open Minded Mormon, airnaut,
Before you tell us what we need to do, please re-read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". It clearly tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the word of God through His prophets. He makes no exceptions. He is no "respector" or persons.

========

And "I" believe that to be true.

BUT

Why do you keep insisting on making that the Law of the Land?
Tell me Mike -- Is that "Constitutional"?

Also --
What makes you any different than the muslim extremeists we are fighting and dying for, for implementing their Sharia Law in the Muslim World?

@Mike Richards:

Thanks for asking. We are showing both kids their "proper role in life" is to love others and be fierce in the face of injustice. They have a grandpa and grandma and aunts and uncles (some blood, some choice) and already see some people have kids biologically, some (my sister) choose to never have kids, and some adopt.

We are active in the UU church which has a great human sexuality curriculum. Ours are too young for that, but we use proper words for body parts and have talked about orientation as appropriate (some people are attracted to opposite, some to same, some to both.) I'm a stay at home mom, my wife works but they spend time with all the relatives and see how it works in other families and situations.

We are open about where babies come from and the problems of having children when you are not married - they know the importance of marriage for all parents, gay or lesbian or straight and that's why we support it.

Thanks for being supportive.

Thank you Mr. Rubenfield.

Politics can be a soul-destroying endeavor. It is especially troubling when so-called religious organizations and those touting religious devotion, claiming high moral standards, get mixed up in the lies/misrepresentations in supporting various causes.

Why do we continually go down a path to justify positions and practices using sketchy and flimsy arguments that can't be substantiated?

It can be faith-destroying for secular AND religious institutions.

Haven't seen very much "sound science" coming from the Deseret News these last few years.

Stalwart Sentinel,
You've made my case. When "harm" can be shown to the child, that "union" is not allowed. Marrying a sibling or a 1st cousin is know to be harmful to a child. When a child's life is compromised by the actions of the "parents" that union is not permitted.

LDS Liberal, Open Minded Mormon, airnaut,
Before you tell us what we need to do, please re-read "The Family: A Proclamation to the World". It clearly tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is the word of God through His prophets. He makes no exceptions. He is no "respector" or persons.

Candied Ginger,
Thank you for "adopting" someone who was rejected by others. What are you going to teach that child about his/her role in life? Are you going to tell him/her that the proper role includes procreation? Are you going to tell him/her that procreation is only allowed in marriage? Are you going to tell him/her that procreation is between a man and a woman and that any form of sex outside of that union is improper?

The only thing that we really learn here is that Dr. Rubinfeld doesn't like what the researchers listed in the editorial “In Our Opinion: A mom and a dad,” April 6. There are a couple of problems with his critique. First, academic research can really only be discredited by the legal community through successful litigation or a conviction. Collectively the legal community does not have the qualifications to discredit research in other disciplines. The second issue is treating the editorial as if it were a scholarly work. It is not a scholarly work it is an advocacy publication. It is unreasonable to expect an editorial writer to present anything that doesn't prove his or her point.

The final point that I would make is that while the DN editorial points out issues that are problematic about the methodology used to generate papers supporting the pro-SSM position, Dr. Rubinfeld just casts aspersions on the information presented in the editorial.

@Mike Richards - They need the example of a man and a woman to show them their proper role as human beings. They will not get that in a same-sex union.

We're a lesbian couple. We adopted a special needs child who had been in foster care for a couple of years and pretty much had no chance of being adopted by a "mom and a dad." IT seems like a lot of "mom and dad" homes don't want kids with problems who need a loving home.

I am at home full-time, my wife works in IT for a big company. We are now fostering a second child who has been in the system for several years, and have started adoption process.

So have we done the wrong thing for our kids? Should we stop the adoption process? Should we forget about wanting a bigger home so we can foster other kids in the future? (We need more bedrooms and a bigger dining room.)

We are stable, hard working, go to a Church with lots of activies, I am the room mom at school. What more do you want?

Families are primarily structured to raise the children for the next generation. It is for this purpose that government has given certain perks to families. The adults of the family need to be unselfish for the outcome of the children to be good. It is not all about the adults, and adults who don't figure this out aren't good parents.

As the family structure has deteriorated, the outcome of children has deteriorated, and so has our society as a whole.

It is insane to seek the further destruction of the family. Our nations children are struggling enough now. Blaming schools, the rich, the churches for the will not solve the problem, because they are not the cause of the problem. The cause is the disintegration of the family.

While it might be tempting to take offers from those who tell us they can do it better, (the LGBT), history and science tell us otherwise.

Oh that we spent the energy wasted seeking SSM to strengthen existing traditional families, for the sake of our country's children.

In what other instance is the Gold Standard the measure of what should be allowed? Certain exercise regimens yield better results than others; we don't force people into to abandon all other exercise. What is best for society is not the basis of law - otherwise we'd forbid smoking and almost all drinking, require everyone to walk (in bright orange vests) whenever practical, etc., etc., The standard is "when does an act infringe on someone else's right to life, liberty and happiness?" My brother in a premortal existence wanted to force everyone to adhere to the Gold Standard. His plan was rejected; it infringed on my choice.

The more the traditional marriage proponets argue the weaker their arguments appear. This is one of the reasons why public opinion has swung so much over the past 10 years. So many of us know and have seen same sex couples be great family members, civic leaders, church members, neighbors, business partners and parents that the lies and distortions told by soical conservatives have become so evident and irrelevant. Truth, love and respect are winning the social debate.

to airnaut momments ago...

Agreed. Having kids is not a prereq for getting married or vice versa.

Some get married because they want the tax write off.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

With all due respect --
You keep insisting Gay couples will ALL have children.

Many will not.

FYI --
People marry for love, not just for having sex.
People marry for love, not just for having children.

I'm sorry --
But you just can't seem to get past that,
or seperate the two.

Facts, who needs facts, we should base all laws on religion, well our religion anyway.

Sad, how many refuse to acknowledge that a family is best, NOT just your idea of a family.

Mr. Richards - You may be unpleasantly surprised to find that marriage is not prohibited among close cousins in many states. In fact, Utah allows it when both are over the age of 65 or both are over the age of 55 but one is unable to reproduce.

And while typical legal justifications for such limitations is based on children, it is not for the reasons you espouse. In fact, the legal justifications for these marriage limitations rest on the likely physical impediments that children will suffer from as a result of inbreeding. I have seen no case law justifying such marriage restrictions based on the argument that raising the kids in that environment will be harmful to them. But then again, you could always correct me because you are the self-proclaimed constitutional expert (despite apparently being completely unaware of the actual case law and state laws surrounding cousin marriages).

The simple fact is that the best way to raise children is in a family with mother and father. A wide array of statistics (facts) supports this. It is in society's best interest to support and encourage and strengthen "traditional" families, and to provide legal protection for newborns to enter into such a family.

In all States, marriage is prohibited between siblings or close cousins. Why? They love each other. Are they being discriminated against because they are forbidden by law to share that love? Doesn't the 14th Amendment protect them? Just what is the reason for such "outlandish" laws? It's to protect the children.

Those who support same-sex unions tell us that the children will not be affected. They've told us a lot of things - just like Obama has. They want the "freedom" to marry someone of the same sex, no matter the consequences to society or to the children that they adopt or take into that union from a former marriage.

They cherry pick judges. They cherry pick data. They castigate anything and anyone who presents data that contradicts what their propaganda machine is feeding us.

Children need a man as their father and a woman as their mother to raise them according to eternal principles. They need the example of a man and a woman to show them their proper role as human beings. They will not get that in a same-sex union.

The opinion of the State of Utah about the Regnerus study: "Thus, the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."

This is part of the official documentation submitted by Utah in the Kitchen v. Herbert same-sex marriage appeal.

The State of Utah also stated: "As the State’s briefing makes clear, the State’s principal concern is the potential long-term impact of a redefinition of marriage on the children of heterosexual parents. The debate over man-woman versus same-sex parenting has little if any bearing on that issue, given that being raised in a same-sex household would normally not be one of the alternatives available to children of heterosexual parents."

In other words, it is not really about the children - or, at least, not about ALL children, just some children whom the State cares about, the rest - eh, whatever.

Betcha
Waltham, MA

So - you've seen a difference. Great.

What do you suggest?

We FORCE couples to get married?
And then FORCE them to stay married?
And FORCE them to be happy with it?

I'm a heterosexual man,
married for over 30 years.
Raised 4 wonderful kids.
Statistically, in the BEST situation imaginable for kids.

I consider myself LUCKY for being in the minority
because, most marriages end in divorce.

I see the world for what it is, and ask that people try harder.
Others, see the world for what it isn't, and then want to FORCE people to do what they should.

I'm LDS --
I beleive in the Pre-mortal world I chose to follow Christ, and support his plan of Free Agency - and invite others to do likewise.

Some still think Lucifer had the right idea.

@Betcha

The problem is the research does not support your antidotal experiences. I suspect that would be because the children you see struggling ccome from single parent homes not same sex couple homes. You are right the facts are clear but they do not support you.

It has been proven and reproven that children do better in a home with both a Mother and a Father, I don't know why people keep thinking that just because they want a different lifestyle, that they have to prove what has been proven over and over again to be false.. I also have worked with children in our school system for over 30 years, and I can tell you that I support the statistics that children do much better, when they have a Mother and a Father... I have seen it with my own eyes, That is the fact, stop trying to change fact and truth, just because you want something different.

There you go again...

Using Science and Common Sense,
to argue
Hysteria and emotion.

BTW --
Is it just me,
or has the Deseret News taken a rather sudden
and much harder far-right turn as or late?