"Symposium battles trends that damage the traditional family":
"In similar fashion, a group of BYU students of the Family Law Society organized and carried out a formal symposium, called Stand for the Family, meant to counter modern philosophies perceived to be damaging traditional family relationships and, ultimately, society.
"After attending a several-day seminar in Southern California last summer at an interfaith organization, the Ruth Institute, BYU law student Alisa Rogers rallied support for a conference on strengthening the family."
(read it all here)
And "LDS Leader Stresses Importance of Marriage, Family":
"Marriage and families are at the heart of mortal life, Elder Bruce D. Porter of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Quorum of the Seventy said during the Stand for the Family conference held at BYU Friday. If the family breaks down, so does everything else, he said."
(read it all here)
22 Comments
Family is the basic foundational unit of society. Change the foundation and everything else built on it will crumble. Some things in life shouldn't be changed. Just as laws of science cannot be changed. The family unit should remain unchanged.. A mother, father, children. This is what we want ideally. Its not a perfect world by any means, but we don't intentionally build a house on a sandy foundation. We shouldn't build families without a solid foundation either.
excellent articles too btw.
It really is quite ridiculous that Same Sex Marriage (SSM) proponents argue that a lesbian may have genetic predispositions to become a lesbian. Considering that the lesbian lifestyle involves the use of electronic and other man-made devices it would have been impossible for lesbians to have lived such a lifestyle in the past, and so there could have been no development of lesbian tendencies through evolution. Also, though lesbians today may choose to have children, lesbians in the past could not have made such a choice and could not have passed on such a predisposition or any genes or genetic tendencies consistent with such a predisposition.
We must conclude that lesbianism is a chosen behavior. It is a behavior that leads those who practice it to seek separation from males. Over time, this works to divide the human race into two camps, male and female. With their insular attitudes, lesbians often decide that spreading lesbianism is the ultimate good and they feel the need to promote lesbianism and grow the numbers in their camp, which usually involves spreading the mistrust of and hostility towards men and boys and seducing females who have been conditioned to be "open-minded." SSM further legitimates this movement and intensifies this trend, making it exceptionally difficult to ever put the genie back in the bottle and leaving us with a far more divided, hostile, and mistrustful society, particularly given that women have control over children and so lesbians will have the ability to control and shape their daughters outlooks and opinions.
If thousands of years of human social practices can be so easily discarded, with such obvious negative consequences for the future of human society, nothing is sacred.
Data from San Francisco school district student survey indicates that 7% of the students are homosexual compared to the 1.2% nationally. Is this an indication that sexual orientation and behavior can be greatly shaped by environment?
Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings:
Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality
By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.
Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.
Some researchers who uncovered sexual preference differences between homosexually and heterosexually parented children, nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found. Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas.
All social scientists who conduct research in this emotionally-charged area have personal biases. That's a given. But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings.
Regardless, no one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, "Of course our children are going to be different."
In fact, many believe the percentages of non-heterosexual children in these studies would be even greater if more of the children had been raised from birth by openly homosexual parents. But most weren't. A majority of these children actually were born into and raised by mother-father couples before one of their parents "came-out" and the parents divorced.
Findings from the best and most recent twin studies have found that homosexuality, unlike eye color, is not genetically-caused. But there are a number of non-genetic mechanisms through which homosexuality could be transmitted from one generation to the next. Those mechanisms include role-modeling, social learning and differential reinforcement, as well as outright encouragement of non-heterosexuality by parents or others.
No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children.
###
For a review of the research studies alluded to above, as well as additional analysis and references, see article entitled, "A Review and Analysis of Studies Which Assessed Sexual Preference of Children Raised by Homosexuals."
Paul, good question. It is well understood that social environment has a role to play in same sex attraction.
Typically, if an SSMer addresses such a phenomenon, he or she will shrug and say, so what?
But it is a difference.
Girls who are raised in fatherless homes, especially those whose father and mother have divorced or otherwise become estranged, experience higher rates of promiscuity and sexual experimentation.
Most children in same-sex houeholds are children of divorced or estranged mom-dad duos. And although the vast majority of the adult homosexual population does not reside in same-sex households with children, more female same-sex households have children than do male same-sex households.
So fatherlessness and estranged mom-dad duos are common threads and both are associated with higher levels of promiscuity.
In the same-sex household scenario, the higher levels of promiscuity and experiementation take a same-sex turn. That is a difference. Also, the children tend to be more immersed in gay identity politics and reflect that in their attitudes and predispositions.
These are observations based on preliminary evidence regarding parenting by same-sex duos; there is insufficient evidence with which to form conclusive findings. But the mechanisms are there to be studied: fatherlessness, motherlessness, split between fatherhood and motherhood, and the influence of gay identity politics on youthful behavior.
Chairm,
Question: At what age do these girls supposedly "experience higher rates of promiscuity and sexual experimentation"? Can you link to this study? I'm actually legitimately interested in reading it.
Now, the criticism: Oddly, when social conservatives whip out the "fear terms" like promiscuity, socialism, experimentation, I'm never afraid. We live in such a Puritan country that sexuality of any kind is deemed immoral. As long as these girls are using protection/have been through a comprehensive sex education course and are at the age of consent, what is the big issue? In fact unless you can explain to me, and the other members of this thread, why promiscuity and sexual experimentation is a *concretely* bad thing (that means no "the bible tells me so" or "because it's wrong," those aren't concrete, logical, arguments), and that sexually active girls who live with same-sex parents are somehow worse than sexually active girls who live with opposite-sex parents, then your arguments fall flat. Your arguments, like most arguments against gays, rely completely on scare tactics and stirring up the volatile flame of moralizing sex panic.
Chairm has a right to his own opinion, but not his own set of facts.
LT,
Your curiousity is no doubt sincere. It is a very worthwhile topic to dig into as your time permits. But I'm not playing fetch and carry for you. If you are interested you will find more than enough to get a good start on the mechanisms worthy studying.
It is interesting, to me at least, that you so readily agreed with the big ole shrug that I expected from SSMers.
While I referred to promiscuity and to experimentation, you added socialism into the mix. And then you immediately went for a knock against religion while proposing that reason and faith are incompatable.
I did not say "that sexually active girls who live with same-sex parents are somehow worse than sexually active girls who live with opposite-sex parents".
But I detect that you are averse to making judgment calls that would position you as anything but indiscriminate.
Can you live up to your own stated standards? Instead of just declaring, on blind faith, "why not?", howzabout setting forth the case that promiscuity and experimentation are benefitial, as a general rule, for young people?
If you think it is a positive advantage, in some 'concrete' way, as you say, and can provide a logical explanation for society showing preference for sexual promiscuity and experimentation, then please feel free to do so. No dogma, please.
You could add socialism to the mix if you think that might help as part of the societal preference, too.
These are your own parameters for discussing promiscuity and experimentation. Morality, you suggested, is not decisive and perhaps is to be eschewed.
I suspect you won't be up to the task since you've shown your ideological hand by smearing my comment as relying "completely on scare tactics and stirring up the volatile flame of moralizing sex panic."
Also, if you read my comment more carefully, you'd realize that I referred to the mechanisms and did not refer to gayness.
An intellectually rigorous use of a good library would fortify you for meeting your own stated standards, LT.
All the best,
Chairm
* * *
PS: Homer, if you have an authentic dispute of facts to discuss, please be more forthcoming.
I see there is no peer reviewed research to support Chairm's claim below:
"In the same-sex household scenario, the higher levels of promiscuity and experiementation take a same-sex turn. That is a difference."
Very telling indeed
Homer, some people are sex-centric and can't see beyond sex. Sex this, sex that. Things like partnership, companionship, property, social security benefits and everything else attached to married opposite sex couples don't seem to be discussed. I think that they have forgotten what marriage is really about. Sex is a mere part of many marriages but sex`is not required for a marriage to exist.
You haven't looked. And it wouldn't matter to your viewpoint anyway.
Chairm,
Sorry if my background leads me to expect proper citations. You see, Stanford students call using unsupported evidence "B.S." The administration calls it "plagiarism." Either way, if you're going to claim a study as key evidence for your argument, you should have a source. It doesn't have to be MLA/APA formatted. Just a simple URL would do.
Also, have you heard the phrase, "innocent until proven guilty"? This principle is plays a key role in the judiciary system, but also in classical argumentative structure. When someone makes a claim, they should be able to back it up with at least two pieces of (cited) evidence and strong reasoning. Therefore, until *you* can prove why a study about promiscuity is relevant to the issue of marriage equality and why promiscuity is a bad thing, you're simply capitalizing on the sex-negative attitudes of pro-family groups.
P.S. To any prospective college students reading this: Do not use the "Chairm research method." Practice good research skills. Cite your evidence. Develop a clear, supportable, argumentative thesis.
P.P.S. Education should be America's highest priority. Please donate money to a school district in need.
A competent 'Standford student' would not ask others to fetch and carry. You did.
Besides, youj laid your cards on the table and admitted that whatever evidence you'd find would not matter to your viewpoint.
A competent 'Standford student' would not declare predrawn conclusions to be the default position and then demand others do fetch and carry. You did.
A competent 'Standford student' would not make political statements disguised as social scientific statements and use "therefore" as a link to a non sequitor.
Meanwhile, what you did do in your earlier pro-SSM comment was to take on the burden of arguing in favor of the default positon that promiscuity for youngsters is a positive advantage, in some 'concrete' way. You took on the burfden of providing a logical explanation for society showing preference for sexual promiscuity and experimentation. And by association, you have tied it to your viewpoint on SSM.
You did that. Not I.
* * *
LT, for the record, do you also comment in the blogosphere under the monikers "miles" and "J. Stone"?
Woody, for the record, have you commented at the NOM blogsite under anyh other moniker? If, yes, please list all of them. Thanks.
Response is in the que.
Response to the pose of 'higher standards' is in the que.
A competent 'Stanford student' would not demand someone else do fetch and carry.
Readers will note that you do not deny evidence exists for my earlier comment, just that it has not been fetched and carried for you.
You have pre-emptively discarded evidence, anyway, and you've taken on the burden of explaining your previous and speculative remarks about the concrete way that promiscuity and experimentation is an advantage.
Chairm,
Wow, now you're asking me if I'm someone by the name of "J Stone," and telling me that expecting a basic level of research etiquette is lazy. Anything to get out of posting the source of the study you cited.
If I wrote a paper, didn't cite any evidence, and then told my TA that they're asking me to "fetch and carry," when they ask for sources...well, I would be kicked out of Stanford. Heck, any competent high school student knows better than that.
So stop avoiding the issue. Stop questioning my identity. Show some basic human decency (although that may be hard to ask of someone who actively supports denying rights to other tax-paying, law abiding human beings). Seriously, Chairm, if you can't even copy and paste a URL, I think it's *your* competence we should be questioning, not mine.
Hypothetical Situation #1:
Mairm: Research shows that people who eat one type cheese are more likely to explode. People who eat two types of cheese are less likely to explode. These findings are based on preliminary evidence.
KC: That study sounds interesting. Does this study say certain types of cheese induce explosions more than others? I'd like to know. But I don't really understand your reasoning. How does this connect to what we were talking about before, dog treats?
Mairm: I'm not going to fetch and carry for you. Find the study yourself.
KC: Basic research skills demand that you cite your sources. Even a basic URL would suffice.
Mairm: A "competent student" wouldn't ask me to fetch and carry for them. I'm not going to cite my research. You would just deny the evidence anyway. Have you ever posted under these name jibjab?
KC: No, I don't post under the name "jibjab." What does that have to do with anything? Look, this study is a key part of your argument. Please cite it so I know you're not just making stuff up.
Mairm: No.
Hypothetical Situation #2:
Mairm: According to research done by Dr. Schadenfreude and her peers, people who eat only one type of cheese are more likely to explode. (www.url)
KC: I checked out that website. It's really interesting how they found that gouda causes more explosions than gruyere. I hope they do more research soon, since the study says that this is based on preliminary evidence. I don't really understand your reasoning. How does this relate to dog treats?
Mairm: Well, if you refer to page 6 of the study, you can see the animals used in the test groups have the same physiology as dogs (www.url). Some investigative journalism by Rick Soandso found that many dog breeders use cheese as treats for their dogs. Here's the article (www.url). So if cheese causes explosions and these breeders are feeding their dogs cheese, it could be very dangerous for us to legalize cheese as an ingredient in dog treats, as you were suggesting.
KC: Oh, I see. Thanks for pointing that out and giving me those links. This really shakes up beliefs on the issue. But we still have to think about the cheese manufacturers, and how they would...
NOMers, Which situation do you think is better?
For the record, have you also commented in the blogopshere under the monikers, J. Stone and/or Miles?
* * *
You put forth your default position regarding sexual experimentation and promiscuity and so you have undertaken your own burden to fetch and carry.
If you had expressed interest in something your TA had mentioned, or that your professor had mentioned, either one of them would reasonably suggest that you pursue your interest at the library.
If you stomped your foot and demanded that you be spoonfed, then, yes, you'd be considered in light of the standards for a competent 'Stanford student'. Moreso if you undertook a burden and then refused to carry it while demanding that the TA or professor do fetch and carry for you.
End of conversation.