Originally Posted By X-san ***I don't believe my church leaders believed that blacks were "inferior." Just that they could not hold the priesthood.*** "Following the death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the succession crisis, leaders of the major Latter Day Saint movement denomination, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, continued to welcome all people regardless of color to be members; however, they began to exclude most people of black African descent (regardless of actual skin color) from Priesthood ordination and from participation in temple ceremonies. These practices continued until September 30, 1978" Sounds pretty inferior to me. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6omwkg" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/6omwkg</a>
Originally Posted By Elderp ^ Most of the external links on that wiki article were anti-lds links. One however was interesting to me. <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/" target="_blank">http://www.blacklds.org/</a> I just learned that there were several blacks that were ordained to the priesthood prior to 1978. Like I said, I don't understand this concept yet. I also saw this article as interesting: <a href="http://www.blacklds.org/mauss" target="_blank">http://www.blacklds.org/mauss</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You asserted I was wrong the last time we went into this, but "showed" nothing to anyone's satisfaction but your own.> The proof is in the articles I linked to. That you've chosen to ignore the information doesn't make me responsible for your lack of satisfaction. <The mere fact that you can assert this when there was a very obvious alternate candidate - the change in legal status for non-married STRAIGHT couples - shows how blinkered your view is.> Again, if you'd bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it, you'd find that the author considered that possibility, and the evidence ruled it out. "I contacted senior Dutch demographer, Joop Garssen, to find out if sociologists and demographers had been able to account for Holland's rising rates of out-of-wedlock birth. In various publications, Garssen has argued persuasively that historically low out-of-wedlock birthrates in the Netherlands are rooted in traditionalism. Together with British demographer David Coleman, Garssen has suggested that continued low out-of-wedlock births in the Netherlands could mark out the Dutch system as a moderately traditionalist alternative to the Swedish model. Yet the record of the past seven years calls that into serious question. So how do Garssen and his colleagues explain the recent surge in parental cohabitation? They don't: Garssen has canvassed the experts, and they're stumped. None of the conventional explanations for increased births outside of marriage works. And Garssen explicitly rejects an explanation that might be offered by gay-marriage advocates. In 1996 the Dutch parliament approved a system of "registered partnerships," open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Registered partnerships went into effect in 1998, and formal same-sex marriage followed in 2000. So perhaps the recent surge in out-of-wedlock births was caused when registered partnerships drew heterosexual parents into non-marital unions. Yet Garssen notes that the number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the surge in the out-of-wedlock birthrate."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.> No, that's a characture of my answer. My actual answer talked about tradition and precedent and averages. The truth is that, until recently society couldn't know which couples were infertile, and why. But most couples werent, and most couples had children. When older couples married, it often was the case that children were still involved. It doesn't appear that infertile couples ever had an effect on marriage rates the way that same-sex marriages appear to be having.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug conveniently never answers those questions, showing that's where our focus should be.> I'll answer any honest question, but I'd rather not respond to dismissals, distortions, and demonizations. If I'm so obviously wrong, why doesn't anyone present actual evidence of it? Show me evidence that same-sex marriage hasn't harmed marriage rates in the places it's been tried, and I'll admit I'm wrong.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Show me evidence that same-sex marriage hasn't harmed marriage rates in the places it's been tried, and I'll admit I'm wrong." How's Massachusetts doing? Pretty damn well. <a href="http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/5/18/155516/198" target="_blank">http://www.talk2action.org/sto...5516/198</a> Interesting: <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200606080003" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/...06080003</a> <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/09/sam_brownback_and_gay_marriage_1.html" target="_blank">http://blog.washingtonpost.com...e_1.html</a>
Originally Posted By mele <a href="http://islandia.law.yale.edu/GayMarriageBook/" target="_blank">http://islandia.law.yale.edu/G...ageBook/</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darren_Spedale" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D..._Spedale</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I appreciate you guys trying, but nothing in those links invalidates the points that Kurtz made in his essays. In fact he specifically refuted the charges of Spedale and other critics in one of the essays. You might want to take another look at it (or a first). <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2QzNDA3YWYwNmZjYWUyMDA4NzI0ODc0YTQ5ZTM1NWQ=" target="_blank">http://article.nationalreview....ZTM1NWQ=</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You asserted I was wrong the last time we went into this, but "showed" nothing to anyone's satisfaction but your own.>> <The proof is in the articles I linked to. That you've chosen to ignore the information doesn't make me responsible for your lack of satisfaction.> I didn't "ignore the information" - I pointed out it was based on logical flaws. That you refuse to see this means nothing except that you refuse to see it. <<The mere fact that you can assert this when there was a very obvious alternate candidate - the change in legal status for non-married STRAIGHT couples - shows how blinkered your view is.>> <Again, if you'd bothered to read the article, instead of dismissing it, you'd find that the author considered that possibility, and the evidence ruled it out. > The evidence didn't rule it out - his attempt to find a conclusion that fit his pre-conceived notions "ruled it out." He says his experts (and who's to say he didn't find experts friendly to his point of view?) are "stumped." Yet they conclude it must be the gay marriages. That doesn't make sense. "Yet Garssen notes that the number of registered heterosexual partnerships is too small to explain the surge in the out-of-wedlock birthrate." The number of gay marriages are also pretty small. So why does one small number "explain" it while the other small number - that actually involves straight couples - did not. This study you put so much stock in is a classic example of someone with an agenda setting out to "prove" something and through a series of faulty leaps in logic says he's "proved" it. It's quite easy to see through, but the gullible (or, more to the point, those who WANT to believe it) will believe it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Because we can't tell from looking at them if they're post-menopausal. Really, that was his answer.>> <No, that's a characture of my answer.> I wish I could find that old thread. I don't like to throw the "l" word out casually, but here you're simply lying (or more charitably, misremembering). Because that's exactly what you said. <he truth is that, until recently society couldn't know which couples were infertile, and why. > You said that before. I then asked "what about a woman in her 60's or older. We know for sure she won't be having any more kids." And you said that we couldn't tell just by looking. At any rate, post-menopausal women are not prohibited from marrying because of non-procreation. Nor should they be. Nor should gay people be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In fact he specifically refuted the charges of Spedale and other critics in one of the essays.> Very weakly. But weak minds will lap it up.
Originally Posted By X-san The "study" in question is idiotic on the face of it, as Dabob points out. The fact that people like Douglas take stock in it is not surprising though. Prejudiced people will look towards any friendly source of "confirmation" (god, anyone?) to prove that their hateful views are justified. The incredibly stupid angle of "it's bad for the human race because we need to procreate", in this day and age of overpopulation and mass starvation, adds all the more idiocy to the argument (much the same as the catholic church, in their perpetual demonization of birth-control, proves their antiquated and frankly immoral line of reasoning if given even the slightest once over).
Originally Posted By X-san ***the truth is that, until recently society couldn't know which couples were infertile, and why.*** Douglas, the truth is TODAY we can tell quite readily who is fertile and who is not. Given that fact, would you be in favor of fertility testing as a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license? If not, please explain? That would obviously be an important thing to do, given your stated viewpoints here. No?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Meanwhile, as SPP noted, the case in Massachusetts (certainly a better indication of how the rest of US society might go) shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 And in fact, I just spent some time re-reading the Kurtz stuff, and the more you read it, the LESS credible it becomes. Take the Netherlands' out of wedlock birth rate. He chalks it up to gay marriage, of course, as a causative factor. Classic logical fallacy, but wait, it gets better. He says the change in legal status for co-habiting straights can't be it, because it's "too small" a number, even though the number of gay marriages is also small. And then he ignores the fact that out-of-wedlock births have increased steadily in the Netherlands since 1995, before EITHER the change in legal status for co-habiting straights OR gay marriage went into effect. Yet, from that, he chalks it up to gay marriage. And some people buy it.
Originally Posted By X-san DaBob, there is no logic to prejudice. Look at the Mormons trying to justify their own cults' beliefs in the inferiority of black people for over a century. They're baffled, and yet STILL attempt to apply some sort of logic to it. Let the haters be hateful. The smart ones will figure it out for themselves someday. The dumb ones will rot in their ignorance. It's sad, but there's nothing anyone can do about it...they are haters by choice.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Not being able to hold the priesthood does NOT equal being inferior. Even if it happened again today. Did the Levites think themselves superior to the tribe of Judah? Only the Levites could hold the priesthood way back then. There is no hate with me. I've said before that I don't know the reasons for the black/priesthood past, and I suspect the culture of racism that existed in the 1800s probably contributed to the situation. I simply do not know.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I suspect the culture of racism that existed in the 1800s probably contributed to the situation*** Of COURSE it did, Josh! ***I simply do not know.*** Yes you DO, Josh. YES YOU DO. ***There is no hate with me.*** I believe you on this one. You're a good guy. So aren't a lot of others on LP (including Elder and the lovely Mrs Elder and SO many others!). I just hate people trying to justify hate. There really is no justification. It is what it is. It would be so much nicer, and more understandable, if people were to say "yeah, well my church got into that because that's how American society was at the time and then people got a clue", rather than trying to BLAME GOD for simple human hatred. Just the idea of that is pretty sickening to me. Isn't it to you?
Originally Posted By X-san By the way, Josh...congrats and mazeltoff and all that!! On your WEDDING!!!!! How was Hawaii????????
