No worries. It's all good.

The fact that you would use that word in this thread comfirms, to me, that you are nothing more than a homophobic ass.

Yes. Remember, the Church has officially organized to fight against Affirmation and other groups on this issue. A scheduled meeting was taken off-calendar by the church (not affirmation) to discuss the issues re: same gender attraction, citing the need to hire a family services director.

It bothers me that the First Presidency has been the signor of the letters etc. to the Stakes, and it is the First Presidency that has directed the organization in this regard. Seems to me that the meeting doesn't need the advisement of an official Family Services Director in order to open up a dialogue with Affirmation on this issue. Maybe an ultimate resolution on the requests by Affirmation will need input from that Director.

But, where a fight has begun, and overtures have been made from both sides to meet, and then one side pulls out of the talks, I don't see anything wrong with Affirmation going to the press. The church's actions seem to be trying to avoid the talk until after the vote so they won't appear weak on the stance that they have taken.

Hopefully, Affirmation's tactic will get the church back into the room to discuss these issues that the church claims are deserving of "careful attention". Careful attention (and certainly not understanding and compassion) is not what homosexual and lesbian members and non-members of the LDS church are getting from the church's efforts in California.

I think it comes down to the common definition of marriage and the effect that legalization will have. I would guess that fifty years ago, when the average person thought about marriage, they thought of two people uniting to create a family. With the advent of birth control, this has shifted somewhat to not necessarily include children. To change the legal definition to just include homosexuals, we shift the common concept of marriage further, altogether eliminating the sacred sexual relationship and any possibility of creating a family. I do think this is a troublesome shift. I'm not sure political channels are the optimal way of preventing this shift, or if it's even possible, so I still have trouble with the church's involvement in this, but so be it--I don't live in CA.

The other coherent argument for Prop 8 is this: An essential part of marriage in our society, the only reason that it's beneficial to us as a whole, is for the rearing and protection of children. Otherwise, why should the government sponsor and subsidize it?

No, Tex, I don't think this will lead to the normalization of homosexuality. Will & Grace did much more for that than any legal measures would. Normalization and acceptance/tolerance is not necessarily a bad thing either. Homophobia, either explicit or insidious, is much more distasteful to God than an acceptance of homosexuals into our society, IMO.

I don't remember having to acknowledge when I got married that my wife and I wanted all of the social security benefits. In fact, I don't remember that crossing my mind at all. Why assume it's crossing gay people's minds when they say they want to get married? And why should they have to acknowledge that when I didn't?

The fact that you didn't realize I was joking confirms to me that you are nothing more than a stereotypical Ute dumbass.

You make a good point. I've become too cynical in today's world of entitlements that I always look for ulterior motives.

Very. You seem to see the world from a different vantage point than myself. Not that I feel either of us are wrong, just different observations. I truly feel that as society of man advances, the need for a document to profess each others devotion is absurd. The ceremony that is performed is observed for religious reasons. Not for civil circumstances. Figure out the legal documentation and call it a union. And then everyone gets what they want without dragging a religion into it.

I don't get it. How does changing the meaning of a word alter anything about a "sacred sexual relationship?" Either it is sacred or it isn't. Surely the government doesn't have the power to alter the sacredness of something, do they? I also don't know why it is relevant that homosexuals definitely can't have children. Many married heterosexual couples can't have kids either. Should the elderly be prohibited from marrying? We don't even need to do any medical tests to know they won't have kids. What about sterile people? No marriage? People who don't like kids? Kids may be a desireable result from marriage, but they can hardly be a requirement for any marriage.

There are many reasons to promote marriage other than children. Stability and property and agency rights among them.

You should throw out the n word next. It will also probably be hilarious. Moron.