I know what the church's stance is on

[exUte]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

homosexuality and family.

What I want to know is how is homosexual marriage destructive to the family? In what way does marriage of homosexuals undermine traditional marriage?

by Christ, why do you think Christ would think it was destructive? perhaps you could convince him. tell me how it goes.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

Is there anything more annoying than some ahole like exUte sitting in Salt Lake City and barking at Californians to stand for something? Remember ex, you are the guy who admitted on cougarboard that you'd never invite a gay neighbor couple over for dinner because it would mean acceptance of that lifestyle. It's not too difficult to "stand for something" when you get to oppose people that you already despise.

I'm guessing you probably don't know any gay people. Well, out here they are our co-workers, neighbors and friends and "standing for something" has a lot more consequences than it does for you in your little self-imposed bubble. Don't act like you're sacrificing something.

all Californians (girly boys as Arnold once called some of the Californians), then so be it. If you couldn't figure that out, you are a stupid californian!

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

Look, you may not think this is a good argument, but you are purposely ignoring the point. Let's say people were allowed to marry washing machines. Don't you think that would de-value the whole notion of marriage? Sure people would still get married and so forth, but the notion of marriage and what it means would not be the same anymore. That is the argument being made and I think you know this but are choosing to ignore it becaseu you don't find it persuasive.

What does it mean to "de-value the whole notion of marriage?"

I think marriage is more devalued by Britney Spears and the Hollywood types and Las Vegas quickie weddings than by a gay or lesbian couple that has been committed to each other for 30 years finally tying the knot. Many of the first gay couples to get married are those that have been life-long partners. Do these couples de-value marriage more than the average philandering heterosexual?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

What does it mean to "de-value the whole notion of marriage?"

I think marriage is more devalued by Britney Spears and the Hollywood types and Las Vegas quickie weddings than by a gay or lesbian couple that has been committed to each other for 30 years finally tying the knot. Many of the first gay couples to get married are those that have been life-long partners. Do these couples de-value marriage more than the average philandering heterosexual?

ANd so you prove my point. You may think it is MORE devalued by other things, but by conceding the comparison you demonstrate that you understand the basis for someone reaching the conclusion that it is devalued by gay marriage even if you don't agree with it.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by creekster

ANd so you prove my point. You may think it is MORE devalued by other things, but by conceding the comparison you demonstrate that you understand the basis for someone reaching the conclusion that it is devalued by gay marriage even if you don't agree with it.

OK, you caught me in a mistake. I don't really think marriage is devalued at all by a life-long gay or lesbian couple tying the knot after 30+ years of partnership. These people deserve the title of marriage and bring more credit to the word marriage than the average newly married straight couple that has no idea what commitment and sacrifice are all about.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Only inbred imbeciles, home-schooled with a curriculum of the political writings of Skousen and Ezra Taft Benson and the religious writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Delbert Stapley, believe the Church is guided in every instance by God.

LOL! Good stuff.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by barnes

Well I guess if the live-in boyfriend in not in a Common Law Marriage, Of those two relatioships, one has greater a propensity to generate stable productive human capital. Did you miss my schick on Social Security. What do you think will put more bang into the Social Security Trust Fund, kids with married parents or kids with live-in boyfriends.

Kids with married parents. So you sanction gay marriage of couples who then adopt? That seems to be consistent with your argument.

[SoCalCoug]

I've now had a chance to read through this thread, and the only thing I've been able to learn from it is that exUte is really an a-hole with the IQ of a washing machine (thanks, Creekster!).

The reason I posted the question is that I haven't seen any logical arguments against gay marriage, based on the destruction of the principle of marriage. It fosters committed relationships, it would provide for a stable home environment with two loving parents. Of course, the children would have to be adopted, but how can you say that the adopted children are necessarily worse off being adopted by a gay couple than by remaining with a single parent (very likely a very young mother) or being aborted?

To me, the most reasonable argument against gay marriage is that the children of such a marriage would likely be raised with a tolerance of homosexuality (but then that's a pretty circular argument).

Maybe I can frame the issue this way: are there any other commandments / policies / positions of the church for which the benefit of the principle cannot be reasonably discerned?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I've now had a chance to read through this thread, and the only thing I've been able to learn from it is that exUte is really an a-hole with the IQ of a washing machine (thanks, Creekster!).

The reason I posted the question is that I haven't seen any logical arguments against gay marriage, based on the destruction of the principle of marriage. It fosters committed relationships, it would provide for a stable home environment with two loving parents. Of course, the children would have to be adopted, but how can you say that the adopted children are necessarily worse off being adopted by a gay couple than by remaining with a single parent (very likely a very young mother) or being aborted?

To me, the most reasonable argument against gay marriage is that the children of such a marriage would likely be raised with a tolerance of homosexuality (but then that's a pretty circular argument).

Maybe I can frame the issue this way: are there any other commandments / policies / positions of the church for which the benefit of the principle cannot be reasonably discerned?

Clarification: a gay couple composed of two women can have a natural-born child.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Clarification: a gay couple composed of two women can have a natural-born child.

For that matter, so can a gay male couple, using a surrogate mother. I stand corrected.

But exUte is still an ass.