I know what the church's stance is on

[barnes]

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?

Why should the state reconize and give priviledge to a homosexual relationship over a platonic relationship. What value to society do the two gay males across the street give over the single girls renting next door? At least the nuclear family is sacraficing to produce stable civil-minded children that will supply my social security. That is what society should reward. I have no problem with anyone's right to co-habitat.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

So, what are you going to do about the letter to be read on Sunday?

Same thing I did with the last one. Nothing.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by barnes

Why should the state reconize and give priviledge to a homosexual relationship over a platonic relationship. What value to society do the two gay males across the street give over the single girls renting next door? At least the nuclear family is sacraficing to produce stable civil-minded children that will supply my social security. That is what society should reward. I have no problem with anyone's right to co-habitat.

LOL. Thanks.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

What did I miss? Is this common knowledge?

Pretty much. It has been leaked to the world wide web last week or the week before of whenever. Basically it is a reset from the last time California had to vote on the issue of Gay Marriage, but this time it is referencing the proposed amendment to the state constitution. You can find it pretty easily online.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Same thing I did with the last one. Nothing.

Enlightening response, thanks.

I'm not arguing with you or trying to make a point. I actually agree with you, which is why I have difficulty with these letters (I had the same problem with it on the last go-around). It's fairly explicit language asking members to give of the time and means to fight this battle, a battle I don't agree with. Are you just ignoring them?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Enlightening response, thanks.

I'm not arguing with you or trying to make a point. I actually agree with you, which is why I have difficulty with these letters (I had the same problem with it on the last go-around). It's fairly explicit language asking members to give of the time and means to fight this battle, a battle I don't agree with. Are you just ignoring them?

No worries, I didn't take your tone to be hostile. But honestly, there really isn't much more to say that hasn't already been rehashed.

The letter will be read, and everyone's life will go on. When it comes time to vote in November, I will not vote for the amendment.

I get the Church's stance on homosexual marriage but I am not really interested in fighting for that cause.

I don't attend anti-abortion rallies, either, for what it's worth, even though I am personally against abortion.

[BoylenOver]

Originally Posted by barnes

Why should the state reconize and give priviledge to a homosexual relationship over a platonic relationship. What value to society do the two gay males across the street give over the single girls renting next door? At least the nuclear family is sacraficing to produce stable civil-minded children that will supply my social security. That is what society should reward. I have no problem with anyone's right to co-habitat.

Why should the state recognize a man and a woman getting married as opposed to a man and a woman living together? What value to society does a husband and wife give over the live-in boyfriend and girlfriend across the street?

[barnes]

Originally Posted by BoylenOver

Why should the state recognize a man and a woman getting married as opposed to a man and a woman living together? What value to society does a husband and wife give over the live-in boyfriend and girlfriend across the street?

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.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by barnes

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.

So would the state's interest in marriage then hinge upon perpetuation of the current social security program structure? Did the state have no interest in marriage before social security was adopted (you do realize, of course, that it was decried as a socialist, and thus evil, program by many of those groups now opposed to gay marriage)?

[BoylenOver]

Originally Posted by barnes

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.

Are you comparing married parents to roommates (a la "3 Men and a Little Lady"), or downgrading the stability of a potential homosexual marriage?

By your own argument, allowing two people to enter into the bonds of matrimony increases their chances of increasing the "propensity to generate productive human capital".