I know what the church's stance is on

[barnes]

Originally Posted by creekster

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)?

No it hinges on the production of stable human capital the participates in our capitalist system.

[barnes]

Originally Posted by BoylenOver

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".

Answer my question first.

[BoylenOver]

Originally Posted by barnes

Answer my question first.

Anne and Rosie/Adam and Steve would provide a healthier home as a married couple than they would as a co-habitant couple, just as my mother and father were better parents than my father and his live-in girlfriend.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

I have said many times, the LDS Church lost its moral high-ground on marriage when it abdicated the definition of the law of chastity to a bell-bottomed body-suit wearing Elvis impersonator at the Chapel of Burn'n Love in the Golden Nugget Casino. If this bejeweled officer of the Great State of Nevada says you are married, your sex is sanctioned by Elohim and Jehovah and Boyd K. Packer and Sheri Dew herself.

The Catholics have this one right--no one is married in God's eyes unless the Church marries them. Someday we will learn from them on this point and get it right.

How does this comport with your "church of inclusiveness" post?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I htink in the same way that adultery or serial divorce, etc., does. The effect is possibly magnified by the fact that the relationship so sanctioned is inherently immoral in the first place. While a rising tide floats all boats, pulling the plug on the pool sends them all to the bottom.

The more I have thought about it, the more I tend to think that we should make marriage a religious function and domestic unions a state function.

But that's not enough for the gay lobby. Then all religions are hate mongers. And it goes on and on.

[exUte]

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?

Three men who come up with this stuff or inspiration. Or you believe inspiration/revelation is dead as well. You stick around for the green jello?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

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.

for those I have told my kids about. Those who don't stand for anything and thus they fall for everything! Can I get an autographed pic to go along with my story.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by exUte

for those I have told my kids about. Those who don't stand for anything and thus they fall for everything! Can I get an autographed pic to go along with my story.

I am glad to see you are still posting in spurts of 3s.

I will gladly give you my autograph.

Should I make it out to just you, or do all your kids go by "a-hole" also?

[exUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I am glad to see you are still posting in spurts of 3s.

I will gladly give you my autograph.

Should I make it out to just you, or do all your kids go by "a-hole" also?

can't spend my entire day speculating on what God thinks. I leave that to intellectuals like you. BTW.......if your kids turn out as good as mine, you'll consider yourself a suckcess.

Curious what your calling is in the Church.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by barnes

No it hinges on the production of stable human capital the participates in our capitalist system.

Then I would guess that measured productivity would increase for committed couples as opposed to singles of any orientation. Fewer sick days, less turnover, and so forth. Hence, society by your standard has an interest in pursuing it, right?