Question about the Proclamation

[creekster]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

My problem with the whole thing...(as a resident Californian)

I don't really care if gay people get married. I don't see how it is going to affect my family or harm my children. So far they are both straight. They are going to marry young men that are straight. And they will have kids.

How does two guys having sex and having a piece of paper on the wall harm us? They aren't going to be doing it with me, my wife, or my daughters.

Secondly...

I don't like sitting in PEC on Sunday and having a member of the Stake Presidency giving us a piece of paper from www.protectfamily.com and asking us to give of our means what we can. From as little as 50 to as much as 5K. You can also give more or less with the "other" section.

The paper asks for Stake and Ward information also when you donate so the church can see how much money is coming from where.

Then they spend 10 minutes in Sacrament meeting talking about it over the pulpit and asking the ward members to please give what they can to the cause.

I am not giving a dime...at the same time I am not going to bust anyones balls if they do.

We're getting the pitch next week. Not sure how I am going to react. I have decided to wait and see what they say.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Your entire expose relies on alternatively narrow or broad definitions of words--whichever suits your purpose--in order to make sense. However carefully worded, the Proclamation is not a legal document. Applying legal hairsplitting truly bastardizes the clear intent of what they were trying to say.

I guess that depends on how you view it. Is each and every word of the Proclamation inspired? If so, shouldn't we scrutinize each and every word? Or is the general sentiment inspired but not the exact wording? If the latter, shouldn't we still scrutinize each word to attempt to divine its meaning?

Either way, it seems prudent to scrutinize each word. We do it with the scriptures all the time. Take any of the countless General Conference addresses that focus on a narrow reading of one scripture as an example.

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

My problem with the whole thing...(as a resident Californian)

I don't really care if gay people get married. I don't see how it is going to affect my family or harm my children. So far they are both straight. They are going to marry young men that are straight. And they will have kids.

How does two guys having sex and having a piece of paper on the wall harm us? They aren't going to be doing it with me, my wife, or my daughters.

Good post. I agree with this. Gay people having a piece of paper on the wall does not hurt marriages or families at all.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

Good post. I agree with this. Gay people having a piece of paper on the wall does not hurt marriages or families at all.

Not to totally sidetrack this discussion (because I think it's been hashed elsewhere), but I believe society has an interest in expecting certain standards of itself.

That a specific behavior doesn't overtly harm a given individual is not in itself sufficient reason to allow it. Just my 2 cents.

[The_Tick]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not to totally sidetrack this discussion (because I think it's been hashed elsewhere), but I believe society has an interest in expecting certain standards of itself.

That a specific behavior doesn't overtly harm a given individual is not in itself sufficient reason to allow it. Just my 2 cents.

Let me go Mike Waters on you here for a second...

I can't explain why I don't think it is harmful, can you explain to me why it is?

I haven't seen anything that moves me from my position.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by The_Tick

Let me go Mike Waters on you here for a second...

I can't explain why I don't think it is harmful, can you explain to me why it is?

I haven't seen anything that moves me from my position.

Let me add to your questions by requesting that readers provide a compelling and logical argument in favor of the amendment that is not based on religious grounds. The few attempts I've seen, including the execrable "Ten Reasons to Protect California's Marriage Law with a Constitutional Amendment," haven't been persuasive at all.

http://www.familyleader.info/archive...0ReasonsCA.pdf

Can't we do better than that?

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Let me add to your questions by requesting that readers provide a compelling and logical argument in favor of the amendment that is not based on religious grounds. The few attempts I've seen, including the execrable "Ten Reasons to Protect California's Marriage Law with a Constitutional Amendment," haven't been persuasive at all.

http://www.familyleader.info/archive...0ReasonsCA.pdf

Can't we do better than that?

Wow, those reasons are shockingly awful.....or at least inartfully expressed.

I love reason #1: Children need fathers.

Really, well then, here kids.....have two!

By the time we get around to reasons #7-10, we are basically scaremongering.....protect democracy! protect our lives! sustain our very existence!

Yes folks, if gays get married, procreation will cease altogether.

I am surprised that there was no mention of terrorists or 9/11 in that pamphlet.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

Let me add to your questions by requesting that readers provide a compelling and logical argument in favor of the amendment that is not based on religious grounds. The few attempts I've seen, including the execrable "Ten Reasons to Protect California's Marriage Law with a Constitutional Amendment," haven't been persuasive at all.

http://www.familyleader.info/archive...0ReasonsCA.pdf

Can't we do better than that?

Yikes, that is bad.

Ironically, reason #4 seems to me like a reason to support gay marriage.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Which is why I would rather live on an island ruled by Barney Frank and Gloria Allred.

I wish the three of you would get on with it and go there.

Originally Posted by The_Tick

Let me go Mike Waters on you here for a second...

I can't explain why I don't think it is harmful, can you explain to me why it is?

I haven't seen anything that moves me from my position.

I think homosexuality is a destructive, deviant behavior (note: I'm making a distinction between the attraction and the behavior) and I believe society has an interest in not normalizing it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I wish the three of you would get on with it and go there.

I bet you do... 3 lonely men, on an island you could visit... your ideas for a bar of soap factory finally finding a purpose...

I think homosexuality is a destructive, deviant behavior (note: I'm making a distinction between the attraction and the behavior) and I believe society has an interest in not normalizing it.

So if homosexuality is normalized without legalizing gay marriage, is there any reason to prevent gay marriage after such normalization?