RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Gary: I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I don't appreciate be asked absurd questions that have no bearing whatsoever on the issues we're discussing. And, I get annoyed when you assume I believe one way when the post to which you're responding clearly suggests just the opposite. If my purpose in being here was only to tweak and debate I would respond to your rather silly assumptions and questions (and infuriate John in the process). As I am here to discuss, I refuse to respond to bait and other nonsense. If you want to *talk* seriously, have at it. You'll find me an active and responsible participant. If you simply want to attack and twist my comments, ridicule and posture, kindly put me in your kill file. To reiterate: not once have I written that I favor gay marriage, yet you insist that I do. Not once have I written that I condone homosexual activities, yet you assert that I do. I am quite willing to make personal judgments of other people. When I do, I attempt to be even-handed about it to wit: I think that extramarital heterosexual and homosexual intercourse are equivalent violations of the laws of God. Do you? I suspect not. If I'm right, this probably explains most of the difficulty you're having with my posts. Ron >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:06 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything. > >But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your >words. And if >you feel offended by my judging of your words, then >either I am truly >misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you >are failing at >putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or >you are saying >what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core? > >I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay >activities of >any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see >it on the same >level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver >sin). But I don't >cut them slack simply because they have several >television programs on >now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because >they have a >victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much >more than they >need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them >feel good in their >current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell >later for not >repenting. Recognition of an addiction is the first >step toward >resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a >difficult row to hoe; >but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances. > >But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to >encourage them to >greater demands, until they no longer are on the >fringes, but in the >center of the attention. The BoM shows that slippery >slope, and I don't >think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I >want to have my >garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out >boldly against >serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it >is enjoyable to >do or not. > >I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you >say one thing, but >then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your >words portray a >willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear >judgmental. If I'm misreading this, please let me >know, because I do >want to understand your position. But if your words say >something I >disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in >order to get you >to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard >thing for you to do, >as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what >you really mean). >If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I >will attempt to >be kind, but I may show harshness to words that >contradict themselves, >as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage. > >Gary Smith > >Ron Scott wrote: >> >> Are you related to Red Davis? >> >> >-Original Message- >> >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... >> > >> > >> >So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is >> >okay? If the state >> >gets out of the marriage business and some strange >> >religion chooses to >> >marry off its virgins to animals, is that then >> >something that should be >> >lawful, simply because the government isn't into >> >marriage issues? >> > >> >I see an extremely slippery
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
No, but I know the guy. Don't agree with him on everything. But all I can say is I cannot judge you, Ron. Only your words. And if you feel offended by my judging of your words, then either I am truly misunderstanding them (as are others, I might add), you are failing at putting your true feelings/intentions down in words, or you are saying what you mean and are offended because my words cut to the core? I am not sorry for my words against gay marriage or gay activities of any kind. I pray for those who have this illness (I see it on the same level as drug addiction or alcoholism, but as a graver sin). But I don't cut them slack simply because they have several television programs on now that showcase them. Nor do I cut them slack because they have a victim mentality. They are in need of repentance, much more than they need a kind word from me. I don't want to make them feel good in their current circumstances, just so they can burn in hell later for not repenting. Recognition of an addiction is the first step toward resolution. And with addicts of any kind, it is a difficult row to hoe; but one they must hoe regardless of any circumstances. But to ignore their actions and lifestyles is to encourage them to greater demands, until they no longer are on the fringes, but in the center of the attention. The BoM shows that slippery slope, and I don't think I need to be involved in it. As with Jacob, if I want to have my garments clean from others' sins, I must speak out boldly against serious sins, whether it is popular or not, whether it is enjoyable to do or not. I don't know how you feel on things, Ron; because you say one thing, but then your words seem to contradict. Or at least your words portray a willingness to ignore others' sins because you fear to appear judgmental. If I'm misreading this, please let me know, because I do want to understand your position. But if your words say something I disagree with, I'll be clear to question those words in order to get you to clarify (which I must admit, seems to be a hard thing for you to do, as you usually waive off opportunities to specify what you really mean). If I agree, I'll say I agree. If I totally disagree, I will attempt to be kind, but I may show harshness to words that contradict themselves, as I feel you have done in the discussion with gay marriage. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: > > Are you related to Red Davis? > > >-Original Message- > >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > > > > >So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is > >okay? If the state > >gets out of the marriage business and some strange > >religion chooses to > >marry off its virgins to animals, is that then > >something that should be > >lawful, simply because the government isn't into > >marriage issues? > > > >I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide > >down if it > >doesn't have some controls. > > > >While I don't necessarily want the federal government > >to make laws on > >marriage, I do want the states to be able to control > >their own destiny. > >If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it > >shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. > > > >Gary Smith > > > >Ron Scott wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> >-Original Message- > >> >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM > >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > >> > > >> > > >> >RB Scott wrote: > >> >>I do not support extramarital sex of > >> >>any kind. > >> > > >> >What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined > >> >to permit a man to > >> >marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR > >> > >> > >> Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd > >answers. I've > >> clearly stated that I am opposed to the state > >defining marriage, > >> which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to > >me that we > >> have long acknowledged that what is permissible under > >the laws of > >> the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. > >> > >> RBS > >> > >> > > > > > > > >Ger
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Are you related to Red Davis? >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:31 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is >okay? If the state >gets out of the marriage business and some strange >religion chooses to >marry off its virgins to animals, is that then >something that should be >lawful, simply because the government isn't into >marriage issues? > >I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide >down if it >doesn't have some controls. > >While I don't necessarily want the federal government >to make laws on >marriage, I do want the states to be able to control >their own destiny. >If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it >shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. > >Gary Smith > >Ron Scott wrote: >> >> >> >> >-Original Message----- >> >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM >> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... >> > >> > >> >RB Scott wrote: >> >>I do not support extramarital sex of >> >>any kind. >> > >> >What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined >> >to permit a man to >> >marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR >> >> >> Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd >answers. I've >> clearly stated that I am opposed to the state >defining marriage, >> which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to >me that we >> have long acknowledged that what is permissible under >the laws of >> the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. >> >> RBS >> >> > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith >geraldsmith@ juno.com >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
Gary: It's not easy to annoy me, but you're getting close. I wish you'd take greater care in reading my posts, and assessing the reality of the current situation before shooting off half-baked accusations. Think what you may. Have a pleasant night. Ron >-Original Message- >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 4:36 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are >simply giving up >on the fight against moral crimes against society. > >On the same note then, why do we not have the state get >out of managing >crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the >civilian courts. >Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just >have the family sue >the person! Or, perhaps the family will thank the >murderer for doing in >a crummy member of the family! > >President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago >entitled, "Standing for >Something." If taking a stance means we raise the >white flag, then we >may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin. > >Gary Smith > > >Ron Scott wrote: >> >> >> > >> >Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex >> >marriage. --JWR< >> >> I have done this before. I support the proposition >that the state >> should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, >> therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft >> legislation that carefully and consistently defines >partnerships >> it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. >Churches may >> choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as "marriages." I >> also think considerable effort must be spent >determining how such >> changes affect free speech in public settings and how >they will >> be represented/taught in primary and secondary >public schools. >> >> RBS >> >> > >> >// >> >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >> >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// >> > >> >/ >> -- >> >> >> >> >> > > > >Gerald (Gary) Smith >geraldsmith@ juno.com >http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom > > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
So, in effect, you are not opposing anything. You are simply giving up on the fight against moral crimes against society. On the same note then, why do we not have the state get out of managing crimes altogether. Let it all be resolved in the civilian courts. Someone murdered? Why have prisons, when we can just have the family sue the person! Or, perhaps the family will thank the murderer for doing in a crummy member of the family! President Hinckley wrote a book a few years ago entitled, "Standing for Something." If taking a stance means we raise the white flag, then we may as well just condemn all the world to despair and sin. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: > > > > > >Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex > >marriage. --JWR< > > I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state > should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, > therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft > legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships > it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may > choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as "marriages." I > also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such > changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will > be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. > > RBS > > > > >// > >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// > >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > > > >/ > -- > > > > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
So are you or are you not saying that bestiality is okay? If the state gets out of the marriage business and some strange religion chooses to marry off its virgins to animals, is that then something that should be lawful, simply because the government isn't into marriage issues? I see an extremely slippery slope for society to slide down if it doesn't have some controls. While I don't necessarily want the federal government to make laws on marriage, I do want the states to be able to control their own destiny. If Massachusetts wants gay marriage, that is up to Mass. But it shouldn't force itself upon any other state that refuses it. Gary Smith Ron Scott wrote: > > > > >-Original Message- > >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > > > > >RB Scott wrote: > >>I do not support extramarital sex of > >>any kind. > > > >What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined > >to permit a man to > >marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR > > > Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've > clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, > which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we > have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of > the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. > > RBS > > Gerald (Gary) Smith geraldsmith@ juno.com http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:59 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: > > >>I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving >>relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you. >> >> >>RBS > >I don't think that you will have any problem with a >dearth of commentary >and opinion here on ZION. ;-) Dang, I forgot to underscore **relevant.** // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:58 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... >SNIP< --RON-- >>2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must >>ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special >>treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and >consistent >>ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic >>partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore >should be >>entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions >>of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly. --Steven-- >Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the >income tax, and all its >loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some >type of national sales >tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat >everyone as equals >under the law. As I didn't ask a question, I can accuse you providing a non-responsive answer . // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you. RBS I don't think that you will have any problem with a dearth of commentary and opinion here on ZION. ;-) -- Steven Montgomery "The most important consequence of marriage is, that the husband and the wife become in law only one person Upon this principle of union, almost all the other legal consequences of marriage depend. This principle, sublime and refined, deserves to be viewed and examined on every side." James Wilson // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 10:08 AM 3/23/2004, Ron Scott wrote: >-Original Message- >From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:48 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... >But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong?< "Support" is probably not the right word, particularly given the explosive baggage that has been attached to practically everything in this debate. I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. Here some issues that I'm mulling over at the moment: 1) The state should not attempt to define/sanction ordinances of the church. The state should make laws that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The church should "bless" what it chooses to bless. I agree with you here. 2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and consistent ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore should be entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly. Actually, I'm in favor of completely abolishing the income tax, and all its loopholes and exceptions, and replacing it with some type of national sales tax. This, in my opinion, is the only fair way to treat everyone as equals under the law. -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moral Anarchy is the seedbed of Tyranny--R. W. (Bob) Lee // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 3:35 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >RB Scott wrote: >> >Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex >> >marriage. --JWR< >> >>I have done this before. I support the proposition >that the state >>should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, >>therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft >>legislation that carefully and consistently defines >partnerships >>it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. >Churches may >>choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as "marriages." I >>also think considerable effort must be spent >determining how such >>changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will >>be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools.< >So do you really think this will "oppose" same-sex >marriage? I don't see >how it will stop them from becoming common place. --JWR< 1. Do you see the constitutional amendment, as now drafted, as an effective deterrant to "same sex marriage?" 2. If so, my concept is better because it reserves "marriage" blessings for the church. 3. If you're concerned about same sex cohabitation, neither plan forbids it. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal, as is heterosexual cohabitation, even though both are equivalent sins in the eyes of God. I do not see how the "amendment" as drafted will effectively prevent same-sex partnerships. Do you? And, if the proposed amendment loses, as I expect it will, we will likely have same sex **marriage** everywhere. There will be little room for negotiation, compromise, or local options. Nor will we be able to define how it will be presented in the schools (especially). The opportunity for a "shades of gray" solution will exist for a while yet (perhaps), thereafter the outcome will either be black or white. RBS P.S. I've expressed my opinion to several state and Federal elected officials, Republicans and Democrats. // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: >Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex >marriage. --JWR< I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as "marriages." I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. So do you really think this will "oppose" same-sex marriage? I don't see how it will stop them from becoming common place. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:27 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >RB Scott wrote: >>It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so >to me. I DO >>NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for >opposing it do >>not include (at this point) supporting a >constitutional amendment >>defining **marriage.** > >Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex >marriage. --JWR< I have done this before. I support the proposition that the state should get out of sanctioning marriages altogether and should, therefore ( as I noted in an earlier post today) draft legislation that carefully and consistently defines partnerships it will designate as bonafide domestic partnerships. Churches may choose (or not) to bless such partnerships as "marriages." I also think considerable effort must be spent determining how such changes affect free speech in public settings and how they will be represented/taught in primary and secondary public schools. RBS > >// >/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// >/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// > >/ -- // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Tell us more about your "methods for opposing" same-sex marriage. --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:29 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > >RB Scott wrote: >>I do not support extramarital sex of >>any kind. > >What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined >to permit a man to >marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR Don't ask absurd questions unless you want absurd answers. I've clearly stated that I am opposed to the state defining marriage, which I regard as a religious covenant. It seems to me that we have long acknowledged that what is permissible under the laws of the land may not be permissible in God's eyes. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
RB Scott wrote: I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. What about sex within marriage if marriage is redefined to permit a man to marry his German Shepherd or his boy friend? --JWR // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: Steven Montgomery [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:48 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating... >But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong?< "Support" is probably not the right word, particularly given the explosive baggage that has been attached to practically everything in this debate. I do not support extramarital sex of any kind. Here some issues that I'm mulling over at the moment: 1) The state should not attempt to define/sanction ordinances of the church. The state should make laws that are consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The church should "bless" what it chooses to bless. 2) As I read the constitution, the tax codes (for example) must ensure equal treatment under law for all people; special treatments/exemptions should be applied in uniform and consistent ways. No doubt certain kinds of well-defined domestic partnerships are of benefit to the state and therefore should be entitled to special taxation benefits/entitlements. Definitions of same ought to crafted very carefully and applied uniformly. 3) Under "common law" some of these protections -- property rights especially -- are already available to "domestic partners" of all kinds in Utah and other states. These laws have been in force for years and therefore should provide considerable legal guidance as to how state/Federal partnership statutes should be adjusted/drafted. I will continue to think...and will appreciate receiving relevant, thoughtful comments from any of you. RBS // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
At 08:46 AM 3/23/2004, you wrote: >-Original Message- >From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > > >I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue >succinctly and >precisely outline the present direction of church >policy on the marriage >controversy. The church is actively pursuing every >means to defend >traditional marriage, including representation in the >courts and support >for individual and group efforts to oppose the >legalization of same-sex >marriage. It would seem that we are not justified in >failing to pursue >these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance >of success or >failure. President Hinckley explains our rationale for >such efforts -- It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims* of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the constitutional protections and entitlements for all (including women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded all by our constitution. Ron But I thought you did support same sex civil unions. Am I wrong? -- Steven Montgomery [EMAIL PROTECTED] We will not despair, for the cause of human freedom is the cause of God. --Joshua R. Giddings // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
RE: [ZION] Worth reiterating...
>-Original Message- >From: Jim Cobabe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 10:30 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [ZION] Worth reiterating... > > > >I believe President Hinkley's remarks on this issue >succinctly and >precisely outline the present direction of church >policy on the marriage >controversy. The church is actively pursuing every >means to defend >traditional marriage, including representation in the >courts and support >for individual and group efforts to oppose the >legalization of same-sex >marriage. It would seem that we are not justified in >failing to pursue >these efforts, regardless of our regard for the chance >of success or >failure. President Hinckley explains our rationale for >such efforts -- It would *seem* to you, perhaps. It doesn't *seem* so to me. I DO NOT support same sex marriage, but my methods for opposing it do not include (at this point) supporting a constitutional amendment defining **marriage.** Likewise, I supported the *general aims* of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment but I DID NOT support passage of the amendment itself because I believed that the constitutional protections and entitlements for all (including women) were already guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Regards the marriage isisue: I think the constitution as written is satisfactory and provides opportunities to craft laws that honor religious beliefs and honor the protections/entitlements afforded all by our constitution. Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit: http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER --^
