[ZION] Gay art exhibit
Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Gay art exhibit raises ire at SLCC Diversity Week show is moved away from entrance foyer By Doug Smeath Deseret Morning News A visual art exhibit at Salt Lake Community College was moved Tuesday after a group of photographs offended several students who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The exhibit, part of SLCC's Diversity Week, raised the ire of students who disapproved of depictions of two men dressed as LDS missionaries in various stages of undress. The photographs suggested a homosexual relationship between the two men. There was no nudity in any of the photos. The art show is sponsored by Coloring Outside the Lines, a club for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual students. It was originally in a foyer near the entrance of the South City Campus' main building, 1575 S. State. But after a group of students had some concerns with the art, the exhibit was moved to the Student Services Lounge, which is in the same building, said Joy Tlou, SLCC's director of public relations. MaryEtta Chase, an assistant adviser to the club, said she wanted to keep the exhibit where it would be visible, but she was concerned angry students would somehow damage the art if it stayed where it was. Tlou described the decision to move the exhibit as the result of a conversation in which both sides were able to express their opinions and work out a compromise. Colleges and universities are traditionally a place where ideas meet, he said. The students who were voicing the dissent were doing so in a very civil way. But Kathryn Heaston, a student who is not affiliated with Coloring Outside the Lines but said she witnessed the disagreement and got involved, said the argument was a little more heated than that. He (one of the offended students) got up in my face and was like, 'What do you know about the Savior?' said Heaston, who supports the club and its display. Joseph Freed, one of the students who complained about the photos, told KSL-TV he was exercising his right to express his opinion. It offends me and what I believe in, he said. Campus police officers were called to the site of the argument, but no one was cited. The artist, Don Farmer, stopped by the school to see the exhibit Tuesday morning. When he arrived, he found students arguing about his photos. He is not a student at SLCC; he graduated from Westminster College with a degree in art. But a club adviser asked him the night before the exhibit's opening to submit pieces for the show. I didn't think it would be in the lobby, Farmer said. Had I known (the photos would spark controversy), I probably would have asked for a warning in front of the exhibit, telling potential viewers what to expect. Farmer said the photos were part of his senior project at Westminster. When they were displayed there, a similar controversy erupted, resulting in a lawsuit against the school. However, Farmer said, the student who filed the suit later dropped it after she spoke with Farmer and learned of his intentions. Farmer said the photos were not meant to be hateful or hurtful but were instead meant to start dialogue. He set out to depict the struggles of people trying to juxtapose their faith with their sexuality. He said he was an active LDS Church member when he displayed the photos at Westminster, and his bishopric was understanding about his intentions. He is no longer actively LDS, he said. He said the men shown in the photos are both former LDS missionaries who were in a relationship. Art is scary, he said. Art is something that challenges. I was scared of the images. . . . I learned that there was something that these images evoked. For some viewers, it was increased understanding; others were offended but wanted to understand the reasoning behind the photos, he said. Farmer said he encountered a similar response at SLCC on Tuesday. The scene was initially confrontational, he said, but when students realized Farmer was the artist, they became genuinely interested in understanding what Farmer was saying with his art. Diversity Week continues at SLCC, including a panel today at the South City Campus on transgenderism and a debate Friday at the Redwood Campus on the issue of gay marriage. The week will wrap up with Saturday's Straight Over the Rainbow Diversity Dance at the Redwood Campus. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // /// 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
Re: [ZION] Marriage resolution dropped
Wimps. Jon - Original Message - From: Jim Cobabe [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:46 AM Subject: [ZION] Marriage resolution dropped Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Marriage resolution dropped S. Jordan Council decides to skip all of its controversy By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News SOUTH JORDAN - After being blasted by some members of the public for proposing a resolution against gay marriage, South Jordan city officials said Tuesday that's one boiling political cauldron they don't want to step into. In a written statement, city leaders said they reached consensus that the topic of marriage is a matter best left to someone else. Such debate should exist at the state and federal level wherein lies the authority to establish laws with regard to such matters, the statement read. The city will not discuss, nor consider a resolution on this subject. The announcement comes after councilwoman Leona Winger suggested a week ago that the council adopt a resolution stating that marriage in South Jordan be recognized as only between one man and one woman. Mayor Kent Money agreed with Winger's proposal. He directed city staff to look into drafting a resolution and find out if any other city has taken similar action. Some research showed that South Jordan would be the first Utah city to make such a statement. News of the plan drew some public outcry, particularly by gay activists, who said the resolution would be seen as divisive and mean spirited by the public. Although they expressed a desire to make a moral stand on the issue of gay marriage, some council members had also expressed concern that the resolution would draw unwanted attention to the city. We never made up our minds to begin with, said South Jordan City Manager Ricky Horst, who added the fire storm of controversy confirmed it was not a subject they should address. Horst said last week that had the city drafted the resolution, the council would have voted on it during its March 30 meeting. Horst said after news of the plan broke in the Deseret Morning News, the city was inundated with phone calls from concerned residents. At least one South Jordan citizen activist, Laurie Vance, had said although she didn't necessarily agree with gay marriage, she felt the city had no business making such a political stand that could divide the community. City officials particularly felt the heat of criticism during Tuesday's Doug Wright Show on KSL Radio. Wright characterized the proposed resolution as unnecessary and inappropriate. Horst pointed out that councilwoman Winger is fairly new to her position, having been elected last November, and is learning that as a council member, her statements now speak for not just herself but for her community. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement is wrong. Gary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml 'Gay marriage' confusions Thomas Sowell (archive) March 9, 2004 Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the gay marriage issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between consenting adults in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval. Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today? First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws. As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power. The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied the law by trying to prevent black students from being enrolled in the University of Alabama under a court order. After Wallace was no longer governor, he was within his rights to argue for racial segregation, just as civil rights leaders argued against it. But, using the powers of his office as governor to defy the law was a violation of his oath. If judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco want to resign their jobs and start advocating gay marriage, they have every right to do so. But that is wholly different from using the authority delegated to them under the law to subvert the law. Gay rights activists argue that activist judges have overturned unjust laws in the past and that society is better off for it. The argument that some good has come from some unlawful acts in the
[ZION] Gay Marriage Quicksand
Congressman Ron Paul on the Gay Marriage issue (just remember where you saw the limit the jurisdiction of federal courts idea first grin): http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-22-2004/marriage.htm Gay Marriage Quicksand by Congressman Ron Paul Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. A far better approach is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. The President's recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions. Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership. Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever. However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized. The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states' rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature. It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states' rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves. This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades. Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government. -- Steven Montgomery html a href=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/?af=linktous3; img border=0 src=http://www.stoptheftaa.org/_images/linktous/sftaalogosmall.jpg; width=406 height=100/a /html http://www.stoptheftaa.org // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
Toward the laudable goal of establishing family traditions that work, shall I presume that society and government will soon insist on repealing what are essentially divorce on demand statutes? I agree that the ideal model is family with a father and a mother, but it certainly is not the only model that works. Nor are alternative workable models recent phenomena. They have been with us as long as I can remember. For instance, most, if not all, polygamous family models were quite non-traditional. Children in such families often only had passing relationships with their fathers. Often two or more mothers occupied the same home. Often children from different mothers were raised with deep loyalties to their biological mothers as well as other moms in the household. As I practical matter, would we not be better off finding ways to support all families, no matter their configurations? Ron Scott -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement is wrong. Gary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040 309.shtml 'Gay marriage' confusions Thomas Sowell (archive) March 9, 2004 Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the gay marriage issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between consenting adults in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval. Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today? First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws. As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the
RE: [ZION] Gay art exhibit
Would SLCC allow a display of photos/art depicting homosexuals on their knees attempting to repent of their sin? It would definitely promote discussion, wouldn't it? I'm willing to do a pictorial expose of gays burning in hell, repenting on their knees before Christ, etc; if SLCC is willing to put them on display. Anyone know anyone at SLCC who would be interested in such an idea? Gays might find it offensive, but not more so than depicting LDS missionaries in a homosexual encounter. Gary Smith Jim Cobabe wrote: Deseret Morning News, Wednesday, March 10, 2004 Gay art exhibit raises ire at SLCC Diversity Week show is moved away from entrance foyer By Doug Smeath Deseret Morning News A visual art exhibit at Salt Lake Community College was moved Tuesday after a group of photographs offended several students who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The exhibit, part of SLCC's Diversity Week, raised the ire of students who disapproved of depictions of two men dressed as LDS missionaries in various stages of undress. The photographs suggested a homosexual relationship between the two men. There was no nudity in any of the photos. The art show is sponsored by Coloring Outside the Lines, a club for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and heterosexual students. It was originally in a foyer near the entrance of the South City Campus' main building, 1575 S. State. But after a group of students had some concerns with the art, the exhibit was moved to the Student Services Lounge, which is in the same building, said Joy Tlou, SLCC's director of public relations. MaryEtta Chase, an assistant adviser to the club, said she wanted to keep the exhibit where it would be visible, but she was concerned angry students would somehow damage the art if it stayed where it was. Tlou described the decision to move the exhibit as the result of a conversation in which both sides were able to express their opinions and work out a compromise. Colleges and universities are traditionally a place where ideas meet, he said. The students who were voicing the dissent were doing so in a very civil way. But Kathryn Heaston, a student who is not affiliated with Coloring Outside the Lines but said she witnessed the disagreement and got involved, said the argument was a little more heated than that. He (one of the offended students) got up in my face and was like, 'What do you know about the Savior?' said Heaston, who supports the club and its display. Joseph Freed, one of the students who complained about the photos, told KSL-TV he was exercising his right to express his opinion. It offends me and what I believe in, he said. Campus police officers were called to the site of the argument, but no one was cited. The artist, Don Farmer, stopped by the school to see the exhibit Tuesday morning. When he arrived, he found students arguing about his photos. He is not a student at SLCC; he graduated from Westminster College with a degree in art. But a club adviser asked him the night before the exhibit's opening to submit pieces for the show. I didn't think it would be in the lobby, Farmer said. Had I known (the photos would spark controversy), I probably would have asked for a warning in front of the exhibit, telling potential viewers what to expect. Farmer said the photos were part of his senior project at Westminster. When they were displayed there, a similar controversy erupted, resulting in a lawsuit against the school. However, Farmer said, the student who filed the suit later dropped it after she spoke with Farmer and learned of his intentions. Farmer said the photos were not meant to be hateful or hurtful but were instead meant to start dialogue. He set out to depict the struggles of people trying to juxtapose their faith with their sexuality. He said he was an active LDS Church member when he displayed the photos at Westminster, and his bishopric was understanding about his intentions. He is no longer actively LDS, he said. He said the men shown in the photos are both former LDS missionaries who were in a relationship. Art is scary, he said. Art is something that challenges. I was scared of the images. . . . I learned that there was something that these images evoked. For some viewers, it was increased understanding; others were offended but wanted to understand the reasoning behind the photos, he said. Farmer said he encountered a similar response at SLCC on Tuesday. The scene was initially confrontational, he said, but when students realized Farmer was the artist, they became genuinely interested in understanding what Farmer was saying with his art. Diversity Week continues at SLCC, including a panel today at the South City Campus on transgenderism and a debate Friday at the Redwood Campus on the issue of gay
RE: [ZION] Gay Marriage Quicksand
I'm all for it, IF we can get Congress to do it, and then not renege on it 10 years down the road under a liberal president. But how does this affect state courts who are legislating the same things from the bench? States would still be forced to draft amendments to their Constitutions, wouldn't they? Gary Steven Montgomery wrote: Congressman Ron Paul on the Gay Marriage issue (just remember where you saw the limit the jurisdiction of federal courts idea first grin): http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/03-22-2004/marriage.htm Gay Marriage Quicksand by Congressman Ron Paul Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. A far better approach is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. The President's recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sad that we need government to define and regulate our most basic institutions. Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership. Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever. However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages. They argue that the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution essentially federalizes the issue; hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. But the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, explicitly authorizes states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. Furthermore, the Supreme Court repeatedly has interpreted the Full Faith and Credit clause to allow Congress to limit the effect of state laws on other states. In fact, federal courts almost universally apply the clause only to state court judgments, not statutes. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized. The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states' rights. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature. It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states' rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves. This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades. Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
A key difference, though, is that homosexuality is a sexual issue; whereas marriages between man and woman (or even polygamy) has additional natural issues: such as children born into the relationship. Extra mothers to raise the child is different than two women taking up together to have sex. Procreation is not involved in any way, which is the ideal society has long maintained. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Toward the laudable goal of establishing family traditions that work, shall I presume that society and government will soon insist on repealing what are essentially divorce on demand statutes? I agree that the ideal model is family with a father and a mother, but it certainly is not the only model that works. Nor are alternative workable models recent phenomena. They have been with us as long as I can remember. For instance, most, if not all, polygamous family models were quite non-traditional. Children in such families often only had passing relationships with their fathers. Often two or more mothers occupied the same home. Often children from different mothers were raised with deep loyalties to their biological mothers as well as other moms in the household. As I practical matter, would we not be better off finding ways to support all families, no matter their configurations? Ron Scott -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement is wrong. Gary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040 309.shtml 'Gay marriage' confusions Thomas Sowell (archive) March 9, 2004 Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the gay marriage issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between consenting adults in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval. Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their
[ZION] General Conference Hopes
General Conference is coming up in less than a month on April 3 and 4. I hope that President Hinckley will give us some additional guidance on the matter of same-sex marriages. Right now I am terribly discouraged. The advocates of same-sex marriage seem to have a plan and are all pulling together for what they want. The opponents of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, seem to be in a state a great confusion pulling in several different directions. I see no hope that the opponents of same-sex marriage will prevail when they cannot even agree on a common strategy. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --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] Gay Marriage Quicksand
Gerald Smith wrote: I'm all for it, IF we can get Congress to do it, and then not renege on it 10 years down the road under a liberal president. But how does this affect state courts who are legislating the same things from the bench? States would still be forced to draft amendments to their Constitutions, wouldn't they? You can all move to Alaska. We already have such an amendment in our Constitution. --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] Gay marriage is wrong
A father watched his daughter playing in the garden. He smiled as he reflected on how sweet and innocent his little girl was. Suddenly she just stopped and stared at the ground. He went over to her and noticed she was looking at two spiders mating. Daddy, what are those two spiders doing? she asked. They're mating, her father replied. What do you call the spider on top, Daddy? she asked. That's a Daddy Longlegs. Her father answered. So, the other one is Mommy Longlegs? the little girl asked. No, her father replied. Both of them are Daddy Longlegs. The little girl thought for a moment, then took her foot and stomped them flat. Well, it might be OK in California or New York but we're not having any of that crap in Alabama. - Name: Doug McGee Phone: 801-777-0228 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong A key difference, though, is that homosexuality is a sexual issue; whereas marriages between man and woman (or even polygamy) has additional natural issues: such as children born into the relationship. Extra mothers to raise the child is different than two women taking up together to have sex. Procreation is not involved in any way, which is the ideal society has long maintained. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Toward the laudable goal of establishing family traditions that work, shall I presume that society and government will soon insist on repealing what are essentially divorce on demand statutes? I agree that the ideal model is family with a father and a mother, but it certainly is not the only model that works. Nor are alternative workable models recent phenomena. They have been with us as long as I can remember. For instance, most, if not all, polygamous family models were quite non-traditional. Children in such families often only had passing relationships with their fathers. Often two or more mothers occupied the same home. Often children from different mothers were raised with deep loyalties to their biological mothers as well as other moms in the household. As I practical matter, would we not be better off finding ways to support all families, no matter their configurations? Ron Scott -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
Gary: I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative will fail and probably fail convincingly. The problem is that long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed. In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear natural children. Both examples seem to adequately address your procreation standard -- that is, they suggest that family rearing may well be the purpose of a SSA union. I think a recent poll suggested that only about 20 percent of SSA couples were interested in raising families. Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance: suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money, a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers. Would we argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union? And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections? Might precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help get single-parent families on more stable ground. I see some risks (as I do with conventional marriage as well) but I also see plenty of benefits. Seems to me that if the government provides special benefits to conventionally married couples with children that, consistency and fairness demand that similar benefits must, under law, be provided to all couples with children. Seems to me that if the government, in the interest of providing equal protections under law, endorses such unions it need not endorse sexual acts between the partners. It merely suggests that if a couple's union looks like this, then it is entitled to various protections and benefits. Whether the union qualifies as a marriage, where sexual acts and natural procreation are implied, should be a matter left up to the churches. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong A key difference, though, is that homosexuality is a sexual issue; whereas marriages between man and woman (or even polygamy) has additional natural issues: such as children born into the relationship. Extra mothers to raise the child is different than two women taking up together to have sex. Procreation is not involved in any way, which is the ideal society has long maintained. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Toward the laudable goal of establishing family traditions that work, shall I presume that society and government will soon insist on repealing what are essentially divorce on demand statutes? I agree that the ideal model is family with a father and a mother, but it certainly is not the only model that works. Nor are alternative workable models recent phenomena. They have been with us as long as I can remember. For instance, most, if not all, polygamous family models were quite non-traditional. Children in such families often only had passing relationships with their fathers. Often two or more mothers occupied the same home. Often children from different mothers were raised with deep loyalties to their biological mothers as well as other moms in the household. As I practical matter, would we not be better off finding ways to support all families, no matter their configurations? Ron Scott -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe society; normally built upon traditions that work. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
On the issue of Polygamy, it is a moot point. The Lord revealed to a prophet to obey the law of the land on this issue, and it is well ingrained in the Church now. If the Lord sees fit to reinstate it, he will prepare the way, or allow the saints a trial of their faith. But even the saints agree there must be standards. Even with polgamy, it only was allowed on a case-by-case basis (each venture approved by the prophet or his representative); and it did not seek extra privileges from the state nor did it open up the way for extra definitions of civil unions. Remember, there was nothing on the books concerning polygamy until AFTER Mormon polygamy was made an issue by Congress; whereas gay marriage or relations have until recently even been banned by most state legislatures as counter productive to society's good. I agree that it would have been nice of the government to have established early on a set framework on this. However, it also is a moot point, as we can no longer go back in time and address that issue. The reality is, we have the current situation, and must deal with it as is. Gary Ron Scott wrote: Gary: Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what constitutes a marriage. The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of unions and partnerships it allow (I assume there are many worthwhile variations on themes, ones that ought to be defined as permitted by law). Had it done that -- had it taken a one-size fits all approach and done it actively, rather than reactively, one could argue that the pressure we've witness over the past few months would not have been necessary. Instead, the government, in essence, refused to confront the matter until forced. Had it actively addressed the matter years ago, we may have gotten legislation on the books that would be satisfying to most, if not all. Such legislation would have resolved the concerns of the Massachusetts couples that sued the state, a lawsuit which reached the Commonwealth's Supreme Judicial Court. Two final thoughts: I would imagine it's not lost on you that the proposed Constitutional Amendment defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. I trust it's also not lost on you that, should the amendment pass, it will, in essence, confirm the illegality of the marriages of several of my ancestors. It will render people like me descendants of illegitimate relationships, the offspring of bastard children. Where will the Church be should, at some point down the road, the Lord order that polygamy be reinstituted? I realize this is unlikely...but there is a darned important principle in play here, one that too many of us are ignoring. RBS -Original Message- From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 12:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong Here is an awesome article by Thomas Sowell on why Gay marriage movement is wrong. Gary http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040309.shtml 'Gay marriage' confusions Thomas Sowell (archive) March 9, 2004 Few issues have produced as much confused thinking as the gay marriage issue. There is, for example, the argument that the government has no business getting involved with marriage in the first place. That is a personal relation, the argument goes. Love affairs are personal relations. Marriage is a legal relation. To say that government should not get involved in legal relations is to say that government has no business governing. Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that what happens between consenting adults in private is none of the government's business. But now gay activists are taking the opposite view, that it is government's business -- and that government has an obligation to give its approval. Then there are the strained analogies with the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King challenged the racial laws of their time. So, the argument goes, what is wrong with Massachusetts judges and the mayor of San Francisco challenging laws that they consider unjust today? First of all, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King were private citizens and they did not put themselves above the law. On the contrary, they submitted to arrest in order to gain the public support needed to change the laws. As private citizens, neither Mrs. Parks nor Dr. King wielded the power of government. Their situation was very different from that of public officials who use the power delegated to them through the framework of law to betray that framework itself, which they swore to uphold as a condition of receiving their power. The real analogy would be to Governor George Wallace, who defied
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance: suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money, a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers. Would we argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union? And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections? Might precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help get single-parent families on more stable ground. Oh, come on. Who is doing that? Show me an example of someone who is doing that? Even if you can find one, it is an anomaly. Should we then change our marriage laws throughout the union to encourage this kind of arrangement just for a few freaky exceptions? --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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Jonathan: I guess I'm confused as to what you intend to do with the pieces you're writing? Do you imagine this as something you'd like to get published? Are you writing a thesis of some kind? Are you writing for your own purposes only? For instance, you claim the rising divorce rate is the result of women entering the job market, becoming self-sufficient economically. Yet, you present no evidence (other than opinions) to bolster your argument. If you want to convince someone you've got to provide good backup data from objective sources. RBS -Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 9:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual Howdy, My next chapters will be dealing with all the new sources of poverty that have shown up since the sixties...or before. I need information on corporations and on how they are making more money than before at the cost of employees salaries...perhaps also a chapter on jobs going overseas. Can any of you think of any other of major sources of poverty since 1960? Credit cards? Anything... Ron...the filter is off. I'd appreciate your input as well. Be rude again and the filter goes right back up though. I doubt you care, but nonetheless, I'm listening again. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:39 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong RB Scott wrote: Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance: suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money, a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers. Would we argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union? And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections? Might precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help get single-parent families on more stable ground. Oh, come on. Who is doing that? Show me an example of someone who is doing that? Even if you can find one, it is an anomaly. Should we then change our marriage laws throughout the union to encourage this kind of arrangement just for a few freaky exceptions? --JWR Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both single parents, to decide to pool resources? Why would it be freaky for, say, two siblings, both single parents, to pool their resources, reduce/consolidate their overhead costs as it were? Such has been going on for years, albeit without the attendant tax benefits and fringe benefit advantages. What's wrong with extending equal benefits to such families? Does society have a responsibility to support all families...or just certain ones? Does society derive benefits from encouraging people to form more stable and more economically robust family units? The government says yes. So does the church. RBS 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 --^
[ZION]
Ron Scott wrote: I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative will fail and probably fail convincingly. The problem is that long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed. I don't know for myself that opponents are taking exclusively that approach, although I have no doubt that a sizeable number might. Similarly, I would imagine that many others have taken a purely religious approach, in the context of SSM being against the laws of God. But to me it all comes back to a point I made a while back, and if I sound like a broken record, I apologize. To me, we're not talking about merely a legal or a social privilege, or whether a given relationship is compatible with nature, although undoubtedly there will continue to be those discussions. Rather, we're talking about a core value that was supposed to transcend individual, religious, and ethnic views, and gets to the root of our identity as a nation and a society. So when a locale such as San Francisco goes out and says, We believe this basic definition of marriage ought to change, and everyone else ought to abide by the same, it wouldn't be much different if they went and said, Well, we don't believe that life or liberty are fundamental values compared to prosperity or wealth, so we'll officially put the former on the back burner, regardless of what the laws or the Constition might say. In both cases, the result is the same, because we are dealing with something that is basic, fundamental, and sacred--and I stress again, not from a narrow religious point of view, but in terms of it being a foundation of our society. Stated from as secular of a point of view as I can muster: When a society seeks to tinker with basic foundational values without seeking even a minimum of consensus within that society, let alone any soul searching to know if what it is doing is right, it is playing with fire. And as the saying goes, you can't play with fire and not get burned. In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear natural children. But again, to me, whether SSM marriages can have children, or whether traditional marriages do not is besides the point. In fact, the way I think of it is this: If children are born to an SSM or domestic partner relationship, and an increasing minority or plurality ratify the move as legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. When children are born outside of marriage, and it is similarly ratified as being legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. When children are born to a plural marriage that has been prohibited by the laws of the land, we are arguable chipping away at a different value, that being the rule of law. When the same relationships exist absent any children, we have a similar result. When we seek to terminate the lives of unborn children _without cause_ save it were the convenience of the biological participants (I dare not use the term mother and father in that instance), we chip away at yet another core value. And when we seek to relegate religion and its associated institutions to the fringes of society, holding the same to be irrelevant at best, and perhaps even a hinderance, I would submit we are chipping away at a value as fundamental as that of life...in other words, our liberty. Now off of my soap box, /Sandy/ Thank you for listening. :) --- From the ZION List intake mailbox at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Rabinowitz Family -- Spring Hill, Tenn., U.S.A. http://www.firstnephi.com // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both single parents, to decide to pool resources? Why would it be freaky for, say, two siblings, both single parents, to pool their resources, reduce/consolidate their overhead costs as it were? Such has been going on for years, albeit without the attendant tax benefits and fringe benefit advantages. What's wrong with extending equal benefits to such families? Does society have a responsibility to support all families...or just certain ones? Society has no responsibility to support any families. Families are to support themselves. If the government is going to encourage families, it ought to encourage the traditional family only. Otherwise it shouldn't encourage any families at all. When the government gets into the act by encouraging other kinds of families it weakens the traditional family by reinforcing the idea that the traditional family is not the ideal family. Actually, I think I'm coming more and more to agree with you that the government should just refrain from defining the family altogether. It is obviously going to do a poor job of it. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --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] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Does society derive benefits from encouraging people to form more stable and more economically robust family units? The government says yes. So does the church. In the Proclamation on the Family the Church defines the family as a man and woman. I don't believe the Church has said anything about the economically robust family units that you refer to. --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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Jonathan: I guess I'm confused as to what you intend to do with the pieces you're writing? Do you imagine this as something you'd like to get published? Are you writing a thesis of some kind? Are you writing for your own purposes only? For instance, you claim the rising divorce rate is the result of women entering the job market, becoming self-sufficient economically. Yet, you present no evidence (other than opinions) to bolster your argument. If you want to convince someone you've got to provide good backup data from objective sources. RBS I listed sources. My opinion was one paragraph. My sources took up the remainder of it. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay art exhibit
Would SLCC allow a display of photos/art depicting homosexuals on their knees attempting to repent of their sin? It would definitely promote discussion, wouldn't it? I'm willing to do a pictorial expose of gays burning in hell, repenting on their knees before Christ, etc; if SLCC is willing to put them on display. Anyone know anyone at SLCC who would be interested in such an idea? Gays might find it offensive, but not more so than depicting LDS missionaries in a homosexual encounter. Gary Smith Funny. You know you're right. The show you're suggesting would draw more ire than showing gay missionaries. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] General Conference Hopes
Though the advocates of SSM (even the initials seem dirty) are, as you say, working together (showing a masterful example of co-operation which Protestant Christianity has rarely done) I think we can still hold to the old adage that any one person, plus the Lord, is a majority. However, I would not be very surprised if the Lord's prophet tells us to do our best at the voting booth, at writing our designated representatives, and tells us to accept whatever the government chooses to do. (Accept as in no violent overthrows. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with continuing to fuss with our Congress.) After all, we pretty much have to accept that the things which have been prophecied for the last days will occur. And this looks like one of 'em. *jeep! ---Chet If ya thinks ya is right, ya deserfs credit - even if ya is wrong. --Gus Segar via Popeye - Original Message - From: John W. Redelfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 1:05 PM Subject: [ZION] General Conference Hopes General Conference is coming up in less than a month on April 3 and 4. I hope that President Hinckley will give us some additional guidance on the matter of same-sex marriages. Right now I am terribly discouraged. The advocates of same-sex marriage seem to have a plan and are all pulling together for what they want. The opponents of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, seem to be in a state a great confusion pulling in several different directions. I see no hope that the opponents of same-sex marriage will prevail when they cannot even agree on a common strategy. John W. Redelfs[EMAIL PROTECTED] = The traditional family is under heavy attack. I do not know that things were worse in the times of Sodom and Gomorrah. -- President Gordon B. Hinckley, 2004. = All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --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] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance: suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to eliminate the need to leave children unsupervised for long periods of time, etc., etc., etc. concluded that the solution was to form legal domestic partnership that provided all the health insurance and tax benefits that accrue to married couples. Money, a more stable family set-up, not sex, are the drivers. Would we argue that such women are not entitled to form such a union? And, if so, what would be the basis for our objections? Might precisely this kind of arrangement be one way society could help get single-parent families on more stable ground. Oh, come on. Who is doing that? Show me an example of someone who is doing that? Even if you can find one, it is an anomaly. Should we then change our marriage laws throughout the union to encourage this kind of arrangement just for a few freaky exceptions? --JWR Once marriage becomes meaningless, they will begin to do that. Wanna hear something even more creepy? How about if a man and a corporation chose to become married? What about two corporations? What would be the ramifications of something like that? What if a man with a child married a corporation and then the man died? Would the corporation gain custody of the child? What kind of hellish things could happen as a result of that? -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong RB Scott wrote: Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both single parents, to decide to pool resources? Why would it be freaky for, say, two siblings, both single parents, to pool their resources, reduce/consolidate their overhead costs as it were? Such has been going on for years, albeit without the attendant tax benefits and fringe benefit advantages. What's wrong with extending equal benefits to such families? Does society have a responsibility to support all families...or just certain ones? Society has no responsibility to support any families. Families are to support themselves. If the government is going to encourage families, it ought to encourage the traditional family only. Otherwise it shouldn't encourage any families at all. When the government gets into the act by encouraging other kinds of families it weakens the traditional family by reinforcing the idea that the traditional family is not the ideal family. I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to the extent that it would be practically impossible to come up with a definition of traditional family that would pass muster. For instance, I can no imagine that the church would exclude single parent families (widowed and divorced) from the definition. One minor point: the government does provide support to families and children -- schools, health benefits, and substantial tax breaks. Actually, I think I'm coming more and more to agree with you that the government should just refrain from defining the family altogether. It is obviously going to do a poor job of it. Well now, I think you are seeing the dilemma I see. // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
-Original Message- From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong RB Scott wrote: Does society derive benefits from encouraging people to form more stable and more economically robust family units? The government says yes. So does the church. In the Proclamation on the Family the Church defines the family as a man and woman. I don't believe the Church has said anything about the economically robust family units that you refer to. --JWR I think the proclamation defines the ideal model for a family. I don't think it intends to exclude the many Mormon families that don't fit the definition. Hence, I think it is advocate for robust, health families. Period. It certainly does not advocate situations that would keep a family in poverty. 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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual Jonathan: I guess I'm confused as to what you intend to do with the pieces you're writing? Do you imagine this as something you'd like to get published? Are you writing a thesis of some kind? Are you writing for your own purposes only? For instance, you claim the rising divorce rate is the result of women entering the job market, becoming self-sufficient economically. Yet, you present no evidence (other than opinions) to bolster your argument. If you want to convince someone you've got to provide good backup data from objective sources. RBS I listed sources. My opinion was one paragraph. My sources took up the remainder of it. You didn't describe your purpose. While your footnotes may support what you claim -- as I recall you provide a bibliography, not traditional footnotes -- it requires the reader to assume you've interpreted the source material correctly and that the source material supports what you say. I think it's wiser, more compelling, to provide a summary quote or two with an appropriate footnote. 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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual Jonathan: I guess I'm confused as to what you intend to do with the pieces you're writing? Do you imagine this as something you'd like to get published? Are you writing a thesis of some kind? Are you writing for your own purposes only? For instance, you claim the rising divorce rate is the result of women entering the job market, becoming self-sufficient economically. Yet, you present no evidence (other than opinions) to bolster your argument. If you want to convince someone you've got to provide good backup data from objective sources. RBS I listed sources. My opinion was one paragraph. My sources took up the remainder of it. You didn't describe your purpose. While your footnotes may support what you claim -- as I recall you provide a bibliography, not traditional footnotes -- it requires the reader to assume you've interpreted the source material correctly and that the source material supports what you say. I think it's wiser, more compelling, to provide a summary quote or two with an appropriate footnote. RBS Please read my stuff more carefully. Most of it is quotes with a link to the home page below it. My commentaries, I make them as small as possible. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to the extent that it would be practically impossible to come up with a definition of traditional family that would pass muster. For instance, I can no imagine that the church would exclude single parent families (widowed and divorced) from the definition. Well...one thing about President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment is that basically it doesn't try to define marriage. Instead, it demands that no one other than nature itself define it. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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 --^
[ZION] Starship troopers
They've landed at Berkeley, CA. http://www.me.berkeley.edu/hel/bleex.htm // /// 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 --^
[ZION] Good Barbara Bush Quote
Clinton lied. A man might forget where he parks or where he lives, but he never forgets oral sex, no matter how bad it is. - Barbara Bush -- Jonathan Scott -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// 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]
-Original Message- From: Sander J. Rabinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 4:42 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ZION] Ron Scott wrote: I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative will fail and probably fail convincingly. The problem is that long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed. I don't know for myself that opponents are taking exclusively that approach, although I have no doubt that a sizeable number might. Similarly, I would imagine that many others have taken a purely religious approach, in the context of SSM being against the laws of God. I understand. However, I think the homosexual acts are agin the laws of God, not SS unions. I realize I'm splitting hairs. But, in order to be consistent I think we need to begin at the beginning: how should government regard homosexual acts? Resolve that one and, I think, it takes care of the other. If the laws remain as they are, I'm afraid that opposition to SS unions don't have a legal leg to stand on. But to me it all comes back to a point I made a while back, and if I sound like a broken record, I apologize. To me, we're not talking about merely a legal or a social privilege, or whether a given relationship is compatible with nature, although undoubtedly there will continue to be those discussions. Rather, we're talking about a core value that was supposed to transcend individual, religious, and ethnic views, and gets to the root of our identity as a nation and a society. I've heard that argument and I think we all did make similar assumptions. The problem is we didn't articulate it quite this way when the Constitution was written, and, in essence we haven't done so for 200 plus years. However, we did clearly define that citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law. And, we established a process by which such interpretive matters may be addressed. The process is judicial review. To prevail, the case must pass basic constitutional tests. So when a locale such as San Francisco goes out and says, We believe this basic definition of marriage ought to change, and everyone else ought to abide by the same, it wouldn't be much different if they went and said, Well, we don't believe that life or liberty are fundamental values compared to prosperity or wealth, so we'll officially put the former on the back burner, regardless of what the laws or the Constriction might say. In both cases, the result is the same, because we are dealing with something that is basic, fundamental, and sacred--and I stress again, not from a narrow religious point of view, but in terms of it being a foundation of our society. You mean our the basic presumed definition of marriage. The presumed definition regards qualifications to vote, own property etc. have been expanded as the presumed definitions failed to meet various constitutional tests. Strip out the religious controversies and the current situation here is roughly similar, so far as I can tell. Stated from as secular of a point of view as I can muster: When a society seeks to tinker with basic foundational values without seeking even a minimum of consensus within that society, let alone any soul searching to know if what it is doing is right, it is playing with fire. And as the saying goes, you can't play with fire and not get burned. I agree. But I'm not sure an amendment is the right way to go here. It seems to be both parties could get burned. I'm not sure what purpose will be served. In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear natural children. But again, to me, whether SSM marriages can have children, or whether traditional marriages do not is besides the point. In fact, the way I think of it is this: If children are born to an SSM or domestic partner relationship, and an increasing minority or plurality ratify the move as legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. When children are born outside of marriage, and it is similarly ratified as being legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value. You're absolutely right. On the other hand we have not made much effort to other non-traditional births and family configurations, some that were arguably more unstable on the face of them than SSA marriages would be. There is something to be said for consistency. Otherwise, we end up in a position of singling out one group for especially harsh treatment. When children are born to a plural marriage that has been prohibited by the laws of the land, we are arguable chipping away at a different value, that being the rule of law. When the same relationships exist absent any children, we have a similar result. When we seek to
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to the extent that it would be practically impossible to come up with a definition of traditional family that would pass muster. For instance, I can no imagine that the church would exclude single parent families (widowed and divorced) from the definition. Well...one thing about President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment is that basically it doesn't try to define marriage. Instead, it demands that no one other than nature itself define it. Huh? It defines marriage as a institution between one man and one woman. 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] Gay marriage is wrong
Redefining things is exactly what this problem does not need. We have arrived at the present situation because a very few vocal malcontents decided that definitions that successfuly accomodated the cultural interests of the civil majority for the past ten centuries now suddenly don't cater to their particular tastes, and therefore must be discarded. Blackstone's Commentaries effectively outlines the philosophy and basis for English common law from seventeenth and eighteenth century England, which also served as the foundational basis for establishing eighteenth century colonial laws in the US. Where we have departed from this historic common-sense approach in response to demands of a few vocal dissidents, the application of sound legal principles has suffered. But it seems things have never been so badly off the track as they are now. We now have many situations where the purported legal right to moral depravity overrules decency and common sense. The inmates have truly taken over the asylum. The solution is to restore and respect the traditional definitions that have served the interests of the majority for hundreds of years, not to invent new ones that attempt to serve the demands of a miserable few. This will always be a futile pursuit. In the case of those who wish to engage in homosexual behavior, it is obvious that being married will never grant them what they crave. As Alma asserts, wickedness never was happiness. // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: Huh? It defines marriage as a institution between one man and one woman. The wording hasn't even been agreed upon yet. You are getting ahead of yourself. --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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
RB Scott wrote: You didn't describe your purpose. While your footnotes may support what you claim -- as I recall you provide a bibliography, not traditional footnotes -- it requires the reader to assume you've interpreted the source material correctly and that the source material supports what you say. I think it's wiser, more compelling, to provide a summary quote or two with an appropriate footnote. Just like they do in TIME Magazine, Jonathan. LOL --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 --^
[ZION] Taxes
One of John Kerry's principal campaign issues is taxes. He promises to rescind the recent tax cuts implemented by the Bush administration. In the news coverage, it absolutely amazes me to notice the crowds cheering with enthusiasm when they hear a promise to raise their taxes. It has always surprised me that so many are willing to elect people who promise to take away their money and spend it for them. Of course, we know that liberal political leaders are always wiser than any of their constituents about how best to spend other people's money. As far as I can discern, none of the rhetoric on taxes, from either side of the aisle, has even a shred of credibility. Both leading candidates are wealthy beyond reason. Unlike the circumstances with most of us, it is obvious that not even taxes levied at the most extreme rate could ever do much to hurt their lavishly indulgent lifestyle. They pretend to emphathize with people of modest means, but in reality I believe they don't have a clue. // /// 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] Gay Marriage Quicksand
John wrote: You can all move to Alaska. We already have such an amendment in our Constitution. --JWR Harold replies: Or, you can move to California. We have such an amendment too. :) // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
-Original Message- From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to the extent that it would be practically impossible to come up with a definition of traditional family that would pass muster. For instance, I can no imagine that the church would exclude single parent families (widowed and divorced) from the definition. Well...one thing about President Bush's proposed Constitutional amendment is that basically it doesn't try to define marriage. Instead, it demands that no one other than nature itself define it. Huh? It defines marriage as a institution between one man and one woman. RBS Correct. -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay Marriage Quicksand
John wrote: You can all move to Alaska. We already have such an amendment in our Constitution. --JWR Harold replies: Or, you can move to California. We have such an amendment too. :) This is too funny... :) -- Jonathan Scott // /// 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] Gay marriage is wrong
McGee Doug R Contr OO-ALC/ITMS wrote: Well, it might be OK in California or New York but we're not having any of that crap in Alabama. === Grampa Bill comments: That same little girl has stomped those spiders flat in Texas, Georgia, and Alabama that I know of! They (and her) sure get around! :-) Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// 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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Jonathan Scott wrote: What is a golddigger called if it's a man? :) Grampa Bill responds: I believe the term is gigolo... but this is different. What is a man called if his dad is trying to set him up with a beautiful, talented girl with a great personality and a high income? Fortunate, I'd say! :-) 'Bout the only thing wrong with her as near as I can tell, is who you'd be getting for a father-in-law! Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// 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] Help Me Please - Ignore as Usual
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: Nitpick for discussion concerning your questions: So is it you or she who would not consider marriage to, frex, someone who held a TR but joined the Church too late to serve a mission as a young man? = Grampa responds: Didn't say it was a deal killer for either of us. Just tryin' to see what he's bringin' to the table! Rhetorical question, or you got somebody in mind? Love Y'all, Grampa Bill in Savannah There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't. // /// 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 --^
[ZION] Paternalistic science
Recent reporting in JAMA turns science into a politically correct blunt instrument. Echoed in the news reports, it reads something like Obesity is an epidemic, we're eating ourselves to death. Reportedly, being too fat is now the number two cause of death in the US, trailing only tobacco. In fact, the JAMA study returns something similar to the directed surveys conducted by self-interested commercial groups in order to promote their doctrine. It is difficult for me to discern exactly what the medical establishment hopes to accomplish here, but the smell of cooked results is too strong to avoid. The findings of the survey were arrived at by polling cause of death reports. Anything remotely related to various politically correct categories is lumped together. Thus, heart disease is magically transformed into all others that result from poor diet and exercise as a cause of death. Everything in this category is automatically deemed to be associated with obesity or sedentary lifestyle, thus returning the desired epidemic. While this is poor science and poor journalism, perhaps it is better to lie about the survey in order to scare a few fat folks into following the AMA dietary and lifestyle recommendations. // /// 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 --^
[ZION] Another Good Quote
People who cannot recognize a palpable absurdity are very much in the way of civilization. - Agnes Repplier -- Jonathan Scott -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] // /// 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 --^
