RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
You're right. Them's the words they've been using, however: one man +one woman = marriage. >-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:09 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: 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 /// > >/ -- // /// 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] 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 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] 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
>-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
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 --^
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] 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
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
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] 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 --^
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] 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 framewor
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: >> >&g
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. I
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 > >> > > >> > >&
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
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
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>-Original Message- >From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:59 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong > > >RB Scott wrote: >>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." > >If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a religious >covenant," why has >the Church invested so heavily in the argument over same-sex >marriage? What is the Church's reasoning? I assume >you may have some >insight into this because of your special contacts in >the hierarchy.< I don't have any special insights in this regard. I'm as confused as the next guy. My hunch is the Church sees DOMA passage as one way to get the "polygamy" prospect off the table, once and for all. I underscore: it's only a hunch. >>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. > >It is true that many of those talking about a federal >marriage amendment >are talking about one man and one woman, but to the >best of my knowledge >the wording of the amendment has not yet been settled. >It may be that it >will be worded "a man and a woman" which could leave >the door open to >plural marriage.< Possibly. I doubt it because one of the fears being trumpted by DOMA proponents was "if we allow gay marriage, the next thing we'll have is polygamy. " I think I read this from Brother Wilkins. This left me scratching my head. >>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. > >I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could >have any effect on >your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive.< We've always maintained that polygamy was legal, a religious issue. Others argued that it as an abomination. Passing the law -- especially with support from the Mormon Church -- seems to be an acknowledged that our former enemies were right, after all. Expediency makes for strange bedfellows, it seems. > >>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. > >I personally believe that plural marriage will be >reinstituted. But I >don't think that possibility should be used to >surrender in the fight to >define marriage as only between a man and a woman. >Perhaps we will lose >the fight. Perhaps the fight will cause the >dissolution of the Union, and >Zion will arise as a sovereign nation in the west with its own >laws. Whatever happens there is a clear right and >wrong in the current >debate. And we ought to choose the right regardless of >what may become >necessary in some yet unforeseen future. Laws that are >passed can be >repealed. Even amendments can be repealed as >circumstances change.<< Interesting. I'm sure I don't need to point out the ironies in your statement. Ron // /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// / --^ This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
RB Scott wrote: 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." If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a religious covenant," why has the Church invested so heavily in the argument over same-sex marriage? What is the Church's reasoning? I assume you may have some insight into this because of your special contacts in the hierarchy. 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. It is true that many of those talking about a federal marriage amendment are talking about one man and one woman, but to the best of my knowledge the wording of the amendment has not yet been settled. It may be that it will be worded "a man and a woman" which could leave the door open to plural marriage. 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. I don't see how a law passed in the 21st century could have any effect on your 19th century ancestors. Laws aren't retroactive. 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. I personally believe that plural marriage will be reinstituted. But I don't think that possibility should be used to surrender in the fight to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Perhaps we will lose the fight. Perhaps the fight will cause the dissolution of the Union, and Zion will arise as a sovereign nation in the west with its own laws. Whatever happens there is a clear right and wrong in the current debate. And we ought to choose the right regardless of what may become necessary in some yet unforeseen future. Laws that are passed can be repealed. Even amendments can be repealed as circumstances change. 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] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^
RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
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 >past is hardly a >basis for accepting unlawful acts in general. > >If you only want to accept particular unlawful acts >that you agree with, >then of course others will have other unlawful acts >that they agree >with. Considering how many different groups have how >many different sets >of values, that road leads to anarc
