The Divine Institution of Marriage
 

The church lays out the case.

http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsr...on-of-marriage

Wow.

It was an interesting read, but I was hoping to read something new. It was the same stuff.

The overall layout was thus:

1. Religious argument
2. Blame gays for the bad acts of heterosexuals (divorce, abortion, single-parent households)
3. Re-emphasize religious argument
4. Predict calamity
5. Re-emphasize religious argument

Another question I have that I have yet to hear answered well......if homosexual marriage will increase the likelihood of gender confusion in children/teens, how do we explain the fact that pretty much all homosexuals today were raised in heterosexual households? I don't really see any distinct advantage in that particular area.

The repeated emphasis that children be raised by a father and mother is pointless. Gays are adopting the unwanted children that heterosexuals have basically tossed aside. Gays aren't having their own children. They are raising the children that straight people threw away.

You're missing the point: if we allow gay marriage, then the terrorists win.

Seriously, though. Your questions are apt. That's pretty good for a quick read late at night.

Tomorrow when everyone is rested, we can go over the misleading reference to Catholic Charities....an entirely different issue given that Catholic Charities USA receives significant funding from the state to run this adoption arm of its eleemosynary institutions. If you want state bucks, you need to comply. The Catholic Church simply didn't want to do it on its own dime, so it shut down shop. LDSSS does not use state or federal money, at least not to my knowledge.

This may be your best post ever.

I read this,

"The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people,"

and couldn't help being reminded of this:

"I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it."--MEP

The religious argument of course dodges the central question--the elephant in the room--do you choose your sexual preference?

Yes, I think we deserve to have this addressed.

Gays are adopting kids that hetero's don't
 

want? That's a new one. Using your term, hetero's ARE (and want more kids to adopt) adopting kids hetero's don't want.

Jury is still out on that one. Both sides
 

can make a case. However, the natural 'man' is born to have sex. Does that mean John Edwards should be excused for his adultery because he was born that way?