Traveler

Men and women are created in the image of G-d - how can there be a lesser sex? I can understand that a dog, or cow is a lessor creation but I do not believe a women is a lesser creation nor do I believe a Christian would even suggest such a thing. The Traveler

Matthew 7:15-16 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" The above scripture is one of the most misquoted and misunderstood scriptures in the Bible. What are the fruits of "false prophets"? In the example given by Christ, he tells us of men that gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles. What a strange thing to say - men do not get grapes from thorn bushes or figs from plants that produce thistles. You get grapes from grape vines and figs from fig trees. Your problem is that you are gathering LDS grapes from Baptist thorn bushes. You should get Baptist fruit from Baptist and LDS fruit from LDS otherwise you fall pray to false prophets. The Traveler

I am concerned with the deteriorating relationship between society and its support of the core family (loving father and mother) as a necessary institution for the preservation of society. I am concerned for the following reasons: 1. The current declines in recognizing the importance of core families. 2. The concept that homosexual families should be as valued by society as much as core families. 3. The idea that the cognitive function of homosexuality (sexual orientation) is scientifically demonstrable to be preset in individuals prior to birth and is changeable by any intelligent cognitive learning process. In other words that scientific studies support the notion that the cognitive sexual functions are preset and cannot be altered or learned even with extreme methods. Lets deal with each issue beginning with number one. In the 60's, American society produced a counter culture call the hippy movement. This movement was comprised of intellectual social dropouts. They touted drugs and an assault on the core family in a social experiment they called the “Free Love” movement. The concept of “Free Love” was the beginning of what was called the “sexual revolution”. Under the guise of freedom, participants of the “Free Love” movement introduced a new morality where reproductive relationships were glamorized to be more enjoyable without family responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices. The icons of the new social order under the sexual revolution banner were free uncommited individuals that sought nothing but their own pleasures. They scoffed at the responsibilities or cares of families and children. The effect of the movement was rather debilitating among the women of the movement that found themselves pregnant with unwanted children. The result was a spinoff of the “Free Love” movement that recognized that women’s freedom was curtailed by children and pregnancies. The quick and easy solution was abortion on demand that gave rise to both the “Liberated Male” and “Liberated Female”. A Liberated Male was devoid of responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices of families and children. Likewise the Liberated Female was also devoid of responsibilities, commitments or sacrifices of families, home and children. The process of giving life to another generation was stripped of dignity and honor and what was left was plain and simple sex for play without consequences. Children were not considered human creatures while developing within the womb. This has always been a puzzle to me. If they are not human creatures then what kind of creatures are they? On demand abortion appears to me to be a strange hate of one’s self genetical identity. A hate so strong to justify the killing of a possible replication. Somehow society was convinced that by sacrificing one’s offspring is necessary in order for there to be true freedom and for culture to progress to an new enlightened level. The result of this social rejection for the care of children has been staggering. In some parts of the country more children are killed through abortion than are allowed to live through birth, of those borne the majority will be born out of wedlock without the benefit of a loving father and mother. Even more will be raised in single parent homes as the family structure crumbles around them. So prevalent is this reversal in caring for children that the majority of children in the entire population base of the United States will not be raised by their father and mother together in a family unit. The breakup of families is the largest single cause of poverty in our country. The crime rate is highest among the children from broken homes. And the once great educational institution that lead the world has become a joke. In science the USA education is last among industrial nations. In geography only backward Mexico provides a worse understanding of geography through education.. The goose that lays the golden egg (a healthy intelligent next generation for society) is in critical need. I believe this is not a time to experiment any farther, it is a time to be concerned about the attitudes of society and the needs for society to nurture and preserve families with parents willing to sacrifice shellfish inclinations. It is time to turn society to once again allow for the benefit of children. This then bring me to my next point: 2. The concept that homosexual families should be as valued by society as much as core families. For the life of me I do not understand why. I have begged for just one single reason expressing society’s need for homosexuality to survive and the only responses I have received is that I am not logical or scientific. I am told that I must produce a reason that homosexual partners are not beneficial to justify my scepticism. And no reason is offered why society must allow homosexual marriage. I am convinced that not even the proponents of homosexual relationships have even a remote clue of any possible benefit or need for society. I am very concerned when proponents of a notion want to force their unproven experiments on the rest of society without any logic as to why. I believe there is no real supporting need - NONE. The need does not exist. Without the need I do not think this is a time to experiment. Society can exist and thrive without any homosexuality. I am sorry if this truth offends anyone. I am sorry so many cannot accept this truth. Now let us talk about scientific evidence concerning cognitive functions in humans. Pont #3. I have pointed to the work of such scientist as Pavlov and Skinner that have demonstrated that there are methods that show that even the lowest cognitive levels of learning can alter cognitive functions in humans. There are no studies in history to show “sexual orientation” as the single cognitive exception. But there is an interesting history concerning sexual orientation. In 1974 the American Psychiatric Association declared that same sex reproductive behavior was not an illness and therefore is not to be treated. This did two things. First it ended any attempts to treat homosexuality and secondly it ended all research, funding of research, or publication of any research associated with homosexuality as a disorder. It is interesting that the 1974 declaration was not a result of any study nor was there any effort to scientifically provide any basis of the declaration for any scrutiny. It was simply a political motivated declaration without proper scientific backing. Some may disagree with my observation of a complete lack of scientific backing - and claim that the burden of scientific proof is with anyone that thinks cognitive activities can be altered. I though Pavlov and Skinner did that. Why is reproductive cognition different that all other cognitive activity? There has been scientific studies that prove humans learn their cognitive activities - resent progress demonstrates that the arguments that the proponents of the notion that reproductive cognitive are preset and not learned are sadly mistaken, wrong and without scientific basis . Obviously the efforts of such science will not come from the American Psychiatric Association. Instead the scientific proof comes inadvertently from the science of neurology in the study of the human brain development and it functions during development. National Geographic in its March edition of this year details studies that disprove every notion perpetuated by apologist that the cognitive actions of homosexuality are preset and unlearnable. First unscientific claim. Homosexuals realize their sexuality was determined by the time they were born. Quoting from National Geographic: “Her first memory is of the thrill of going to the store with her mother to pick out a special dress, pink and lacy. She was four years old. She does not recall anything earlier because her hippocampus, part of the limbic system deep in the brain that stores long-term memories, had not yet matured.” Scientific fact - no one is capable of remembering the first few years following birth. An individual claiming homosexual attractions from birth are making a claim that is impossible for them to have known. Scientific fact - the first few years of a baby’s life marks the fastest learning in the life of humans. Quoting from National Geographic: [following birth] For the next 18 months, Corina was a learning machine while older brains need some sort of context for learning - a reason, such as a reward, to pay attention to one stimulus over another - baby brains soak up everything coming through their senses.” During the first years of a babies life they are learning and have no way to remember how learning happened. Young children learn what ever they are exposed to they do not exhibit choice in what they learn. Scientific fact - in normal humans cognitive activity is established and reinforced by repetitive learning. Quoting from National Geographic: “Then, just weeks away from birth, the trend reversed. Groups of neurons competed with each other to recruit other neurons into expanding circuits with specific functions. Those that lost died off in a pruning process scientist call ‘neural Darwinism’.” This neural Darwinism causes the brain to respond to cognitive learning activity taking place not just at birth but throughout the life of every individual. Not genetics or preset orientations that some claim define how the brain develops. (Note according to National Geographic this new understanding is less than 10 years old) Scientific fact - Differences in normal brain development is related to cognitive activity not the myth that because the brain is different in homosexuals because homosexuality is genetic and not learned. Quoting from National Geographic: “Blind people who read Braille show a remarkable increase in the size of the region of their somatosensory cortex - a region on the side of the brain that processes the sense of touch - devoted to their right index finger. Violin players show an analogous spread of the somatosensory region associated with the fingers of their left hand, which move above the neck of the instrument playing notes as opposed to those of their right hand, which merely holds the bow.” Not all neural functions and learning are developed at the same time. Quoting from National Geographic: “Ten years ago most neuroscientists saw the brain as a kind of computer, developing fixed functions early,’ says Michael Merzenich of the University of California, San Francisco, a pioneer in understanding brain plasticity. ‘What we now appreciate is that the brain is continually revising itself throughout life.” How does this play for individuals that are convinced prior to adulthood that they are homosexual? Quoting from National Geographic: “The last area of the brain to reach maturity is the prefrontal cortex, where the so-called executive brain resides - where we make social judgments, weigh alternatives, plan for the future and hold our behavior in check. ‘The executive brain doesn’t hit adult levels until the age of 25,’ says Jay Giedd of the National institute of Mental Health, one of the lead scientists of the neuroimaging studies. ‘At puberty, you have adult passions, sex drive, energy, and emotion, but the reining in doesn’t happen until much later.’ It is no wonder teenagers seem to lack good judgment or the ability to restrain impulses.” This is why children, adolescents and young adults must be convinced of sexual experimentation before their brain is able to “weigh alternatives” and “hold behavior in check”. Encouraging cognitive sexual activity, especially experimentation with self sex (same sex) cognitive activities will cause their brain to develop (via neural Darwinism) to an infinity of the cognitive activity undergoing repetition. Since this activity takes place before their brain can weigh alternatives and hold behavior in check they will be convinced that this particular activity is beyond such executive functionality. Experimentation in children becomes method, method becomes habit and habit becomes addiction - a cycle completed and etched in to their developing neural complex before the prefrontal cortex has opportunity to develop and intelligently rein in the process leading to addiction causing them to think of it as an orientation. Raising children to be open minded and to consider exploring sexuality without the gray matter mature enough to make judgments to who they are and to insure reason will be a decisive element in controlling the cognitive part of their reproductive activity, is plain and simple poor parenting. Such parents create a great danger of rendering their impressionable youth slaves to sexual passions rather than master of their cognitive self. Such bad judgement and lack of concern is a form of child abuse as much as refusing to educate children in other essential matters. Again I repeat my objections. 1. For society to survive core families must be nurtured, sponsored and encouraged for society to survive. This includes institutionalizing and defining marriage between a man and a woman for the rearing of children. Society needs to cognitively prepare and provide incentive for responsible parents for the next generation to follow them. This is best done by the cycle of example of real parents throughout society living in a loving environment. 2. Core families with loving fathers and loving mothers need to be recognized as the single most superior method to insure a healthy, intelligent and able to control their urges, next generation. 3. Homosexuality ( instalment of same sex cognitive reproduction activity) is not preset at or near birth any more than any other cognitive activity. Science supports the notion that humans are an intelligent species capable of learning cognitive activity. The Traveler

Perhaps you will inform me why Eastern Orthodoxy refuses to release or allow to be translated or published the most complete and earliest collection of New Testament documents. Documents that were discovered at Mt Sinai over 150 years ago? If you are so interested in getting the word of G-d out to the world why are the most accurate documents known to exist being withheld? Is it because something that has been missing from the Bible that is in the Book of Mormon is also in these documents? Something simular to some of the manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls like the one that identifies the Son of G-d as the Messiah was know in ancient times prior to the advent of Christ? The Traveler

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (St. Matthew 16:19) "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (St. John 14:26) Through Christ's authority, and the Holy Spirit's guidance, the Church can make authoritative decisions on what is part of the Gospel, and what is not. I believe that your church does the same thing, Traveller. Well, Traveller, Orthodox believe that the Bible is the word of God. And the last time I checked, most Mormons believe that as well. Yep. But let me clearly state that there is no truth that is not in the Bible. As inspired by the Holy Spirit and empowered by Christ the Son. The Authority comes from God through the Son and inspired by the Holy Spirit. I don't believe I said that. I stated that Orthodox do not place Scripture above Tradition (eg Church Fathers). They are equal. That's not circular reasoning. #1 Peter had the keys - if those keys of the kingdom had remained so would have the Kingdom. The Orthodox kingdom is organized and established with different keys and operates more like a Roman or other such kingdom than the kingdom of the Jesus and his Apostles. The selection of Biblical Books is exactly which books and which version of ancient text? By who and when and changed how many times? What ancient version is correct? The LDS operates very differently under the power and authority of a prophet that is chosen in the same manner as the Apostles were in the New Testament – not like Roman emperors. #2 You may believe that the Bible contains EVERY word that has come from G-d but the LDS do not. I did not say that the Bible does not contain any words of G-d just that it does not contain them all. If the Bible has all truth why would the church Fathers have to add anything (even one word of clarification)? I also do not believe that the word of G-d comes in versions in our day or in ancient times. I do not believe the men inspired by the Holy Ghost would burn a man at the stake for translating and publishing a Bible into English and then change their mind and publish an English version based on his translation. The Traveler

Traveller, You still have yet to answer any of the questions I've requested of you. If you have no answer, then please just say so and the rest of us can move on with the discussion. Bringing up irrelevant topics does nothing to support anything you've claimed thus far. Come on my friend - you asked for things missing in the Bible - I have responded that Jesus is the only way - including for Prophets in the Old Testament.If Jesus is the only way why is it that no prophet in the Old Testament recognizes Jesus. The Book of Mormon indicates that all the prophets - encluding those of the Old Testament testified of Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon testified of Jesus by name prior to his birth. Do you claim that no Prophet of the Old Testament knew of Jesus and his importance to man? This is a truth missing from the Old Testament which is part of the Bible - now you must agree that it is missing - provide a Old Testament reference or admit that Jesus really is not important to everybody. You tell me - Which is it??? The Traveler

I wasn't presenting an argument about the importance of baptism. I was asking how believing in baptism prior to the Christian era somehow is a plain and precious truth lost to humanity. The remainder of your post is wholly irrelevent to this discussion. Is baptism a doctrine prior to the time of Christ? I see this as revelant and you deny that such baptisms existed. Is any thing that happened before the birth of Christ inportant or not. Why do you have a NT.I really do not want to argue just point out that there are things that are true and important that are not in the Bible. If Baptism is true and important the only question is if it is missing from the Bible prior the Christ. This ball is in our court. Did it exist or not? The Traveler

The Church does have the authority to determine which letters of the Apostles are true, and which are not true. Hence, establishing a canon (or rule) to determine the true from the false. The Orthodox Church has only closed the Canon on the New Testament. The Old Testament Canon is not fixed even to this day! As for the NT, closing it does not imply (as some RCC and Protestants unfortunately believe) that revelation from Christ has ceased. On the contrary, Orthodox teach that the Church Fathers continue to receive revelation and guide the actions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. . If the Chruch has the authority as you say and that truth is in the Bible then I missed it. I do not see where in the Bible is says authority is given to determine what scriptures belong to a Bible. I find nothing in the Bible that indicates authority to create or define a connon. In fact, if I remember there is scripture that says - Man is to live by every word that comes from G-d - not by every word that comes from a church.We were talking about truths that are not in the Bible - right? Let me get this stright - in your church the authority of what is scripture comes from the men of the church. Does the existance of you church not come from authority of the word of G-d? You do realize the circular noncense of caliming that each exist from the authority of the other?

That's in the Bible, Traveler. Im asking for something pertinent to the Gospel that's only in the BoM. I am glad you agree that Jesus is the only way - perhaps you would demonstrate how Moses received commandments from G-d without Jesus as the Mediator and the only way for such things. If he is the only way as you say - Why did not Moses recognize Jesus? It is because this important truth is missing.The Traveler

How is this a plain and precious truth? How does this add/amplify/diminish the gospel? You can argue if you like about the importance of Baptism. That you do not accept it as a precious truth is fine with me but Jesus was baptized - meaning he considered it precious. The importance of baptism as true principal is lost in the OT giving many Christians the impression that is is not necessary or that it does not matter who performs the baptism or how it is done. The fact that the vast array of Christias do not agree about the importance indicates how lost the truth is. Christians cannot even agree one the proper way to perform baptisms. Because of all the confusion from the Bible I can understand why you ask the question you do. It this truth was clear in the Bible there would not be any arguments about Baptism, but in case you have not noticed this particular doctrine caused a lot of Christians to treat other Christians in a very non-Christian manner during the 1600's.The Traveler

That Jesus is the Mediator between all mankind and the Father. That he did all things in the name of the Father but that he is not as great as the father. Not just in the NT but the Old Testament as well. In other words man really did fall and is in need of a redeamer - For all men including the time of the Old Testament. There was Baptism prior to the era of Jesus. All men have fallen and Jesus is the only way, truth and the light. Also that there are scriptures not included in the Bible. That man does not have authority to create a Bible or say that the Bible contains all the word of G-d. That scripture is secondary authority to servents called of G-d. That the Anti Christ will critisize the real followers of Christ (servants called of G-d) - saying they are not Christian based on doctrine and not on their fruits(woops this is in the Bible) Sorry. The Traveler

Mormon Tea - sometimes called Brigham tea was a mainstay of the early saints in Utah. It is made from a desert sage that looks more like a tubular grass than sage. It is quite bitter but was sweetened, usually with honey but I think it is still awful. It is an excellent source of vitamin C.I did not know brother Nibly as well as some. I do remember the old Maniview ward (6th north between 4th and 5th east if I remember) building where he attended church. Others in my family knew him better. Hugh was my brother's home teacher. I took a Book of Mormon class from brother Nibly at BYU. I found him quite eccentric and a typical absent-minded professor. He always wore an overcoat and carried an umbrella, even in summer just in case it rained. In the winter he wore rubber boots. I think I remember him wearing those boots in class - not sure now. I do remember the final exam he gave in the class. He wrote on the black board "explain page 237 of the Book of Mormon". He then walked out of the class. About 15 minutes later he came back into class and laughed and said something like - "you really think I would do this to you for a final exam - He He." Then he wrote a different page on the black board. The second page was the final. Strange sense of humor. The spirit world has gained a great and noble High Priest. The Traveler

How can anyone be a loving parent when they consider realizing their sexual lifestyle more important than children? The Traveler

If you ask the question wrong you will not get the same answer as if you ask it correctly. Are you saying gay couples are to be considered as suitable as a man and a woman trying to have a loving family?Having children is a sacrifice. I am sorry but I do not see the logic that gay couples are willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for children. It appears to me that there is something far more important to them than children. I agree that non-gay couples can also be wrapped up in a lifestyle more important to them than children but can we agree that with gay couples it is obvious in their declaration and support for that lifestyle that cannot produce children? Are you telling me gay couples do not understand what kind of relationships provide society with children?

I believe they will teach children that society really does not need families with loving fathers and mothers. That other arrangments are just as good if not better.The Traveler

Please enlighten me. What is more rational for chidren than a loving father and mother? What is so irrational about saying a loving father and mother is best for children and everything else consider by society is wrong for society? What is so irrational about expecting the most important qualification of a father than a willingness to be a father or expecting the most important qualification of a mother than a willingness to be a mother. I am sorry if I misunderstand you both but I really thought both of you have said that society does not really need marriages of a man and a woman loving each other in the role of Father and mother, or that society should recognize any thing else as being just as good or as qualified. It appears to me you are bending what ought to be and making excuse for what sometimes happens. I simply do not accept anything to be at all on the same level as a father and a mother providing love in a family. I think it is a mistake to suggest anything else to take that place. I think society has failed when so many think marriage is a right that does not have responsibility to the next generation. I am all for choice, but let's make sure we do not lie about the results of choice. Choosing a homosexual lifestyle will result in not having children. If someone does not understand that it should be explained to them and I do not think such a concept is irrational. The Traveler

For the record I disagree. I believe what is best for children is example. Games may be fun but I believe that growing up in a home with a loving father and mother is much better than weekend experiments. I grew up in a home with loving parents. I saw and experienced a father that loved his wife and children more than his own life and pleasures. I saw and experienced a mother that loved her husband and children more than her own life and pleasures. My father was also a great provider and is still worth millions. He is not in good health and will soon depart this mortal life. But you know what He still loves his wife and children more than his life. I have a covenant to honor my beloved wife and children more than money or pleasure. You may all seek what is pleasure to you but I will not give away or sell my family for a moment of pleasure that will leave one empty. Sorry - your arguments have not convinced me that your theories are better. I will not deny Families or the great need for society to recognize and support them. I know Families work and I do not believe anything else has any real future. The Traveler

Please allow me to spell this out as simple as I can. Anyone that considers their personal pleasures and does not discipline their cognitive urges deeming sexual gratification (gay or straight) over the need to care and nurturing of children is not qualified as parents to care for and prepared children so that society may survive for future generations. The fact that many in society has lost their moorings and think of themself first is not a reason to abandon children to an abyss of self need first without morals. Why is it so hard to realize children deserve a loving and caring father and mother? Why is personal sexual gratification so esteemed by so many? If you are so sold on doing for yourself then do for yourself. But for children there is something more important thatn self. Are so many of you without discipline? I think I am beginning to understand why over half of the children of our society will not grow up on a home with a loving father and mother. So many really do not think children deserve any such thing - especially if they must make a personal sacrifice.Why - oh why must loving families be destroyed. Can’t you all just do you thing and not worry about families and children? Do what ever it is you want to do and not pretend that it is just as good, valuable, honorable and as needed as families. If you are interested in children - then recognize that loving fathers and mothers is really what is needed. Be willing to do what ever you can to help children as a temporary measure but be willing to teach society at every turn that children need a father and a mother. Society may not always be able to provide what is needed but let us not make what really ought to be - something we refuse to recognize and afferm as what is best. The Traveler

Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother? Traveler, Are you for real? You know durn good and well that Pushka made no inference about what a child might or might not deserve. Her post dealt with the qualification of parents. Then I also disagree with you. I believe a loving father and mother is best for children. Anything else is NOT REALLY BEST. It is something less than best. We could argue what is better, allow children to be molested or feed them to crocodiles. Finding something worse is not an argument for what is best. Sorry but I do not buy such arguments. Are you telling me that we should assume that a family with a loving father and mother is not really what is best for children? Are you telling me that there is something that is 100% just as good? The Traveler

Are you implying that children do not deserve a loving father and a loving mother?Let me ask a question is it better to chance children to be raised by crocodiles or should we just kill children that are not adopted. My point is that the best for any and every child is to be raised by a loving father and mother. Children should have that as their right. Anything less than that is not really what is best for the child. Trying to select the best of two things that are flawed is not at all what is best. The problem with your logic is that I can always think of something worse for children that what ever it may be that someone whats to do to exploit them. I resent your logic as an attempt to exploit children and your lack of support for children to be in loving homes with a father and a mother. The Traveler

I do assume that the only reason gays desire marriage it to legitimize their cognitive reproductive triggers. I do not assume, even a little bit that they are making personal sacrifices so that by disciplining their cognitive reproductive triggers they will create a suitable environment for children. I believe parents must discipline their sexual urges in order to provide suitable environments for children. Where in G-d’s green earth do such nutty ideas come from. GAYS do not desire to have child producing relationships, other wise they would not be gay. The operative word here is cognitive. Does not anyone supporting gay marriage understand what cognitive means in connection to an intelligent species? There are studies my friends concerning cognitive behaviors that become so compulsive that individuals can no longer control their behaviors - even if they want to. There has been some very scary research done concerning the extent “brain washing” can have. And yes my very uninformed friends - this does include the cognitive triggers for reproduction. In fact my friends there are studies that obsessive compulsive behaviors can alter the physiological including neurological of the participant. I see no reason for gay marriage. I do not think some of you understand what the word reason means. There is no reason or any proof to support gay marriage as necessary. The fact that the supporters refuse to supply any reason is not rocket science. There is none. There is reason and proof for relationships that provide and nurture children. That my friends I have proved and no one has argued my proof. But you will not do the same for Gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT as valuable as family (children) based marriage, why force that value by force of law? There has not been one opinion with a single sane suggestion that the two can be equally valuable to society - get a clue. You cannot say that forcing society to honor and revere both homosexual unions and families dedicated to children will not effect society. Such a notion is insane!!! There is no proof for the insane, that is one reason it is called insanity. Until someone can demonstrate and prove that homosexual relationships are as needed as relationships that provide and nurture children I will shout your insanity to force such broken logic by law. The Traveler

I would post something about the current shameful neglect of children and families. When personal pleasure becomes the only reason to consider marriage, society suffers. When we decide not to honor parents that sacrifice in order that children may survive by claiming that it is just as honorable to seek nothing but personal sexual gratification, society suffers.To support pleasures and scoff and scorn those that would protect children over indulging in erotic undisciplined pleasures society suffers. Your argument that there are plenty that care about children that we can honor every foolish sexual behavior with as much value as caring for children, I cringe knowing there is no possible good to be added to such a society. That you cannot see any logic or benefit in making any effort to protect families and children as the cherished future for mankind is a total bewilderment to me. I guess all I can say is that I hope and pray that G-d will grant you your wish. But I also hope and pray that I will not have to share it with you. I would rather be in that society the maintains the honor and sacredness of children and families. The Traveler

You and I disagree.First I am concerned that you think marriage is a right owed to who ever wants it. Your notion that marriage is nothing but a default relationship that society is obligated to make available regardless of consequences at the whim of whoever ask appears foolish to me. As I have posted marriage ought to be a protected privilege, granted by society in select circumstances (a man and a woman) in order to guarantee families that will provide a next stable generation so society does not vanish. The attitude that mankind should be able to do anything they wish until it is proven dangerous is itself reckless. The entire history of mankind is full of such foolish notion. Let us introduce rabbits in Australia, or kudzu in America, lets clear cut rain forest, or overbuild on a watershed hillside. In all such cases when it was proven to be a disaster it was already to late. logic point #1. Before making a change (even minor) to any complex system we ought to be reasonably certain that the change is beneficial. If the sponsors and believers of a change do not understand what is at stake enough to be able to demonstrate that it is beneficial most likely it is NOT. logic point #2. When considering effects of change in a complex system it is logical to consider extreme possibilities. This is a scientific principle used to understand possibilities at thresholds should a major shift occur. For example if society refused to acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result such relationships were unable to continue and completely vanished what effect would that have on society. Anything? If society did acknowledge and endorse homosexual relationships and as a result those relationships became the overwhelming relationship in that society, what effect would that have on society. Quite possibly that society could vanish completely. A foolish notion? Perhaps, but if this logic had been employed most man made environmental (and other) disasters would been avoided. logic point #3. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose from a moral stand point. The moral question all should ask is what would happen if everybody engaged in any activity? Let us take anger. If everybody escalated anger in society would society benefit? No. Let use take kindness. If everybody escalated kindness would society benefit? Yes. We can conclude that kindness is of great moral value and anger is of little moral value. Now let us take homosexual marriage. If everybody engaged in homosexual marriage and endorsed and supported it above every other relationship leaving families to fend for themselves without protection would society benefit? I don’t think so. How about nobody engaged in or endorse homosexual marriages leaving them to fend for themselves and instead supported only families that support children? Society would continue prosper without question for another generation. You do not have to destroy a forest in America in order to introduce kudzu, but once introduced and allowed unimpeded access to the forests of America the kudzu destroyed forest all by it’s self. It may not destroy all the forest but it will destroy enough to make a lasting difference. But we already have a condition in which marriage is broken. The greatest problems of poverty in this country is directly connected to society’s recent neglect of marriage. Your proposal will doubtfully contribute to any possible fix. If anyone wants a homosexual relationship I am willing to live and let live, up to the point that they demand by power of law that society back the homosexual relationship as much as the relationship upon which children must depend in order to survive. My support stops there. I cannot no will I pretend that society will be just fine without any effort to demonstrate society will be benefitted for the investment. And that lack of effort to answer questions coupled with blame and cries of homophobia indicates this is not the direction society should even consider. The Traveler

Unfortunately my friend your assumption that gays are only interested in other gays is not true. You may argue that my personal experiences in the military are not scientific and not to your liking but since I looked 13 I experienced the predatory behavior of every single gay I encountered. I have also not encounter any effort by the gay movement to halt and outlaw gay intrusions on those that do not appreciate it. That aside, I see no reason to support and encourage gay marriages. I have not even encountered any effort to demonstrate that gay marriage will benefit and is necessary for society. I believe society has an obligation to support and encourage marriage between a man and a woman because families and children are necessary and benefit society. Now, before you attempt to use an argument that has no real benefit I would point out that murder can occur without destroying society – plus, despite the fact that murder occurs, the population seems to grow anyway. The very idea that no one should concern themselves with murder because there are enough that do not murder that society can continue is not an argument that demonstrates murder should not be opposed. So please do not use a stupid argument for homosexuality. You may say that there is a big difference between murder and homosexual relationships but that would not be completely true in that both exist in all human society of any size and both have always existed in human society yet society has not been destroyed. So, what I am saying is that the fact that they can exist in society is not evidence that either “ought” to exist in society or that society has an obligation to support and encourage. Society has an obligation to support and encourage marriages between a man and a woman in order to guarantee a next generation. As I stated before this attitude is necessary for survival of the fittest and is very much a part of “natural” selection. Hand waiving and making rash innuendo is not scientific. We began this discussion with you accusing me of not being logical or scientific. My point is that it is neither logical nor scientific to alter or force change when it is not necessary, will not benefit and could be detrimental. The part of the previous statement that needs to be proven prior to change is the necessary and beneficial. The part about things that could be detrimental is not under the same obligation of demonstration – in fact, I believe that in the absence of necessary and beneficial, we must assume detrimental rather than be under the obligation to prove it. Yet for some odd reason whenever I suggest such a thing, people like yourself, say I am not logical or scientific. Sorry but I don’t buy the rhetoric or the smoke and mirrors - even it it has become the more popular in certain semi-intellectual circles at many of our universities. The Traveler

None of us "deserve" what comes our way--the good or the bad. Whatever happens to us is the result of living in an imperfect world. Prayer is a way of adjusting our own attitude to meet the challenges and blessings that will inevitably come our way in spite of anything we may or may not do. Prayer doesn't change God's mind. It changes ours. Very good - I like your post better than mine. :) The Traveler