Prop 8. and temple recommends

[PrinceofLight2000]

Again you have yet to give examples of any "moral" law that does not affect another person in a measurable way in society. Please provide a law on the books that does not have a measurable impact on a second party? So far there is no measuable effect of gay marriage harming society except fears and illogical ideas, so please give the examples that support you legally banning something that has no measurable impact on another party?

Speeding one mile over the speed limit can't possibly produce measurable adverse effects on a second party, yet technically it remains illegal. This point is irrelevant however because same-sex marriage does adversely effect a second party. I already gave the argument for what would happen to future generations if everyone on the planet were to become homosexuals and engage in such marriages.

Aren't all laws predicated on fears, as well? Doesn't the rape victim fear rape, so they demand it outlawed? Doesn't the relative of a murder victim fear a repeat offense, so they call for it to be outlawed?

We have determined homosexual behavior to be a choice. If homosexual behavior is legally tolerated, it is logical that the entire human population could choose to become homosexual, and end humanity by doing so.

[Soulsearcher]

Speeding one mile over the speed limit can't possibly produce measurable adverse effects on a second party, yet technically it remains illegal. This point is irrelevant however because same-sex marriage does adversely effect a second party. I already gave the argument for what would happen to future generations if everyone on the planet were to become homosexuals and engage in such marriages.

Aren't all laws predicated on fears, as well? Doesn't the rape victim fear rape, so they demand it outlawed? Doesn't the relative of a murder victim fear a repeat offense, so they call for it to be outlawed?

We have determined homosexual behavior to be a choice. If homosexual behavior is legally tolerated, it is logical that the entire human population could choose to become homosexual, and end humanity by doing so.

So you know for a fact none of the accidents on the road have injured or caused damage due to being one mile over the limit? Great i look forward to seeing that data in your next post.

actually not all laws are really out of fear. There had to be a taking of a human life first for there to be a concern about it. same with rape. So first the crime had to exist and someone be hurt. Megans law is a good example. Yes it was fear, but only cause someone had suffered.

Again after a few hundred thousand years of humanity existing we see a less than 10% showing of homosexuality popping up. Is it possible everyone will go gay, possible yes, also possible dinosaurs will make a comeback and rule the earth in the next ten years. If you believe the genetic side then not likely unless mankind is meant to die out, if you believe the choice argument then what would it take you to switch teams? Neither argument hold much weight.

"We" have determined that homosexual behavior is a choice. Problem is who is "we" and is it the place of the American people to tell a class of people that very well can be genetically created a different way that they are not entitled to something that would engage two consenting adults of legal age? Without a clear impact on another party this really doesn't hold any water.

[PrinceofLight2000]

So you know for a fact none of the accidents on the road have injured or caused damage due to being one mile over the limit? Great i look forward to seeing that data in your next post.

actually not all laws are really out of fear. There had to be a taking of a human life first for there to be a concern about it. same with rape. So first the crime had to exist and someone be hurt. Megans law is a good example. Yes it was fear, but only cause someone had suffered.

Again after a few hundred thousand years of humanity existing we see a less than 10% showing of homosexuality popping up. Is it possible everyone will go gay, possible yes, also possible dinosaurs will make a comeback and rule the earth in the next ten years. If you believe the genetic side then not likely unless mankind is meant to die out, if you believe the choice argument then what would it take you to switch teams? Neither argument hold much weight.

"We" have determined that homosexual behavior is a choice. Problem is who is "we" and is it the place of the American people to tell a class of people that very well can be genetically created a different way that they are not entitled to something that would engage two consenting adults of legal age? Without a clear impact on another party this really doesn't hold any water.

The data would be negligible, if it even exists. Any driver knows this. It's not a "measurable" effect. That's exactly what you asked for.

Again you have yet to give examples of any "moral" law that does not affect another person in a measurable way in society.

So the idea of murder can't be feared until the act takes place? Concepts can exist well before the concept actually presents itself in reality. Just have a look at any scientific theory.

Your dinosaur analogy is a straw man. Any form of tolerance, legal or social, of any given behavior will inevitably increase that behavior.

Yes, it is the place of the people to decide. This is the essence of the representative democratic process. There is a very clear impact on a second party, whether or not it is legally acknowledged depends on the morality of those who write, enforce, and determine the law.

You're starting to scare me a little bit with your rhetoric unless you're simply playing devil's advocate. No man is "entitled" to a "right" to marriage. It's a privilege, and one defined by morality. This is exactly what I meant before about the judiciary creating fictional Constitutional rights instead of using the amendment process.

Edited August 6, 2010 by PrinceofLight2000

[Soulsearcher]

The data would be negligible. Any driver knows this. It's not a "measurable" effect. That's exactly what you asked for.

So the idea of murder can't be feared until the act takes place? Concepts can exist well before the concept actually presents itself in reality. Just have a look at any scientific theory.

Your dinosaur analogy is a straw man. Any form of tolerance, legal or social, of any given behavior will inevitably increase that behavior.

Yes, it is the place of the people to decide. This is the essence of the representative democratic process. There is a very clear impact on a second party, whether or not it is legally acknowledged depends on the morality of those who write, enforce, and determine the law.

You're starting to scare me a little bit with your rhetoric unless you're simply playing devil's advocate. No man is "entitled" to a "right" to marriage. It's a privilege, and one defined by morality. This is exactly what I meant before about the judiciary creating fictional Constitutional rights.

K so you can't back up the fact you claim that no accident has ever occurred due to people going over the speed limit by one mile per hour, you know what i'll give that to you. Please point out the law that tells the difference between one mile an hour and five? Speeding can cause damage and harm so please point out the law that shows the difference between one or more miles per hour.

Concepts can exist, but i'm willing to bet before moses handed down the ten commandments, which you referenced earlier, men had died by other mans hands. Most of these laws on the books today were made ot deal with issues that already existed in society. Most laws created are created to dealt with an issue already existing in society that needs to be dealt with.

And the dinosaur argument was more fun than anything. the fact is that there is no proof what so ever that the gay population is going to jump due to marriage. it's existed for a long time and it's not going to ever be the majority. It's a scare tactic argument people use on those who can't do basic math and history.

It used to be peoples place to decide that mixed marriages were immoral as well as illegal. Tainting the gene pool and destroying the human race was an argument for that as well. And yes this was made by the same people using many of the same arguments you are using, so were those people right? Was that a moral and ethically right choice by the people? It had religious backing, moral backing and was a completely sound legal idea in the past. Problem is when people let old prejudices and fears dictate what they view as acceptable in the law, it can do damage to actual people.

I've not once said marriage is a right, actually tried very hard to make sure that was removed from anything i posted in response to you. You said you had a legal basis why gay marriage was wrong, and though you've presented a large number of the old moral reasons, you have said nothing that forms a legal basis. You have not proven a single fact, but you have said a lot of things that might cause fear, misunderstanding and divert the entire argument away from the fact that there are no facts to your arguments. You claim I'm using rhetoric, but in every one of the posts you've posted you have not given a single fact, just baseless fears. That's why your side is having issues so far with winning the legal battle. You can look at a class of people and say ,sorry you are less, and not back it up with any proof. If you can give me numbers, case reports showing anything to back up your claims then great, other wise it's a very tall argument that has to fall because there is no proof to support it, just a will and a wish.

[PrinceofLight2000]

K so you can't back up the fact you claim that no accident has ever occurred due to people going over the speed limit by one mile per hour, you know what i'll give that to you. Please point out the law that tells the difference between one mile an hour and five? Speeding can cause damage and harm so please point out the law that shows the difference between one or more miles per hour.

Concepts can exist, but i'm willing to bet before moses handed down the ten commandments, which you referenced earlier, men had died by other mans hands. Most of these laws on the books today were made ot deal with issues that already existed in society. Most laws created are created to dealt with an issue already existing in society that needs to be dealt with.

And the dinosaur argument was more fun than anything. the fact is that there is no proof what so ever that the gay population is going to jump due to marriage. it's existed for a long time and it's not going to ever be the majority. It's a scare tactic argument people use on those who can't do basic math and history.

It used to be peoples place to decide that mixed marriages were immoral as well as illegal. Tainting the gene pool and destroying the human race was an argument for that as well. And yes this was made by the same people using many of the same arguments you are using, so were those people right? Was that a moral and ethically right choice by the people? It had religious backing, moral backing and was a completely sound legal idea in the past. Problem is when people let old prejudices and fears dictate what they view as acceptable in the law, it can do damage to actual people.

I've not once said marriage is a right, actually tried very hard to make sure that was removed from anything i posted in response to you. You said you had a legal basis why gay marriage was wrong, and though you've presented a large number of the old moral reasons, you have said nothing that forms a legal basis. You have not proven a single fact, but you have said a lot of things that might cause fear, misunderstanding and divert the entire argument away from the fact that there are no facts to your arguments. You claim I'm using rhetoric, but in every one of the posts you've posted you have not given a single fact, just baseless fears. That's why your side is having issues so far with winning the legal battle. You can look at a class of people and say ,sorry you are less, and not back it up with any proof. If you can give me numbers, case reports showing anything to back up your claims then great, other wise it's a very tall argument that has to fall because there is no proof to support it, just a will and a wish.

1. Bold - That's my point.

2. Cain knew killing Abel was wrong, prior to the act. Before then, no murder had taken place.

3. People who choose to be homosexual don't need to have homosexual tendencies. And this can and has happened on a mass scale. See: Sodom and Gomorrah.

4. Tainting the gene pool doesn't destroy humanity within a few generations when implemented. Heavenly Father most likely knew this when He decided to command polygamy of certain called Saints.

5. Legally, yes, the moral decision of the people of either pro or anti-polygamy would hold up regardless of whether it defies God's word. God gave us our agency for that purpose. Are we not free to create our own laws as we see fit as well?

6. All legal reasoning must be based on hard data, and can't be inferred from fact? I could pull up statistics for you that show social tolerance of homosexuality has increased it in the United States, and I could look up statistics that show homosexual behavior has increased in Massachusetts or California because it was allowed legally. You're forgetting that there are a whole slew of gay people who don't get married because they respect the law.

7. I'll say it one more time. All legal issues are inherently moral issues.

I'll just move to agree to disagree. We're going in circles with this, now.

[Soulsearcher]

1) the point of the question was to provide a law that doesn't involve harm or damage to another party, speeding laws clearly were made due to the fact speed can kill, so you failed to present a law that doesn't have a direct impact on a second party.

2) Knowing and having a law in place are very different.

3) Show me an actual fact aside from the bible of this? Religious text usually isn't admissible in the courts as factual evidence.

4)Homosexuality with in less than 10% of the population will not do anything in the next few generations would take going by current basic figure another hundred thousand years at the soonest, being after the time line of humanity so far we only are up to between 2-7% of 6 billion people.

5)Not sure where polygamy came from, I argued mixed race which was argued by Christians as an amoral union that could only destroy the human race.

6)Social tolerance isn't always a bad thing, just think about where we'd be if blacks and women never had social tolerance increase. the increas is gay people is not actually an increase in gay people, it's an increase in people admitting they are gay. there is a difference. In rome a long time ago a large number of people were christian, but a lot of them really didn't let people know, usually ended up with them meeting a lion. And yes gay's follow the laws, not sure why this would be a surprise. Respecting the law because we are moral people doesn't mean we won't try to change it. Use to be illegal for blacks to do a lot of things, same with women, they followed those laws cause the alternative was worse, and then they changed the laws because they were wrong, but they were all supported by Christianity before they changed, so what changed?

7)And morals change, making a law against something that does not affect anyone in a measurable way does not serve a purpose, which was why most of the laws against gays being with one another in a sexual way were struck down. Placing a moral restriction because you don't like something you can't prove will do anything to you is just placing nothing but a moral restriction not actually meeting and legal requirement and that's why this law got struck down. Your side really needs to read the entire finding from this judge, you may not like him, but the fact that your side only had two witnesses who said the bible says it's wrong and left their defense at that will screw them when it comes time for the next trial. You need to have proof, you need to have a reasonable legal basis, and so far, the court looked at your argument and said, great keep your morals, but that isn't law.

We can agree to disagree, but you need to understand that yes for a law to be reasonable you need to see that morals just aren't enough. I don't like you isn't reason for a law, and the laws like that in the past have been struck down and society is better today for it.

[MarginOfError]

The data would be negligible, if it even exists. Any driver knows this. It's not a "measurable" effect. That's exactly what you asked for.

Statistically speaking, no such effect exists.

So the idea of murder can't be feared until the act takes place? Concepts can exist well before the concept actually presents itself in reality. Just have a look at any scientific theory.

Your dinosaur analogy is a straw man. Any form of tolerance, legal or social, of any given behavior will inevitably increase that behavior.

Yes, it is the place of the people to decide. This is the essence of the representative democratic process. There is a very clear impact on a second party, whether or not it is legally acknowledged depends on the morality of those who write, enforce, and determine the law.

You're starting to scare me a little bit with your rhetoric unless you're simply playing devil's advocate. No man is "entitled" to a "right" to marriage. It's a privilege, and one defined by morality. This is exactly what I meant before about the judiciary creating fictional Constitutional rights instead of using the amendment process.

I would say your rhetoric is far more alarming than Soulsearcher's. Primarily because every single argument you have presented has been struck down by the courts for the past ten years. You don't like that they've been struck down, but rather than take up a different tactic, you simply claim "oh, but my objections aren't religious. They're secular. Really!"

But here's the interesting thing about same sex marriage: 1) every time it has been put to popular vote, it has been defeated (although the trend on this is slowly reversing). 2) Every time it has been put to the courts, same sex marriage has won. So far, the courts in Maine, Massachusetts, Iowa, and California all agree that there is no Constitutional basis to exclude same sex marriage.

You claim that marriage is a privilege and that if a non-traditional group wants the privilege of marrying, then they need to first amend the consititution. Constitutional experts disagree, and think that if you want to exclude same sex marriage, then an amendment is necessary. And by the way, conservatives agree too, as it was an idea they kicked around a few years back.

[MarginOfError]

6. All legal reasoning must be based on hard data, and can't be inferred from fact? I could pull up statistics for you that show social tolerance of homosexuality has increased it in the United States, and I could look up statistics that show homosexual behavior has increased in Massachusetts or California because it was allowed legally. You're forgetting that there are a whole slew of gay people who don't get married because they respect the law.

How exactly do you intend to adjust for the confounding effect that before homosexuality was socially tolerated many people who were predisposed to homosexuality would never have admitted it or engaged in the activity out of fear of social rejection?

[Hemidakota]

not really a direct answer to the questions, just my opinion here: A person should only join a church if they fundamentally agree with it. Otherwise, they should look elsewhere for a place of worship. Churches have the right to believe and practice whatever they want. Instead of trying to change the church to suit personal needs, a person should find a church that agrees with what they believe. Why would somebody want to join a church, if it didn't support their lifestyle? That's what I would like to know.

You either believe the gospel is true, or you don't. And if you're not sure, then search for answers with an open heart.

I don't think its about being fair at all. I think its more about forcing people to accept the gay lifestyle. And that's wrong. Weather or not you accept it, condone it, or allow it should be a personal choice, and should always remain so. Especially when people believe that they will be held resposnible for supporting it in the afterlife. Nobody should be forced to support something that they believe is against the word of god.

Exactly...well stated Melissa. :clap:Eventually, forcing the will upon others will be the norm of life as it was with Lot and the City of Sodom.

Apostle Marvin J. Ashton talked about those who live two standards, one the gospel and the other the world. Prop 8 is a great example of "do we follow the brethren or do we follow the world's opinion?' Choose this day, which god you serve.

We live in a complex world where many forces are calling out, "Love me." A sure way to set our guidelines for that which we choose to serve and learn to love is to follow the admonition of Joshua: "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Josh. 24:15.) Let us look to our own lives. We serve that which we love. If we sacrifice and give our love for that which our Father in heaven asks of us, our footsteps will be set upon the path of eternal life. May God help us to love the right, love the truth, and love areas of service that are rewarding and eternal. (Ye Are My Friends by Marvin J. Ashton)

[Hemidakota]

Isnt the ideal government a theocracy? Is that what Christ will have upon his return?

Correct.

[MobyMule]

I think if someone is actively going against the Church on this issue then there is a possibility a recommend could be denied.

To me the simplest solution to all this is all states change all "marriage" contracts to civil unions. Allow any 2 adults to enter into this contract for legal purposes of property etc. Let the individual Churches decide on who they will recognize who is married for various church ordinances and so forth and to remain in good standing.

But then we get to the heart of the matter. A civil union isn't good enough now is it. We have to say Marriage for gays and lesbians because that will make them feel better and on equal standing in their eyes with straits in their relationship with God. This isn't really about equal rights when you get down to it. It's about trying to downgrade the Instituion of Marriage to a worldy standard so that others can feel good about their lifestyles.

Of couse this encompasses other deviant behaviors and I think we all fight with this in our own lives with various weaknesses we have. Don't we all try to rationalize our sins at some point and try to downplay how serious they really are before God. Which can turn into us trying to campaign that weakness into being ok.

Edited August 6, 2010 by MobyMule

[bytor2112]

Of couse this encompasses other deviant behaviors and I think we all fight with this in our own lives with various weaknesses we have. Don't we all try to rationalize our sins at some point and try to downplay how serious they really are before God. Which can turn into us trying to campaign that weakness into being ok.

So true....I am sure the Lord knows how funny Cartman really is and how I am basically powerless when I am unable to change the channel.

Edited August 6, 2010 by bytor2112

[Hemidakota]

Who is Cartman?????

[Wingnut]

Who is Cartman?????

He's a character on Comedy Central's show South Park.

[MobyMule]

So true....I am sure the Lord knows how funny Cartman really is and how I am basically powerless when I I am unable to change the channel.

LOL. Yeah we just have to remember that we need to love everyone and just agree to disagree and not get nasty or uncivil. We are all so unperfect in vey many different ways.

[Suzie]

Just curious, under what basis exactly a person could be denied a temple recommend over this issue?

Personally, I do not condone gay marriage, I wouldn't vote for or against it. It is a non-issue for me. I believe in separation of Church and State and personally I wouldn't do anything to stop gay people from marrying. So I am curious as to exactly will prevent someone from obtaining a temple recommend under these circumstances.

We are free to think anything we want and have an opinion on this matter and others (and NOT necessarily agree with the GA over these issues). I think it was President Hinckley who said in an interview that members often times DISAGREE with the brethren and that's not the issue, it becomes one when they TEACH those things. So I am curious at the reasoning behind denying a temple recommend over a different position than the Brethren have.

[GaySaint]

For the record, Melissa: Gay people don't see the gay marriage fight as trying to get anyone to accept the homosexual lifestyle - we see marriage as the only way society has set up to allow families to be protected, and as such we see it as a necessity to protect our own families.

On the flip side, gay people tend to see a religious person voting against same-sex marriage as a way for them to force their religious views on the gay community, but that is also not true (as I'm sure you will attest). Instead, it is about your view and your need to protect YOUR family.

As soon as we can get around all the fear, lies, misconceptions, etc. and realize that each side is just trying to protect their families, I think the argument will turn out to be more of a discussion, and the rhetoric will be toned down to the point where we can finally agree on an outcome.

But as long as both sides deal in hyperbole, this will be a struggle with victories and defeats, and this issue will always be a "hot-button" issue.

So let me tell you now: I have no desire to force you to accept my lifestyle – but I will fight tooth and nail to protect my family.

And society's way of doing so is with marriage. Currently there is no other equivalent offer.

[MobyMule]

Actively campaigning against the Church stance and trying to persuade other members from their beliefs. Opinions are one thing. Even voting against prop 8 I don't think would constitute not giving a recommend but actively fighting against the will of the brethren will almost always get you in hot water and probable loss of recommend/discipline. Again this isn't just disagreement. We are talking teaching and persuading other members to go against what the Church is fighting for.

Again this issue isn't about equal rights. Sadly the way our current system(marriage in the states) is set up is a lose-lose situation imho. I think members feel sympathy for the equal right issue and it isn't without merit but this issue is deeper than that. It is about the Institution of Marriage. The Church has an obligation to fight for that and is doing so in the bounds of the current system.

Hopefully we can have a day where the Institution of Marriage is protected but everyone can have equal rights under the law in their contractual state relationships(whatever that may be).

Just curious, under what basis exactly a person could be denied a temple recommend over this issue?

Personally, I do not condone gay marriage, I wouldn't vote for or against it. It is a non-issue for me. I believe in separation of Church and State and personally I wouldn't do anything to stop gay people from marrying. So I am curious as to exactly will prevent someone from obtaining a temple recommend under these circumstances.

We are free to think anything we want and have an opinion on this matter and others (and NOT necessarily agree with the GA over these issues). I think it was President Hinckley who said in an interview that members often times DISAGREE with the brethren and that's not the issue, it becomes one when they TEACH those things. So I am curious at the reasoning behind denying a temple recommend over a different position than the Brethren have.

[GaySaint]

Moby: Your solution has been proposed before, and works well for LDS peopel who already believe that a marriage in the church is greater than a marriage outside of it, but as PC will attest, turning all marriages into civil unions and allowing churches to marry who they will IS the same "destruction of marriage" the Christian community is so worried about. To them, that will literally destroy marriage as they know it - destroying the marriage THEY believe God intended.

So that solution would work well for the LDS, but not for the Christian community. Just FYI :)

But strangely, that is a solution upon which the LDS and the gay community could agree... haha. But you'll have a hard time getting the Christians to jump on that train.

[MobyMule]

Moby: Your solution has been proposed before, and works well for LDS peopel who already believe that a marriage in the church is greater than a marriage outside of it, but as PC will attest, turning all marriages into civil unions and allowing churches to marry who they will IS the same "destruction of marriage" the Christian community is so worried about. To them, that will literally destroy marriage as they know it - destroying the marriage THEY believe God intended.

So that solution would work well for the LDS, but not for the Christian community. Just FYI :)

But strangely, that is a solution upon which the LDS and the gay community could agree... haha. But you'll have a hard time getting the Christians to jump on that train.

Well I can kinda see that rationale but being a Southern Baptist growing up I don't buy it. I still don't see why it would not work. It is common sense and simple. It allows the individual Churches to govern marriage in their churches and like I said just about all Christian churches have some form of good/bad standing and so forth.

[Suzie]

Actively campaigning against the Church stance and trying to persuade other members from their beliefs.

I can agree with that (but that's not unique to this topic but to any other issue really). Other than that, I am not sure why some members feel it is wrong, "disobedient", unfaithful and so many other labels they put the fact that some members think differently.

[Traveler]

For the record, Melissa: Gay people don't see the gay marriage fight as trying to get anyone to accept the homosexual lifestyle - we see marriage as the only way society has set up to allow families to be protected, and as such we see it as a necessity to protect our own families.

On the flip side, gay people tend to see a religious person voting against same-sex marriage as a way for them to force their religious views on the gay community, but that is also not true (as I'm sure you will attest). Instead, it is about your view and your need to protect YOUR family.

As soon as we can get around all the fear, lies, misconceptions, etc. and realize that each side is just trying to protect their families, I think the argument will turn out to be more of a discussion, and the rhetoric will be toned down to the point where we can finally agree on an outcome.

But as long as both sides deal in hyperbole, this will be a struggle with victories and defeats, and this issue will always be a "hot-button" issue.

So let me tell you now: I have no desire to force you to accept my lifestyle – but I will fight tooth and nail to protect my family.

And society's way of doing so is with marriage. Currently there is no other equivalent offer.

In the spirit of open discussion - Please provide more information of how you define family and how that definition benefits society.

For the record I define family as the institution provided in marriage between a man and a woman by which society may be guaranteed another generation to uphold and continue the society’s structure and existence.

I personally believe that if a change to the definition of family to be seriously considered – that proponents of such a change have an obligation to demonstrate that there will be a benefit that society cannot currently enjoy until instituting the change.

The Traveler

[GaySaint]

Back to the OP: The church leadership was advised not to ask how someone voted in Prop 8, from what I understand. Therefore, if you believe you can sustain the leadership of the church and still be for same-sex marriage (and I know many many members who feel they can), then the answer to that temple recommend interview question should just be, "Yes."

I realize there will be some to disagree. Didn't Scott Trotter say something about how there wouldn't be any church disipline for those who disagreed with the church during the prop 8 fiasco? Does someone have a source for that quote? I can't find it...

[MobyMule]

Back to the OP: The church leadership was advised not to ask how someone voted in Prop 8, from what I understand. Therefore, if you believe you can sustain the leadership of the church and still be for same-sex marriage (and I know many many members who feel they can), then the answer to that temple recommend interview question should just be, "Yes."

I realize there will be some to disagree. Didn't Scott Trotter say something about how there wouldn't be any church disipline for those who disagreed with the church during the prop 8 fiasco? Does someone have a source for that quote? I can't find it...

I think you are right with that. Again this comes down to just like any other issue someone might disagree with the Church its about how that person shows that disagreement. If they actively try to bring members to their way of thinking and go against the Church it will always be some sort of discipline there( ie. loss of recommend, probation etc..)

[GaySaint]

In the spirit of open discussion - Please provide more information of how you define family and how that definition benefits society.

For the record I define family as the institution provided in marriage between a man and a woman by which society may be guaranteed another generation to uphold and continue the society’s structure and existence.

I personally believe that if a change to the definition of family to be seriously considered – that proponents of such a change have an obligation to demonstrate that there will be a benefit that society cannot currently enjoy until instituting the change.

The Traveler

Traveler: I'm going to play devil's advocate here and ask: You don't think a single mom and her son or daughter constitutes a family? You don't think grandparents raising their grandchildren, or aunts and uncles raising neices and nephews, etc, are a family?

I think the word "Family" can be very big to define, so I would just have to say that I agree with your definition, but would expand it to include all of the situations above, as well as same-sex couples who knit their lives together, fall in love, commit, and ESPECIALLY those who have children.

Perhaps the IDEAL would be one man, one woman, children, etc (although I would say that I believe two men and two women can match that ideal... at least scientifically and secularly speaking - I know there will be religious disagreements), but that doesn't mean the other family dynamics are any less deserving of recognition and protection.