Lord Romney?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Your academic study had a number of glaring flaws. I pointed some of them out in the same-sex marriage thread. You never responded.

Well, if we're keeping track, I think I pointed out numerous cases in numerous studies that you referenced without you returning a defense of why your interpretation was correct. At the very least, we're pretty even on that track. Regarding the "glaring flaws," half of them disregarded the scope of the study and generalized one study to an entire argument and the other half were pointed at Patterson, not the study. I didn't see any value in trying to explain what scope means again or pointing out that disregarding Patterson's works for having an "agenda" while referencing as authoritative groups whose mission statement concerns fighting same-sex partnerships is more than a little hypocritical.

But to say that I'm bringing nothing constructive to these conversations, given the time I've spent on-point and in-book is pretty weak.

In war and sickness, you lose lives. In same-sex marriage, you never replace those lives. Once again, heresy does not lead to war anymore than guns lead to killing. The problem is in the heart. You cannot legislate a better heart.

So heresy isn't as bad for society because it doesn't intrinsically create war (even though it's historically a big reason for war) but homosexuality intrinsically creates sickness? So, hypothetically, if the rate mortality and morbidity was equivalent between practicing homosexuals and practicing heterosexuals, you wouldn't consider it as bad for society?

You made a faulty connection that somehow heresy is the cause of war. I was just pointing out that it isn’t. It may a “justification” in some people’s mind, but it does not follow that if there is heresy there will be war. It does follow, however, that if there is hatred, there will be war. Since it takes a man and a woman to produce a child, it does not follow that homosexuality builds up a society. Rather, it follows that a society will be reduced and dwindle and not replace the population. This has devastating effects on all aspects of a once thriving society. If trends continue in Europe, for example, Arabic Muslims will one day replace Caucasians in numbers in many of those liberal countries.

And we can't have a foreign ethnicity coming in and overpopulating an indigenous people, right?

Heresy doesn't have to be the cause of war — homosexuality isn't the cause of sickness, after all. Rather, we're talking about correlations and, historically, heresy and social unrest have a very high correlation. I'd venture that many more societies have been destroyed by heresy than by homosexuality. So what happens when a large group of people decide again that Mormons are threatening their societal health?

Yes, I call the destruction of the traditional family more devastating on society than religious heresy.

Whose family is being destroyed by monogamous same-sex unions?

I’m not advocating prohibitions against same-sex unions. Improve your question.

What rights of yours are preserved by prohibitions against same-sex legal unions?

There are community standards laws in effect in many states to protect children. These people have dealt with your arguments before. I support the rights of a community to set standards of decency in public.

What is being called indecent? Holding hands? Kissing? Hands in each other's pocket?

What happens when a community decides that their decency laws can be brought to bear on interracial couples?

It is NOT normal. But to endorse it will eventually create the impression of it being normal. First tolerate, than accept, then embrace. That’s how those things go. I’m sure that if we discussed pedophilia and displayed it in public, it would become “normal” too. But that would not make it right.

You love dropping that particular poison in the well! As we discussed, pedophilia is a lousy comparison to use. But back to the point — you asked what the non-sexual homosexual lifestyle was. I responded, explaining that it's the normal lifestyle . . . the things that almost all couples do in public. It seems like this normalcy is exactly the kind of thing that you don't want homosexuals to "promote" in public.

I’m not talking about holding hands, shopping together, or going to movies together. I’m talking about what is promoted by the government in government-run public education.

Well, no; you're talking about community decency laws and laws concerning legal unions, neither of which have much to do with public education at all. So let's get it out and clear: do you support laws, community, state or federal, prohibiting romantic expression between homosexuals or other non-sexual displays of the "homosexual lifestyle?"

Then we can classify bullying, right?
If you bully someone because they are poor–10 lashes.
If you bully someone because they have pimples-15 lashes.
If you bully someone because they talk funny–15 lashes.
If you bully someone because they are gay, 100 lashes.

Is that what you are advocating?

I was pretty clearly talking about countering a culture of bullying by teaching tolerance of the bullies' target. How you turned that into advocating corporal punishment is beyond me. So, again, how can you teach children not to target homosexuals without teaching tolerance of homosexuality? (See, I even italicized what I'm advocating for you this time!)

Neither promote nor demote that idea. Since our society is so enamored with “rights” and litigation, that’s the way it has to be, IMO.

Well, any law that prevents legal same-sex unions is, de facto, promoting the belief that marriage consists of only one man and one woman. So are we in agreement that there should be no restrictions of marriage regarding sexual orientation?

Trying to bring things back into focus, Sam.

Well, no; public education wasn't the original focus. The original focus was JimL and "Liberalism trying to legislate morality" via Dodd-Frank. And that's exactly the topic my question centered on: why is it acceptable to legislate sexual morality but not acceptable to legislate economic morality?

You can make laws against behavior. But don’t expect laws to change the heart.

Again, not an answer. I'm asking for what distinction there is between sexual immorality and economic immorality that would allow us to legislate the one and not the other. It doesn't seem to be a distinction that you can articulate.

So, the law hasn’t curtailed fraud, and it’s the Republican’s fault. That’s a brilliant argument.

It's a sufficient argument, surely. If the Republicans are working full-tilt to prevent the law from even being implemented then it's kind of their fault for it not working.

You can legislate against behavior and punish behavior. You cannot use legislation to change the heart or to punish belief. Have I said this enough yet?

It doesn't much matter how many times you say it, until you can make a distinction between legislating against immoral sexual behavior and legislating against immoral economic behavior that allows for the former and not the latter.

You said: "the economic immorality, the general topic of which Christ seemed incredibly interested in, given how much of His teaching revolved about victims of economic injustice."
I’m asking where Christ actually taught the proper role of government in correcting economic injustice. At least show me where your statement comes from. Where did Christ show incredible interest in economic injustice? Or were you just spitting in the wind with this comment?

And I'm asking for where Christ actually taught the proper role of government in correcting sexual immorality. I never claimed that Christ had to explicitly outline a government role in morality. You, however, believe that the government should have a role in sexual morality but not economic morality. My question seeks to find whether you're applying yourself consistently. If you can't show me where Christ taught the proper role of government in correcting sexual behavior, I can hardly be faulted for not finding where Christ taught such a governmental role in economic behavior (especially since I never claimed that He did!), right?

—Sam

[OtherCheek]

Well, if we're keeping track, I think I pointed out numerous cases in numerous studies that you referenced without you returning a defense of why your interpretation was correct. At the very least, we're pretty even on that track. Regarding the "glaring flaws," half of them disregarded the scope of the study and generalized one study to an entire argument and the other half were pointed at Patterson, not the study. I didn't see any value in trying to explain what scope means again or pointing out that disregarding Patterson's works for having an "agenda" while referencing as authoritative groups whose mission statement concerns fighting same-sex partnerships is more than a little hypocritical.

You asked for something in that thread, and I provided it with the warning that these studies can’t be trusted. Now you are complaining because neither you nor I can provide a study that is reliable and trustworthy. As I predicted.

But to say that I'm bringing nothing constructive to these conversations, given the time I've spent on-point and in-book is pretty weak.

The bulk of your effort is to bash the other person’s position with little elaboration of your own.

So heresy isn't as bad for society because it doesn't intrinsically create war (even though it's historically a big reason for war) but homosexuality intrinsically creates sickness?

Where did I say that homosexuality intrinsically creates sickness? It IS sickness, IMO. And it does often lead to HIV and AIDS. But more to point, my position is that homosexuality promotes population decline. Do you want to argue with that?

And we can't have a foreign ethnicity coming in and overpopulating an indigenous people, right?

Sure we can. That’s probably how many civilizations die out, in fact, and become extinct. That’s a good thing, I guess, when an old civilization becomes so wicked that God want’s them destroyed.

Heresy doesn't have to be the cause of war — homosexuality isn't the cause of sickness, after all. Rather, we're talking about correlations and, historically, heresy and social unrest have a very high correlation. I'd venture that many more societies have been destroyed by heresy than by homosexuality. So what happens when a large group of people decide again that Mormons are threatening their societal health?

Homosexuality has never been the threat that it presents today, except perhaps in Sodom and Gomorrah. And we know what happened there.

Whose family is being destroyed by monogamous same-sex unions?

No ones family unless the parents divorce, THAT weakens the family.

What rights of yours are preserved by prohibitions against same-sex legal unions?

I’m not advocating a prohibition against same-sex legal unions. Let them unifyif they want and give them actual Constitution rights as couples. Just don’t call it “marriage.”

What is being called indecent? Holding hands? Kissing? Hands in each other's pocket?

Called indecent by whom? Just me? I’m not a dictator, and the community standards laws would have to be decided upon by a majority. Some literature, and language and activities such as hands in each other’s pockets, french kissing comes to mind immediately. Pornography whether same-sex or heterosexual as well. I would take my family to Vegas more were there not so much sexual propaganda and promiscuity advertised on every sidewalk and street corner. Do you really think that every community in America should adopt the same standards as are allowed in Vegas, all in the name of “tolerance?”

What happens when a community decides that their decency laws can be brought to bear on interracial couples?

What DOES happen? Are all community decency laws then declared unconstitutional?

You love dropping that particular poison in the well! As we discussed, pedophilia is a lousy comparison to use. But back to the point — you asked what the non-sexual homosexual lifestyle was. I responded, explaining that it's the normal lifestyle . . . the things that almost all couples do in public. It seems like this normalcy is exactly the kind of thing that you don't want homosexuals to "promote" in public.

Normal couples don’t put their hands in the other person’s pockets in public. But my main issue is using the government-run public school system to sanction, teach, and promote homosexuality.

Well, no; you're talking about community decency laws and laws concerning legal unions, neither of which have much to do with public education at all. So let's get it out and clear: do you support laws, community, state or federal, prohibiting romantic expression between homosexuals or other non-sexual displays of the "homosexual lifestyle?"

You are the one introducing all of the comparisons. We began talking about same-sex marriage and why I oppose it. Those reasons are that if the definition of marriage is changed, then the government will be placed in a situation where it must be taught, promoted, and sanctioned through the public school system. Then we began talking about the word “promoted” and the different ways to promote the homosexual lifestyle to the rising generation. And how the promotion of homosexuality doesn’t exactly promote population growth, but decline and eventual extinction if it is carried to it’s greatest extent.

I was pretty clearly talking about countering a culture of bullying by teaching tolerance of the bullies' target. How you turned that into advocating corporal punishment is beyond me. So, again, how can you teach children not to target homosexuals without teaching tolerance of homosexuality? (See, I even italicized what I'm advocating for you this time!)

I’m fine with teaching tolerance and respect, but not for teaching a special measure of tolerance especially for one thing over another. Teach tolerance as a whole and don’t put more emphasis on homosexual tolerance than on religious tolerance for example.

Well, any law that prevents legal same-sex unions is, de facto, promoting the belief that marriage consists of only one man and one woman. So are we in agreement that there should be no restrictions of marriage regarding sexual orientation?

No. We are not. And I don’t make the connection that you just did. You can legalize a “union” without calling it a “marriage”.

Well, no; public education wasn't the original focus. The original focus was JimL and "Liberalism trying to legislate morality" via Dodd-Frank. And that's exactly the topic my question centered on: why is it acceptable to legislate sexual morality but not acceptable to legislate economic morality?

Dodd-Frank has accomplished what exactly? How many retirement plans has it saved? Has it made people into better people? Morality is about being a good person and becoming a better person at heart, not just about following legislated laws.

And I told you as well, that preserving a society is important, at least to me and some others. Homosexuality is not going to be healthy for the growth and durability of a society. It leads to their eventual extinction if carried to its limits. And at best, it leads to the extinction of one’s own seed.

It's a sufficient argument, surely. If the Republicans are working full-tilt to prevent the law from even being implemented then it's kind of their fault for it not working.

It’s all the Republican’s fault then?

It doesn't much matter how many times you say it, until you can make a distinction between legislating against immoral sexual behavior and legislating against immoral economic behavior that allows for the former and not the latter.

I’m fine with passing laws against doing harm to one another, and doing harm to society. My point has always been even when I replied to JimL, that you can’t legislate morality, and then I explained what that means–that you cannot legislate a change in heart in people. As far as punishing stealing, I have no problem with that. As far as prohibiting things harmful to the preservation of decency or preservation of the family, or preservation of society, I have no problem with that either. In fact I’m all for it. So, what has Dodd-Frank accomplished again?

And I'm asking for where Christ actually taught the proper role of government in correcting sexual immorality. I never claimed that Christ had to explicitly outline a government role in morality. You, however, believe that the government should have a role in sexual morality but not economic morality. My question seeks to find whether you're applying yourself consistently. If you can't show me where Christ taught the proper role of government in correcting sexual behavior, I can hardly be faulted for not finding where Christ taught such a governmental role in economic behavior (especially since I never claimed that He did!), right?

—Sam

You are the one advocating that government change the definition of marriage.

You are also the one who said:

“But which immorality are we to vote against? The sexual immorality that the Bible mentions a handful of times and doesn't even appear on Christ's checklist of "Things to Talk About" or the economic immorality, the general topic of which Christ seemed incredibly interested in, given how much of His teaching revolved about victims of economic injustice.”

That’s a pretty bold statement. So, are you now retracting that? It would seem so. But I’m not just going to assume you are retracting it, you need to actually say so.

[Ansgar Seraph]

You asked for something in that thread, and I provided it with the warning that these studies can’t be trusted. Now you are complaining because neither you nor I can provide a study that is reliable and trustworthy. As I predicted.

Not nearly close to reality but, like I said, I can't be bothered much to explain limits of scope; you wrote that drawing conclusions outside a study's scope was "all the better," since those conclusions would somehow be less vulnerable to agenda and bias. Hard to rationally talk someone down from that.

The bulk of your effort is to bash the other person’s position with little elaboration of your own.

Again, I have by far been the most prolific in drawing from outside sources to lay out my points. And whereas you have tended to merely link to a reference or page, I've gone deep, detailing how various sources support my positions. I've quite extensively elaborated my positions!

Where did I say that homosexuality intrinsically creates sickness? It IS sickness, IMO. And it does often lead to HIV and AIDS. But more to point, my position is that homosexuality promotes population decline. Do you want to argue with that?

Comparing heresy and homosexuality, you said we lose lives through war and sickness; heresy loses lives through war (but heresy isn't the cause) and homosexuality loses lives through sickness. Isn't that what you meant? If not, then your response was even less on topic.

No, homosexuality doesn't promote population decline. There is no evidence that would list homosexuality as a causative force in that regard.

Sure we can. That’s probably how many civilizations die out, in fact, and become extinct. That’s a good thing, I guess, when an old civilization becomes so wicked that God want’s them destroyed.

So then Arab Muslims overpopulating Europe isn't a problem? If it's homosexuality that's causing population decline in Europe, the extinction of the civilization becomes God's will, by your account.

Homosexuality has never been the threat that it presents today, except perhaps in Sodom and Gomorrah. And we know what happened there.

Was homosexuality the threat at Sodom or was it the desire to violently gang-rape outsiders? How, exactly, are monogamous homosexual couples like the Sodomites?

No ones family unless the parents divorce, THAT weakens the family.

If heterosexuals managed a bit better on the divorce rate, maybe you could play that card. But you can hardly call same-sex marriage the "destruction of the traditional family" if what you mean by it is that same-sex couples, by virtue of having legal families, will also have legal divorces. That bridge is already burned.

I’m not advocating a prohibition against same-sex legal unions. Let them unifyif they want and give them actual Constitution rights as couples. Just don’t call it “marriage.”

Well, it's going to be called "marriage." There's no practical way around that. So you would not support a government prohibition against same-sex marriage? Or does calling it "marriage" violate a right?

Called indecent by whom? Just me? I’m not a dictator, and the community standards laws would have to be decided upon by a majority. Some literature, and language and activities such as hands in each other’s pockets, french kissing comes to mind immediately. Pornography whether same-sex or heterosexual as well. I would take my family to Vegas more were there not so much sexual propaganda and promiscuity advertised on every sidewalk and street corner. Do you really think that every community in America should adopt the same standards as are allowed in Vegas, all in the name of “tolerance?”

I'm a big fan of the Golden Mean, personally.

What DOES happen? Are all community decency laws then declared unconstitutional?

Certainly some of them! But we can drop this sub-topic if you're not advocating using community decency laws to prohibit homosexuals from doing anything that heterosexuals are allowed.

Normal couples don’t put their hands in the other person’s pockets in public. But my main issue is using the government-run public school system to sanction, teach, and promote homosexuality.

I see such phenomena fairly often walking around so I'm pretty sure it's relatively normal.

You are the one introducing all of the comparisons. We began talking about same-sex marriage and why I oppose it. Those reasons are that if the definition of marriage is changed, then the government will be placed in a situation where it must be taught, promoted, and sanctioned through the public school system. Then we began talking about the word “promoted” and the different ways to promote the homosexual lifestyle to the rising generation. And how the promotion of homosexuality doesn’t exactly promote population growth, but decline and eventual extinction if it is carried to it’s greatest extent.

That's the case regardless of whether the definition of marriage is changed — if you support full legal equality for same-sex unions, the government will be "promoting" the behavior in exactly the same way as if the term were "marriage." And I don't see how public schools would teach the two institutions as different things, from the secular perspective.

I’m fine with teaching tolerance and respect, but not for teaching a special measure of tolerance especially for one thing over another. Teach tolerance as a whole and don’t put more emphasis on homosexual tolerance than on religious tolerance for example.

By no means. But teaching tolerance as a whole will still necessarily entail specifically teaching tolerance for homosexuality and religion.

No. We are not. And I don’t make the connection that you just did. You can legalize a “union” without calling it a “marriage”.

What's the difference, apart from semantics?

Dodd-Frank has accomplished what exactly? How many retirement plans has it saved? Has it made people into better people? Morality is about being a good person and becoming a better person at heart, not just about following legislated laws.

And legislation is about preventing and redressing harm. Dodd-Frank is a law meant to prevent excessive financial harm done by irresponsible mega-companies.

And I told you as well, that preserving a society is important, at least to me and some others. Homosexuality is not going to be healthy for the growth and durability of a society. It leads to their eventual extinction if carried to its limits. And at best, it leads to the extinction of one’s own seed.

So does chastity! And yet, both Christ and Paul said that all who could remain "spiritual eunuchs" should do so.

Any road, I'd like to see some hard numbers on same-sex marriage and population rates. Switzerland has had same-sex unions since 2007 and its growth rate hasn't changed from the trend. Sweden's growth rate has remained steady since legalizing same-sex unions. Spain's population growth rate has increased, though that almost certainly isn't because of same-sex unions.

So what evidence are you pulling from to support your claim?

It’s all the Republican’s fault then?

Well, yeah. It's their fault that the law isn't being implemented as it should. Now, if it were implemented and it still wasn't helping matters, your original objection about its uselessness would be appropriate. Until it's implemented, however, you can't very much complain that it isn't working.

I’m fine with passing laws against doing harm to one another, and doing harm to society. My point has always been even when I replied to JimL, that you can’t legislate morality, and then I explained what that means–that you cannot legislate a change in heart in people. As far as punishing stealing, I have no problem with that. As far as prohibiting things harmful to the preservation of decency or preservation of the family, or preservation of society, I have no problem with that either. In fact I’m all for it. So, what has Dodd-Frank accomplished again?

Well, I'm sure that JimL would say that Dodd-Frank isn't about legislating morality, that it's about preventing a class of immoral actors in the financial sector from causing extreme harm to the population. So you don't have a problem with that type of regulation, correct?

You are the one advocating that government change the definition of marriage.

You are also the one who said:

“But which immorality are we to vote against? The sexual immorality that the Bible mentions a handful of times and doesn't even appear on Christ's checklist of "Things to Talk About" or the economic immorality, the general topic of which Christ seemed incredibly interested in, given how much of His teaching revolved about victims of economic injustice.”

That’s a pretty bold statement. So, are you now retracting that? It would seem so. But I’m not just going to assume you are retracting it, you need to actually say so.

Not nearly. But I'm certainly not going to allow you to create a meaning that I didn't imply by couching Christ's teachings in terms of governmental response.

Check out Luke 16. Look how often Christ preaches about the poor, about debt. The man started His ministry by declaring Jubilee — a principally economic redistribution. That Christ took great interest in economic themes certainly isn't a novel statement . . . or even a particularly bold one. All one needs is a concordance to reach the conclusion.

—Sam

[JimL]

OC, its about equal rights, not about the title(marriage)applied to two people who commit to each other. But if homosexuals who commit to each other are granted all the same rights under the law that are granted to married heterosexuals, what difference does it make what you call their union. Are you really concerned about it being called a marriage, or are you concerned about them being granted the same rights under the law as are granted to you? I mean really, they will call it whatever they want anyway no matter what you or the state call it, so long as they are treated equally under the law.

[OtherCheek]

Not nearly close to reality but, like I said, I can't be bothered much to explain limits of scope; you wrote that drawing conclusions outside a study's scope was "all the better," since those conclusions would somehow be less vulnerable to agenda and bias. Hard to rationally talk someone down from that.

The one study you were able to present for our review here on Tweb was filled with flaws.

Again, I have by far been the most prolific in drawing from outside sources to lay out my points. And whereas you have tended to merely link to a reference or page, I've gone deep, detailing how various sources support my positions. I've quite extensively elaborated my positions!

And your position regarding the legislating of morality is...

Comparing heresy and homosexuality, you said we lose lives through war and sickness; heresy loses lives through war (but heresy isn't the cause) and homosexuality loses lives through sickness. Isn't that what you meant? If not, then your response was even less on topic.

Homosexuality loses lives through HIV and AIDS, and it promotes the decline of a society by promoting negative population growth. Yes. Who is going to pay for your social security benefits if there are fewer and fewer of the next generation that are available to work? Will you depend upon illegal aliens to do it?

No, homosexuality doesn't promote population decline. There is no evidence that would list homosexuality as a causative force in that regard.

Do you really need a study to show that a homosexual union has no chance of producing offspring?

So then Arab Muslims overpopulating Europe isn't a problem? If it's homosexuality that's causing population decline in Europe, the extinction of the civilization becomes God's will, by your account.

It isn’t a problem for those who would promote cultural suicide. Correct. Sometimes God gives people over to their own stupidity and the natural consequences of their own wickedness. He may not even need to send fire out of heaven, either.

Was homosexuality the threat at Sodom or was it the desire to violently gang-rape outsiders? How, exactly, are monogamous homosexual couples like the Sodomites?

Well, the term sodomy comes from somewhere. And I don’t think it means “gang rape of outsiders,” bad as that is.

If heterosexuals managed a bit better on the divorce rate, maybe you could play that card. But you can hardly call same-sex marriage the "destruction of the traditional family" if what you mean by it is that same-sex couples, by virtue of having legal families, will also have legal divorces. That bridge is already burned.

There are many things that contribute to the destruction of the family. The destruction of the term “marriage” being one of them.

Well, it's going to be called "marriage." There's no practical way around that. So you would not support a government prohibition against same-sex marriage? Or does calling it "marriage" violate a right?

Changing the definition of marriage is not a Constitutional right.

I'm a big fan of the Golden Mean, personally.

Meaning what? Each community can establish their own Golden Mean? Or does it mean to homogenize all standards across America to the same Golden Mean?

I see such phenomena fairly often walking around so I'm pretty sure it's relatively normal.

I don’t see it where I walk around. Where do you “walk around”?

That's the case regardless of whether the definition of marriage is changed — if you support full legal equality for same-sex unions, the government will be "promoting" the behavior in exactly the same way as if the term were "marriage." And I don't see how public schools would teach the two institutions as different things, from the secular perspective.

I like the idea of the term “Marriage” being kept apart from homosexuality. Marriage is an institution that promotes the building of society, and bearing offspring, and the healthy continuance of society. Under real marriage, sex is not strictly for the purpose of “self gratification”. It at least has the potential of creating life under the same roof of two devoted, and loving biological parents. That should be each child’s birthright. Homosexual unions have no chance of creating life, or building the next generation, or creating offspring to fund your social security for you. (That was a little sarcasm there.)
[QUOTE=Ansgar Seraph;3409799]
By no means. But teaching tolerance as a whole will still necessarily entail specifically teaching tolerance for homosexuality and religion. [quote]
I have no problem with teaching tolerance for people and sinners, as long as there are no “special rules for one special group.” But I do have a problem with teaching tolerance for the sin (or the wrongful behavior.)

What's the difference, apart from semantics?

Words, and the meaning of words. Words are important to parents who use words to teach morals to their children.

And legislation is about preventing and redressing harm. Dodd-Frank is a law meant to prevent excessive financial harm done by irresponsible mega-companies.

Well, if it ever works to accomplish that then great. It’s a shame that our society has degenerated so far that we need so many laws to tell us what we can and cannot do. But harm will still happen, and redressing harm will continue to be insufficient. But the lawyers will have a heyday.

So does chastity! And yet, both Christ and Paul said that all who could remain "spiritual eunuchs" should do so.

“Chastity” does mean or even imply the prohibition of sexual relations within the bonds of matrimony. “Spiritual eunuchs?” Chastity refers to sins such as adultery, and fornication. And clarify what you mean “spiritual eunuch.” Jesus nor Paul ever taught that the ideal was to lead the human race to extinction.

Any road, I'd like to see some hard numbers on same-sex marriage and population rates. Switzerland has had same-sex unions since 2007 and its growth rate hasn't changed from the trend. Sweden's growth rate has remained steady since legalizing same-sex unions. Spain's population growth rate has increased, though that almost certainly isn't because of same-sex unions.

Probably wouldn’t be politically correct to conduct such a study.

Immigrants account for growth in most Western European nations.

According to 2005 data, all countries of Western Europe (the European Union's first 15 members (EU-15), Norway, and Switzerland) have a positive migration balance, as do six of the 10 new EU Member States — Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, and Slovakia. It is very likely that, sooner or later, this will also be the case in the rest of Europe.
http://www.migrationinformation.org/...lay.cfm?ID=402

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Switzerland

I believe the population decline is due, in part, to the degradation of the institution of “marriage”. That would include the soaring divorce rates, and same-sex marriage government approval.

So what evidence are you pulling from to support your claim?

The claim that same sex unions do not promote the creation of offspring? I thought that would be self-evident. It is to me. Just call it my own logical deduction that homosex does not create offspring. And where such unions are sanctioned and promoted by law, there will be consequences on people dumb enough to be impressed and influenced by such a law that demotes the institution and status of “marriage”.

Hungary has a new constitution which bans SSM, as well as abortion. They happen to have been suffering from population decline in the last several years. Maybe they don’t see any connection between endorsing same-sex marriage, and population decline, or maybe they do.

Well, yeah. It's their fault that the law isn't being implemented as it should. Now, if it were implemented and it still wasn't helping matters, your original objection about its uselessness would be appropriate. Until it's implemented, however, you can't very much complain that it isn't working.

Hopefully it will do more good than harm to the free enterprise system. But it still will have no power to make people better people at heart.

Well, I'm sure that JimL would say that Dodd-Frank isn't about legislating morality, that it's about preventing a class of immoral actors in the financial sector from causing extreme harm to the population. So you don't have a problem with that type of regulation, correct?

Some regulations can cause more harm than good. Usually, time tells best on these things. I think some things probably need regulation, but I don’t want regulation to weaken the free-market, free enterprise system we enjoy and benefit from.

Not nearly. But I'm certainly not going to allow you to create a meaning that I didn't imply by couching Christ's teachings in terms of governmental response.

How else do you propose to remedy “economic injustice” if not through government force? I believe that the best approach is a spiritual, moral one where each person is taught to be responsible to be his brother’s keeper, instead of a government forced solution. It would be a religious solution instead.

Check out Luke 16. Look how often Christ preaches about the poor, about debt. The man started His ministry by declaring Jubilee — a principally economic redistribution. That Christ took great interest in economic themes certainly isn't a novel statement . . . or even a particularly bold one. All one needs is a concordance to reach the conclusion.

—Sam

Jubilee is about forgiveness of debt, and the giving up of land ownership to the priests. It is not any kind of “redistribution” in the way we look at it in our political discussions. Ownership went to the priests. The poor were forgiven their debts, but they were not given money. Jesus used economic themes to teach a parable and present a principle, but that does not mean that Jesus was teaching economics. He was teaching, rather, a spiritual principle of how to treat one another, and how to magnify one’s stewardship, IMO

[robertb]

My only question is this.

If Romney does win the US Presidency. Will the LDS Church consider this a fulfillment of prophecy?

[Cow Poke]

My only question is this.

If Romney does win the US Presidency. Will the LDS Church consider this a fulfillment of prophecy?

And will the Mormons claim this is so that Romney can save the Constitution, which is "hanging by a thread"?

[themuzicman]

Does Romney truly believe that God lives on planet Kolab, and that as a worthy Mormon he too will become a God with 100 wives and rule his own planet for eternity? Is this really part of the Mormon teaching? Normally I would not inject ones religious beliefs into election politics, even though I think that all theists must needs be a little bit loopy. But, if the above is true, do I really want someone nutty enough to believe the above to be the leader of the free world? No way, I can't be that accepting. Can you?

Let's figure out whether Obama is Muslim and whether he believes what HIS church teaches, first.

[Cow Poke]

Let's figure out whether Obama is Muslim and whether he believes what HIS church teaches, first.

Naw, let's just vote him out of office and be done with it.

[OtherCheek]

So, get this:
Obama calls Romney to say he thinks it is time the country had a Mormon president. But just as Romney is thanking the president for the apparent concession, Obama interrupts him to say, 'My baptism is on Saturday.'

[robertb]

And will the Mormons claim this is so that Romney can save the Constitution, which is "hanging by a thread"?

Which thread would that be? Seems to me that you simply get what you pay for.

[JimL]

Let's figure out whether Obama is Muslim and whether he believes what HIS church teaches, first.

What if he was Muslim, would that disqualify him?

[OtherCheek]

OC, its about equal rights, not about the title(marriage)applied to two people who commit to each other. But if homosexuals who commit to each other are granted all the same rights under the law that are granted to married heterosexuals, what difference does it make what you call their union. Are you really concerned about it being called a marriage, or are you concerned about them being granted the same rights under the law as are granted to you? I mean really, they will call it whatever they want anyway no matter what you or the state call it, so long as they are treated equally under the law.

I'm not concerned about them getting rights. I want to preserve that term "Marriage" as an ideal environment for procreation, and rearing of a family. Homosexual unions are NOT ideal for that purpose, IMO. Changing the meaning of "Marriage" to accommodate same sex unions only degrades the ideal, into something far less than ideal.

If it is REALLY about real and actual rights, then you don't need to co-opt the term Marriage.

[JimL]

I'm not concerned about them getting rights. I want to preserve that term "Marriage" as an ideal environment for procreation, and rearing of a family. Homosexual unions are NOT ideal for that purpose, IMO. Changing the meaning of "Marriage" to accommodate same sex unions only degrades the ideal, into something far less than ideal.

If it is REALLY about real and actual rights, then you don't need to co-opt the term Marriage.

So, you are all for homosexuals getting married, and being granted the same rights as wedded heterosexuals, you just don't want them to call it marriage? And how do you suppose that once they are united we stop them or others from refering to themselves as married?

[Cerebrum123]

What if he was Muslim, would that disqualify him?

No, but it would show that he lied about something that is very important to a great deal of Americans.