smac97

I don't think so. Not as a categorical, aggregate statement. Heterosexual marriage facilitates procreation. There are some on the margins who are unable to procreate, but that's the exception, not the rule. There are also some who are unwilling to procreate. Again, that's the exception. I'd need to look at the stats and how "no child in the home" marital households are counted. Is that just a snapshot in time? Did they have kids before, but are now emptynesters? Per Wikipedia: "Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married (82.5%) t

Your perspective is awfully hard to understand. Your continued use of "dogma" is interesting. Not only have I rejected it, but your position seems far more dogmatic than mine. Thanks, -Smac

If a heterosexual marriage is "unable to reproduce," then it's an exception to the rule. Categorically, heterosexual marriages contemplate and facilitate procreation. Categorically, same-sex marriages do not. I don't think we can or ought to argue from the margins. Not really. Yes, really. Special pleading. And argument from the margins. Anecdotal exceptions to the rule do not overcome the rule. The sociological data are overwhelming in terms of the benefits of a child being raised in a home with a mother and a father. I try to go by data

I wouldn't. Revelation from God is good (though still susceptible to erroneous or misguided interpretation/application). "Secular" wisdom is a lot more of a mixed bag. I suppose this turns on what you mean by "good." I think the Church's teachings about marriage and sexuality are very "good," and also substantively conform to God's expectations of us. Secular "insights" are all over the place. I think the general principle is sound. The particulars of how it is taught and observed can vary a bit. And we are living in an increasingly sexualized and perverted society.

I never said this. The reference to "species" was a taxonomic reference to contextualize SSM. Not a literal one. Thanks, -Smac

I have three adopted siblings. My wife and I repeatedly discussed the possibility of adopting (I wanted to), but ultimately determined we should not. I very much admire parents who adopt. Thanks, -Smac

And yet here you are, referencing expectations about "resolution" instead of plausibility. Proponents of the BoA have never pursued the former, and yet you are faulting them for not attaining it. Weird. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think my designations are ad hoc. I quite disagree. Gay marriage is a novelty. It essentially sprung into existence just a very few years ago, as opposed to the thousands of years of monogamy (and polygamy). Same-sex marriage has no procreative intention or capacity. Same-sex marriage marriage necessarily and by design deprives any child in such a household of a father or a mother. Same-sex marriage lacks gender complementarianism. And so on. I've acknowledged this. Thanks, -Smac

I think it's more socially acceptable in the Church these days to wait. In the past it I think it was more socially "expected" (but not really required) to not delay having kids. For me, I am very grateful that my wife and I did not wait. Having them drew my wife and I closer together, made us more committed to each other and our family, and helped us focus on education, employment, elimination of debt, and other important considerations. It also made having a large family more feasible, as my wife was in her young 30s when we decided that six kids was a sufficient amount of multiplyin

A few weeks ago, during a family dinner, my children and I got into a discussion about English transliterations. I asked them if they had ever heard of "Peking Duck," and they said they had. I asked them what they thought Peking Duck might have to do with the capital of China, Beijing. They guessed "Um, people eat Peking Duck in Beijing?" I then asked them what they think "Peking" means in relation to "Beijing," and they could not answer. I then explained that "Peking" and "Beijing" are the same thing. They were confused. I explained that "Peking" and "Beijing" both mean the exact

In a sense, you are correct. In terms of strict taxonomic designations, polygamy is materially "different" from monogamy. But if we go further up in the nomenclature, I think they merge. As in "different species, same genus." In contrast, same-sex marriage is a wholly different species and genus. No man-woman pairing, no procreative intent, no procreative capacity. It is a fundamentally distinctive kind of "marriage." Thanks, -Smac

I wasn't really expecting "resolution." I think we can only work with what we've got. With what's available. You seem to have a preconceived set of expectations about what "evidence" means, about how probative it is, about the quantum of evidence that is required to reach "resolution," and so on. If so, I think think these expectations are quite unrealistic. And unnecessarily so. Nobody in the Church is presenting evidence, argument, ideas, etc. to reach "resolution" about "claims." Folks like Gee, Muhlestein, Nibley, Rhodes, Barney, Tvedtnes, Peterson, Lindsay, etc. are

Okay. I think they've done that. The Law of Chastity is a wonderful thing. Could you expound on what you mean by "fully understand the doctrines around sexuality?" Sure. Some insights are good. Some are not. Guidance about sexuality is not an either/or proposition. We can look to both revelatory and secular sources for guidance, just as we do for most other areas of inquiry. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Usually, yes. Per John Gee, that is the "standard interpretation," but also that evidence indicates that "the symbols did not remain stagnant throughout history, as is usually assumed." "{T}hough the canopic jar became widely used in the funerary equipment {starting in the Fifth Dynasty (from the early 25th century BC until the mid 24th century BC)}, no evidence exists to connect it with the Sons of Horus until the First Intermediate Period {c. 2181–2055 BC}." Hence the "standard interpretation" is not the only one. See, e.g., here: This understanding is sha

I sure would appreciate you not misrepresenting me. It is increasingly clear that you subscribed to the "Dale Morgan" school of thought as to what "evidence" means: anything other than what can support the truth claims of the Church of Jesus Christ. Literally anything else, even if it lacks a scintilla of supporting or corroborating reasoning and is sheer, unsupported ad hoc speculation, is - in your view - more "probable." Well, okay then. Thanks, -Smac