Why Am I Against Gay Marriage?

[MormonMason]

Oh, well that settles it then. Thanks, professor!

You are welcome. Oh, and should this experiment come down to a human clinical trial, would you be willing to participate?

[MormonMason]

The article I linked to discusses that the XY chromosomes are not directly linked to the role that brain development plays in gender identity.

Certainly, we have much to learn. It seems the direction we are moving in is towards one of greater complexity and a less-easily defined gender divide rather than to a more simple, eternal gender identity that could easily apply to the preexistance, mortality, and continue to the next life.

Until we have gained this better understanding, I choose tolerance and prefer to err on the side of what I percieve as justice. I don't think the arguments for the alternative outweigh this.

Gender identity is not gender. Gender is determined by working sex chromosomes. Period. Gender identity is influenced by environment and, if further experiments do not falsify the data, chemicals.

[semlogo]

You are welcome. Oh, and should this experiment come down to a human clinical trial, would you be willing to participate?

Depends. Will there be free food involved?

[MormonMason]

Depends. Will there be free food involved?

Possibly. The control group likely will get lesser to no quantities of glutamates in their food and/or will receive normal saline rather than glutamates in the form of injections. It will all depend upon who gets to formulate the study and on who decides the methodology. Human clinical trials are a way off, however. There is yet more animal study needed across more species boundaries.

[semlogo]

Possibly. The control group likely will get lesser to no quantities of glutamates in their food and/or will receive normal saline rather than glutamates in the form of injections. It will all depend upon who gets to formulate the study and on who decides the methodology. Human clinical trials are a way off, however. There is yet more animal study needed across more species boundaries.

Count me in. If cheese, chicken, beef and tomatoes will turn me gay, I don't want to be straight. I imagine the quickest way to turn gay would be to eat a lot of pizza. Mmm, pizza. Delicious cheesy homosexuality in every slice!

[MormonMason]

Count me in. If cheese, chicken, beef and tomatoes will turn me gay, I don't want to be straight. I imagine the quickest way to turn gay would be to eat a lot of pizza. Mmm, pizza. Delicious cheesy homosexuality in every slice!

None of those likely would do it alone or combined. Several kinds of glutamates will have to be tested in conjunction with various foodstuffs.

[semlogo]

None of those likely would do it alone or combined. Several kinds of glutamates will have to be tested in conjunction with various foodstuffs.

Kind of like the Joker Smilex products. You don't know if it's in the cheese sandwich, the fish filet or the steak. Use the wrong combination, and surprise! You're gay.

Well, whatever the combination, let's hope they have it in extra large, with stuffed crusts.

[MormonMason]

Kind of like the Joker Smilex products. You don't know if it's in the cheese sandwich, the fish filet or the steak. Use the wrong combination, and surprise! You're gay.

Well, whatever the combination, let's hope they have it in extra large, with stuffed crusts.

Besides, if I told you what group you would be in would not that ruin the objectivity of the experiment? No one is allowed to know which group s/he is in until the experiments are completed and the data published.

But, as I said, there is much yet to be done in animal studies and a gene has yet to be identified in humans comparable to the ones in the fruit fly and mouse studies. Sorry, but it will be a while. You may wish to notify the University of Chicago that if they do receive Federal approval and proceed with human studies that you wish to participate therein.

[semlogo]

Besides, if I told you what group you would be in would not that ruin the objectivity of the experiment? No one is allowed to know which group s/he is in until the experiments are completed and the data published.

But, as I said, there is much yet to be done in animal studies and a gene has yet to be identified in humans comparable to the ones in the fruit fly and mouse studies. Sorry, but it will be a while. You may wish to notify the University of Chicago that if they do receive Federal approval and proceed with human studies that you wish to participate therein.

Now I feel betrayed. You led me to believe that it was a done deal, glutamates are definitely responsible for "the gay." I willingly offered myself as a sacrifice on the alter of science, requiring only some free pizza in return (I might settle for a cheeseburger, though), and now you're telling me I might not even get that?

Hrmph. Thanks but no thanks, science.

[markwhannig]

Honorentheos:

I find it interesting that in your argument you continually cite deity and religious discourse on which to base your premises.

Let's make a deal: no more mention of any God. (I think I will find this easy to do since I've not mentioned any God yet, except in quoting you. Even my quote from the proclamation of the family in an earlier post does not mention deity, and simply calls on civil authorities to support the family.)

I'm not sure that we disagree fundamentally about "placing God above state-regulated marriage." (I'm quoting you.) My opinion about SSM has nothing to do with deity. I have never, ever wanted to impose "god as regulator" (again I'm quoting you) within civil matters; and I have never argued a position to do so. Please point out in my posts on this thread anywhere where I have called upon the word of some deity to support my assertions.

You certainly seem preoccupied with deity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assertion of the wrong-minded." Please clarify.

CFR on the Florida case you refer to.

I agree that Gays and Lesbians can make great parents. I also would not fight against Gays and Lesbians being able to adopt -- let them adopt. I'm not sure what someone's parenting skill has to do with SSM. My argument about the definition of "marriage" addresses the definition of the word as directly related to a couple's genetic capacity to produce offspring, whether or not a particular couple would make good parents.

You speak of democratic values. Well the democratic process in California has twice stated that Californians do not want to redefine marriage as same sex. Will the personal opinion of less than 10 supreme court justices be more important than the personal opinion of millions? (We won't derail this thread with a discussion of legislative activism from the bench and it's detrimental effect on the democratic process, indeed it's erosion into oligarchy. But you seem very concerned about ensuring the democratic process -- perhaps we should start a different thread about the effect of the California Supreme Court on democracy.)

No it doesn't take an "act of god" (again your quote) to persuade me when it comes to civil discourse and political decisions . . . it takes a well-reasoned and well-delivered argument.

You state: "there does not seem to be any other significant difference between a SSM and a traditional (one male- one female) marriage." Immediately, I can think of one significant difference: SSM partners can not (by definition) produce offspring. Traditional marriage partners can. Immediately, I can think of another: SSM partners who become parents can not provide a mother and a father to the children they procure; Traditional marriage partners can. (I'll give it some more thought and see if I can come up with more. Thank you for prompting me to think about this.)

You state: "Does opposing SSM make you satanic? Are you in opposition to agency and are willing to sacrifice core values and principles to remove it for some people?" I'm not sure what these questions really mean. But I don't think you or I are "satanic" -- we're just engaged in political dialogue. (Again, you reference religion/theology in this discussion.) And I'm not sure what you mean by "core values" and "principles." Let's back up here and please explain to me what you mean.

In the earlier post I asked: "Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?" You didn't answer.

Don't give up on us now. I admire you for sticking to the political dialouge Honorentheos. Keep it up, you're helping me think through my positions.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[Bat-Man]

I agree that Gays and Lesbians can make great parents.

You're wrong. They can't. They can't even make "good" parents.

... and the moment you start talking about good you necessarily bring up the idea of God because only through God can we know what is good in contrast to evil.

I also would not fight against Gays and Lesbians being able to adopt -- let them adopt.

Thank you. I will fight against that, and because I will fight, I will win.

... if not today, eventually, when what is good and evil is all sorted out, for everyone.

I'm not sure what someone's parenting skill has to do with SSM.

If you're not the SS as a child, you won't make as good a parent as someone who is the SS as the child. That's why girls need Mothers who are women and boys need Fathers who are men.

A man can't do as "good" a job teaching a girl to be a woman as a good woman can.

Chew on that for a while and let me know if you would like some more where that came from.

[semlogo]

You're wrong. They can't. They can't even make "good" parents.

... and the moment you start talking about good you necessarily bring up the idea of God because only through God can we know what is good in contrast to evil.

Thank you. I will fight against that, and because I will fight, I will win.

... if not today, eventually, when what is good and evil is all sorted out, for everyone.

If you're not the SS as a child, you won't make as good a parent as someone who is the SS as the child. That's why girls need Mothers who are women and boys need Fathers who are men.

A man can't do as "good" a job teaching a girl to be a woman as a good woman can.

Chew on that for a while and let me know if you would like some more where that came from.

[Bat-Man]

I eat cats like that for breakfast.

[semlogo]

I eat cats like that for breakfast.

As long they're not gay cats.

[Mighty Curelom]

But, if there is a 'Y' sex chromosome present, the person is a boy in spite of other genetic anomalies that may be present. It is true that environment sometimes plays a part. But, it also does not change the fact that gender is inherent in the existence of man--and always has been from our beginnings as a species on earth. It also is true that science may have found a link to problems that have plagued man for centuries. I look forward to future studies. As a potential result of what we learn, it may be possible to correct problems we as a society have created.

"XY females often do not know that they are XY until they are unable to conceive a child and are tested by karyotyping. In the past, female olympic athletes were tested for XX or XY and some were traumatized by the XY determination. It is therefore possible to be an XY female and not know it. An example is Alice from Holland, shown below. At 17 she went to the doctor to find out why she hadnâ??t had a period. With internal exam, internal imaging and a karyotype, Alice was informed that she was an XY female with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. "

Source

So Alice is a boy, huh? After being raised as a girl, having a female body, and having absolutely no idea she was any different from any other girl until the age of 17, she's still a boy by virtue of her Y chromosome.

I wonder--would you apply the same black and white reasoning to yourself? What would you think if you went in to see the doctor for a routine exame, only to have him tell you that in spite of your beard, male pattern baldness, hairy back, and male genitals, you are actually a girl. Would you look forward to the day when you could have your "mutation" fixed, and be restored to your true feminine form?

It's easy to glibly write off biological variation as minor deviations from a platonic form, but the reality is that there is no platonic form. A modern understanding of evolution makes it undeniably clear that every organism is unique--the first and last of its kind. Categorization into distinct species (and genders) is only a simplified abstraction of biological reality--not an accurate depiction of reality itself.

If there were no other historical, archeological, or scriptural problems with the Mormon religion (and there are plenty), the notion that gender is an essential and eternal attribute of humankind would be enough to debunk Mormonism.

[Honorentheos]

Honorentheos:

I find it interesting that in your argument you continually cite deity and religious discourse on which to base your premises.

To the contrary. I would prefer to keep religion out of the argument entirely. But it has been brought up in this thread and is at the heart of many's arguments against SSM. Perhaps I mistakenly saw in your statement that "marriage is a covenant, or at least a contract" tones of LDS belief that marriage is not an earthly matter. If I was mistaken and your views on homosexuality are not based on your religious beliefs I apologize. Your first post indicates you were formerly indifferent on the issue of SSM but were persuaded otherwise by the talk you linked to.

Based on this talk and taking your assertion at face value, how do you feel preventing same-sex couples from marrying is protecting individuals? IS the way the author uses society dangerously close to the communist collective he previously decries? and in denying the rights to marrriage for individuals based on his assumptions that I will discuss below for the protection of the greater society is he not making his own case against himself?

Let's make a deal: no more mention of any God. (I think I will find this easy to do since I've not mentioned any God yet, except in quoting you. Even my quote from the proclamation of the family in an earlier post does not mention deity, and simply calls on civil authorities to support the family.)

What do you offer in return? I find your credit in this case to be suspect in that you can not discuss this issue from your position without the implication of God if your basis for opposing SSM is on moral grounds. Perhaps if you can show how your views are not underwritten by a belief in God I may be persuaded to agree.

I'm not sure that we disagree fundamentally about "placing God above state-regulated marriage." (I'm quoting you.) My opinion about SSM has nothing to do with deity. I have never, ever wanted to impose "god as regulator" (again I'm quoting you) within civil matters; and I have never argued a position to do so. Please point out in my posts on this thread anywhere where I have called upon the word of some deity to support my assertions.

You certainly seem preoccupied with deity.

I'm not sure what you mean by "assertion of the wrong-minded." Please clarify.

The first issues will be addressed below. Regarding wrong-minded assertions, it is my belief that the opposition to SSM in the United States is predominately founded on prejudice, and this is fueled by religion rather than evidence. I consider prejudice of this sort to be wrong-minded. I would hope we agree on that even if you do not feel your views are based on prejudice.

CFR on the Florida case you refer to.

Florida Case

You can find a link to the actual judgment in the report.

You speak of democratic values. Well the democratic process in California has twice stated that Californians do not want to redefine marriage as same sex. Will the personal opinion of less than 10 supreme court justices be more important than the personal opinion of millions? (We won't derail this thread with a discussion of legislative activism from the bench and it's detrimental effect on the democratic process, indeed it's erosion into oligarchy. But you seem very concerned about ensuring the democratic process -- perhaps we should start a different thread about the effect of the California Supreme Court on democracy.)

Perhaps, though it would likely be deleted or subsumed into one of the prop 8 threads I believe.

But to your point, I borrow a phrase from the talk you quoted in your own first post -

"...as Frederick Douglass reminded us in his tribute to Lincoln, public opinion and other constraints sometimes limit what can be done at the moment to advance any just cause."

This is why in a previous post I brought up the illustration of the severe opposition to the creation of a federal constitution in 1787, a document many of us today would likely view as one of the most important milestones in the progress of humanity towards granting greater access to freedom and justice.

To quote Emerson - "Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors. "

Overcoming long-standing prejudice in the public discourse takes time and effort. We have a duty to serve as editors when we may. We all have ample opportunity to act as bullies.

This is why I believe in rigorous civic discourse, as you do I assume based on your comment below.

No it doesn't take an "act of god" (again your quote) to persuade me when it comes to civil discourse and political decisions . . . it takes a well-reasoned and well-delivered argument.

You state: "there does not seem to be any other significant difference between a SSM and a traditional (one male- one female) marriage." Immediately, I can think of one significant difference: SSM partners can not (by definition) produce offspring. Traditional marriage partners can. Immediately, I can think of another: SSM partners who become parents can not provide a mother and a father to the children they procure; Traditional marriage partners can. (I'll give it some more thought and see if I can come up with more. Thank you for prompting me to think about this.)

This seems to be the portion of the talk that you have assumed as your own thoughts. I do not view the matter as being so simple.

The case your author makes is that SSM partners can not be fully a part of the pageant of humanity because their sex acts do not reenact the procreative act in the correct manner. I assume he does not preclude them from the emotionally uniting aspects of sex. To do so would show a weakness of mind that fails to be able to extend itself out of ones own experience and into anothers.

I know that it is a simplification of his views, but once one recognizes that fertility and therefore actual ability to procreate is not a requirement of marriage, one must see his views regarding the sex-act within marriage as being akin to fertility ritual.

He is, in effect, saying a man must place his sword in a woman's chalice (as the wiccans say) in symbolism of the actual, functional, procreative act in order to truly be married, independant of that act actually producing offspring or even of the couple being able to produce offspring. It only matters that the pageant is acted out properly. This seems very pagen to me in that it has nothing to do with actual enlightenment values.

You would deny someone the just ability to marry their loved one because they can not properly take part in a drama as defined by this author? What if the man is impotent? What if the couple never actually consummates their marriage due to an accident on their wedding day? Were they not then truly married? I say the last tongue-in-cheek, but only to suggest this literal interpretation as sexual consummation of marriage as ritual is flawed within it's own definition.

In all seriousness, the argument is one of marriage as ritual drama over values. I cannot support it.

And the Florida case is still my argument on the parenting issue. The government would make an enemy out of me the day they begin to round up children out of homes just because there is not a father and a mother (one male - one female) to put them in these ideal situations.

Edited to add: I did not support the state of Texas this last year in their actions towards the FLDS children for this reason.

You yourself said in this same post -

I agree that Gays and Lesbians can make great parents. I also would not fight against Gays and Lesbians being able to adopt -- let them adopt. I'm not sure what someone's parenting skill has to do with SSM. My argument about the definition of "marriage" addresses the definition of the word as directly related to a couple's genetic capacity to produce offspring, whether or not a particular couple would make good parents.

Again, this argument does not support denying just availability to marriage to SS adults who otherwise would fulfill the states marriage license requirements.

You state: "Does opposing SSM make you satanic? Are you in opposition to agency and are willing to sacrifice core values and principles to remove it for some people?" I'm not sure what these questions really mean. But I don't think you or I are "satanic" -- we're just engaged in political dialogue. (Again, you reference religion/theology in this discussion.) And I'm not sure what you mean by "core values" and "principles." Let's back up here and please explain to me what you mean.

I suggest sitting for a moment and pondering this one. Some things are best understood through deep thinking. This is one of them.

In the earlier post I asked: "Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?" You didn't answer.

Don't give up on us now. I admire you for sticking to the political dialouge Honorentheos. Keep it up, you're helping me think through my positions.

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

As you seem to be libertarian, I would suggest reading the following -

SSM Article from a libertarian point of view

[markwhannig]

Honorentheos:

Thank you for the citations to the reasononline article and the Florida case. I will read them and perhaps we can discuss them at a later date.

I do not know how to create the multiple quote boxes in the reply, so that I can better reference my response. How do you create them within a reply?

I'm still waiting for an response to my question: "Honorentheos, please explain how you determined your moral basis, indeed "the truth", you seem to be alleging: love is the best reason to marry. How did you determine this to be true? From what cosmic source arises this absolute?" I know that you reference the reasononline article. But I would like to hear your response.

You ask: "how do you feel preventing same-sex couples from marrying is protecting individuals? IS the way the author uses society dangerously close to the communist collective he previously decries?"

I'm not sure that I have ever said "preventing same-sex couples from marrying is protecting individuals." I will have to think whether I agree with that statement.

I have said that SSM damages the instituation of marriage, because SS unions are not marriage. We would have to do one of two things: 1) either redefine marriage as something other than what humanity has considered it for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands of years) or 2) call SS unions what they are: something other than marriage.

As for the "communist collective," please explain what you mean. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Mr. George did talk about the totalitarian state and the worth of individuals.

You write: "I find your credit in this case to be suspect in that you can not discuss this issue from your position without the implication of God if your basis for opposing SSM is on moral grounds. Perhaps if you can show how your views are not underwritten by a belief in God I may be persuaded to agree." I can not prove a negative. You seem to believe that my views imply God. Please quote something that I have said that supports your assertion. Also, please quote something that I have said that displays the "moral grounds" on which I base my opposing SSM.

You state that my argument is "denying the rights to marriage." Since when did marriage (as recognized by the state) become a "right"? Is this so-called "right" created by a handful of judicial activists sitting on the bench, against the express democratic process repeated more than once (indeed approximately 30 times throughout the United States)?

You state: "it is my belief that the opposition to SSM in the United States is predominately founded on prejudice, and this is fueled by religion rather than evidence." I ask you, can any argument against SSM be founded on something other than prejudice? Do you believe it is possible that a rationale argument can be made against SSM? (If your answer is "no", than I believe we may as well cease our discussion because you have predetermined --may I even say in an act of prejudice --that opposing points of view to be only irrationale.)

You state: "Overcoming long-standing prejudice in the public discourse takes time and effort." Do you see any "long-standing prejudice" in my arguments? If so, what?

You state: "We all have ample opportunity to act as bullies." This is exactly what I see the SSM activists as doing. Hence the blacklisting. Hence, the bigoted protesting at LDS temples. Hence, the vandalism. Hence, the SSM activists who intentionally seek out businesses and church in order to sue them. (E.g. instead of the Mass. SSM couple going to many other adoption services to adopt a child and who would serve the SSM couple, they seek out a Catholic service and bring a lawsuit against it. Another example, instead of going to dating services that intentially seek out SS clients, a SSM activist goes to e-harmony and sues them just because they doen't serve the SSM community.) When will this bullying end? In my previous post I asked if you would state when this bullying would end. You did not reply. I'm waiting for your response.

If you want to reduce my argument to fertility ritual, that's fine. I'm not prejudiced against pagans. Indeed I have adopted several of the pagan's seasonal rituals into my mythology: Christmas and Easter come to mind.

You seem to espouse "enlightened values." Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter? Do you consider these rituals "enlightened?"

Getting back to the procreative act as essential to marriage -- well that is the very definition of marriage as I have explained in an earlier post. If we want to redefine "marriage" to exclude it as being essentially procreative, than I repeat, we shouldn't call it "marriage" any more. We should call it something else.

You state: "the argument is one of marriage as ritual drama over values. I cannot support it." If marriage is not about ritual, why do you argue, then, that SS couples need to be allowed to participate in the ritual of marriage? If marriage is at essence values, why can not the SS couple begin to cohabitate and bask in their values? Why do they need the state to recognize their values through the ritual of marriage?

Respectfully,

Mark Hannig

[Lamanite]

Why is gay marriage so bad? I understand the religious views, but I don't like trying to force my religious views in law. I'm pretty conflicted on this issue. I know that homosexual activity is a sin, but why should I care if homosexuals can "marry" each other? It's all about a label, isn't it? Or should I not want them to get tax benefits?

You're not alone. I started a thread on the same thing awhile ago. I just can't figure out why my marriage is going to fall apart now that Ellen DeGeneres and Portia are now married. I have a list of 50 other things I find wrong with the opposition to Gay marriage.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[docrick]

You're not alone. I started a thread on the same thing awhile ago. I just can't figure out why my marriage is going to fall apart now that Ellen DeGeneres and Portia are now married. I have a list of 50 other things I find wrong with the opposition to Gay marriage.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I haven't chimed in on this issue and I usually just lurk around reading with some amusement at some of the banter on the board.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 issued some time ago the Proclaimation on the Family. The First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 have been consistent on the issue of SSM.

For me at least, I think it is always appropriate to side with the Prophet on ALL issues whether or not our political leanings agree with the Prophet's stated stance.

We either believe the Prophet is the spokesperson for the Lord or not.

The doctrine and covenants includes this wonderful piece of scripture:

I the Lord have said what I have said and I excuse not myself. Though the Heavens and the earth pass away; my word shall not pass away but shall all be fulfilled. Whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same.

This makes it easy for me at least to oppose SSM. The Lord Himself has made a stand and we must decide if we will stand with the Lord on this issue.

Elder Maxwell gave a great devotional at BYU that, for me at least, sums up events we are seeing today. Pay close attention to the end of the quote as to the date it was given.

"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years

ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he

will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt

longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that

he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church

even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'

This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society

which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed

of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of

Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious

convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow

certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the

institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.... Before the

ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be

lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear,

letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will

also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step

forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do.

We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority

of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious

of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer

is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of

the heat."

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, "Meeting the Challenges of Today," BYU Devotional,

October 10, 1978

[ERayR]

Gay marriage is bad because homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.

[semlogo]

Gay marriage is bad because homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end.

WAT

[Lamanite]

You're wrong. They can't. They can't even make "good" parents.

How about two heterosexual Meth addicts.....Or two Gay loving parents who espouse good moral values(aside from their Gayness) and can provide financially and emotionally for their adopted child?

Just curious how this might work?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Bat-Man]

How about two heterosexual Meth addicts.....Or two Gay loving parents who espouse good moral values(aside from their Gayness) and can provide financially and emotionally for their adopted child?

Just curious how this might work?

I have a song playing in my head now, for some reason, and I wish you could hear it with me.

The song goes something like this:

I gotta take a little time

A little time to think things over

I better read between the lines

In case I need it when I'm older

Now this mountain I must climb

Feels like a world upon my shoulders

Through the clouds I see love shine

It keeps me warm as life grows colder

In my life there's been heartache and pain

I dont know if I can face it again

Can't stop now, I've traveled so far

To change this lonely life

I wanna know what love is

I want you to show me

I wanna feel what love is

I know you can show me

I'm gonna take a little time

A little time to look around me

I've got nowhere left to hide

It looks like love has finally found me

In my life there's been heartache and pain

I dont know if I can face it again

I can't stop now, I've traveled so far

To change this lonely life

I wanna know what love is

I want you to show me

I wanna feel what love is

I know you can show me

I wanna know what love is

I want you to show me

And I wanna feel, I want to feel what love is

And I know, I know you can show me

Let's talk about love

I wanna know what love is, the love that you feel inside

I want you to show me, and I'm feeling so much love

I wanna feel what love is, no, you just cannot hide

I know you can show me, yeah

I wanna know what love is, let's talk about love

I want you to show me, I wanna feel it too

I wanna feel what love is, I want to feel it too

And I know and I know, I know you can show me

Show me love is real, yeah

I wanna know what love is... -- Foreigner

Once you can hear that song, as I do, and you can sing it in your heart to the right person who can show you what love is, you will then know how to be a good parent as long as you allow Him to show you, at which point it will then be up to you to actually be that good parent.

That is how that would play out.

[Lamanite]

I have a song playing in my head now, for some reason, and I wish you could hear it with me.

The song goes something like this:

Once you can hear that song, as I do, and you can sing it in your heart to the right person who can show you what love is, you will then know how to be a good parent as long as you allow Him to show you, at which point it will then be up to you to actually be that good parent.

That is how that would play out.

Hey Bat,

I understand the ideal you're trying to underscore, I really do. In fact we both believe in that ideal. However, ideals do not always match reality. And when choosing between Meth addicts or a Responsible Gay couple, I'm going with the Gay couple every time. If you made a different choice, I'd be disappointed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS I'm not a huge Foreigner fan, but I like that song. I made a 5 disk compilation of Rock Ballads that I sometimes break out when I'm in that mood.

[MormonMason]

...

WAT

Actually, it is an evolutionary dead-end in most cases--short of artificial insemination and/or surrogate mothers.