You're right. Them's the words they've been using, however: one
man +one woman = marriage.
>-Original Message-
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 8:09 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriag
McGee Doug R Contr OO-ALC/ITMS wrote:
"Well, it might be OK in California
or New York but we're not having any of that crap in Alabama."
===
Grampa Bill comments:
That same little girl has stomped those spiders flat in Texas,
Georgia, and Alabama that
>-Original Message-
From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to
the extent that it would be practically impossible
RB Scott wrote:
Huh? It defines marriage as a institution between one man and one
woman.
The wording hasn't even been agreed upon yet. You are getting ahead of
yourself. --JWR
//
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it a
Redefining things is exactly what this problem does not need. We have
arrived at the present situation because a very few vocal malcontents
decided that definitions that successfuly accomodated the cultural
interests of the civil majority for the past ten centuries now suddenly
don't cater to
>-Original Message-
>From: Jonathan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 7:16 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>>I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to
>>the ex
I respect your opinion John, even though I disagree with it to
the extent that it would be practically impossible to come up
with a definition of "traditional family" that would pass muster.
For instance, I can no imagine that the church would exclude
single parent families (widowed and divorced) f
>-Original Message-
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:10 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>RB Scott wrote:
>>Does society derive benefits from encouraging people
&
>-Original Message-
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 5:08 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>RB Scott wrote:
>>Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both
RB Scott wrote:
Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance:
suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children
decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the
interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to
eliminate the need to leave children
RB Scott wrote:
Freaky? How would it be freaky for two old friends, both single
parents, to decide to pool resources? Why would it be freaky for,
say, two siblings, both single parents, to pool their resources,
reduce/consolidate their overhead costs as it were? Such has been
going on for years, a
RB Scott wrote:
Does society derive benefits from encouraging people to form more stable
and more economically robust family units? The government says "yes." So
does the "church."
In the Proclamation on the Family the Church defines the family as a man
and woman. I don't believe the Church ha
>-Original Message-
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 3:39 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>RB Scott wrote:
>>Then there are economic issues to be considered. Fo
RB Scott wrote:
Then there are economic issues to be considered. For instance:
suppose two good friends, both widowed mothers of minor children
decided their chances for remarriage were nil. Yet, in the
interest of keeping their families out the poorhouse, to
eliminate the need to leave children
On the issue of Polygamy, it is a moot point. The Lord revealed to a
prophet to obey the law of the land on this issue, and it is well
ingrained in the Church now. If the Lord sees fit to reinstate it, he
will prepare the way, or allow the saints a trial of their faith. But
even the saints agre
the
churches.
RBS
>-Original Message-
>From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 2:04 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>A key difference, though, is that homosexuality is a
>sexua
-
Name: Doug McGee
Phone: 801-777-0228
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:04 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
&g
nal Message-
> >From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
> >
> >
> >Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for
> >society
ding ways to support all families, no matter their
configurations?
Ron Scott
>-Original Message-
>From: Gerald Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 9:34 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>Marriage has shown
Marriage has shown itself to be a core ideal for society's strength and
longevity. Society (read: government) therefore has a keen interest in
ensuring marriage is done in a manner that promotes a strong and safe
society; normally built upon traditions that work.
Gary
Ron Scott wrote:
>
> Gar
>-Original Message-
>From: John W. Redelfs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:59 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: [ZION] Gay marriage is wrong
>
>
>RB Scott wrote:
>>Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a
&
RB Scott wrote:
Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious
covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no business
getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like determining what
constitutes a "marriage."
If marriage is only a "religious blessing, a relig
Gary:
Some of us regard marriage as a religious blessing, a religious
covenant. Some us, therefore, think the government has no
business getting itself involved in a religious matter -- like
determining what constitutes a "marriage."
The government ought to stick to defining what kinds of "unio
23 matches
Mail list logo