Humans are social animals and, as social animals, not all have the breeder role. In fact, universal mating yields a weaker species, not a stronger one. How many species practice universal mating? Moreover, gays can assist propagation of their genes via assisting related breeders.

Oh, in case you’re wondering, I’m a breeder with my genes thrown back in the pool six times now.

Gay marriage doesn’t satisfy life’s purpose

It is amazing to me the extent that people will go to in order to achieve their personal goals. Take, for example, Prop. 8 that was on the ballot . This is the second time the California voters have passed this law, and yet those who fought against Prop. 8 continue to fight against the will of the people.

They keep saying this is a religious issue. That is not true. Everyone needs to answer the question of “What is the purpose of life?” Leaving religion out of the answer, as well as the Bible and personal opinions, there is only one answer that can be given that will satisfy the laws of NATURE. That answer is: “Reproduce yourself and your species.”

Can two female or two male marriage partners conform to this law? No! So, this is not a religious issue alone. It is an issue that defies the laws of nature. The animal, bird, fish, insect, and plant kingdoms all live this law. They reproduce themselves as per nature’s laws.

If any of these kingdoms failed to live this law, their kingdom would become extinct in a short period of time. If the plant kingdom failed to live this law, there would be no food for man or animals to eat. We would soon become a dead planet.

Only man wants to defy this law of nature. In so doing, they become destroyers of, rather than contributors to, the human race.

Society is based on the family of husband wife and children. This is how the next generation rises. I can just see states or countries legalizing gay marriage and then losing population.

Now for my part I oppose the “idea” of same sex marriage. I believe a marriage is between one man and ONE woman. I also believe that homosexuality is sin and against God’s law.

However, I don’t believe that I or any one else has the right to impose their religious beliefs on those that do not share them. If gays wish to sin, the laws of agency give them that right. Also gays should not be denied the same benefits that married people receive. There is nothing in the Canadian Constitution that will allow for discrimination against gays. And preventing them from marrying and receiving spousal benefits the same as heterosexuals is discrimination.

So on the basis that Canada is ruled by a Constitution I support same sex marriage. Even though personally I believe homosexuality is a sinful practice. The same as fornication and adultery amongst heterosexuals is a sin.

In closing here is a fact that will shock many of you Utah Mormons. Scouts Canada has allowed in homosexual boys for well over 10 years now, and the LDS church in Canada is still very active in Canadian scouting.

Yet in the USA the church has said it will pull out of scouting if gay boys are allowed in.

If the church continues to support Scouts Canada with homosexuals allowed in, why can’t they do it in the USA as well?

Walter

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stern17-2008jun17,0,5628051.story

As for reconsidering that argument, well, it’s not in my calling to reconsider the Proclamation. But I will agree with you that you definitely need to be careful how you use these arguments, and that’s good advice.

if you study the disintegration of societies worldwide, sexual licentiousness leads directly to society decay. That is one of the messages of the Proclamation on the Family.

The problem is, our own leadership has in the past used this argument, only with monogamy cast as the villain: as you probably know, Brigham Young, George Q. Cannon, Orson Pratt and others publicly proclaimed that at the root of Rome’s downfall was monogamy. In more recent times, it has been said to have been homosexuality. Our opponents know about these statements, and where to find them, and how to cast them up to us.

We need better arguments. You’ve been advancing several, but I just wanted to nitpick and suggest you reconsider this one.

I wholeheartedly agree. Creating new “citizens,” or the potential to do so, is indeed the business of government. In fact, I daresay that a good and moral government is dependent upon married heterosexual couples to produce the contributing, law-abiding, and well-balanced offspring who will uphold the values upon which this country was founded and continue to maintain the social contract.

I am an educated man, but I am not really interested in studies that try to disprove the obvious. Men and women are different, and each contributes unique and complementary elements to the development of their children. This idea that men and women are interchangeable, and that children raised by same sex couples have the same outcomes is grossly flawed. If studies show they have the same outcomes as children raised by heterosexual married couples, I’m inclined to think it’s because the vast majority of children are still raised by hetersexual couples, and this has a norming affect. If the norm was 90% homosexually-raised children, versus 10% heterosexually-raised children, I think we’d be talking about a much different world.