Yep, that's mostly it -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:33:37 12/29/06 Fri
Author: Chuck in ND
Subject: Yep, that's mostly it
In reply to: Deborah 's message, "Now to the meat" on 02:04:50 12/29/06 Fri

The Church is quite clear that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman and that children should have a father AND mother. Now it's fair to disagree with that. I don't mind disagreement--we find consensus through debate. But to try to say "I believe X" and in the very next breath contradict X, that is a quality I have little patience for.

My feeling is that before we get to splitting the baby Solomon-like, we should first decide if it's in society's interest, in children's interests, to allow gays to adopt. But Romney has already decided that that's OK. However he will give a sop to those who disagree and say "Well, YOU don't have to place adoptive children with gays but we'll still allow adoption with gays among the rest of the nation."

And that not only implies a class distinction but cuts a segment of people out of the debate: "The more enlightened of us will continue to allow gays to adopt. You Catholics and Mormons, so behind the times, we'll let you go on your merry archaic ways and there needn't be any more discussion because we've salved your conscience and now you're out of the picture."

Perhaps Mitt's answer will be the one we all eventually arrive at. But it galls me that these decisions are being made by fiat, with no discussion or debate, no vote to see the will of the people, circumventing the morals and foundational principles that most of the country still value. Thus, I think it's fair that this issue be one that influences whether or not Mitt gets our vote. But we can't even do that when Mitt has so muddied and blurred his position that no one really knows what s/hrdans voting for.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

A theocray, maybe? -- Deborah, 01:38:21 12/30/06 Sat
- I think you misunderstand -- Chuck in ND, 23:00:20 12/30/06 Sat
  - Did I misunderstand? -- Deborah, 02:07:31 01/03/07 Wed
Again, all about Mitt and gays (N/T) (NT) -- Deborah, 01:42:29 12/30/06 Sat