The authors’ computations indicate that as a society’s birthrate falls, female carriers of androphilic genes account for a larger share of the output. In short, the genes provide a “buffer effect” against extinction.

Nature is willing to give up reproductive success in one category if it can reap greater benefits elsewhere.

I have a gay cousin who, with his partner, adopted two little babies. They couldn’t get “normal” kids, because they are gay, so they had to get crack babies. They would never say they are upset about that though. They have nurtured those two little girls and love them just as much as straight people love their kids (duh!). They have SAVED those childrens lives, yet they are destroying families?

My father told me after my mother died (my parents divorced when my mother found out she was pregnant with me) that if he hadn’t been Mormon he would’ve left my mother when they got back from the honeymoon but instead he stayed and had 5 children with her instead (don’t jump down my throat, I am not blaming the church, it’s what my father said…).

I have an ex-boyfriend who used to have his 3 year old daughter help him roll joints so he could get high. Hence why he became an ex…

My sister-in-law got knocked up by some guy and ended up marrying him so as to not shame the family and has now been left and has a baby that she is entirely incapable of taking care of (my Mother-in-law is practically raising her).

The LAST thing we need to worry about destroying families are gay people!! This has become such an issue for me that I feel my testimony suffer when I hear about the absolutely awful things the church will come out and say.

http://www.lookydaddy.com/weblog/2008/06/listen-dammit.html

He sums it very well. Especially if you are of the opinion that we should leave 2 consenting adults alone.

And though he has a compeling way of wording things–I’m still not sure that legalizing gay marriage is the best thing for our society.

I do know that many in that community are politically conservative…at least many of those I know are (which could be more a function of living where I do than anything). However, I wasn’t aware that there was such vocal opposition to polygamy.

Thanks for that.

With reference to polygamy, I do know there is a large faction of the GLBT movement that vociferously opposes it.

Oh, and for the record, my personal opinion is that if two or more women are foolish enough to want to marry the same man, and all parties are of legal age and consent to the arrangement, it should be legal, so no I’m not philosophically opposed to marriages with more than two parties to the marriage. So long as two men or more men can also marry the same woman as well (yes, such arrangements do exist). And as long as, as soon as a party wants out of the arrangement, they are able to get out.

Personally, I’ve never had any desire to marry. But that’s just me.

However, I am quite opposed to FLDS-style polygamy, where there is no consent and no freedom to leave the arrangement, and where at least sometimes a party (usually a female) is underage and legally (and probably psychologically) unable to consent.

And as far as I’m concerned, reading that letter over the pulpit does constitute using the building for partisan political purposes, in the larger meaning of partisan. But I’m sure that the church’s lawyers would argue that it isn’t “partisan” unless it has a political party’s name on it.

Not to introduce a logical fallacy into the discussion at all, but black churches have been doing this for the Democratic party for decades and they are *only now* being taken to task by the IRS for this practice. The white evangelical churches have been doing this for the same amount of time with the Republican party. While I do NOT like that church has chosen to go this route, it’s not at all uncommon and I think the fact that it’s pushing an issue (right or wrong) is different from inviting Al Gore or George Bush to speak in your church on Sunday and/or having Jeremiah Wright or Jerry Falwell directing their constituencies toward a particular party and/or candidate. On Sunday. In church. Everybody’s tax exempt, so what’s good for one denomination should be good for the other.

so that Mormon couples would have to go down to City Hall for a civil ceremony before going to the temple, effectively giving temple marriages no legal standing,

They do this in England now. The law is you have to be married where anybody can walk in and witness the marriage, and the church works around that.

Now, all that said, a legal marriage is a construct of property rights which is as old as Methuselah. Nowadays there is no “giving in marriage,” “dowries,” “estate transfers,” and other monetary considerations for the act of taking Woman X to wife. Thus, I have come to the tentative opinion that a “legal” marriage is superfluous because there are these things called lawyers and contracts, not to mention “common law” marriages which are recognized after so many years of cohabitation have passed.

What burns my toast is that the people who are screaming about being allowed to marry their same-sex couple are also very anti-polgamy. So solly, but you can’t have your cake and then discriminate against it, too.

If someone was trying to pass legislation on the state or federal level calling for only civil marriages to be considered legal, so that Mormon couples would have to go down to City Hall for a civil ceremony before going to the temple, effectively giving temple marriages no legal standing, you can sure bet that the church would label those efforts “political”.