"'Homosexuality can be cured if the battle is well organized and pursued vigorously and continuously.' [This obviously refers to the condition of sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.]
Parents who prefer and a society which prefers male-female marriages and procreation should be able to insist on teachers and youth leaders who will teach and demonstrate (or at least not contradict) those values. For the reasons suggested above, arguments for job discrimination against homosexuals are strongest in those types of employment that provide teaching, association and role models for young people. This would include school teachers (especially at the elementary and secondary levels), and youth leaders and counselors (such as scoutmasters, coaches, etc.).. Since public policy must obviously favor perpetuation of the nation and its people, laws should permit employers to exclude from key positions of influence those who would proselyte and promote the homosexual lifestyle... if an anti-job-discrimination law is proposed to protect homosexuals, the church should oppose the law if it did not contain a youth-protection exception... it would also be desirable to permit employers to exclude homosexuals from influential positions in media, literature, and entertainment, since those jobs influence the tone and ideals of a society.
the interests at stake in the proposed legalization of so-called homosexual marriages are sufficient to justify a formal Church position and significant efforts in opposition... one generation of homosexual "marriages" would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide... vigorously oppose the legalization of homosexual marriages.
There is an irony inherent in the church's taking a public position opposing homosexual marriages... The leading United States Supreme Court authority for the proposition that marriage means a relationship between a man and a woman is Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). In that case, in which the United States Supreme Court sustained the validity of the anti-polygamy laws, the Court defined marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. The court's stress in that case was on one. The modern relevance of the Reynolds opinion is its reference to marriage as being between a man and a woman. The irony would arise if the Church used as an argument for the illegality of homosexual marriages the precedent formerly used against the Church to establish the illegality of polygamous marriages."