Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
Hey John Lambert | 6:01 a.m. May 17, 2008
You believe the FLDS and the gay situation not the same, really? Then you
haven't done what I suggested quite some time ago...verifying by reading
Lawrence v. TX. If the fraudulent phone call beginnings is not enough to cause
the arrest, I have no idea what will convince you. While you believe that Same
sex marriage is law but not in the eyes of God, oddly that was said about blacks
having the priesthood. Call me a prophetess but Official Declaration 3 will
come as the church is threatened with governmental sanctions as with both
polygamy and blacks.
Kerry | 6:36 a.m. May 17, 2008
I have a question for Mormons. How are you hurt or disadvantaged by letting gays
marry? I am not going to argue, I just don't understand how this affects
you in any way, shape or form.
socalmon | 7:45 a.m. May 17, 2008
I live in California and I'm very aware of the Gay propaganda and lies
about "being born gay". Although a person may have same sex
attraction, many people don't adhere to it and live perfectly happy lives
avoiding the temptations. They live and die, and lived and died by being
obedient to their consciences. Some talk about it, but the vast majority of
don't. If you want to witness a hateful gay, this concept, when issued to
gay groups, arises ire and hate in them, especially on college campuses of
liberal repute, such as, for instance, Berkely, Smith College, Yale, etc., (the
list goes on and on.) So much for freedom of speech. Now, so much for democracy.
We now have judges telling the people that we "have it wrong", as if
they can piggyback it with the racial equality issue of the 50s, a TOTALLY
different issue. The gay agenda, I knew, would not quit. They are hellbent on
forcing this issue. I personally have 3 cousins who are gay. One female and two
males. I love them dearly. However I disagree with them in their choices. Does
that make me a hater? Does disagreeing equte to hate? Please!
Comments continue below
JW | 8:12 a.m. May 17, 2008
For the Church, this isn't a political issue, it's a moral issue. It
doesn't tell members to go one way or the other it says simply "this
is wrong". And why is it wrong?
Because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for the purpose of bringing forth children. Try as much as you want, there is nothing that will make that happen with any kind of gay couple.
In most states gay individuals already have the same state rights as married couples. Why the big hang up over calling them "married" -- on the part of those who are gay?
Those against it oppose it because "marriage" is a moral term -- not a legal term. And for as tolerant as we are and should be of those who want to deviate from a societal norm dating back further than recorded history of man there is simply no use trying to equate "marrying" two gay people when the process doesn't and never can achieve the same result.
Besides, calling it a "marriage" implies societal acceptance of the practice. It gives it legitimacy and approval. For many teaching and raising children, that simply isn't acceptable.
Because marriage is defined as between a man and a woman for the purpose of bringing forth children. Try as much as you want, there is nothing that will make that happen with any kind of gay couple.
In most states gay individuals already have the same state rights as married couples. Why the big hang up over calling them "married" -- on the part of those who are gay?
Those against it oppose it because "marriage" is a moral term -- not a legal term. And for as tolerant as we are and should be of those who want to deviate from a societal norm dating back further than recorded history of man there is simply no use trying to equate "marrying" two gay people when the process doesn't and never can achieve the same result.
Besides, calling it a "marriage" implies societal acceptance of the practice. It gives it legitimacy and approval. For many teaching and raising children, that simply isn't acceptable.
Gay & LDS | 8:16 a.m. May 17, 2008
"God made "Adam and Eve" NOT "Adam and Steve" or
"Sandra and Eve"." LMV
Actually LMV - God made Adam, Steve, Sandra, Eve, me, you, and everyone else.
It shouldn't be hard for you to understand that He made all sorts... especially when he clearly created ignorant individuals like yourself.
Let he who is without sin....
Actually LMV - God made Adam, Steve, Sandra, Eve, me, you, and everyone else.
It shouldn't be hard for you to understand that He made all sorts... especially when he clearly created ignorant individuals like yourself.
Let he who is without sin....
Moral issue | 9:44 a.m. May 17, 2008
Mormons use to tell gay men to get married (TO A FEMALE.) They have change their
mind on that one. Why don't they admit it, they really don't know what
to do with gays, and they have had no specific revelation on the matter. I
suggest the church should keep its tax-exempt nose out of it.
Mac | 9:44 a.m. May 17, 2008
The REAL headline and content of this story should document the clear slap in
the face by the California justices who ignored the voice of the people who
ALREADY voted on this matter and overwhelmingly stated THEY DO NOT WANT MARRIAGE
ALTERED.
Instead of making this a religious war - it should be a Constitutional one - and the people of California have been spit on by 4 activist judges.
Instead of making this a religious war - it should be a Constitutional one - and the people of California have been spit on by 4 activist judges.
DRM | 11:35 a.m. May 17, 2008
God loves the sinner, but abhors the sin.
The Apostle Paul, admonishing the Romans in 1:26-27 said: "Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly."
Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter of same gender attraction; not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be "that way"?
Remember, the Lord loves the homosexual person as he does all of his other children. He does, howevery, expect that person to repent and correct their life.(Spencer Kimball)
I encourage all to take this serious:
WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants
of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. (Proclamation on the family to the World)
The Apostle Paul, admonishing the Romans in 1:26-27 said: "Their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature - And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly."
Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter of same gender attraction; not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be "that way"?
Remember, the Lord loves the homosexual person as he does all of his other children. He does, howevery, expect that person to repent and correct their life.(Spencer Kimball)
I encourage all to take this serious:
WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants
of chastity...will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. (Proclamation on the family to the World)
I Don't Get It | 12:21 p.m. May 17, 2008
The LDS church believes it owns Truth. I recognize it has that belief, though I
don't share it. Like Kerry, I wonder how legalizing gay marriage tramples
your rights as LDS church members. It won't prevent you from marrying in
the temple, attending church, paying tithing, or keeping commandments. You can
still live as you believe, even if gays marry. As for the warning DRM points
to, my understanding is that the LDS believe the second coming is nigh at hand.
So according to your beliefs, aren't those foretold calamities going to
happen regardless of what you or anyone else does? You can still live what you
believe to be a righteous life, and have a family that mirrors the definition of
family in your church, and you can still believe that homosexuality is evil,
even if gay marriage is legalized. And if God loves the sinner, but abhors the
sin, why not let God do his job?
RR | 12:25 p.m. May 17, 2008
Just when I think this world couldn't get any worse, it gets worse. Thanks
CA.
Anonymous | 12:41 p.m. May 17, 2008
If you don't want gay marriage, then shut up and don't get one.
Free Agency | 1:01 p.m. May 17, 2008
Hey, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't do it. No one is
forcing you. But forcing you beliefs on a gay man sounds like Lucifer's
plan to me. Are you sure who's side you are on?
Keep in mind that this is "civil" marriage not Temple marriage.
Now if you think it's oaky to force you beliefs on a gay man, then it certainly must be okay for the majority to tell Mormons what they can believe. There is no difference.
Keep in mind that this is "civil" marriage not Temple marriage.
Now if you think it's oaky to force you beliefs on a gay man, then it certainly must be okay for the majority to tell Mormons what they can believe. There is no difference.
The sky is falling | 1:10 p.m. May 17, 2008
The sky is falling, the sky is falling................NOT!
Anonymous | 1:27 p.m. May 17, 2008
I have to say, the arguments asking why people opposed to this measure are
"threatened" by it, or how it "hurts" them are sort of
ridiculous. The people in favor of it keep saying, "it doesn't
threaten MY marriage, why does it threaten yours?" Nobody ever said it did,
that's not the argument. That's never BEEN the argument. Nobody's
worried that if homosexuals start to get married, it'll hurt them or their
marriages. They're worried that this country allowing yet one more thing
that is contrary to God's laws will offend Him, and there will be
disastrous consequences. Look at what's happened since abortion was
legalized. There are still deep and divisive feelings on the subject, thousands
and thousands of children of God have been killed, teenage pregnancy rates have
shot through the roof, women are using abortion as a form of birth control, and
there's been a widespread general breakdown of morals in this society.
It's only going to get worse from here on out, especially if this law goes
into effect.
To Anonymous at 12:41 p.m. | 1:39 p.m. May 17, 2008
ROFL!
It's also a good point. I'm a heterosexual woman, and I can still marry a man even if it becomes legal for a lesbian to marry a lesbian. I'm not going to be forced to marry another woman. If one believes homosexuality is unnatural because of the inability for two people of the same gender to procreate, will their gay marriages create a fertility problem for the heterosexual part of the population? Why the fuss?
It's also a good point. I'm a heterosexual woman, and I can still marry a man even if it becomes legal for a lesbian to marry a lesbian. I'm not going to be forced to marry another woman. If one believes homosexuality is unnatural because of the inability for two people of the same gender to procreate, will their gay marriages create a fertility problem for the heterosexual part of the population? Why the fuss?
Question for Anonymous | 1:43 p.m. May 17, 2008
"It's only going to get worse ... if this law goes into effect."
Why? Are gays going to have more sex because they can get married now?
Why? Are gays going to have more sex because they can get married now?
Trust me | 1:59 p.m. May 17, 2008
Gay marriage will probably result in the married couple having less sex. Trust
me, I know.
To Anonymous | 2:07 p.m. May 17, 2008
"They're worried that this country allowing yet one more thing that is
contrary to God's laws will offend Him, and there will be disastrous
consequences. Look at what's happened since abortion was
legalized."
You are right, just when I thought it could get any worse, we got George Bush.
You are right, just when I thought it could get any worse, we got George Bush.
anonymous | 2:44 p.m. May 17, 2008
Anyone who comments that the LDS church should lose their tax emempt status
because they publicly declare that marriage is between a man and a woman clearly
has no understanding of the meaning of separation of church and state, and his
opinion borders stupidity.
RE: Kerry | 3:00 p.m. May 17, 2008
Kerry,
I'm LDS and a returned missionary from Panama. I've read through some of the posts on this comment board and would like to sustain the church's "Proclamation of the Family" that can be found at its web page. I served in an area of Panama that was largely absent of family stability and I lived through the difference that becomes life when a society disregards divine laws of happiness. People can say what they may but what is found in that proclamation is absolute. Isaac Newton clearly stated that to 'every action is an equal and opposite reaction'. Mother & Father are woman and man and they have unique roles that are equal. They have equal responsibility toward their children. Their children are influenced by them. They are taught by them. They are taught basic moral values that they wouldn't otherwise learn - honesty, work, integrity, clean living (not to use drugs), how to value others, not to be violent, how to contribute and serve others, etc. What's more is fundamental doctrines that teach fidelity between husband and wife. It does affect us and our lives when these are not honored.
I'm LDS and a returned missionary from Panama. I've read through some of the posts on this comment board and would like to sustain the church's "Proclamation of the Family" that can be found at its web page. I served in an area of Panama that was largely absent of family stability and I lived through the difference that becomes life when a society disregards divine laws of happiness. People can say what they may but what is found in that proclamation is absolute. Isaac Newton clearly stated that to 'every action is an equal and opposite reaction'. Mother & Father are woman and man and they have unique roles that are equal. They have equal responsibility toward their children. Their children are influenced by them. They are taught by them. They are taught basic moral values that they wouldn't otherwise learn - honesty, work, integrity, clean living (not to use drugs), how to value others, not to be violent, how to contribute and serve others, etc. What's more is fundamental doctrines that teach fidelity between husband and wife. It does affect us and our lives when these are not honored.
Transsexual | 3:05 p.m. May 17, 2008
Actually a male transexual has a smaller than normal sized BSTc than both hetero
and homosexual males. While you might claim that they have choice, you are
factually incorrect. It appears that such individuals have a simple birth
defect. Would you suggest damnation for blind person for not just seeing?
Would you suggest brimstone and hellfire for an individual with severe curvature
of the spine? Clearly the church is in the dark ages regarding basic science
though I am not surprise. Galileo was excommunicated for daring to find the
earth revolved around the sun.
Paul | 3:19 p.m. May 17, 2008
To say that it is a fact that people have no choice who are homosexual or
transsexual is not correct. There is a lot of research on both sides and
nothing has been proved. Ultimately whether someone is born with it or not is
irrelevant to me they make the choice to practice it.
I have a good friend who has homosexual tendency and another guy I went to school with who is homosexual. I respect the person but I do not want to raise my family in a world where this is accepted and practiced. The more this is taught as acceptable the more it destroys marriage. Children need a mother and father a mother is more able to provide the nurturing skills a child needs. We already know from repeated studies that a child is better adjusted when they have a mother and father and even more so when they are both in the home. A child is brought into the world by a man and woman not a man and man.
I believe the Government is right when it strives to preserve traditional marriage for it is the very fabric of society.
I have a good friend who has homosexual tendency and another guy I went to school with who is homosexual. I respect the person but I do not want to raise my family in a world where this is accepted and practiced. The more this is taught as acceptable the more it destroys marriage. Children need a mother and father a mother is more able to provide the nurturing skills a child needs. We already know from repeated studies that a child is better adjusted when they have a mother and father and even more so when they are both in the home. A child is brought into the world by a man and woman not a man and man.
I believe the Government is right when it strives to preserve traditional marriage for it is the very fabric of society.
Reasons | 3:32 p.m. May 17, 2008
How does gay marraige impact the non gay community? It redefines what marriage
is - from being a public and legal commitment to a type of relationship (Man
& Woman) that can create children, to relationships that can not create
children (Man & Man or Woman & Woman), and gives special privileges
designed for relatinships that produce children to relationships that do not
produce children, which takes away the privilege. Heterosexual marriage in
California now does have a different meaning.
Gay marraige also means that children who are brought into those relatinships will not be raised by at least one of their biological parents and will be denied diversity of gender in their parental upbringing. Years of solid human development research indicates that Moms and Dads contribute distinctively in important ways, to the upbringing of children. Children need a mother and a father.
Heterosexist people have now changed what was a heterosexual institution designed largely to protect children in hopes of making gays more like hetersexuals. It will not work, and we have all been hurt by it - especially children.
Gay marraige also means that children who are brought into those relatinships will not be raised by at least one of their biological parents and will be denied diversity of gender in their parental upbringing. Years of solid human development research indicates that Moms and Dads contribute distinctively in important ways, to the upbringing of children. Children need a mother and a father.
Heterosexist people have now changed what was a heterosexual institution designed largely to protect children in hopes of making gays more like hetersexuals. It will not work, and we have all been hurt by it - especially children.
To: RM from Panama | 3:41 p.m. May 17, 2008
You raise some interesting points based on your experience. Problems with
family stability run rampant on the heterosexual side of things. There's a
far larger heterosexual population in comparison to the homosexual population.
Perhaps the heterosexual community is the more critical place to focus efforts
that help sustain the "Proclamation of the Family"? As for suggesting
children are taught basic moral values they wouldn't otherwise learn -
honesty, integrity, clean living, etc. - how are those exclusively heterosexual
values? They sound like human values to me. Some of the most selfless, kind,
peaceful, honest, genuinely good "salt of the earth" people I know are
homosexual. I've watched my homosexual friends be treated with utter
disrespect, cruelty, and hatred, and yet they turn around and put good into the
world through their actions and the way they treat others. My parents taught me
all the values you listed, but my father was abusive. How would having a child
raised in a family like mine be better than being raised by a loving gay couple?
Why were our parents so stupid? | 4:04 p.m. May 17, 2008
Hundreds of years, no gay marriage. Now, suddenly, we are more enlightened than
our thousands and millions of forebears?
How arrogant. How disrespectful. How absurd. This is not a political issue. When politicians think they have the right to legislate morality--we are in bad shape. After-all, who does a politician want to offend?
The modern-day perspective of: freedom=you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else), is woefully ignorant of the whole concept. There is no 'freedom from consequence'.
I am convinced that we have a loving Father In Heaven--who loves every single one of us. But I am also convinced that he is a loving Father--who gives us freedom to choose the right (not the consequences).
I have no disregard for those .01% of our population who have these feelings. They may actually be natural. But I am also convinced that the natural man is an enemy to God.
Sorry. I have a need to feel 'steadfast and immovable', in-favor of my parents and their parents who have fought so-hard for true freedom. Freedom to be able to choose the RIGHT!
How arrogant. How disrespectful. How absurd. This is not a political issue. When politicians think they have the right to legislate morality--we are in bad shape. After-all, who does a politician want to offend?
The modern-day perspective of: freedom=you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone else), is woefully ignorant of the whole concept. There is no 'freedom from consequence'.
I am convinced that we have a loving Father In Heaven--who loves every single one of us. But I am also convinced that he is a loving Father--who gives us freedom to choose the right (not the consequences).
I have no disregard for those .01% of our population who have these feelings. They may actually be natural. But I am also convinced that the natural man is an enemy to God.
Sorry. I have a need to feel 'steadfast and immovable', in-favor of my parents and their parents who have fought so-hard for true freedom. Freedom to be able to choose the RIGHT!
To John Lambert & ldswoman | 4:05 p.m. May 17, 2008
You've both been picked on a fair bit, but I wanted you both to know that
there are quite a lot of people on here who applaud the things you've said
and completely agree with your statements. John, your post at 9:01, and
ldswoman, your post at 9:57 said everything that I wanted to say, and in a much
better manner than I could have said it. Thank you. =)
Equal rights (& responsibilities | 4:39 p.m. May 17, 2008
If marriage was simply a "religious sacrament" then the government
would have no business sticking its nose into the issue. However since there is
a "civil" side to marriage where the government gives over 1000
benefits to the married couple, then the government has a responsibility to
grant same-sex marriages and bestow those same rights (and responsibilities) on
same-sex couples. It is simply equality that I am talking about.
If you were willing to give up your government given rights of marriage, then I guess all would be equal...but would it be a better world? I think not. Committed and legal relationships have many benefits for society, and same-sex relationships are no different! Same-sex couples deserve the same rights!
If you were willing to give up your government given rights of marriage, then I guess all would be equal...but would it be a better world? I think not. Committed and legal relationships have many benefits for society, and same-sex relationships are no different! Same-sex couples deserve the same rights!
Learned to think | 4:45 p.m. May 17, 2008
I was tought to think gay people were sinners the way I was raised. However, as
I learned the truth about different things, and met some very nice gay people, I
knew I had been brain washed.
Celebrate with me! | 5:41 p.m. May 17, 2008
28 years ago, a good friend confided in me that he was attracted to other men.
Thanks to loving and supportive family and friends, and skilled and caring
professional counselors, this year he celebrates 25 years of a solely
heterosexual lifestyle. He and his wife are now experiencing the joys and
struggles of raising teenagers in today's world. The spector of his
same-sex attractions are buried in his distant past. I rejoice with him.
I know several others who have also reclaimed their sexual identities to align with their physiology. If you would also like to rid yourself of this tragice disorder (sexual attraction not consistent with your born gender), help is closer than you think. Maybe even at your fingertips!
It won't be easy, but you CAN do it! I know!
I know several others who have also reclaimed their sexual identities to align with their physiology. If you would also like to rid yourself of this tragice disorder (sexual attraction not consistent with your born gender), help is closer than you think. Maybe even at your fingertips!
It won't be easy, but you CAN do it! I know!
Get your facts straight! | 6:05 p.m. May 17, 2008
Churches and other religious institutions will not have to recognize or perform
ceremonies for these civil marriages. This ruling is not about religion;
it�s about the civil responsibilities and protections
afforded through a government-issued civil marriage license.
Celebration | 6:33 p.m. May 17, 2008
I grew up being taught to associate only with those who were like me or who were
mostly like me but with the possibility of being just like me. As a result, I
became afraid of anyone who did not live the same way I did or pitied them
because I had been taught I had something better than they did. As I engaged
more in the world around me, I slowly learned that many people who were not like
me were living happy, fulfilled lives, and were good people who didn't need
to become like me. Instead, I needed to recognize there wasn't a one size
fits all approach to life. I started seeing people not as holding potential to
be like me, but just as who they were. I found my heart expanded in the
process, and I became a more loving person than I ever had been. "As I
have loved you, love one another." I think it would behoove us all to live
by those words.
Theodora | 6:44 p.m. May 17, 2008
If one man and one woman is the only acceptable combination, why do well over
half of heterrsexual marriages fail? It seems to me that it's the
heterrosexual married who are the most threatening to the institution's
sanctity.
AdoramusTe | 7:17 p.m. May 17, 2008
Please don't condemn two people for loving and caring for one another,
especially in the dishearteningly intolerant world your endoctrination paints.
There are infinitely more important problems in this world to consider which do
not prevent natural human love to which one could apply their faithful zeal.
Contouring to the increasingly antiquated LDS ideal is not only soul-damaging,
but also socially damaging (e.g. Romney). Please open your minds and hearts for
a change, LDS church. Surely the more progressive states will forgive your
historically invariable deficiencies if you stop blinding yourselves with
obstinance and intolerace.
ContrapunctusIX | 7:38 p.m. May 17, 2008
If marriage is an iron-clad sacred institution, both heterrosexal and homosexual
partners who desire partnership should have the right to obtain a civil union
from the government--not marriage. If marriage is sought, allow them to obtain
this certification from their respective houses of worship, and if a specific
house of worship forbids two people from marrying for whatever reason, at least
respect the ability of those two people to be united under a different house of
worship with more welcoming beliefs. I am glad that in the United States of
America we have a separation of church and state.
Re: Equal rights (& responsibili | 7:56 p.m. May 17, 2008
Marriage *is* simply a "religious sacrament"
and government *has* no business sticking its nose into the issue.
Aha! The core of the matter -- 1000s of civil benefits! The benefits of feeding at the trough of special treatment for marrieds. These are not "rights". What they are is priviledge of a politically favored class.
Because "married" is politically favored class, gays want in on the action. E.g., not compelled to testify against spouse. Tax breaks. On and on. Sorry, NOT "rights". They are political largesse. (Who can fault gays for wanting this?!)
But then, why not also siblings who never marry, live together, care for and support each other, as married couples do. (I have three aunts in this situation). Are they being denied "their rights" by not getting favored treatment that marrieds do? No! They *are* being denied special political treatment.
With no government licensing of marriage, government must either accept all marriages from all religions for special benefit purposes or stop the flow of special benefits.
But wait! It's not really just about benefits. The case was about giving same benefits to gays, but using a different class name. Why isn't this acceptable if it's only about benefits?
and government *has* no business sticking its nose into the issue.
Aha! The core of the matter -- 1000s of civil benefits! The benefits of feeding at the trough of special treatment for marrieds. These are not "rights". What they are is priviledge of a politically favored class.
Because "married" is politically favored class, gays want in on the action. E.g., not compelled to testify against spouse. Tax breaks. On and on. Sorry, NOT "rights". They are political largesse. (Who can fault gays for wanting this?!)
But then, why not also siblings who never marry, live together, care for and support each other, as married couples do. (I have three aunts in this situation). Are they being denied "their rights" by not getting favored treatment that marrieds do? No! They *are* being denied special political treatment.
With no government licensing of marriage, government must either accept all marriages from all religions for special benefit purposes or stop the flow of special benefits.
But wait! It's not really just about benefits. The case was about giving same benefits to gays, but using a different class name. Why isn't this acceptable if it's only about benefits?
RE: To RM from Panama | 8:15 p.m. May 17, 2008
In response to your question I'd suggest that the best form of teaching is
through example. Jesus taught by example in being baptized, not because he
needed to because he was sinless, but because he set forth an example. Of
course I submit that problems happen in heterosexual relationships - Adam and
Eve fell - 'problems' happen to all, however, there are ills and there
are remedies and there is good and there is evil and there are absolutes. To
say there are no absolutes is an absolute in and of itself. When a prophet, or
when men of God speak one should listen - one should even at the very least
consider what men say who claim themselves to be prophets. I cannot denounce,
and I would lie to suggest that I don't know that Christ lives and that he
directs his church through his chosen leaders. I know that the Book of Mormon
is true and that the heavens are opened. I know that "The Proclamation of
the Family" is a God given message that demands attention and that answers
eternal truth. There's nothing ambiguous about that document - period! -
thank you.
Charlotte | 8:20 p.m. May 17, 2008
Yet another confirmation of the LDS church's untrammeled pigheadedness will
surely not sway anyone's free thinking. Please stop the hateful
repression. It hardly confirms your platform of righteousness--but rather, one
of anti-progress.
Bry | 10:13 p.m. May 17, 2008
It's amazing how people who are making wrong choices that hurt society
accuse others of hating them. I don't hate people who are gay but I am
offended that they want the same privileges that married people deserve for a
perversion that they want to feel better about. Gay people cannot create
children and are doing something unnatural. We don't hate them, we just
know it is morally wrong to give legal approval to their actions in society.
Nature itself condemns the action because it has never allowed two people of the same gender to create a child. Nature meant for a child to have a mother and a father. However, gay people expect us to believe the lie that they are not hurting anyone else. Does AIDS hurt people? Does it hurt a child to have two parents of the same gender? Does it screw up children to somehow think their same sex parents are normal or natural? The answer is a resounding YES.
Nature itself condemns the action because it has never allowed two people of the same gender to create a child. Nature meant for a child to have a mother and a father. However, gay people expect us to believe the lie that they are not hurting anyone else. Does AIDS hurt people? Does it hurt a child to have two parents of the same gender? Does it screw up children to somehow think their same sex parents are normal or natural? The answer is a resounding YES.
Gay is a Choice | 10:17 p.m. May 17, 2008
Being gay is as much a choice as is being hetrosexual. If you have enough
drive, you may want both. Sadly, our society's acceptance of the gay
standard has led to the proliferation of the belief that being gay is
"wrong, but they can't help it". Even they know it's wrong
- and act as if they have not been given the God granted right of free agency.
If you think about it enough, if you watch it enough, if you devote enough of
your attention to anything - killing, molesting children, pornography,
homosexuality, drug use - all vices can become irresistable, and evenually what
was once abhorred will be enbraced. Being gay is a choice, not an affliction.
Marriage is a moral title given to those that live morally deserving of that title. Even the laws of nature command that it takes a male gendered animal and a female gendered animal to procreate. Why must we "choose" amongst ourselves to be so vile before God? Why should we grant the moral title of marriage to those who live so immorally? They want so desperately to be accepted and they have no respect for the institution of marriage.
Marriage is a moral title given to those that live morally deserving of that title. Even the laws of nature command that it takes a male gendered animal and a female gendered animal to procreate. Why must we "choose" amongst ourselves to be so vile before God? Why should we grant the moral title of marriage to those who live so immorally? They want so desperately to be accepted and they have no respect for the institution of marriage.
wrz | 10:20 p.m. May 17, 2008
There is no way two men or two women can naturally create a family, which is the
fundamental unit of society."
What about one man and two women? Or two men and two women? They could create families just fine.
What about one man and two women? Or two men and two women? They could create families just fine.
Island | 10:54 p.m. May 17, 2008
Lets put gay men on an island and lesbians on another island and see how long
the population lasts. If it stands the test of time, I'll concede it is an
acceptable lifestyle.
base runner | 12:02 a.m. May 18, 2008
The LDS church is worried that it will lose many of it's male gay married
members that will run off to California and get married.
To WRZ | 12:21 a.m. May 18, 2008
Except that every single human born into this world deserves to have both a
mother and a father. As a divine right, each child should be guaranteed a father
and a mother. Any person that deprives an innocent child of both parents will be
held accountable for it in this life or the life to come.
Paul | 5:52 a.m. May 18, 2008
It is interesting to read all of these comments. This is a very sensitive issue
and the most important thing is to love everybody. I know people who are gay
and I love and respect them as children of God. However, I do not support there
lifestyle. Marriage is between a man and a woman because it is about family as
many others have said and we need a natural family that can raise and nurture
children with Mother and Father.
That being said I will continue to oppose any gay marriages because they are wrong and damaging to society. Finally anyone who proclaims separation of God and State does not understand the principles of our country or the founders. The founders made it clear that they were moral men who worshiped God and that as a nation we are great because of God and religious freedom. That being said we should not have a state religion. I just think people who argue for separation of God and state need to understand God makes this country great.
That being said I will continue to oppose any gay marriages because they are wrong and damaging to society. Finally anyone who proclaims separation of God and State does not understand the principles of our country or the founders. The founders made it clear that they were moral men who worshiped God and that as a nation we are great because of God and religious freedom. That being said we should not have a state religion. I just think people who argue for separation of God and state need to understand God makes this country great.
mmmmhm | 6:05 a.m. May 18, 2008
Remember Anita Bryant.
Hey to wrz | 6:29 a.m. May 18, 2008
Over 50% of marriages end in divorce with the "father" all too often
NOT part of the life of the child. Add to that the fact that many women NEVER
marry the biological father and regularly do not even know the biological
father. So, your point of a child being "guaranteed a father and
mother" is completely moot. A child needs people that love it and have a
vested interest in the upbringing of the child, the more people the better.
Mother of 3 happily married and not afraid that my relationship will change with gay marriage.
Mother of 3 happily married and not afraid that my relationship will change with gay marriage.
Oh Paul | 6:38 a.m. May 18, 2008
You are HILARIOUS!! That gay parents "do not offer diversity" leaves
me in stitches. Gay parents actually make a point of raising children
purposefully giving diverse experiences perhaps in overcompensation while
"straight" parents only offer exactly the same and lack diversity.
When was the last time you made a point of making a friend with someone of
another ethnicity or religion?
Sophie | 7:32 a.m. May 18, 2008
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to
heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love
heterosexuals--it's just that they need more supervision.
Have a loving day.
Have a loving day.
Ed | 7:59 a.m. May 18, 2008
This discussion should not be about raising children at all. Using it as an
argumentative device is especially asinine since any person (gay or straight)
can conceive and raise a child without legislative hindrances regardless of
anyone's egomaniacal judgements or moral standards--or is it a future goal
of the LDS Church to regulate procreation as well?
While I am more in favor of government-issued civil unions for both gay AND straight couples, I don't see why marriage should be any more regulated than the ability to conceive and raise children, an irrelevancy which has been overzealously exhausted in these comments.
While I am more in favor of government-issued civil unions for both gay AND straight couples, I don't see why marriage should be any more regulated than the ability to conceive and raise children, an irrelevancy which has been overzealously exhausted in these comments.
To Island | 8:19 a.m. May 18, 2008
It might work better to put all those who claim to be moral based on your
definition on an island. Then they wouldn't be bothered by anyone's
"lifestyle" and could be assured that everyone on the island was just
like them.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- NFL: Week 12 recap 12:50 a.m.
- '12 Days' bill would top $87K 12:35 a.m.
- Study finds autism therapy works 12:35 a.m.
- Boy shot following traffic stop 12:35 a.m.
- Sports on the air 12:24 a.m.
- Herbert builds his team of rivals 12:21 a.m.
- Corroon a step closer to governor 12:21 a.m.
- Monday on TV 12:18 a.m.
- Editorial: East, West and religion 12:17 a.m.
- A deficit commission? 12:17 a.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Fantasy is reality for BYU professor
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
869 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime473
- Max Hall issues apology145
- BYU is champion of the state137
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside116
- Rivalry Week is highly profane90
- Hall's legacy measured today79
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal68
- Utes fall to Seattle U. at home65
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
I find it interesting that many of the same people who say that we can't...
None of these teams is going to be easy. They all have fine football...
Max, no apology was necessary, but the apology was polically correct. If...
Very good piece of writing, Amy. You summarized what many of us have been...
How is a top 25 finish make Utah a top twenty team? I think what the poster...
90% of the BYU & Utah fans have class, and Hall knows it. If you don't...
This might be my favorite article I've ever read from the Deseret News. Kudos.
Thank you for not giving up and don't give up now brother and sister...
Dr. Lois Lee's work with children who are victims of child sexual...
Look at the preview for Pixar's "Up". The whole move is summarized in...
Advertisements