Reader comments
LDS Church expresses disappointment in California gay marriage decision
404 comments | Read story
Tammy | 10:50 a.m. May 18, 2008
What's moral for one person may not be moral for another person. Everyone
on this planet as brain that thinks and looks at life a bit differently then
someone else. Some people think that their religion is the only true religion on
this earth, and others know that it is NOT true. Too many people with too many
ideas, and who are we to judge another? None of us are Gods.
Hey to Island | 11:40 a.m. May 18, 2008
Gee, don't you get it? Gays are claiming to be moral by trying to change
the definition of marriage - or are you admitting you are immoral? If you are
immoral we have our answer. If you are moral than gays should also go onto an
island too. That begs the question "Why should heterosexuals go onto an
island and leave the mainland for gay people. After one generation, no-one
would be left on the mainland to claim it anyway."
Gays have a flawed value system that self-gratification against God's and nature's way is acceptable. How could gays be right if in your experiment they all faded away and didn't exist anymore?
Gays have a flawed value system that self-gratification against God's and nature's way is acceptable. How could gays be right if in your experiment they all faded away and didn't exist anymore?
Religions Not Different | 12:44 p.m. May 18, 2008
Why slam the LDS church? Most religions in the world condemn homosexuality.
Progress has nothing to do with it. Remember Sodom and Gamorah? They were
Jewish.
Where will it stop? If we grant gays marital rights, why not sisters who live together or brothers or mother and daughter? Does the sexual act define the marital right?
Gay relationships do not compare to hetrosexual relationships. Marriage can be challenging. Hetrosexual divorce is no reason to accept the deviant behavior of homosexuality.
Even nature condemns homosexuality by genetically forbidding same gender animals from conceiving and bearing young.
Marriage is God's and our God respecting society's way of condoning the family unit - and gay parents do not constitute a mother and father no matter who is acting the part.
To all homosexuals everywhere, stop trying to cram your deviant sexual conduct upon a society that does not want to condone it.
California voters, your constitution is hanging in the balance. Please step up and stop the attempts of the deviant minority by making the change. It matters to every family of any religion in our country, even the LDS.
Where will it stop? If we grant gays marital rights, why not sisters who live together or brothers or mother and daughter? Does the sexual act define the marital right?
Gay relationships do not compare to hetrosexual relationships. Marriage can be challenging. Hetrosexual divorce is no reason to accept the deviant behavior of homosexuality.
Even nature condemns homosexuality by genetically forbidding same gender animals from conceiving and bearing young.
Marriage is God's and our God respecting society's way of condoning the family unit - and gay parents do not constitute a mother and father no matter who is acting the part.
To all homosexuals everywhere, stop trying to cram your deviant sexual conduct upon a society that does not want to condone it.
California voters, your constitution is hanging in the balance. Please step up and stop the attempts of the deviant minority by making the change. It matters to every family of any religion in our country, even the LDS.
Comments continue below
Stork | 12:45 p.m. May 18, 2008
If you want to put all of the homosexuals on an island until they fade away
(Hitlerian to say the least!), then how would you propose differentiating
between the straight and the gay babies being born every day?
Julio | 1:03 p.m. May 18, 2008
The idea of marriage and same sex must be a transcendental idea. The idea is an
ancient idea. That so much contention must be present concerning the morals and
desires of others is the worst part of this news.
To Julio | 2:29 p.m. May 18, 2008
You just used a big, fancy word to convey nothing at all. However, you are
right that homosexuality is an ancient idea that also destroyed Sodom and
Gamorah. That's where the word sodomy came from.
Raffelita | 4:15 p.m. May 18, 2008
Well, what a bunch of know it alls! And I always thought I knew everything.
Strange world.
Bible Is Correct | 4:34 p.m. May 18, 2008
Gays think that homosexuality is OK because the ancient Law of Moses was done
away with at the coming of Christ. Things like not eating shells or stonings
were part of a lower law that was designed for an unprepared people before the
coming of Christ. At another place in the Bible, innocent children were
destroyed as part of an entire nation that was so corrupted that every child was
doomed to only know sin.
Gods ways are higher than man's ways and those children are saved for all of eternity and are with him right now. God doesn't care if they died then so long as they are saved now. Obviously, those things are not happening today because of the atonement of Christ and because we are not a homosexual nation.
None of those ancient events should be considered as an excuse to ignore the commandment against homosexuality. When the Law of Moses was lifted it did not lift God's ban against homosexuality and never will.
Gods ways are higher than man's ways and those children are saved for all of eternity and are with him right now. God doesn't care if they died then so long as they are saved now. Obviously, those things are not happening today because of the atonement of Christ and because we are not a homosexual nation.
None of those ancient events should be considered as an excuse to ignore the commandment against homosexuality. When the Law of Moses was lifted it did not lift God's ban against homosexuality and never will.
To Raffelita | 5:05 p.m. May 18, 2008
Strange world is an apt description. Mad world might be even better.
Brother Chuck Schroeder | 8:31 p.m. May 18, 2008
JESUS CHRIST and also HIS prophet and apostles feel strongly about something
here, that "right is right, and, wrong is wrong, that there's NO GRAY
AREA to hide in the center, of right and wrong, your either doing right, or,
your doing EVIL. (aka) "wrong."
To Brother Chuck | 9:01 p.m. May 18, 2008
Not everyone believes your prophet and apostles are connected to Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, not everyone is Christian, which means not everyone recognizes
Jesus Christ in the same way. Some believe in him as their savior, while others
believe he was a compassionate and great teacher.
Not everyone believes your version of right is right or that your version of wrong is wrong. It's problematic to assume there's no gray area, because unless beliefs and truths are shared by everyone, there is ALWAYS gray area.
It's great to have beliefs and to stand firm in your beliefs, but important to remember that they are just that: yours (and those who share them with you). The concept of black and white only works if everyone is on the same page and seeing the same black and white.
Not everyone believes your version of right is right or that your version of wrong is wrong. It's problematic to assume there's no gray area, because unless beliefs and truths are shared by everyone, there is ALWAYS gray area.
It's great to have beliefs and to stand firm in your beliefs, but important to remember that they are just that: yours (and those who share them with you). The concept of black and white only works if everyone is on the same page and seeing the same black and white.
Immoral people | 10:38 p.m. May 18, 2008
Everyone thinks their religion is the true religion. Most Christian religions do
not accept gay marriages, nor polygamy. So two problems here, is that these 2
practices are immoral.
Wisconsin Cheeseman | 10:43 p.m. May 18, 2008
Famine in the land will be coming as a result of this decision.
Prosperity | 10:58 p.m. May 18, 2008
I would like to know how we can perpetuate or preserve or prosperity with gay
marriage. If Adam and Steve can biologically have children, then I will concede
to the idea of gay marriage.
If Adam and Steve cannot biologically get pregnant and have children, then I must admit I am at odds with the gay marriage idea.
If Adam and Steve cannot biologically get pregnant and have children, then I must admit I am at odds with the gay marriage idea.
Moral break down | 11:00 p.m. May 18, 2008
It's no doubt the latter days. Morals do not matter to a great many people
living today.
To Prosperity | 11:40 p.m. May 18, 2008
The heterosexual population vastly outnumbers the homosexual population. And so
far, the heterosexuals have been doing just fine at multiplying and replenishing
the earth. How will gay marriage result in a decrease of childbearing? Adam and
Steve are still going to be Adam and Steve, whether gay marriage is legalized or
not. In either case, married or not, the two of them alone are not having
biological children. So why does it matter if they are married?
To Moral break down | 11:41 p.m. May 18, 2008
It's the last days, so celebrate. If you're living what you believe,
then you're in good shape. Just keep living it.
What the World Needs Now | 12:27 a.m. May 19, 2008
is love, sweet love. It's the only thing that there's just TOO LITTLE
of.
Hey everyone, what say we change that? How about a little more love? How about we each make a concentrated effort tomorrow to put some good in the world with an act of love toward someone who's usually hard for us to love?
That seems like the ultimate form of being moral to me. :)
Hey everyone, what say we change that? How about a little more love? How about we each make a concentrated effort tomorrow to put some good in the world with an act of love toward someone who's usually hard for us to love?
That seems like the ultimate form of being moral to me. :)
Adam12 | 8:41 a.m. May 19, 2008
Why all the hate?
truth | 9:23 a.m. May 19, 2008
The self righteous are much more dangerous than the homosexual population. You
people who pretend to have the moral authority....relax. Allow people to have
their own experiences without you pushing your own beliefs onto them. Good for
you California.
James | 9:28 a.m. May 19, 2008
The shocking thing is the number of people who post here thinking that
opposition means hate. You ask,"Who is hurt by gay marriage"? True, I
do not receive a physical injury from a gay marriage. It is a injury to what it
means to be married. To many, marriage is simply a bunch of legal rights. To
members of the LDS Church marriage is a bond which ties families together after
this life in addition to ties in this life. The fact that "gay
marriage" by its very nature produces no progeny is self-evident proof
against it. Does this mean I hate homosexual men and women? I think not. I know
plenty of people who are gay; I have no hate for any of them, but I don't
agree with their life-style choice. To call that hate is delusional and
childish.
To those who argue against churches speaking out on these issues: Get over it! They have as much of a right to speak out at this time as they do when they speak out against marriages to children, abuse in marriages, and any other issue which demeans the meaning of marriage even if you disagree.
To those who argue against churches speaking out on these issues: Get over it! They have as much of a right to speak out at this time as they do when they speak out against marriages to children, abuse in marriages, and any other issue which demeans the meaning of marriage even if you disagree.
Chucker | 9:42 a.m. May 19, 2008
Yeahhhhhhh Mormons, way to show your true colors. Your biggotry never stops
does it? If you are reading these blogs and you are LDS do you agree with your
brethren? If you don't, take a stand and confront the wrongs that your
church is pushing onto it's members. Now is the time to face the wrongs of
humanity. We will never come together as a people when there is so much
division among religions and society in general.
Anonymous | 9:57 a.m. May 19, 2008
Over the years, I've known and cared about several people who have been
homosexual, and if this ruling were JUST about giving marriage rights to
everybody, I'd be all for it. I have no hatred whatsoever for gay people.
But it's NOT just about marriage rights. Even Jesus Christ, the only
perfect person ever to walk this earth, spoke out against people He loved when
He saw them corrupting His father's words.
We have been charged to "stand as witnesses of God in all times, and in all things, and in all places", and just because it's not popular or "politically correct", it doesn't mean it's wrong. We have an obligation to stand up for our Heavenly Father and His teachings. The Lord has been perfectly clear on the matter: if we're not for Him, we're against Him. I personally don't want to have to stand before Him and explain why I didn't bother to say anything when I saw His laws being mocked on every side.
We have been charged to "stand as witnesses of God in all times, and in all things, and in all places", and just because it's not popular or "politically correct", it doesn't mean it's wrong. We have an obligation to stand up for our Heavenly Father and His teachings. The Lord has been perfectly clear on the matter: if we're not for Him, we're against Him. I personally don't want to have to stand before Him and explain why I didn't bother to say anything when I saw His laws being mocked on every side.
Re: James | 10:04 a.m. May 19, 2008
It seems to me if people truly believe that their marriage is some how lessoned
because now gays can get married in California, is bordering on insanity. I
know that you are taught that your marriage will last after this life, however
do you believe that people who are not married in the temple will not be
together after this life? I truly believe that couples will be together if they
choose to be together no matter what their sexual preferences are. When you say
you have no hate for them, I would say then love them uncondionally and not to
worry about them....It truly doesn't concern you. James, I don't
remember the Supreme Court of California asking religious denominations if it
was OK for them to pass this law. In my opinion this topic doesn't concern
them either.
YBU | 12:26 p.m. May 19, 2008
To: James 9:28
Please, I was raised LDS and marriage did not mean that a family will be together forever. TEMPLE MARRIAGE did. This will not do anything to change temple marriage. The church will not be forced to have same-sex marriages in the temple in california. I know that LDS believe that people who are married only civilly are married but will be separated in death. Don't confuse this issue. It is merely trying to keep marriage as you want it to be so that your beliefs are affirmed.
Read the constitution. It says that we must treat all citizens alike, even those that we think are sinning.
This ruling does not affect your marriage or your defination of marriage...it merely rubs you the wrong way.
Please, I was raised LDS and marriage did not mean that a family will be together forever. TEMPLE MARRIAGE did. This will not do anything to change temple marriage. The church will not be forced to have same-sex marriages in the temple in california. I know that LDS believe that people who are married only civilly are married but will be separated in death. Don't confuse this issue. It is merely trying to keep marriage as you want it to be so that your beliefs are affirmed.
Read the constitution. It says that we must treat all citizens alike, even those that we think are sinning.
This ruling does not affect your marriage or your defination of marriage...it merely rubs you the wrong way.
To Wisconsin Cheeseman | 1:31 p.m. May 19, 2008
You predict that a famine will result as a consequence of this decision. Why
California specifically, and not Vermont, Hawaii, Maine and/or Massachusetts,
all of whome allow either gay marriage, domestic partnerships or civil unions?
Just wondering.
To "Archaea Cougarguard" | 2:57 p.m. May 19, 2008
who wrote on 15 May at 3:34 PM that they believed that the LDS Church would
someday accept homosexuals just as we accepted non-caucasians to hold the
Priesthood in 1978.
There is one "minor" difference of which you are unaware.....it is that the Lord directed that worthy males of all races be allowed to receive the Priesthood and He did it because those races, for whatever reason, were now worthy to receive the Priesthood. In the case of homosexuality, it is now, and has always been, and will always be, "sin", and the Lord will NEVER accept those who actively "participate" in sin.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is absolutely incorrect. By all means, I encourage you to watch the LDS Church and see what comes to fruition.
Thank God for His Prophets and Apostles!
There is one "minor" difference of which you are unaware.....it is that the Lord directed that worthy males of all races be allowed to receive the Priesthood and He did it because those races, for whatever reason, were now worthy to receive the Priesthood. In the case of homosexuality, it is now, and has always been, and will always be, "sin", and the Lord will NEVER accept those who actively "participate" in sin.
You are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion is absolutely incorrect. By all means, I encourage you to watch the LDS Church and see what comes to fruition.
Thank God for His Prophets and Apostles!
Hey "Crathes", May 15, 3:46 PM | 3:11 p.m. May 19, 2008
You asked for one good reason why a society should care about working to define
and advance the institution of marriage as being soley between a man and a
woman.
Here's one: because if it were allowed both by law and / or societal norms for a man to "marry" a man or a woman to "marry" a woman, since that kind of union can never produce a child on their own, God's plan of Salvation, or His "plan of growth" for His children, for that particlular "family" would be stunted. Stunted since they can never be parents and also stunted for God's children that He'd like to send to earth but can't because "everyone's busy being gay".
Here's one: because if it were allowed both by law and / or societal norms for a man to "marry" a man or a woman to "marry" a woman, since that kind of union can never produce a child on their own, God's plan of Salvation, or His "plan of growth" for His children, for that particlular "family" would be stunted. Stunted since they can never be parents and also stunted for God's children that He'd like to send to earth but can't because "everyone's busy being gay".
To My LDS Brothers and Sisters | 3:31 p.m. May 19, 2008
Having read some of the comments from those who claim to be LDS and don't
see "what the big deal is" regarding the legalization of homosexual
"marriages", let me explain why the practice of homosexuality is
morally wrong:
The practice of homosexual actions (NOT the possession of homosexual "feelings") is wrong because homosexual attitudes, whether "born" or "learned", if allowed to be enacted upon, will lead to homosexual unions that will NEVER produce children. And, if there are literally no children being born, where then is the unfolding or progression of Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation? You know, the Plan of Salvation that we hear over and over in Sunday School...who are we, where did we come from, why are we here and were are we going when we die?
God's Plan of Salvation DEPENDS upon His sons marrying His daughters and bringing more of His children into mortality so that THEY might have the privelege of learning and growing, just like you and I are experiencing this privelege now.
Homosexual relationships moves in the direction of stopping that plan. THAT is why the practice of homosexual desires is wrong.
If you can't see that, your testimony is currently weak.
The practice of homosexual actions (NOT the possession of homosexual "feelings") is wrong because homosexual attitudes, whether "born" or "learned", if allowed to be enacted upon, will lead to homosexual unions that will NEVER produce children. And, if there are literally no children being born, where then is the unfolding or progression of Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation? You know, the Plan of Salvation that we hear over and over in Sunday School...who are we, where did we come from, why are we here and were are we going when we die?
God's Plan of Salvation DEPENDS upon His sons marrying His daughters and bringing more of His children into mortality so that THEY might have the privelege of learning and growing, just like you and I are experiencing this privelege now.
Homosexual relationships moves in the direction of stopping that plan. THAT is why the practice of homosexual desires is wrong.
If you can't see that, your testimony is currently weak.
To "To My LDS" at 3:31 | 4:26 p.m. May 19, 2008
Based on the way the plan of salvation is defined, it's understandable why
homosexuality doesn't fit into it.
However, homosexuals, regardless of whether or not they marry, will still enter relationships. Even if homosexuals don't act upon their feelings because to do so is a sin by some people's definition, they still won't be furthering the plan of salvation.
The legalization of gay marriage recognizes what already exists: there are gay people in committed relationships. And it doesn't stop what also exists alongside it: heterosexual couples entering into unions and bearing children.
However, homosexuals, regardless of whether or not they marry, will still enter relationships. Even if homosexuals don't act upon their feelings because to do so is a sin by some people's definition, they still won't be furthering the plan of salvation.
The legalization of gay marriage recognizes what already exists: there are gay people in committed relationships. And it doesn't stop what also exists alongside it: heterosexual couples entering into unions and bearing children.
YBU | 4:44 p.m. May 19, 2008
If same-sex marriages were allowed, would there be a drop in the birth rate? I
think not. The percentage of the population that are gay will just make their
unions legal and receive the priviliges that go with marriage. The other
percent of the population that produces children will not change. They will
still be copulating at the same rate and children will be born into families
with both parents, families with an unmarried mothers, divoirced families.
abusive families, ...
If gays are allowed to marry, will they then start having children (sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption, etc) at a greater rate? Maybe, but they are doing all those things now without the marriage package. So, saying that marriage for gays should be banned because they cannot have children and God wants his spirits to come down here is a false argument.
If gays are allowed to marry, will they then start having children (sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption, etc) at a greater rate? Maybe, but they are doing all those things now without the marriage package. So, saying that marriage for gays should be banned because they cannot have children and God wants his spirits to come down here is a false argument.
Artist | 5:48 p.m. May 19, 2008
It seems rather small-minded to assume that the ONLY plan that God has for the
human race is to have families and babies. Did it ever occur to any of you that
some of us are designed for more complicated and passionate tasks than merely
raising children? There are plenty of other people dedicated to that common
task so that others may explore and discover new things.
What is God's role? | 6:42 p.m. May 19, 2008
God is our Father. He is raising everyone in the world right now. If raising
up children is good enough for Him, then surely it is a worthy cause for us. It
is small-minded to assume that art, business, or other worldly pursuits are
somehow superior to giving life and educating children. Had your parents
focused on something other than having a family, you wouldn't exist.
Mindset | 6:43 p.m. May 19, 2008
If many religious people think marriage should be defined as a union between one
man and one woman, are you open-minded enough to accept that?
Consenting Adults | 6:52 p.m. May 19, 2008
Two adults that decide to do something in private doesn't make what they
ok, or of no consequence on the rest of the world. The definition of marriage
shouldn't change, it is what it is. Maintaining the definition of a word
isn't hateful, it isn't bigotry, it is consistent. Calling evil good
& good evil will not change what it is, however it may deceive many into a
false sense of what is right & what is wrong.
Puck | 10:11 p.m. May 19, 2008
If you hold so firmly to the fact that the one true plan is to have children,
does that include all of the heterosexual people throughout history who choose
not to have children as well? Are they also hell-bound according to your
beliefs?
If your trying to think of a concrete reason why gay people shouldn't be married, at least attempt to be more imaginative. Logic has obviously been long-abandoned.
If your trying to think of a concrete reason why gay people shouldn't be married, at least attempt to be more imaginative. Logic has obviously been long-abandoned.
Neo | 10:55 a.m. May 20, 2008
These churches should only be allowed to control it's own members. If you
are not a member [which gay and lesbians are not allowed to be] then the church
(LDS or any other) should stay out of their business. You fight for your
freedoms to believe in golden plates, leave others alone to fight for their
freedoms. Free your mind. Hooray for California.
MY SLC | 12:40 p.m. May 20, 2008
There is nothing like the topics of God, guns or gay to bring out the hatred of
�Christians� I love this - it just
scares the more moderate inclined towards the democrats.
There should be no limits | 12:49 p.m. May 20, 2008
Right? Anything goes. Nobody is responsible for their actions. You can do
anything you want. There is no right or wrong. That is what I am hearing from
the pro gay society. Take a look at history and see what happens when these
attitudes are accepted by the majority. Yet, the majority in this case voted
against allowing gay marriage. The courts stated that the public is wrong.
This should be worrisome to everyone. What's next? You can't educate
your kids in your own home?
comment after comment | 1:32 p.m. May 20, 2008
ok so comment after comment is posted on this.. You can officially all say you
are just voices in the crowd now so stop posting!!! i have not read one of your
posts and i am guessing nobody will read mine. but to those who are giong
through reading all comments, LET IT GO you can survive on your opinion alone!
RE: Puck | 2:51 p.m. May 20, 2008
I don't know anyone that says people who choose not to have children are
hell bound. I do know people that say those who engage in homosexual relations
are sinners. Please don't speak tolerance and then not tolerate religious
views and values.
To "Puck", 10:11PM, May 19th | 8:28 p.m. May 20, 2008
To answer your question of if the LDS church believes that those who choose not
to have children are "hell-bound", no, that is not our doctrine, nor
did I allude that was so.
I am a father of 4 kids and I can tell you that one of the major reasons I am (ever so slowly) becoming more like Christ is because of the constant love and service I give to my children. Any true parent's love is unconditional for their kids; you encourage them, listen to them, hug them, sometimes scold them, hope for them, counsel them, be patient for them when they make their own choices that you know are unwise and on and on and on...
In short, the unconditional love that automatically comes to any physchological/emotionally healthy parent for their child at their birth brings a HUGE opportunity to grow; both for the parent as well as for the child.
Anyone in a homosexual relationship can't "fully" experience that because they can never participate in the creation process.
So, "hell-bound"? No. Cheating themselves of happiness if they "choose" not to have kids? Yes. (And YES, heterosexual couples who adopt can experience joy too...)
I am a father of 4 kids and I can tell you that one of the major reasons I am (ever so slowly) becoming more like Christ is because of the constant love and service I give to my children. Any true parent's love is unconditional for their kids; you encourage them, listen to them, hug them, sometimes scold them, hope for them, counsel them, be patient for them when they make their own choices that you know are unwise and on and on and on...
In short, the unconditional love that automatically comes to any physchological/emotionally healthy parent for their child at their birth brings a HUGE opportunity to grow; both for the parent as well as for the child.
Anyone in a homosexual relationship can't "fully" experience that because they can never participate in the creation process.
So, "hell-bound"? No. Cheating themselves of happiness if they "choose" not to have kids? Yes. (And YES, heterosexual couples who adopt can experience joy too...)
Puck | 11:25 p.m. May 20, 2008
Gay people have biological and adopted children all the time. Homosexuality has
nothing to do with fertility or ability to conceive. After a little research, I
have found only five states which prohibit forms of adoption by gay parents
(Utah included).
If happiness through raising children is sought, there are many ways a homosexual could persue the desire naturally and legally, whether or not they would carnally enjoy the traditional process of insemination.
Do I agree that children are the invariable pole star of happiness for all heterosexuals and homosexuals? No. I know plenty of people in my family and otherwise who wished they never married or had children and were able to persue more intellectual callings. They found the portions in their where they were raising children to be mundane, ordinary and unfulfilling, and eventually grew to vastly appreciate a selective solitude.
If happiness through raising children is sought, there are many ways a homosexual could persue the desire naturally and legally, whether or not they would carnally enjoy the traditional process of insemination.
Do I agree that children are the invariable pole star of happiness for all heterosexuals and homosexuals? No. I know plenty of people in my family and otherwise who wished they never married or had children and were able to persue more intellectual callings. They found the portions in their where they were raising children to be mundane, ordinary and unfulfilling, and eventually grew to vastly appreciate a selective solitude.
LDS , CA native, and gay? | 12:38 p.m. May 21, 2008
The Heavenly Father I was taught and believe in, is an unconditional God.
Isn't He? So I am wondering, Why it is a sin for two people who truly love
each other, want to be together, and become a family? Most committed Gay couples
want to adopt children. These are children who otherwise would not have a
family. (from heterosexual parents) Isn't that what it's all about?
Family, love, children? My wish is that gay people who truly want commitment and
family will be accepted by all religions. Then many children in the system may
have the chance to have parents who love them, and a family. Wouldn't that
please Heavenly Father? His precious innocent children, having people who would
love them, and commit to being their parents. We all know being a parent is a
life long commitment. How does that become contrary to God? How is love, family,
and commitment a sin?
I love the Gospel and Jesus Christ. I am LDS, in fact I have Prophets of God in my family. I married in the temple. I will always want to live according to Jesus Christ's teachings. But I am confused, at this issue.
I love the Gospel and Jesus Christ. I am LDS, in fact I have Prophets of God in my family. I married in the temple. I will always want to live according to Jesus Christ's teachings. But I am confused, at this issue.
Kiki | 2:54 p.m. May 22, 2008
Being a true and faithful member of the LDS church means that you believe in the
family unity and the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
Re: Morality; to help you better understand what Morality means here is the dictionary version. Morality means 1. the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
Homosexuality has everything to do with morality. The LDS church basis its laws in accordance with God's laws.
We sympathize with those that are homosexual. However, same sex marriage is not what our Heavenly Father wants.
Re: Morality; to help you better understand what Morality means here is the dictionary version. Morality means 1. the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
Homosexuality has everything to do with morality. The LDS church basis its laws in accordance with God's laws.
We sympathize with those that are homosexual. However, same sex marriage is not what our Heavenly Father wants.
Kimball | 5:03 p.m. June 5, 2008
First of all, if the U.S. government never intervened in laws passed by the
people, then we would probably still be practising slavery, racial segregation,
and whites would still not be able to marry blacks. The government has the
power to declare voter passed laws unconstitutional for a reason. It's all
part of the checks and balances in place to keep our country running
smoothly.
Second of all, the judges on the CA Supreme Court were not liberal at all. As ironic as it is, 6 of the 7 judges were Republicans. There were not pushing for any agenda. They simply saw the injustice in the law and decided it needed to go. They saw it as an issue of basic civil rights being denied to a minority group.
Second of all, the judges on the CA Supreme Court were not liberal at all. As ironic as it is, 6 of the 7 judges were Republicans. There were not pushing for any agenda. They simply saw the injustice in the law and decided it needed to go. They saw it as an issue of basic civil rights being denied to a minority group.
Anonymous | 5:08 p.m. June 5, 2008
Marriage is an institution which encourages responsible, chaste, healthy, stable
relationships of trust, honesty, and virtuosity between two people. Why would
the LDS church, which claims to believe in being honest, true, chaste, and
benevolent deny this to anyone else? Preventing gays from getting married
promotes a life of lustful irresponsible fleeting unstable relationships of
self-gratifying one-night-stands. Shouldn't the LDS church have an
interest in preventing this and promoting a healthy responsible relationship
between two people? It doesn't make sense to me. It's hypocritical.
Banning same-sex marriage is not only unhealthy for the gay individual, but
horrible for society as a whole. It promotes the spread of hate, disease, and
unhappiness. It brings society down.
Whether we like it or not, gays have been and will continue to raise kids. Promoting a healthy responsible relationship through gay marriage would be a win-win situation for the kids involved and for society as a whole. It really is the logical next step!
Whether we like it or not, gays have been and will continue to raise kids. Promoting a healthy responsible relationship through gay marriage would be a win-win situation for the kids involved and for society as a whole. It really is the logical next step!
HYHYBT | 1:14 a.m. June 7, 2008
" There is no right or wrong. That is what I am hearing from the pro gay
society."
Really? I've heard that from very few people, and none who really believed it. If "pro gay society" really believed that nothing was wrong, they'd believe the way the legal system (and others) already treated them was OK. What they say instead is that there *is* a right and wrong, and that one of the things that's morally wrong is treating gays as if their relationships were worthless or worse just because they don't have complementary genitals.
Having said that, the LDS ought to oppose such marriages because doing otherwise would be inconsistent... but there's a difference between opposing people doing something and opposing their being allowed to do it. If your *only* objection is religious, then in this country you have no business forcing anyone outside your religion to comply. And if your objection is biological (marriage is for making babies!) then you've just slapped every infertile or elderly couple in the face.
Really? I've heard that from very few people, and none who really believed it. If "pro gay society" really believed that nothing was wrong, they'd believe the way the legal system (and others) already treated them was OK. What they say instead is that there *is* a right and wrong, and that one of the things that's morally wrong is treating gays as if their relationships were worthless or worse just because they don't have complementary genitals.
Having said that, the LDS ought to oppose such marriages because doing otherwise would be inconsistent... but there's a difference between opposing people doing something and opposing their being allowed to do it. If your *only* objection is religious, then in this country you have no business forcing anyone outside your religion to comply. And if your objection is biological (marriage is for making babies!) then you've just slapped every infertile or elderly couple in the face.
BCA | 8:54 a.m. June 13, 2008
Those who say they are upset with the ruling because it goes against the vote
of the people will have to come up with another argument in a few years when it
is the will of the people nationwide. It is just a matter of time until this
type of bigotry is done away with.
BCA | 9:12 a.m. June 13, 2008
It is hard to say where the LDS church will stand in the future on this issue.
, During polygamous times (on the issue of monogamy), John Taylor (one-time
president of the church) said "the one-wife system not only denigrates the
human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely
incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to
temptation and has always proved a curse to a people." (Millenial Star Vol
15, p 227)
If he thought this, who knows what he thought about the no-wife system.
If he thought this, who knows what he thought about the no-wife system.
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
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime 1:11 a.m.
- UVU beats SUU; USU wins big 12:57 a.m.
- BYU spikers end season with a loss 12:55 a.m.
- Iverson may be headed to 76ers 12:34 a.m.
- Credit Coug defense for win 12:33 a.m.
- Aggies blow away T-birds 12:32 a.m.
- Mo steals show in Cavaliers' victory 12:31 a.m.
- Editorial: Facilitate Big Brother? 12:22 a.m.
- Mom befriends wife of PTSD vet 12:21 a.m.
- Political clash over U.S. debt 12:21 a.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- BYU is champion of the state
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Idaho woman dies after fall
- Woods, wife unavailable for interview
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Man dies in dirt bike crash
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
396 - Hall mouths off about hate of Utah168
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
- Hall's legacy measured today75
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
- Letters: C02 causes warming70
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
watch out for next year for sure, the negatives are just closet (and...
And something else, I generally follow players from the state schools when...
I could care less that Max Hall said what he did. The feeling is mutual BYU...
Dear Max, probably could have done without that comment. Probably would've...
As a Utah fan, let me first say congratulations to Max Hall, the Cougars, and...
Geno's and Pat's are good.. but, they are mostly for tourists, the real...
(You even got a middle initial... how's that for 'ya Max) It's nice to see...
Even today, I still cannot get enough of this movie or Charles Gitonga Maina....
...disappointed with Max Hall's comments that he hates everything about UofU....
Over the last few days I read comments of people complaining about tasteless...
Advertisements