Reader comments
Readers' forum: Homosexuality ruins lives
328 comments | Read story
David | 1:05 p.m. July 19, 2008
Yes, Africans do have the highest rate of HIV infection, but you are wrong that
it is in the heterosexual population as epidemic. The population that passed
this disease on again was through Homosexual, drug, and prostitute sex.
To Eddie | 1:04 p.m. July 19, 2008
"Whether it's right or not, and I'll let you all discuss that,
it's the fact that people drill into their heads that their urges are evil
and dirty that causes whatever "unhappiness" exists in gays."
Well, that's good logic.
Now, lets use the very same logic about the teachings that thou shalt not judge, lest ye be judge.
This doctrine has been drilled into the minds of all Mormons, and since they're not living it, including the Prophet himself, then this must be the reasons why so many Mormons are so unhappy.
It makes perfect sense, because Utah has become the number 1 state in the country to use anti-depressants. This is real by the way, not my opinion.
It's hard to swallow isn't it? (Pun intended)
What more proof do you need?
Well, that's good logic.
Now, lets use the very same logic about the teachings that thou shalt not judge, lest ye be judge.
This doctrine has been drilled into the minds of all Mormons, and since they're not living it, including the Prophet himself, then this must be the reasons why so many Mormons are so unhappy.
It makes perfect sense, because Utah has become the number 1 state in the country to use anti-depressants. This is real by the way, not my opinion.
It's hard to swallow isn't it? (Pun intended)
What more proof do you need?
Comments continue below
Regarding Pawn = John Lambert | 1:24 p.m. July 19, 2008
John Lambert is a perfect example of the success the Mormon church has in
molding ones thinking, beliefs and actions to its will, under the guise of, the
Lord's will.
This is the will of the church in the first place, to silently mold every Mormon to its will, but at the same time, they teach of free agency, so as to hide their programming techniques, giving impressions that the people are free, and it's their own choice they're making for the church.
Satan is wiser than one might think.
John Lambert is one of the finest examples of the works of the LDS church. .
To program him to be needy of the church, to be trusting, to be compliant, to serve hand and foot, to extract money from, and above all, to fear it, because once they have fear, then they'll do anything to feel secure. And I mean, anything.
Don't blame John Lambert. He is only a pawn.
To get to the source of people like him, and correct their dictatorship regime, attack the LDS church instead.
The only way to fight the LDS church's attack on freedom, is to counter attack, and do it hard.
This is the will of the church in the first place, to silently mold every Mormon to its will, but at the same time, they teach of free agency, so as to hide their programming techniques, giving impressions that the people are free, and it's their own choice they're making for the church.
Satan is wiser than one might think.
John Lambert is one of the finest examples of the works of the LDS church. .
To program him to be needy of the church, to be trusting, to be compliant, to serve hand and foot, to extract money from, and above all, to fear it, because once they have fear, then they'll do anything to feel secure. And I mean, anything.
Don't blame John Lambert. He is only a pawn.
To get to the source of people like him, and correct their dictatorship regime, attack the LDS church instead.
The only way to fight the LDS church's attack on freedom, is to counter attack, and do it hard.
Torquemad-Ute | 2:15 p.m. July 19, 2008
"You are guilty of apostasy. You are urging us to do the exact opposite of
what we have been counseled to do by the prophet of God." --John Lambert |
8:29 p.m. July 17, 2008
Prepare yourself for the Utah Inquisition!
The auto de f� begins at promptly at 11:00.
Punishments begin at midnight.
Prepare yourself for the Utah Inquisition!
The auto de f� begins at promptly at 11:00.
Punishments begin at midnight.
Nxe5 to Pawn | 2:27 p.m. July 19, 2008
Consistent with what you have said, the LDS Church is one of the most dangerous
organizations on the earth. They are a form of religious cult akin to Islamic
fundamentalism in embryo, and the egg is hatching!
We must martial all legal resources and forces to oppose their imperial movement.
Keep the faith!
We must martial all legal resources and forces to oppose their imperial movement.
Keep the faith!
Adams | 2:38 p.m. July 19, 2008
"Patriot",
The facts readily disprove your argument. Utah law has defined marriage in heterosexual terms since at least 1898 (See Revised Statutes, section 1184) and undoubtedly back to the original territorial laws. (Online resources do not go back that far, or I would confirm it.) I suspect that the same is true of every state in the USA. Moreover, marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman, from before the founding of the country and, indeed, for millenia. The claim that "marriage" meant anything other than the union of man and woman, or that the word was allegedly ambiguous, is of recent vintage and not supported by the facts.
Nothing in the United States Constitution or the Utah constitution establishes "sexual orientation" as a protected classification. Your statement that "many rulings over decades" have stated that sexual orientation cannot be used for "discrimination" is not supported by the facts. Any such rulings are of recent vintage. The California Supreme Court ruling was an unfortunate, and illegitimate, usurpation of the legislative powers and power of constitutional amendment retained by the citizens of California. Hopefully, the citizens of California will take corrective action this November.
The facts readily disprove your argument. Utah law has defined marriage in heterosexual terms since at least 1898 (See Revised Statutes, section 1184) and undoubtedly back to the original territorial laws. (Online resources do not go back that far, or I would confirm it.) I suspect that the same is true of every state in the USA. Moreover, marriage has always been defined as the union of a man and a woman, from before the founding of the country and, indeed, for millenia. The claim that "marriage" meant anything other than the union of man and woman, or that the word was allegedly ambiguous, is of recent vintage and not supported by the facts.
Nothing in the United States Constitution or the Utah constitution establishes "sexual orientation" as a protected classification. Your statement that "many rulings over decades" have stated that sexual orientation cannot be used for "discrimination" is not supported by the facts. Any such rulings are of recent vintage. The California Supreme Court ruling was an unfortunate, and illegitimate, usurpation of the legislative powers and power of constitutional amendment retained by the citizens of California. Hopefully, the citizens of California will take corrective action this November.
Patriot | 2:50 p.m. July 19, 2008
Adams,
You can suspect and speculate all you want. I have microfiche and digital scans of original documents from at least 24 states that show otherwise.
My argument still stands and you are mistaken BIG TIME! Ambiguity is NOT legal precedent, and your ignorant and biased criticisms of the California Supreme Court's rulings are not even worth responding to. What a joke you and your position are. You have no legal or moral leg to stand on, and your flopping around grasping at straws is obvious.
Good luck to you and your fellow bigots in November.
You can suspect and speculate all you want. I have microfiche and digital scans of original documents from at least 24 states that show otherwise.
My argument still stands and you are mistaken BIG TIME! Ambiguity is NOT legal precedent, and your ignorant and biased criticisms of the California Supreme Court's rulings are not even worth responding to. What a joke you and your position are. You have no legal or moral leg to stand on, and your flopping around grasping at straws is obvious.
Good luck to you and your fellow bigots in November.
Adams | 4:05 p.m. July 19, 2008
'Patriot",
If the original documents from 24 states address "marriage" but do not describe it in heterosexual terms, as Utah's do, the fact remains that those documents were not ambiguous because there was a clear, commonly-accepted definition of "marriage" at the time. Your better arguments are based in the present, because historical arguments do not serve your position well. (Can you tell me where I can get copies of the original documents you mention? I would be interested in reading them. Really.)
It's unfortunate that your last post devolves to ad hominem and the "appeal to ridicule," because our dialog has otherwise been interesting and enjoyable. We'll have to agree to disagree. Best wishes to you.
If the original documents from 24 states address "marriage" but do not describe it in heterosexual terms, as Utah's do, the fact remains that those documents were not ambiguous because there was a clear, commonly-accepted definition of "marriage" at the time. Your better arguments are based in the present, because historical arguments do not serve your position well. (Can you tell me where I can get copies of the original documents you mention? I would be interested in reading them. Really.)
It's unfortunate that your last post devolves to ad hominem and the "appeal to ridicule," because our dialog has otherwise been interesting and enjoyable. We'll have to agree to disagree. Best wishes to you.
Patriot | 4:28 p.m. July 19, 2008
Adams,
You are right. I allowed my frustration with hearing the same lame arguments, supported by speculation, get the best of me. Please pardon the outburst.
The historical argument is relevant to the idea that the definition of marriage is NOT traditionally and historically ONLY between a man and a woman. This is important because those who oppose same-sex marriage assert that they are merely trying to defend the definition of marriage "that has always been," and it is the gay lobby who are trying to distort the definition. If I recall correctly, you tried to make that argument, which is why I countered as I did.
The truth is that neither historically nor in the present is there a "clear, commonly-accepted definition of marriage". How would such a claim even be established? A survey?
Yes, many people make assumptions about the definitions of words, but if there is anything we can count on, it is that the meaning of words is RARELY "clear and commonly-accepted." That is why we continue to need Judges and Supreme Courts. Homosexuals just want equality under the law. Civil unions are a start, but now is the time to precisely define marriage without bias.
You are right. I allowed my frustration with hearing the same lame arguments, supported by speculation, get the best of me. Please pardon the outburst.
The historical argument is relevant to the idea that the definition of marriage is NOT traditionally and historically ONLY between a man and a woman. This is important because those who oppose same-sex marriage assert that they are merely trying to defend the definition of marriage "that has always been," and it is the gay lobby who are trying to distort the definition. If I recall correctly, you tried to make that argument, which is why I countered as I did.
The truth is that neither historically nor in the present is there a "clear, commonly-accepted definition of marriage". How would such a claim even be established? A survey?
Yes, many people make assumptions about the definitions of words, but if there is anything we can count on, it is that the meaning of words is RARELY "clear and commonly-accepted." That is why we continue to need Judges and Supreme Courts. Homosexuals just want equality under the law. Civil unions are a start, but now is the time to precisely define marriage without bias.
Patriot | 4:37 p.m. July 19, 2008
As for the original documents, I accessed the ones I have through an
Interlibrary program through the University of Oklahoma College of Law, with the
help of a fantastic librarian there.
What I have found interesting is that many States went to extra effort to ensure that mixed race marriages were not allowed in their Constitutions! Many didn't even try to define marriage so that polygamy was forbidden! These facts contribute to the idea that the legal definition of marriage has never been so simple, clear and unambiguous as those who oppose same-sex marriage assert.
What I have found interesting is that many States went to extra effort to ensure that mixed race marriages were not allowed in their Constitutions! Many didn't even try to define marriage so that polygamy was forbidden! These facts contribute to the idea that the legal definition of marriage has never been so simple, clear and unambiguous as those who oppose same-sex marriage assert.
Adams | 5:44 p.m. July 19, 2008
"Patriot",
That is incorrect. While homosexual relationships are nothing new, marriage was understood and defined as the union of man and woman in every ancient civilization in recorded history, including ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, and Africa, as well as among the Hebrews. Since antiquity, marriage�the union of man and woman�has had a privileged and protected position in society because it has always been viewed as necessary for propagation and preservation of the species and the care and socialization of children. The same definition and philosophies undergird the institution of marriage in modern western civilization, including the United States. Revisionist historians now seek to rewrite ancient history to justify their positions, and apply the label �marriage� to homosexual relationships, but the fact is that marriage as a recognized and protected institution has been understood since antiquity as the union of man and woman, and with their offspring (natural or adopted) a family. The concept that marriage should be redefined as something different than that is of recent vintage.
That is incorrect. While homosexual relationships are nothing new, marriage was understood and defined as the union of man and woman in every ancient civilization in recorded history, including ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, India, China, and Africa, as well as among the Hebrews. Since antiquity, marriage�the union of man and woman�has had a privileged and protected position in society because it has always been viewed as necessary for propagation and preservation of the species and the care and socialization of children. The same definition and philosophies undergird the institution of marriage in modern western civilization, including the United States. Revisionist historians now seek to rewrite ancient history to justify their positions, and apply the label �marriage� to homosexual relationships, but the fact is that marriage as a recognized and protected institution has been understood since antiquity as the union of man and woman, and with their offspring (natural or adopted) a family. The concept that marriage should be redefined as something different than that is of recent vintage.
Do you really want to know? | 5:52 p.m. July 19, 2008
So many speak of being "free". Is it's definition then
'doing whatever you want, whenever you want'?
Is it true then that the commandments of God are there to keep us in bondage, forcing us to live lives of servitude?
It's true, it isn't always easy to keep the commandments. And in this day and age, when some of the commandments are unpopular and seem over the top (ie. Christ said, 'He that looketh upon another women to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart.'), it is especially hard. One of his commandments says, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, or DO ANYTHING LIKE UNTO IT." Is this there to make us miserable?
I would counter your arguments by saying in keeping these commandments, we are actually more free and happier. By disciplining ourselves and not participating in this activity we have consciouses void of guilt which gives us peace. There is much peace that the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring. Peace that can only be felt and obtained through his Atonement, repenting of the mistakes we make. He loves us and wants us to be happy. This is the essence of the LDS Church.
Is it true then that the commandments of God are there to keep us in bondage, forcing us to live lives of servitude?
It's true, it isn't always easy to keep the commandments. And in this day and age, when some of the commandments are unpopular and seem over the top (ie. Christ said, 'He that looketh upon another women to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart.'), it is especially hard. One of his commandments says, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery, or DO ANYTHING LIKE UNTO IT." Is this there to make us miserable?
I would counter your arguments by saying in keeping these commandments, we are actually more free and happier. By disciplining ourselves and not participating in this activity we have consciouses void of guilt which gives us peace. There is much peace that the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring. Peace that can only be felt and obtained through his Atonement, repenting of the mistakes we make. He loves us and wants us to be happy. This is the essence of the LDS Church.
Do you really want to know? cont | 6:12 p.m. July 19, 2008
A story I heard illustrates this well.
'A father and his son were out flying a kite one day. The son, looking at it soaring in the air, noticed the string. He said to himself that if he could cut the string, oh how the kite would really fly. He asked his father if he would allow him to do so. His father, being wise, told him that he could cut it.
'As the son reached up confidently and assured that by cutting the string the kite would soar, the line was severed. As he watched it tumble to the earth and crash, we didn't fully understand what had happened. His father then told him the string was there to allow the kite to fly. By giving it a solid foundation the kite had this ability. Without it, the kite could do whatever it wanted, but without anything governing it and no direction, it crashed.
'Similar to this kite, we also need a solid and firm foundation that the commandments and laws of God give us. With these we can also soar. Without their direction, over time we'll fall away and be miserable.'
MORAL: Every action has a consequence.
'A father and his son were out flying a kite one day. The son, looking at it soaring in the air, noticed the string. He said to himself that if he could cut the string, oh how the kite would really fly. He asked his father if he would allow him to do so. His father, being wise, told him that he could cut it.
'As the son reached up confidently and assured that by cutting the string the kite would soar, the line was severed. As he watched it tumble to the earth and crash, we didn't fully understand what had happened. His father then told him the string was there to allow the kite to fly. By giving it a solid foundation the kite had this ability. Without it, the kite could do whatever it wanted, but without anything governing it and no direction, it crashed.
'Similar to this kite, we also need a solid and firm foundation that the commandments and laws of God give us. With these we can also soar. Without their direction, over time we'll fall away and be miserable.'
MORAL: Every action has a consequence.
Adams | 6:14 p.m. July 19, 2008
"Patriot",
Restrictions on mixed-race marriage the allowance or prohibition of polygamy are beside the point. Whatever restrictions may have existed or still exist on what heterosexuals may marry (e.g., consanguinity laws), they do not change the fact that marriage itself has always been defined, understood, and protected as the union of man and woman. From a historical standpoint, it is, in fact, that simple, clear-cut, and unambiguous.
Restrictions on mixed-race marriage the allowance or prohibition of polygamy are beside the point. Whatever restrictions may have existed or still exist on what heterosexuals may marry (e.g., consanguinity laws), they do not change the fact that marriage itself has always been defined, understood, and protected as the union of man and woman. From a historical standpoint, it is, in fact, that simple, clear-cut, and unambiguous.
Empathy Required | 6:24 p.m. July 19, 2008
I think before any more heterosexual people should be allowed to share another
opinion about this issue, they should have to walk in the shoes of a homosexual
person for at least 6 months so they can get a taste of what it is like.
You really cannot understand what it is like to be somebody else unless you walk in their shoes and experience what they experience. I think you all would find it very enlightening and disturbing.
You really cannot understand what it is like to be somebody else unless you walk in their shoes and experience what they experience. I think you all would find it very enlightening and disturbing.
Same old argument... | 7:00 p.m. July 19, 2008
TO: Empathy Required
We can never understand what anyone is going through until we've done it ourselves. Blah, blah, blah.
We all go through our own personal hells. We all struggle with something. I have empathy for anyone who is born because I know that it isn't going to be easy. Life is not easy no matter what path we take. That is why it's so critical that we have some direction and a foundation. We have a God who loves us and has given us laws and commandments that help us to make proper decisions, keeping us from having overwhelming chaos in our lives.
And when we do fall or struggle or stumble, there is still hope. IT WON'T BE EASY!!!!!!! It never is! Rich, poor, smart, dumb, attractive, ugly, heterosexual, homosexual, they ALL struggle at some point. I don't even have to mention 'Hollywood' to make my point.
Really our only hope is through the gospel of Jesus Christ and his Atonement: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me...for my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
We can never understand what anyone is going through until we've done it ourselves. Blah, blah, blah.
We all go through our own personal hells. We all struggle with something. I have empathy for anyone who is born because I know that it isn't going to be easy. Life is not easy no matter what path we take. That is why it's so critical that we have some direction and a foundation. We have a God who loves us and has given us laws and commandments that help us to make proper decisions, keeping us from having overwhelming chaos in our lives.
And when we do fall or struggle or stumble, there is still hope. IT WON'T BE EASY!!!!!!! It never is! Rich, poor, smart, dumb, attractive, ugly, heterosexual, homosexual, they ALL struggle at some point. I don't even have to mention 'Hollywood' to make my point.
Really our only hope is through the gospel of Jesus Christ and his Atonement: "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me...for my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Patriot | 7:12 p.m. July 19, 2008
Adams,
You paint with a VERY broad brush across thousands of years of history and hundreds of cultures to claim that there has always been one, clear definition of marriage. You cannot possibly support such an absurd assertion. The "union of man and woman"? How vague is that? How ethnocentric is that? You project your 21st century ideas onto the past and claim it supports your point.
By contrast, there are evidences of many cultures having a variety of definitions of legal relationships equivalent to "marriage". What we call "marriage" today was in antiquity frequently about heirs to the throne and inheritance of property and wealth. It had little to anything to do with "the union of a man and a woman" (whatever ancients would have thought that might have meant).
In some Greek societies, for instance, homosexuality was encouraged among military soldiers and was officially formalized and documented as part of the military records. For women during the Chou Dynasty in China, homosexuality was encouraged and formalized with documentation ("marriage"). In the Han dynasty, both women and men could participate in documented homosexual partnerships ("marriage").
Sorry to disappoint you. Your view of history is narrow and distorted. Try again.
You paint with a VERY broad brush across thousands of years of history and hundreds of cultures to claim that there has always been one, clear definition of marriage. You cannot possibly support such an absurd assertion. The "union of man and woman"? How vague is that? How ethnocentric is that? You project your 21st century ideas onto the past and claim it supports your point.
By contrast, there are evidences of many cultures having a variety of definitions of legal relationships equivalent to "marriage". What we call "marriage" today was in antiquity frequently about heirs to the throne and inheritance of property and wealth. It had little to anything to do with "the union of a man and a woman" (whatever ancients would have thought that might have meant).
In some Greek societies, for instance, homosexuality was encouraged among military soldiers and was officially formalized and documented as part of the military records. For women during the Chou Dynasty in China, homosexuality was encouraged and formalized with documentation ("marriage"). In the Han dynasty, both women and men could participate in documented homosexual partnerships ("marriage").
Sorry to disappoint you. Your view of history is narrow and distorted. Try again.
An opinion from observation..... | 12:36 a.m. July 20, 2008
I've not read the preceeding posts. I don't care what they say, but
here are my thoughts on homosexuality.
I do not hate gays. I have known and spent time with gays that are enjoyable to be around and are decent people.
However, and this is a big however, I do not believe that homosexuality is of God. I believe homosexuality is a self-centered (not necessarily selfish, but self-centered) lifestyle. There are generally not childern to support and care for. There is not the need created by children to put the needs and wants of someone else above your own.
And so, my observation is that gays spent their energy focused on meeting personal wants and desires, and deny themselves the oppportunity to learn the essential (and eternal) lessons of caring for and placing the care of dependent and helpless children above their own interests.
As I hope others would do for me with regard to my own sins, I believe I am fully capable of hating this sin without hating the sinner.
I do not hate gays. I have known and spent time with gays that are enjoyable to be around and are decent people.
However, and this is a big however, I do not believe that homosexuality is of God. I believe homosexuality is a self-centered (not necessarily selfish, but self-centered) lifestyle. There are generally not childern to support and care for. There is not the need created by children to put the needs and wants of someone else above your own.
And so, my observation is that gays spent their energy focused on meeting personal wants and desires, and deny themselves the oppportunity to learn the essential (and eternal) lessons of caring for and placing the care of dependent and helpless children above their own interests.
As I hope others would do for me with regard to my own sins, I believe I am fully capable of hating this sin without hating the sinner.
to An opinion @12:36am | 10:31 a.m. July 20, 2008
Thanks for the slap in the face. We have not been able to have children and the
reasons for that also preclude adoption, so thanks for all of your assumptions
about our character and ability to learn lessons essential to life.
It would be nice if people would think about what they are saying before they say it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to imply people without children cannot think and do for others besides themselves.
Can you see that your arguement for the negative impact of homosexuality on a person is without merit as it cannot be applied rationally to all people?
It seems to be rather comfortable for many of you to "not hate the sinner" while feeling no regret that you would deny these of your brothers and sisters much of what you find enriches your life. The "sinners" are fine if they just live lives devoid of aspects you take for granted as your right to enjoy.
NOTE: We are not granting rights to people. How arrogant. We are hoping to repent for what has been shamefully denied. Damning to us that we have rushed to correct the injustice.
It would be nice if people would think about what they are saying before they say it. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean to imply people without children cannot think and do for others besides themselves.
Can you see that your arguement for the negative impact of homosexuality on a person is without merit as it cannot be applied rationally to all people?
It seems to be rather comfortable for many of you to "not hate the sinner" while feeling no regret that you would deny these of your brothers and sisters much of what you find enriches your life. The "sinners" are fine if they just live lives devoid of aspects you take for granted as your right to enjoy.
NOTE: We are not granting rights to people. How arrogant. We are hoping to repent for what has been shamefully denied. Damning to us that we have rushed to correct the injustice.
to An opinion @12:36am | 3:44 p.m. July 20, 2008
If you are giving me the benefit of the doubt, you would have no reason to to
thank me for the "slap in the face."
I certainly meant no offese to anyone who desires children but for reasons out of their control cannot have them.
I told you, this is just my observation. It doesn't need to apply to all people and all circumstances to be valid or rational. Life's circumstances are different for all people. Some people are denied certain aspects of life through no choice of their own. I'm sorry for your circumstance.
I certainly meant no offese to anyone who desires children but for reasons out of their control cannot have them.
I told you, this is just my observation. It doesn't need to apply to all people and all circumstances to be valid or rational. Life's circumstances are different for all people. Some people are denied certain aspects of life through no choice of their own. I'm sorry for your circumstance.
In my experience... | 5:29 p.m. July 20, 2008
it often seems that those who are the most "righteously" vociferous
and make mention of how we all have trials and just need to "live the
gospel" have quite ideal situations - their lives mirror the images and
texts in church manuals and scriptures. That's lovely, and I don't
begrudge them those things. I used to be one of those people who came from the
ideal LDS home - not perfect, but ideal. Things changed unexpectedly in many
ways. Since then, I've had to see the world as a more complicated place,
and it's much harder for me to quickly quip scriptures or doctrines in
others' direction. It doesn't make the scriptures or doctrines less
valid, but I find myself recognizing much more that I do not know another's
heart, and more importantly, I don't know another's heartache.
It's important to live as we believe, but to always, always be
compassionate, because we don't know how different our lives may become.
It's harder to be vocal about others' shortcomings when the tables
have turned and your family is the subject of others' "righteous"
judgment. It hurts to be seen as "less than" because you don't
fit the mold.
In my experience... | 5:29 p.m. | 8:05 p.m. July 20, 2008
I'm sorry for the circumstances of your life that have lead to the hurt you
feel of being seen a "less than". I know the feeling, and it does
hurt.
My own life is far from idyllic. I think that few, if any, situations are truly perfect or ideal. "Perfect situations" are rarely what they appear from the outside.
My intent is not to hurt or judge others unrighteously or without compassion. However, my own experience with gays including a gay family member has lead me to believe that it is not inconsistent to enjoy, respect, and love those who choose to live the lifestyle, while at the same time compassionately observing (okay, righteously judging) that the lifestyle is fundamentally self-centered and denies them certain personal life development opportunities.
My own life is far from idyllic. I think that few, if any, situations are truly perfect or ideal. "Perfect situations" are rarely what they appear from the outside.
My intent is not to hurt or judge others unrighteously or without compassion. However, my own experience with gays including a gay family member has lead me to believe that it is not inconsistent to enjoy, respect, and love those who choose to live the lifestyle, while at the same time compassionately observing (okay, righteously judging) that the lifestyle is fundamentally self-centered and denies them certain personal life development opportunities.
Excuses | 9:11 p.m. July 20, 2008
It is the same old argument again. " I have trials and you don't
understand or you think I'm less of a person because I'm gay
-victimization comments." I have concluded that the gay lifestyle puts
gays in the "Ideal lifestyle". No family, no responsibility to higher
authority, no guilt for anything they do, no disicipline, don't have to be
teachable or accept another point of view. How convenient! Sadly, how selfish.
I do not live in Utah. I live and work near the projects of poverty and
crime. I have learned that rules of decency have a purpose. Concrete borders of
behaviors are necessary for a society to survive and thrive. I've
experienced when people believe in a Supreme Being with rules and boundries,
they begin to change and become a better person to themselves and their fellow
man. They are less selfish. I have yet to see a gay person come to the
projects to help or to lift those around them. All I experience is excuses, in
your face attitudes that demand I accept gays and endorse their behavior. I
have yet to see ANYTHING selfless from the gay community to others in need.
How many of you... | 9:41 p.m. July 20, 2008
will read my comment? Thats OK if you don't, I don't read yours
either. I guess some of you actually read everything, man it would be nice to
have that much time to bicker back and forth. But honestly, I think that most
of us want to be heard and we don't really care what others think,
let's take a vote here, anyone change their mind on the issue?
NO (that is the first vote)
NO (that is the first vote)
Adams | 10:44 a.m. July 21, 2008
"Patriot",
That's precisely the kind of revisionist history I mentioned--citing examples of same-sex relationships in history and using the label "marriage" for them. Such relationships would not have been understood or called "marriages" in antiquity.
That's precisely the kind of revisionist history I mentioned--citing examples of same-sex relationships in history and using the label "marriage" for them. Such relationships would not have been understood or called "marriages" in antiquity.
To Excuses | 10:14 a.m. July 24, 2008
"I have yet to see ANYTHING selfless from the gay community to others in
need."
Yes, you're right, it's because they don't post their good deeds on the net, on TV and on the papers.
They don't publish their good deeds, for the reasons they don't need to broadcast how special Christians are, or Mormons are, see they're helping the world.
The Mormons acts like the Pharisees who loudly announce to the world their goodness, to gain the praise of me. Christ said, that is their reward.
This is arrogant the arrogance that Christ has taught to avoid. Do good in secret and He blesses in secret.
I'm glad that you had confirmed they have done it in secret, to the point that you don't even know about it.
So, who is the real follower of Christ, you Christians, whom we hear so much about, or those who actually live the words of Christ as He taught?
Yes, you're right, it's because they don't post their good deeds on the net, on TV and on the papers.
They don't publish their good deeds, for the reasons they don't need to broadcast how special Christians are, or Mormons are, see they're helping the world.
The Mormons acts like the Pharisees who loudly announce to the world their goodness, to gain the praise of me. Christ said, that is their reward.
This is arrogant the arrogance that Christ has taught to avoid. Do good in secret and He blesses in secret.
I'm glad that you had confirmed they have done it in secret, to the point that you don't even know about it.
So, who is the real follower of Christ, you Christians, whom we hear so much about, or those who actually live the words of Christ as He taught?
To Patriot | 10:23 a.m. July 24, 2008
""Patriot",
That's precisely the kind of revisionist history I mentioned--citing examples of same-sex relationships in history and using the label "marriage" for them. Such relationships would not have been understood or called "marriages" in antiquity."
In antiquity, you get burned on a pillar in public just for reading the bible.
In antiquity, you get eaten alive by lions and tigers, with the public rooting for the lions to tear your head off.
In antiquity, you die of a slow death by even hinting that you don't agree with Ceasar.
In antiquity, you're a heresy and to be stoned if you ever try to exercise your rights, because you don't have any!
So, which of these antiquity laws you'd still like to keep?
That's precisely the kind of revisionist history I mentioned--citing examples of same-sex relationships in history and using the label "marriage" for them. Such relationships would not have been understood or called "marriages" in antiquity."
In antiquity, you get burned on a pillar in public just for reading the bible.
In antiquity, you get eaten alive by lions and tigers, with the public rooting for the lions to tear your head off.
In antiquity, you die of a slow death by even hinting that you don't agree with Ceasar.
In antiquity, you're a heresy and to be stoned if you ever try to exercise your rights, because you don't have any!
So, which of these antiquity laws you'd still like to keep?
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.
- Redman leads Falcons to victory 3:01 p.m.
- Eagles rally for another late win 2:52 p.m.
- 4 police officers shot dead in Wash. 2:47 p.m.
- Bengals run over Browns 2:43 p.m.
- Seattle makes it 10 in row over Rams 2:37 p.m.
- Colts remain perfect with win 2:31 p.m.
- The joy of a baby's love 2:26 p.m.
- Holiday shopping mildly encouraging 2:17 p.m.
- Woods cancels meeting with police 2:09 p.m.
- Venezuelan banks to be nationalized? 2:02 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
- BYU is champion of the state
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
- Credit Coug defense for win
- Field goals, penalties doomed Utes
- Cougar defense rose to occasion
- Marriage definitions vary widely
- Jones' joy for life remembered
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Banged up Jazz get best of Blazers
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
616 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime458
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- BYU is champion of the state119
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies117
- Cave to be sealed with body inside115
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Rivalry Week is highly profane89
- Hall's legacy measured today77
- Y. focused on 10-win season73
Latest comments
Utah fans- both BYU and Utah- in general are way too thin skinned. We cry...
I am another fan supporting Max.
Thank goodness you have Callee. He is sure making a great contribution in...
would have loved to have heard Unga's rant during the game. Anybody in the...
Utah fans are the Junior High School Bullies. They egg you on and cry when...
BYU, TCU and Utah all have a chance to finish in the Top 25, which would be...
We are to be ashamed of ourselves.
I hate losing to BYU but with Max's comments over shadowing the victory. It...
I love my University of Utah but I can do without many of our fans.
Great. Thanks, Max. Now Ute fans are going to hit us over the head with...
Advertisements
This just proves that this Mormon church is not Christ's church, because it's led by men who makes mistakes, not by Christ who does not make mistakes.
In that case, why would anybody want to be led by men who makes mistakes? Especially people who are supposed to take you to God? So these men are flawed to the extent that their abilities to take you to heaven are also flawed.
So, if they're flawed in their abilities to get you to heaven, then, your abilities to get to heaven are also flawed, because you follow flawed people.
But the logic Mormons have is that, follow men that makes mistakes, and they'll get you to heaven, a heaven that does not tolerate mistakes, no matter how well intended humans may be.
The only other conclusion that I can think of following flawed men who takes you to heaven, is that the heaven Mormons expect must be a flawed heaven.
So, go ahead, let your flawed leader lead you to flawed heaven.