Reader comments
Foes of same-sex marriage mobilize
323 comments | Read story
No hate here... | 12:34 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
By simply stating that people who subscribe to a homosexual relationship should
not be given the right to marriage does not constitute hate, and here's
why... Homosexuality is not a race! It is not an ethnic group, nor a religion,
so where is the discrimination? Homosexuality is a sexual choice that is
unatural and goes against all natural laws of procreation. It is animalistic in
nature based on selfishness and ones own sexual gratification. There is no
purpose for it biologically. Why should we as a society condone this activity by
allowing those who are involved in this lifestyle to marry?
The real fear is if this is passed, what next? There will be other issues come up to legitimize homosexuality in the future which is undermine the traditional family. Things like it being mandatory to be taught in schools, public affection among gays and lesbians will be more and more frequent because it is more acceptable in society, and if this is passed, how can we say 'no' to polygamy, beastiality, etc.
The real victim here is the traditional family: Father and Mother with their biological children. This is the foundation of our nation and society.
The real fear is if this is passed, what next? There will be other issues come up to legitimize homosexuality in the future which is undermine the traditional family. Things like it being mandatory to be taught in schools, public affection among gays and lesbians will be more and more frequent because it is more acceptable in society, and if this is passed, how can we say 'no' to polygamy, beastiality, etc.
The real victim here is the traditional family: Father and Mother with their biological children. This is the foundation of our nation and society.
Grant | 12:35 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I hope those who favor fundamental principles of human equality, liberty, and
justice will read this and mobilize as well, to oppose this Amendment.
The founding principles of our nation are at stake here. Those founding principles are based on the ethical assumption that all individual members of mankind are created equal, endowed by whatever or whoever created them with unalienable rights.
The founding principles of our nation are at stake here. Those founding principles are based on the ethical assumption that all individual members of mankind are created equal, endowed by whatever or whoever created them with unalienable rights.
Comments continue below
Joe RE: Doctors & Religion | 12:47 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Those promoting gay rights are less tolerant than those promoting abortion.
Those promoting the abortion agenda at least have allowed doctors to decline providing abortions, instead referring prospective patients to those who have no moral or religious objections to that "service." At least they recognize that their "freedom to choose" position is hypocritical if they take away a doctor's freedom to choose.
Now, let's extend this argument to those providing tattoos to the public. If a prospective patron wanted a tattoo with a racist or hate message, could the tattoo artist decline on religious grounds because he found the message objectionable?
Of course, and he would never be dragged into court. The patron would just find another person to do the procedure; and the California Supreme Court wouldn't make a fuss, even though the patron's 1st Amendment rights were possibly compromised. The patron would just need to find another outlet for expressing himself.
A doctor may believe, based upon his religion that it is immoral to introduce a child into the world where that child is denied both a male and female role model. The gay rights agenda aims to negate the doctor's right to exercise his/her beliefs.
Those promoting the abortion agenda at least have allowed doctors to decline providing abortions, instead referring prospective patients to those who have no moral or religious objections to that "service." At least they recognize that their "freedom to choose" position is hypocritical if they take away a doctor's freedom to choose.
Now, let's extend this argument to those providing tattoos to the public. If a prospective patron wanted a tattoo with a racist or hate message, could the tattoo artist decline on religious grounds because he found the message objectionable?
Of course, and he would never be dragged into court. The patron would just find another person to do the procedure; and the California Supreme Court wouldn't make a fuss, even though the patron's 1st Amendment rights were possibly compromised. The patron would just need to find another outlet for expressing himself.
A doctor may believe, based upon his religion that it is immoral to introduce a child into the world where that child is denied both a male and female role model. The gay rights agenda aims to negate the doctor's right to exercise his/her beliefs.
Josh | 12:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
God and marriage are both abstract figments of the imagination of man.
Neither is "real."
I'm not sure if it is more depressing that the anti-gays want to keep marriage "sacred" or the gay folks who are fighting so hard for something that means so little.
If you love someone, tell them. It's a shame that we have to jump through these hoops to commit ourselves to another person like this.
Neither is "real."
I'm not sure if it is more depressing that the anti-gays want to keep marriage "sacred" or the gay folks who are fighting so hard for something that means so little.
If you love someone, tell them. It's a shame that we have to jump through these hoops to commit ourselves to another person like this.
re: doctors | 12:59 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I guess we have to look at two different aspects of the doctor question.
Can an E.R. doctor or a paramedic refuse to treat someone whose life is bleeding away because they don't agree with that person's lifestyle?
Maybe a life-and-death situation is different than that of a doctor in a fertility clinic, but where do you draw the line?
Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient with cirrhosis because he believes that drinking alcohol is wrong, or refuse to see someone with emphysema because he believes that smoking is evil?
What if a doctor in a fertility clinic refuses to help a mixed-race couple conceive because he believes that mixed race marriage is wrong? Or refuses to help a black couple because he just doesn't like blacks? Does he have that right?
Does someone else in a service-oriented business have that right? Can a plumber refuse to go to a house in a Jewish neighborhood? Can a grocer refuse to admit a man in a turban into his store? What if it was a gay neighborhood the plumber was called to, or a lesbian couple trying to get into the grocery store?
Can an E.R. doctor or a paramedic refuse to treat someone whose life is bleeding away because they don't agree with that person's lifestyle?
Maybe a life-and-death situation is different than that of a doctor in a fertility clinic, but where do you draw the line?
Can a doctor refuse to treat a patient with cirrhosis because he believes that drinking alcohol is wrong, or refuse to see someone with emphysema because he believes that smoking is evil?
What if a doctor in a fertility clinic refuses to help a mixed-race couple conceive because he believes that mixed race marriage is wrong? Or refuses to help a black couple because he just doesn't like blacks? Does he have that right?
Does someone else in a service-oriented business have that right? Can a plumber refuse to go to a house in a Jewish neighborhood? Can a grocer refuse to admit a man in a turban into his store? What if it was a gay neighborhood the plumber was called to, or a lesbian couple trying to get into the grocery store?
Anonymous | 1:07 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
LDS, Catholic and evangelical Christian churches should be required to pay taxes
as a result of their involvement in politics.
Tran | 1:08 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Once again, the religious bigots claim that gay marriage will destroy families,
but fail to back that up. How exactly will it destroy families? More
importantly, how can it possibly destroy families any more than heterosexual
"no-fault" divorce laws already do?
I hope the LDS Church gets whipped by such a back lash for their meddling in this civic issue that they reel from it for decades to come, just as their restrictions on blacks and the priesthood has all but destroyed their ability to gain black converts. I hope members of the Church who love liberty and despise the religious fascism that tries to corrupt civil law by forcing the beliefs of a few onto everyone, will rise up and speak out against the "prophets" who are at best "fallen" because of this kind of sinful bigotry and legal corruption.
I hope the LDS Church gets whipped by such a back lash for their meddling in this civic issue that they reel from it for decades to come, just as their restrictions on blacks and the priesthood has all but destroyed their ability to gain black converts. I hope members of the Church who love liberty and despise the religious fascism that tries to corrupt civil law by forcing the beliefs of a few onto everyone, will rise up and speak out against the "prophets" who are at best "fallen" because of this kind of sinful bigotry and legal corruption.
Taking a stand | 1:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
A member of the LDS Church came by of this issue. She was well trained to miss
represent the issues involved.
"Do yu think the Boy Scouts have a right to choose who their members are?"
"The courts have ruled a private organization can with hold membership from who they wish to" They just can't get public funds or use public buildings."
"Do you want gay marriage taugh in School?"
"The public school must address that some of the children attending school may have same sex parents."
This was the first time living here that a member of the LDS Church forced me to say, I don't believe in the church's stand on these issues.
There are members of the LDS Church who aren't active. The Church will force many with gay family members or who don't agree with the church to become further separated from the church. This separation will effect family ties and communities.
Were do I resign my membership. I need to get away from these bigots!
"Do yu think the Boy Scouts have a right to choose who their members are?"
"The courts have ruled a private organization can with hold membership from who they wish to" They just can't get public funds or use public buildings."
"Do you want gay marriage taugh in School?"
"The public school must address that some of the children attending school may have same sex parents."
This was the first time living here that a member of the LDS Church forced me to say, I don't believe in the church's stand on these issues.
There are members of the LDS Church who aren't active. The Church will force many with gay family members or who don't agree with the church to become further separated from the church. This separation will effect family ties and communities.
Were do I resign my membership. I need to get away from these bigots!
Yes! | 1:33 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I stand by what I said, that religions should limit themselves to preaching
their beliefs IN CHURCH, not in the political arena. If they want to get
involved in politics, they become a political body, not a religious one and
should no longer be tax exempt.
Religion belongs in the home and in the church. You keep whining about the gay community forcing their beliefs on your private life, but have no quams doing the same to me and my life. The difference is that I pay my taxes, let the churches do the same.
Political issues are not always moral issues. When a church claims to promote a moral issue they should do so from their pulpits. All your doing is changing the words to fit your beliefs.
Keep your beliefs and religion out of my life. And the argument that the gay community will demand religious ceremopnies is stupid. If that were possible, you would have Catholics demanding temple marriages. It's the same thing.
I haven't seen ANYWHERE that shows the gay community is DEMANDING a church perform a gay marriage. There are already religions who willingly do so. I would just go to one of those.
Religion belongs in the home and in the church. You keep whining about the gay community forcing their beliefs on your private life, but have no quams doing the same to me and my life. The difference is that I pay my taxes, let the churches do the same.
Political issues are not always moral issues. When a church claims to promote a moral issue they should do so from their pulpits. All your doing is changing the words to fit your beliefs.
Keep your beliefs and religion out of my life. And the argument that the gay community will demand religious ceremopnies is stupid. If that were possible, you would have Catholics demanding temple marriages. It's the same thing.
I haven't seen ANYWHERE that shows the gay community is DEMANDING a church perform a gay marriage. There are already religions who willingly do so. I would just go to one of those.
Is anybody tired... | 1:34 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
of people telling you that you're full of hate because you see things
differently than they do. Pro gay marriage folks spew some of the most hateful
rhetoric with the intent of shaming their opponents into silence. We live in a
republic. Let's all work hard for what we believe in and cast our votes.
If the gays win, they will have succeeded in changing another fundamental
principle of America that has prevailed from its origin. If we win, we've
conserved a fundamental principle. There you go.. the difference between
liberals and conservatives.
Canadiandy | 1:35 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Homophobia is a non-word. It means fear of same. If by the term it is suggested
that I have a phobia of homosexuals I am definitely not homophobic. I am not
scared of the individuals, but I am worried about the consequences if we as a
society support any immoral sexual behavior.
What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Oh ya, the experience here in Canada has been devastating. Our own liberal party judicial committee outlined that the rights guaranteed to same-sex couples now could not be denied to polygamists. For all the bashing the lefties here seem to do against LDS polygamy, it seems they are, ironically, working very quickly to enable it.
Again, what's wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it.
What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone is doing it. Oh ya, the experience here in Canada has been devastating. Our own liberal party judicial committee outlined that the rights guaranteed to same-sex couples now could not be denied to polygamists. For all the bashing the lefties here seem to do against LDS polygamy, it seems they are, ironically, working very quickly to enable it.
Again, what's wrong is wrong, even if everybody is doing it.
@ hombre | 1:39 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If civil unions were as equal as a marriage and were recognised as such, I would
agree with you that there is no need to push this issue. I don't care what
you label it, so long as it's equal ON ALL LEVELS, including the right to
hospital visitation and medical treatment, etc.
But in the middle of all this you are claiming the right to protect your family, then show me how my marrying another man would change that? HOW does my living my life affect your family?? Right now you are affecting my life FAR MORE than I would ever affect yours.
But in the middle of all this you are claiming the right to protect your family, then show me how my marrying another man would change that? HOW does my living my life affect your family?? Right now you are affecting my life FAR MORE than I would ever affect yours.
jeannie54321 | 1:40 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
FBI: Couple offered sex with girl, 5, for used car Sun Aug 24, 5:02 PM ET
below is a bit of information from a San Antonio paper. what do you think Homosexuals can do that is worse than you heterosexuals? You should be ashamed that 90% molestation occurs in heterosexual homes. You have a 50% divorce rate. Yet your ?Proud? to be standing up against homosexual marriage? For Shame. Clean up your own act first! Welcome gay marriage, Or are you afraid they will show you up?
SAN ANTONIO - A San Antonio couple is accused of trying to trying to trade sex with the woman's 5-year-old daughter for an apartment, a used car and child care for her 10-month old daughter.
below is a bit of information from a San Antonio paper. what do you think Homosexuals can do that is worse than you heterosexuals? You should be ashamed that 90% molestation occurs in heterosexual homes. You have a 50% divorce rate. Yet your ?Proud? to be standing up against homosexual marriage? For Shame. Clean up your own act first! Welcome gay marriage, Or are you afraid they will show you up?
SAN ANTONIO - A San Antonio couple is accused of trying to trying to trade sex with the woman's 5-year-old daughter for an apartment, a used car and child care for her 10-month old daughter.
Latest USA Today Gallop poll.. | 1:41 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Show that Gay Marriage will go down in defeat if the vote were held today!
Calif knew that the laws they made would be challenged in Court, now they can put a nail in the coffin this time....do it right California, STOP THE GAY AGENDA!
Calif knew that the laws they made would be challenged in Court, now they can put a nail in the coffin this time....do it right California, STOP THE GAY AGENDA!
Priorities | 1:43 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Enter commentI think the LDS church has it's priorities mixed up. They are
worrying about gay marriage instead of taking care of business. Like building
malls downtown. And don't they have some blood atonements that need to be
taken care of somewhere?
Maybe if they took care of their own issues, they could leave me alone. What ever happened to "free agency"?? Or does that only happen when you are assimilated into the Ward collective??
Maybe if they took care of their own issues, they could leave me alone. What ever happened to "free agency"?? Or does that only happen when you are assimilated into the Ward collective??
An American | 1:54 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I just have something to say.... bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla
bla bla bla bla bla, etc! How many books a year do you people read?! And
reading the same book over and over doen't count! Get some education
people! And think before you open your mouth!
SoCal BYU Alum | 1:58 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Sitting in my LDS ward's priesthood meetings these last several months I
keep hearing ad-nauseum that marriage traditionally has been between a man and a
woman. I have even knocked on neighboors doors asking them to support Prop 8.
The historian in me wants to scream out that marriage today (boy-girl) is not
traditional. Marriage historically was more than between a man and a woman. It
was an arranged affair- It was a joining of families and somtimes nations. The
concept of being "in-love" with your intended was a subversive
concept. Romantic love upsets the social order. Read up on Elenor of Aquitaine
as a breaker of social mores. She fought an arranged marriage and got to choose
her spouse. Social convention be damned.
I also love the recent red-herring about gay-marriage's effect on the Children. I say straight people's divorce has a greater negative impact on children than gay's getting marrried. Just because children are impacted by something does not mean that action should be prohibited. Shall we forbide divorce? How about War? Fatherless or Motherless children have a bad social impact..
I also love the recent red-herring about gay-marriage's effect on the Children. I say straight people's divorce has a greater negative impact on children than gay's getting marrried. Just because children are impacted by something does not mean that action should be prohibited. Shall we forbide divorce? How about War? Fatherless or Motherless children have a bad social impact..
Jax | 2:07 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Linda -
Check your facts. I believe Catholic adoption services chose to close their doors because they were accepting state funds to operate. If you want to operate with state funds you have to obey state laws - as it should be. How can all of you tout this as a pro-marriage, pro-family, bill when it will deny marriage to a whole class of people and deny protection to families that already exist. Would you be content to call your marriage a civil union? If not, why do you expect a gay couple to? You are better than them? More righteous than they are? God loves you more? Must be that you are less judgmental . . .
Check your facts. I believe Catholic adoption services chose to close their doors because they were accepting state funds to operate. If you want to operate with state funds you have to obey state laws - as it should be. How can all of you tout this as a pro-marriage, pro-family, bill when it will deny marriage to a whole class of people and deny protection to families that already exist. Would you be content to call your marriage a civil union? If not, why do you expect a gay couple to? You are better than them? More righteous than they are? God loves you more? Must be that you are less judgmental . . .
Sam | 2:12 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If you want the second coming to hasten on, then let this prop 8 fail. Then the
people of this world will see what and who is really in charge of this world.
Just how long do you think the Lord will allow Gay marriage to exist in the
millennium? hmmmmm, not to long i suspect.
Sam | 2:20 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am so sick of the GAY community trying to overrule laws that have been a part
of this country since is foundation. Just sick of this community trying to push
this crap down out thoughts. After this what next. Marriage to little boys
legalized as well. Where will it stop. Folks we have got to get out and stomp
this now! Its time to fight like we never have before. Lets get going now!
Before its too late.
Linda Hamilton | 2:32 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Keith in Colorado 10:45 a.m.
"What makes you think the California Supremes won't overturn this initiative."
Proposition 8, if passed will be an amendment to the Calif. State Constitution. The judges will have to uphold the constitution. In 2000 the proposition was to add it to the family code. This time we want the amendment to the constitution. Remember, in California, under the family code, the gay group already have the rights of domestic partners, i.e., they have all rights as to estate, health, etc. They don't need to marry to get these rights. This proposition has nothing to do with denying their rights as human beings. The gay right association should have put this to the vote instead of going behind the voters' backs and getting the judges to overturn what the voters had voted for. This is not just an LDS issue. There is a coalition of over 26 churches involved in this issue, including LDS, Catholics, Baptists, and others. Please go to protectmarriage.com and read the issues. Be informed before making making accusations. Find out what has happened in Holland. Muslim groups are suing to legalize polygamy. Look at FLDS situation for your answers.
"What makes you think the California Supremes won't overturn this initiative."
Proposition 8, if passed will be an amendment to the Calif. State Constitution. The judges will have to uphold the constitution. In 2000 the proposition was to add it to the family code. This time we want the amendment to the constitution. Remember, in California, under the family code, the gay group already have the rights of domestic partners, i.e., they have all rights as to estate, health, etc. They don't need to marry to get these rights. This proposition has nothing to do with denying their rights as human beings. The gay right association should have put this to the vote instead of going behind the voters' backs and getting the judges to overturn what the voters had voted for. This is not just an LDS issue. There is a coalition of over 26 churches involved in this issue, including LDS, Catholics, Baptists, and others. Please go to protectmarriage.com and read the issues. Be informed before making making accusations. Find out what has happened in Holland. Muslim groups are suing to legalize polygamy. Look at FLDS situation for your answers.
Sun Lover | 2:45 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I was walking my precint on Saturday, and when I asked one voter if she had a
position on Proposition 8 she said. "I believe we should let people do
what they want." I moved on to the next house, but I wanted to say....
"Well I want to barge into your house and rummage through your fridge for
some chocolate pudding." Even though I thought that would have been funny,
I didn't say that.
To call someone else on this issue "small minded" shows that you yourself are either living in an ivory tower, or are small minded. Obviously reasonable minds may differ on any issue, and people who support democracy should be concerned when 4 appointed judges impose their will on millions (actually the majority) of any state's residents.
Perhaps you agree with them on this issue, but it is not always the case. And in any event it is the antitheses of democracy.
To call someone else on this issue "small minded" shows that you yourself are either living in an ivory tower, or are small minded. Obviously reasonable minds may differ on any issue, and people who support democracy should be concerned when 4 appointed judges impose their will on millions (actually the majority) of any state's residents.
Perhaps you agree with them on this issue, but it is not always the case. And in any event it is the antitheses of democracy.
Fed | 3:05 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I just read the entire Constitution of the United States of America and I
don't see anywhere where it states anything about a person's right to
marry. People keep arguing that the 'right' to marry is a
'Constitutional' right but it isn't in our Constitution...so
where is this coming from?
I think that the notion of what are and are not our rights in this country is a topic that is seriously misunderstood.
I think that the notion of what are and are not our rights in this country is a topic that is seriously misunderstood.
Ace Ventura | 3:29 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To @ hombre | 1:39 p.m...
I think you'll find if you do a little research that there is no spousal or familial connection required to visit someone in the hospital or confirm medical treatment. There is a form called a Healthcare Power of Attorney that most hospitals will make available to you, or that you may execute independently that allows you to name ANYONE, spouses or otherwise, as your agent in making healthcare decisions should you be incapacitated.
If you check with your area hospitals, you will find nothing in their policies that would prevent anyone from visiting an adult patient unless that patient has specified no visitors or it is a security situation (such as a criminal or witness-protection).
Both hospital visitation and medical decisions have been trotted out by the pro same-sex marriage advocates for years, and there is absolutely no substance to the arguments. Don't take my word for it--check it out like I did and club this red herring in the head!
I think you'll find if you do a little research that there is no spousal or familial connection required to visit someone in the hospital or confirm medical treatment. There is a form called a Healthcare Power of Attorney that most hospitals will make available to you, or that you may execute independently that allows you to name ANYONE, spouses or otherwise, as your agent in making healthcare decisions should you be incapacitated.
If you check with your area hospitals, you will find nothing in their policies that would prevent anyone from visiting an adult patient unless that patient has specified no visitors or it is a security situation (such as a criminal or witness-protection).
Both hospital visitation and medical decisions have been trotted out by the pro same-sex marriage advocates for years, and there is absolutely no substance to the arguments. Don't take my word for it--check it out like I did and club this red herring in the head!
Joe to SoCal BYU Alum | 3:39 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"Just because children are impacted by something does not mean that action
should be prohibited."
Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?"
Anyone who says divorce hurts children; I agree.
Anyone who says single parent homes hurts children; I agree.
Anyone who says governments have assisted in the breakup of traditional families by promoting welfare for single mothers; I agree.
Anyone who says 22% of white children and 70% of black children born to single mothers is too many; I agree.
Anyone who says that traditional married couples need to work a lot harder putting their own homes in order; I agree.
Anyone who says we should have removed laws from the books pertaining to sexual relationships between same sex couples that weren't enforced anyway?..............Maybe this is where we started losing our way.
Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to institutionalize a form of marriage that, by definition, has procreation challenges, and provides an imbalance of role models to any children who enter into the family? Sorry, we part company here.
Anyone think that the gay agenda won't be pushed until your religious views and ability to voice them are non-existent? You're kidding yourself.
Ever hear the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right?"
Anyone who says divorce hurts children; I agree.
Anyone who says single parent homes hurts children; I agree.
Anyone who says governments have assisted in the breakup of traditional families by promoting welfare for single mothers; I agree.
Anyone who says 22% of white children and 70% of black children born to single mothers is too many; I agree.
Anyone who says that traditional married couples need to work a lot harder putting their own homes in order; I agree.
Anyone who says we should have removed laws from the books pertaining to sexual relationships between same sex couples that weren't enforced anyway?..............Maybe this is where we started losing our way.
Anyone who thinks it is a good idea to institutionalize a form of marriage that, by definition, has procreation challenges, and provides an imbalance of role models to any children who enter into the family? Sorry, we part company here.
Anyone think that the gay agenda won't be pushed until your religious views and ability to voice them are non-existent? You're kidding yourself.
Love | 3:47 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I would love to see what would happen if the whole country voted on Temple
marriage being legal or not!!! America would overthrow your silly little ritual
in a heart beat!!! Maybe you should worry about yourself instead of trying to
save the world. You don't do a good job.
Re: Fed | 3:49 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
If the only thing you've read is the Constitution, then you've only
scratched the surface. Laws based on interpretations of the Constitution are
just as important as the Constitution itself.
A-Constitution | 3:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The american constitution was reveal through inspired men who believe that God
is the source of its strenghth and unity but as typical evil people think that
they can interpret the constitution and twist its meaning to suit they sinful
practices.
The same goes to those who tried to use the Free Agency concept as free to do whatever you like..but dont explain the consequences of their actions..again the plan of the evil one! trying to mislead the children of men, and fools! blindly follow.
The same goes to those who tried to use the Free Agency concept as free to do whatever you like..but dont explain the consequences of their actions..again the plan of the evil one! trying to mislead the children of men, and fools! blindly follow.
TO: Fed | 3:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Where does it say anything about the separation of church and state? It is a
very loose interpretation of the Constitution to say the least. However, I am
not subject to the Constitution when it comes to what's right and
what's wrong.
Heterosexual Marriage is right even with all of it's failings. The establishment is right, not necessarily the people. We have to defend it and thus defend the traditional family. This is of utmost importance.
All those who don't think marriage is important are deceiving themselves. I'm most disappointed from those who claim they are members of the LDS church. They of anyone should know the sanctity of marriage and its place in our eternal existence. The promises and/or covenants that are made at marriage are sacred to many and are a good spring board to having a strong family. We as a nation need to take these promises far more seriously. They take serious sacrifice at times but are the greatest sources of joy in this life. Marriage is key to our society's and nation's well-being and strength.
Heterosexual Marriage is right even with all of it's failings. The establishment is right, not necessarily the people. We have to defend it and thus defend the traditional family. This is of utmost importance.
All those who don't think marriage is important are deceiving themselves. I'm most disappointed from those who claim they are members of the LDS church. They of anyone should know the sanctity of marriage and its place in our eternal existence. The promises and/or covenants that are made at marriage are sacred to many and are a good spring board to having a strong family. We as a nation need to take these promises far more seriously. They take serious sacrifice at times but are the greatest sources of joy in this life. Marriage is key to our society's and nation's well-being and strength.
Love | 3:53 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Silly gays.
John Pack Lambert | 4:06 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Observer,
Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God. He can and does speak for God.
Thomas S. Monson is the prophet of God. He can and does speak for God.
Mormon in SF | 4:07 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I was part of a group canvassing the neighborhoods in the Bay Area. A friend of
mine knocked on the door of a gay couple. After introducing himself as a
supporter of Proposition 8 he was immediately accused of bigotry, malice, and
hate. The language the man used was such as I've not heard since my high
school locker room. And this is the Bay Area! My friend immediately fled the
scene in fear of this couple who treated him with such hostility and rage.
The problem here is that homosexuals don't fully understand that Prop 8 has nothing to do with civil rights. If Prop 8 passes or not (heaven forbid!) absolutely nothing will change for those couples already in civil unions or considering such!
The family is the basic core of society. Let's keep pushing this initiative until we get ANOTHER popular vote by the people of California!
The problem here is that homosexuals don't fully understand that Prop 8 has nothing to do with civil rights. If Prop 8 passes or not (heaven forbid!) absolutely nothing will change for those couples already in civil unions or considering such!
The family is the basic core of society. Let's keep pushing this initiative until we get ANOTHER popular vote by the people of California!
John Pack Lambert | 4:09 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
At the core we are deabating what realtionships will recieve the positive
endorsement of public policy.
I do not want the schools to teach that marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, especially not to kindergartners.
To all those working for Proposition 8, hang in there and do not let those who accuse you of hate and evil disuade you.
We need to expect persecution when we stand up for the right.
I do not want the schools to teach that marriage can be between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, especially not to kindergartners.
To all those working for Proposition 8, hang in there and do not let those who accuse you of hate and evil disuade you.
We need to expect persecution when we stand up for the right.
John Pack Lambert | 4:17 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Should church's that supported the civil rights movement have lost their
tax exempt status?
John Pack Lambert | 4:19 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 9:10,
To force doctors to perform actions that they consider morally wrong, to the point of not allowing them any leeway is to violate their religious freedom.
People's rights to not do those things they morally object to should be respected. There are limits, but allowing doctors to not perform certain procedures is not over bearing, especially when they are willing to refer such patients to other people.
To force doctors to perform actions that they consider morally wrong, to the point of not allowing them any leeway is to violate their religious freedom.
People's rights to not do those things they morally object to should be respected. There are limits, but allowing doctors to not perform certain procedures is not over bearing, especially when they are willing to refer such patients to other people.
Joe (from Socal Byu Alum) | 4:19 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Thanks for agreeing with me
Should we then prohibit gay cohabitation? They might claim they are married in God's eyes. State recognication nonwithstanding.
Should we forbid Gay Adoption of children? California allows it while Florida forbids it. Does God punish Florida with frequent hurricanes while CAL only has earthquakes?
Should Gays be denied marriage rights because they are procreativly challenged? (Think IVF or Adoption) What about infertile straight couples? - Give then two years to procreate something or their marriage is annulled?
Should we then prohibit gay cohabitation? They might claim they are married in God's eyes. State recognication nonwithstanding.
Should we forbid Gay Adoption of children? California allows it while Florida forbids it. Does God punish Florida with frequent hurricanes while CAL only has earthquakes?
Should Gays be denied marriage rights because they are procreativly challenged? (Think IVF or Adoption) What about infertile straight couples? - Give then two years to procreate something or their marriage is annulled?
Cry babies! | 4:20 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am tired of all the gay cry babies out there who just like throwing fits about
everything and everyone. Time for you people to grow up and stop acting like a
bunch of spoiled little children, just because you cannot have everything your
way. STOP WHINING!!!
I hope | 4:21 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I hope that the eyes of all will soon be opened to the goodness of proposition
8. Vote YES on Prop. 8.
John Pack Lambert | 4:24 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 9:25,
Do you use the same argument to oppose the civil rights act. It is based on the belief that all people deserve equal treatment.
That is just the first belief that is made into law that I could think of.
However that is actually a much better example of beliefs being made law than this. The civil rights act prohibts people from discriminating in providing services and acomadations.
The admendment before California has no restrictions on what people can do, just what the government will recognize. People can still have sex with anyone they want without the govrnment punishing them.
I would urge you to read President Monson's Priesthood Meeting talk where he warns us against things parading under the false clothing of tolerance.
This is not a debate about tolerance but one about recognition before the law.
Just to clarify, I think the civil rights act was a good law. However it is built around the belief that all people deserve to be treated equally. It was endorsed by the First Presidency.
Not only that, it penalizes people who act on a different assumption about the relative equality of people.
Do you use the same argument to oppose the civil rights act. It is based on the belief that all people deserve equal treatment.
That is just the first belief that is made into law that I could think of.
However that is actually a much better example of beliefs being made law than this. The civil rights act prohibts people from discriminating in providing services and acomadations.
The admendment before California has no restrictions on what people can do, just what the government will recognize. People can still have sex with anyone they want without the govrnment punishing them.
I would urge you to read President Monson's Priesthood Meeting talk where he warns us against things parading under the false clothing of tolerance.
This is not a debate about tolerance but one about recognition before the law.
Just to clarify, I think the civil rights act was a good law. However it is built around the belief that all people deserve to be treated equally. It was endorsed by the First Presidency.
Not only that, it penalizes people who act on a different assumption about the relative equality of people.
bayou vol | 4:28 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Saying laws are not based on religious dogma is more ignorant and hopelessly
incorrect than any of the "homophobic" views expressed on this site.
Sorry Dude, your elitism has run you into a dead end of stupidity.
Homosexuality = maladaptive trait of affluent society
Homosexuality = maladaptive trait of affluent society
John Pack Lambert | 4:35 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
In reply to 10:30,
I doubt you meant to do this, but I think you have shifted the issue.
What I and most other religious freedom proponants are arguing is not that a doctor should be able to say "That person is a homosexual suffering from a dread disease, I do not want to treat him."
The case in point involves a doctor who is a fertility specialists. To this doctor children should be born to a mother and a father. Yet a lesbian couple comes in and wants him to do an artificial insemination for one of them.
He does not feel that he can do so and stay true to his religion. He offers to refer them to a college who will do such and then provide care for the mother during pregnancy. They sue him.
Personally I think people should accept the doctor just refering to a college and not being involved more in the specific case, but that did not happen here.
I think when doctors are requested to do things that directly contradict their religious beliefs they should be allowed to decline.
I doubt you meant to do this, but I think you have shifted the issue.
What I and most other religious freedom proponants are arguing is not that a doctor should be able to say "That person is a homosexual suffering from a dread disease, I do not want to treat him."
The case in point involves a doctor who is a fertility specialists. To this doctor children should be born to a mother and a father. Yet a lesbian couple comes in and wants him to do an artificial insemination for one of them.
He does not feel that he can do so and stay true to his religion. He offers to refer them to a college who will do such and then provide care for the mother during pregnancy. They sue him.
Personally I think people should accept the doctor just refering to a college and not being involved more in the specific case, but that did not happen here.
I think when doctors are requested to do things that directly contradict their religious beliefs they should be allowed to decline.
John Pack Lambert | 4:42 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 10:33,
The LDS Church excommunicates anyone who has multiple wives, marries someone else to a second wife, or encorages polygamy.
There is no church doctrine that men will be given multiple wives in the hereafter. In fact, Eugene England pointed out that with many more boys than girls having died before age eight, we may have more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom.
I have no clue. I do not think anyone really knows what relationships will be like in the hereafter.
However the church condemnes those who practice polygamy as strongly as it can. Maybe President Monson should come out and condemn it again, but President Hinckley did so unequivocally in 1998, so I do not see a need to denounce it again.
The LDS Church excommunicates anyone who has multiple wives, marries someone else to a second wife, or encorages polygamy.
There is no church doctrine that men will be given multiple wives in the hereafter. In fact, Eugene England pointed out that with many more boys than girls having died before age eight, we may have more males than females in the Celestial Kingdom.
I have no clue. I do not think anyone really knows what relationships will be like in the hereafter.
However the church condemnes those who practice polygamy as strongly as it can. Maybe President Monson should come out and condemn it again, but President Hinckley did so unequivocally in 1998, so I do not see a need to denounce it again.
Re:John Pack Lambert | 4:42 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
That is your BELIEF.......it isn't fact. I don't happen to believe
that Monson, or any other LDS "prophet" has either spoken to God, or
is his mouthpiece. So once again. No one.....not Monson, not the pope, no one
from any religion, nor the man on the street, has the right to invoke the name
of God when arguing a political or moral opinion. Oh, you can claim that Monson
speaks for God, but prove it. Provide solid evidence that Monson is a prophet of
god other than because you happen to believe it. You have the right to express
your political and moral views at the polls, or through other means, but please,
don't use the childish argument of "God said so". It is a
childish argument, and when people use it, they sound like children.
Looks like | 4:44 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
John Pack Lambert needs a life... 5 almost 6 comments in a row. You silly
mormons just don't get it an never will. You can't make everyone
believe as you! Just because you think gay marriage is wrong... you can't
make it illegal. You continue to act like Satan in the pre existence trying to
force everyone to believe as you do... so ironic, sad, and kinda funny!
Re: looks like | 5:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
let me get this right, you beleave that Satan was in the pre existence?
Wow | 5:08 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It looks like THE defining issue for humanity will be sexual relations,
including family and homosexuality.
For those proponents of gay marriage that say 'the sky isn't falling', 'sky' like this doesn't fall in months or years, it falls in generations.
I don't understand how proponents of gay marriage claim that gender is irrelevant, but number (ie. two), and age matter. If gender is irrelevant, then why limit a marriage to just two people? Why discriminate based on age? You know, EQUAL opportunity under the law. No second class people in our society. So, we end up with any number of people, of either gender, of any age "married".
Sound far-fetched? No more far-fetched than it would have sounded 50 years ago for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman.
What a sad, sad people we will become.
For those proponents of gay marriage that say 'the sky isn't falling', 'sky' like this doesn't fall in months or years, it falls in generations.
I don't understand how proponents of gay marriage claim that gender is irrelevant, but number (ie. two), and age matter. If gender is irrelevant, then why limit a marriage to just two people? Why discriminate based on age? You know, EQUAL opportunity under the law. No second class people in our society. So, we end up with any number of people, of either gender, of any age "married".
Sound far-fetched? No more far-fetched than it would have sounded 50 years ago for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman.
What a sad, sad people we will become.
Doubting Thomas | 5:14 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Years ago I had a "discussion" with an uncle who was a devout member
of the LDS church. We were arguing about the LDS doctrine of denying the
priesthood to blacks. I finally asked my uncle to prove to me that it was the
will of God. His only answer was......"because Heavenly Father said
so!" I started to ask him when and where he'd heard God say this, but
decided that I was arguing with an intellectual child. When people use God as an
excuse for their arguments, you know they have no evidence, no hard facts,
nothing to stand on except for their particular BELIEF. They can provide no hard
evidence of what God wants or intended. They base it on books, like the Bible,
or Book of Mormon, all written by men who claim they speak for God but cannot
prove it. That relates to every moral issue, including gay marriage.
Anonymous | 5:16 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The most true and important thing John Lambert has posted yet is this:
"I have no clue."
Well done, John. Well done. We all agree with you on that point.
"I have no clue."
Well done, John. Well done. We all agree with you on that point.
Paul | 5:22 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Mormons claim to be Christians and to follow the teachings of Jesus.
Here is a basic teaching: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Have the Mormons tried applying this principle of morality to the gay marriage issue?
Do unto gays as you would have done unto you.
Would you, Mormons, want some other religious group to pass legislation or amend the Constitution so that you had to live by their religious beliefs?
Would you, Mormons, want some other religious group to make it illegal for Mormons to choose whom they want to marry?
Would you, Mormons, want some other group of people to use the courts and the legislature to force Mormons to cease their marriage practices (such as polygamy)?
Would you, Mormons, want any other group to deprive you of equal protection under the law for no other reason than because of what you believe?
Of course not.
Then why are you doing all those things to gays?
From where I sit, it looks like hypocrisy. You claim to follow Jesus, but you do not live what he taught!
Here is a basic teaching: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Have the Mormons tried applying this principle of morality to the gay marriage issue?
Do unto gays as you would have done unto you.
Would you, Mormons, want some other religious group to pass legislation or amend the Constitution so that you had to live by their religious beliefs?
Would you, Mormons, want some other religious group to make it illegal for Mormons to choose whom they want to marry?
Would you, Mormons, want some other group of people to use the courts and the legislature to force Mormons to cease their marriage practices (such as polygamy)?
Would you, Mormons, want any other group to deprive you of equal protection under the law for no other reason than because of what you believe?
Of course not.
Then why are you doing all those things to gays?
From where I sit, it looks like hypocrisy. You claim to follow Jesus, but you do not live what he taught!
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.
- Devils win 4th straight 8:43 p.m.
- 5 from U.S. arrested in Pakistan 8:41 p.m.
- W. Bank settlers protest in Jerusalem 8:41 p.m.
- Iraqi man, dog reunite after blast 8:41 p.m.
- World datelines 8:40 p.m.
- China, U.S. trade climate barbs 8:40 p.m.
- Woman sexually abused near bus stop 8:40 p.m.
- Iraq orders security shake-up 8:38 p.m.
- Blues blank Red Wings 1-0 8:37 p.m.
- Stortini has goal, 2 fights in win 8:35 p.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Doctor calls Mitchell 'naive,' 'inept'
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- Small plane crashes near Lehi
- Snow brings big chill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
291 - Letters: Global warming a lie228
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall178
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil145
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax138
- George lost in rivalry hatefest121
- Max Hall wants to look ahead119
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
Latest comments
Thanks for the detailed story. What an unfortunate event...demonstrates that...
Who needs science when you can just "repeat after me"? Too bad the world...
The comment from Alex Smith posted above is interesting from the stand point...
A place that is so not kid friendly doing a kid show? Weird. I'm sure it's...
Sure. So you are you admitting it is not historical? If you claim it to be...
Hey Bigham dad - You beat Skyline - In a dual meet That's soooo impressive!
I don't know who the rude commenter is on here but I would certainly call you...
Glad to see your prose Jared! Signed, A friend in Provo
So let me get this straight, Hall is still allowed to play for BYU? I...
A family member of mine used the law firm in this article, RecordGone.com,...
Advertisements
Classical tolerance involves three elements: (1) permitting or allowing (2) a conduct or point of view one disagrees with (3) while respecting the person in the process.
Notice that we can�t truly tolerate someone unless we disagree with him. This is critical. We don�t �tolerate� people who share our views. They�re on our side. There�s nothing to put up with. Tolerance is reserved for those we think are wrong, yet we still choose to treat decently and with respect.
This essential element of classical tolerance�disagreement (elitism regarding ideas)�has been completely lost in the modern distortion of the concept. Nowadays if you think someone is wrong, you�re called intolerant no matter how you treat him.
This presents a curious problem. One must first think another is wrong in order to exercise true tolerance, yet saying so brings the accusation of intolerance. It�s a �Catch-22.� According to this approach, true tolerance becomes impossible.