Reader comments
Shame on LDS Church

Gays don't really need marriage, they have all the rights and protections now.

This said, will someone please tell me how allowing gays to marry will hurt my or anyone's marriage? how is not allowing gays to marry a defense of marriage? Will someone please explain?

I do not agree that children should be adopted by gays, but no one else seems to care much about this, at least I haven't heard anyone speak out against it.

The "shame" is misdirected. Rebellious people have always brought "shame" on themselves for directing their anger for their own failure to accept and live laws at someone or something else.

Isn't it strange how quickly someone will reject a government, a church, or God when government, church or God limit socially unacceptable behavior? Just what is the role of a church? Is it to condone all actions and all activities? Is it to dismiss sin or evil or socially unacceptable behavior? Too many people mistake the role of a church.

A Christian church is founded on a belief in Jesus Christ. It promotes principles lived and taught by Jesus Christ, including Christ's teaching that He could not look upon sin with any degree of allowance. Yes, of course He loved the sinner, but He expected all who followeed Him to rise up above the natural man and live His laws.

When "shame" is directed at the sin and not at the law giver, then personal progress can begin.

For those people like "Please Explain" who say, "How will gay marriage affect me?", please go to the LDS Church's statment on Gay Marriage. It gives a wonderful explanation on why gay marriage will harm society.

Since I can't post the link, go to LDS.org and then, Newsroom which is on the right hand side of the homepage. On the right hand side it is titled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage."

"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a bigot"

There is a difference between legal rights and church blessings.
Legal marriage is a right of every American. Church blessed marriages (matrimony in some churches) may be determined by the church.
Just because someone has the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage does not mean that a Church has to accept it.

Thank you, for all your commemts but, if I'm not mistaken freedom of religion and personal liberty was already given to us by our forfathers. They gave their lives for us to have our right to choose. If a church wants to remind it's members to read the Bible, they should have that right with-out shame. They didnot say you MUST do this. What was ask, was for people to make their choices with prayer, AND study. That is what we should be doing with all our life-changing steps, no matter if you agree or dissagree, isn't it incredable that we have a choice! This church just wanted to remind their members (those who chose to join) to remember what they promised,and make this a matter of prayer. Those who are willing to listen to people to our elders and learn from them, are not limited to the Church of Jesus Christ. There are alot of them,a few Native Indians, Japanese, Egypt thought so much of this they burried gold,food,and even servents to help the dead. it seams we NEED yet look back to find a sham to pick. Which one is next.

Shame on all who support any far-right philosophy.
It's moralizing ugliness is ruining this country and puts us closer to fascism that we've ever seen.

Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.
Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of Gay, let's not change the meaning of marriage.
A church, and it's members have a right to stand up for what they think is wrong.
The people of California already voted not to have gay marriages, it was a political move that made it legal, now the voters can again vote it down.

really? you are going to trote out every stupid argument that has already been refuted a hundrered time before? just for example "please explain" trots out no adoption of children, I have seen this addressed at least twenty times on these threads. The peer reviewed research refutes your claims. there is no psychological concerns with gays adopting children.

Christina, I didn't see where the church told anyone who they could and couldn't love. The church actually teaches love of all mankind.

Gays are not being denied rights. gay men can't marry other men, staight men can't marry other men. Gay men can marry any single woman who'll have them, the same as straights. no difference - same rights.

Study after study has shown that children are more likely to succeed when raised in families with one father and one mother. that being the case, societies and governments have an interest in protecting traditional marriage. That is one reason why legalizing gay marriage weakens society.

You say you have left Utah, but you feel the need to write back and tell us your gripes about Utah. How are we going to miss you if you won't go away?

Beware of those that call evil good and good evil.
If you give a mouse a cookie, then she will want a glass of milk.
Homosexuality is a choice, just like hetrosexuality is a choice.
Marriage is different because is has the full backing of the government, which is the same as saying the full backing and support of society.
It is limited to those who have the courage to try and make a relationship work with someone of the opposite sex.
Children are better raised with a male and female influence.
when you cut either out you are going against nature.

DC, you are truly "lost" somewhere. Your arguments (the same ones we've read in threads before) make no sense. To love mankind is not the same question as loving your life partner yet being denied the right to legalize that relationship. And how is it in anyone's interest to have gay people marry individuals of the opposite sex? What about the other person in that relationship? Finally, even if it's true that children are generally more like to succeed in a home where a mother and father are present, no amount of wishful thinking will guarantee such a home to every child. If you look around, you will find that many children succeed in single-parent homes, and even in homes headed by gay couples.

All of you are going to be terribly sad on Nov 5th when you wake up and your "they voted it down once, so gay marriage will be voted against again" philosophy comes crashing back to the reality that proposition 8 will not pass in California. Anyone who thinks it will simply does not have even a remote understanding the the difference between the 2000 vote and this one.

do you care to provide the names of those studies Lost in DC. There are peer reviewed studies by the American Psychological Association, the national Association of social workers and the American pediatric society. You can go to their websites and read it for yourself.

Please re-read mirror 5:02 and consider why you dont do your cause any favors.

Dear Christina, Unlike government with its ever changing laws to suit the fad of the decade, the LDS church is not going to change its doctrine to suit a minority of gay people. If gay people and gay marriage supporters don't like the LDS churches standard on this issue, find another religion that suits your agenda. To that I say, shame on gay marriage supporters inside and outside the LDS church, for expecting it to change its morals and standards to conform to your ideology of marriage all in the name of "equality". One has to look no further than California to see how the rest of the country will go with liberals in charge.

Please explain | 12:50 a.m.: "This said, will someone please tell me how allowing gays to marry will hurt my or anyone's marriage? how is not allowing gays to marry a defense of marriage? Will someone please explain?"

It cheapens it... If pearls are highly valued and swine is not... the advise is to not cast your pearls before swine. Make sense?

"Isn't it strange how quickly someone will reject a government, a church, or God when government, church or God limit socially unacceptable behavior? Just what is the role of a church? Is it to condone all actions and all activities? Is it to dismiss sin or evil or socially unacceptable behavior? Too many people mistake the role of a church."


The role of a church is to minister to its MEMBERS. Please do not think that working to make ALL Californians live LDS standards is its role. What happened to allowing all men to worship how, where, and WHAT they may?

I doubt that Christina's gripe is really with the Church's stance on homosexuality; rather, her problem is with the LDS Church. If her problem really was with the Church's stance on homosexuality, woukdn't the complaint likewise be towards the Catholic Church and the hordes of other Christian denominations opposed to gay marriage?