Deseret News | Shame on LDS Church

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church

489 comments | Read story

Justin | 7:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am a member of the L.D.S. faith. I am very troubled by the church's recent move to involve itself in a political mattter. I personally do not agree with homosexuality in general, but I can not put aside my firm belief that we are all children of our Heavenly Father and that the plan that we all agreed to follow by coming to earth was the Savior's plan, one that included our free agency to live the way, and do the things that we choose to do. I do not understand what the church is so afraid of regarding gay marriage. The sanctity of my temple marriage is not going to be affected by a law that allows for gay marriages. The church believes that god will not recognize any marriage performed outside of it's holy temples as one that is eternal. If god does not recognize gay marriage, then what is the big deal?

:( | 7:43 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

thats like saying I am not racist I am pro white

waste of time | 7:51 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

wow five pages later, I can only assume that you people just post your own randon thoughts and never read anything posted before yours since you keep recycling the same arguments over and over again. really people its all been said before on this thread and this thread is only a repeat of a hundred other threads before it. I am sad that i just wasted this time and that I will never get it back. bye

Comments continue below

Standing up | 7:56 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

When the END comes we all will see that the Church was right. Thank God for Living Prophets and a Living Church.

Jackson | 8:06 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

So confused...first of all, this isn't a news atricle is it? this sounds like someones blog. Second, doesn't the church own desnews? Why would they put this up?

Taking A Stand | 8:16 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

This is not an issue about taking away civil rights from gays. This is about taking a stand. If we as a Church believe that we have prophets that speak the will of God; and if the First Presidency has urged the Saints in California to support proposition 8 this counsel is the will of the Lord. Though many of us may choose to ignore it. We have no right to question it by so doing we are saying that President Monson is not a prophet. To some, what he has said may cause hurt feelings or bitterness or may cause some to be offended or embarrassed by the Church, but it is what it is. Does the counsel come from the LORD or is it just from a man? You make the decision.

It may be that proposition 8 may not pass but those who were called upon made the effort. After that, it is in the Lords hands.

As Joshua said to the Israelites ï¿½Choose you this day whom ye will serveï¿½But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Re: Justin | 8:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

It's not about gay marriage affecting the legitimacy of your temple marriage. It's about the degradation of our society to an all-new moral low. Once these types of marriages are lawful, where do we draw the line?

If you don't think allowing gay marriages will affect you, think again. What will be the new curriculum for sex education in our school systems? Will they teach my children that homosexual activity is ok? Or maybe how to perform it? As much as you'd like to think that you lead a singular life, the actions of the community and society in which you live WILL have ramifications on you and your family.

This isn't a matter of equitable tax treatment for homosexual couples either. The heart of the issue is that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and spiritually wrong.

Homosexual behavior is just as degrading and morally wrong as pornography. I think we all understand that pornography is wrong. Is it any wonder that the church that opposes homosexual marriage is the same church that is so adamantly opposed to pornography?

If the church had the opportunity to vote on abolishing pornography, I guarantee they'd take it.

aiodg | 8:27 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I got news for you Justin, Marriage was never meant to be "a political matter". It was perverted and now the church that you suposedly belong to is trying to keep this sacred thing from being even more perverted. I've never been happier to be a member cause the church is about the only one that has the juevos to stand up for what's right and denounce what's wrong. the more of this stuff we let go on the more we become like other wicked places that have and deserved to be destroyed. let's learn from the past for once.

MZ | 8:47 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

What amazes me is that liberals during the "sexual revolution" of the 60/70's fought hard to make living together (i.e., no marriage required) an acceptable practice. The argument was: "why do we need a piece of paper to validate our love for each other?" In those days marriage offered little value. Considering that now living together before marriage is the norm and common-law marriages are commonplace it looks like they won-- marriage isn't important or valuable.

Now, however, the argument is that that same piece of paper is so vital and important that we should make it available to everyone be it man/man, woman/woman, man/woman/woman, man/child, woman/animal (the sky's the limit). Which is it left wingers? Is marriage valuable or not? It depends on the decade? It depends on the make-up of the couple-- gays should marry but heterosexuals shouldn't? Where do you draw the line? Oh wait, government should just stay out of our personal lives altogether, right? But it is, in fact, desirable to have government own/control/socialize everything else (like banks, insurance companies, mortgages, how much I'm allowed to earn, etc.). I'm sick of the ever-shifting, nonsensical, and paradoxical liberal agenda. Have some principles people!

Joey | 9:27 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Prohibiting same sex marriage is not discrimination. Homosexuals can still get married, they just can't marry someone of the same sex.

The right to marry does not include the right to marry whoever you love. You can't marry someone who is already married, even if you love them. You can't marry more than one person, even if you love more than one person.

The issue is how to define marriage, and it should be left up to voters to decide how it should be defined.

Arthur | 9:57 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

By allowing Gay marriages, society is saying that it is "socially acceptable".

If Homosexual marriage is acceptable, it is harder for people struggling with it to fight it. Instead they will choose it as an "alternative" life style.

Then more and more people embrace it, it becomes the norm, the spirit is withdrawn, and nations are destroyed like Soddom and Gommorah.

By not allowing gay marriage, we make an effort to slow this evil practice.

That's why we need to stop Gay Marriage now.

Wow | 9:58 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

No, no church or Government may have that right when the institution of men on earth. But God who placed us here has every right. Scientists who claimed the earth was round were crucified publicly for their assertions, nevertheless, despite the majority view, truth was truth. This is not about modern belief or the philosophies of men, Whether you believe in God or not does not change the reality of His existence and the reality of His law. You may choose to believe or not, and so may churches choose to believe or not. What you really want is the right to believe your way and the right to have all other beliefs silenced. The simple truth is that God placed us here, he established marriage between a man and a woman and no mortal agency or society will change that truth, they just line up with Him, or against Him, I for one, will stand with Him

John Pack Lambert | 10:24 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

To the 6:04 commentator,
As has been said hundreds of times before practicing homosexuals are allowed to marry.
The law in no way limits marriage by people based on any sexual activity done on the side. The only rule is that marriage must be between a man and a woman, the state refuses to recognize a union that does not involve this key grouping.
The only people who have their relationship criminalized is those who have the audacity to claim that the multiple women they have sex with are all their wives. If a man has a wife, a girl friend and a baby momma he has no fear of being prosecuted, only if he dignifies the other two with the title of law.
Arguably this shows we do in fact respect marriage and hold that people should not flippantly misuse the term. However calling a man your husband is not criminal, and would not be criminalized by Proposition 8.
What would occur is changes in school curiculum. I like Elder Bednar's stone impact analogy. We have no idea what all the riples will be, but we can see they will not be good.

To John Pack Lambert | 10:52 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

You're out-right lying. Gays are NOT allowed to marry. If they were, this wouldn't be an issue. They are not seen as married for ANY legal issues (last will and testament, insurance, next of kin, etc).

You cannot justify your stance by simply repeating it. You have ZERO evidence that said "ripples will not be good". "I believe" is not a valid logical argument. It is imposing your religion on society, which is why the original law passed a few years ago was ruled unconstitutional in the first place.

On "traditional marriage" | 11:12 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

You whiners need to go study some history. What is called "traditional marriage" today is NOTHING like what marriage was for the majority of human history.

For most of recorded history, people got married in their mid or early teens. We call that "pedophilia" today.

Real "traditional" marriages had little if anything to do with love. They were arranged by the parents for economic and in the case of royalty, political gain. Brides were bought and sold and considered property; a bargaining chip, something to be bartered.

By the way, appealing to tradition is a logical fallacy.

I'm sick of people who think thousands of years of world history was just like the 1950s. You're a bunch of ignoramuses.

Linda Stay | 11:19 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am Linda Stay, Mormon mother of two gay children, of whom I am very proud! As I watched these two grow up and develop their personalities, it was very clear that they didn't fit the typical stereo type of a masculine tough boy, or a barbie doll carrying little girl. They were unique in their own ways. As little children, there is no way you can convince me that they "chose" to be different or that there was any evil temptation influencing them. They came from heaven just the way they are. Did God make a mistake? I think not. Anymore than someone born with Down Syndrome is a mistake. They have a role and a purpose and things to learn and teach the rest of us, as we all do. As I have watched them be rejected and shunned, ignored and invisible to so many they love and are were close to, it is ludicrous to believe they "chose" this "lifestyle" any more than I chose to be heterosexual.

Linda Stay | 11:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

It saddens me as I read the opposition to the equal rights of gays and lesbians to marry and commit to each other. I am saddened that the church that once held the ultimate light of truth in my eyes, could be so quick to enlist and encourage it's congregations to rally in judgment, bigotry and disdain for the civil rights of humans in our present day. I am appalled at their use of fear tactics to influence its members and stooping to the same devices that our politicians use to manipulate. I am shocked by the antiquated attitudes of so many and clearly cannot believe that this is what a loving God would condone or inspire anyone to do. I believed that the LDS church held the family to be of utmost importance, yet I watch families being pulled apart, divided and separated over this issue of the right for homosexuals to commit in marriage to each other and have the same civil rights. What happened to the "Gospel of Jesus Christ" which teaches love unconditional?

More on "traditional" marriage | 11:58 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008

If you guys are all so hot for "traditional" marriage, why not start a petition to only allow divorces in cases of adultery? After all, Jesus himself said that was the only legitimate reason for it...

...actually, he said that was the only reason a man could divorce his wife. If a woman wanted to leave her husband, she was SOL, even if he beat her within an inch of her life every day. That's "traditional" marriage for you.

re Joey | 12:02 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If you can't see the enormous differences between gay marriage and your other examples, you need to seek help from a learning disability center.

Someone "loving" someone other than their spouse is a case of breaking marriage vows. The same cannot be said concerning Gay marriage. Nice false analogy though.

re Wow | 12:07 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Um, people who were persecuted for saying the world was round were on the side OPPOSITE religion. It was the BIBLE that was responsible for people thinking the world was flat in the dark ages. The ancient Greeks had figured out that it was round but their learning was outlawed by the "moral majority" of the time, the morons appealing to their beloved book of bronze-age mythology, aka the Bible.

I fail to see why any sane person would use that book as a moral compass. That same book states people should be executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. That same book outlaws making clothing of two different kinds of material. Got any cotton-poly shirts in your wardrobe? If you do, you're going against the word of prophets.

Brigham Young actually condemned pants with zippers. All you people wearing pants with a zip-fly, repent or you're saying President Young wasn't a prophet.

re: Re: Justin | 8:26 | 12:11 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

You draw the line when you can show it harming other people, infringing on other's rights, etc. The anti-gay marriage side has never once presented any evidence that gay marriage would do anything bad. They just claim it will over and over again and expect everyone to take their word for it.

old timers | 12:15 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Get with the times! The LDS church is not the only church led by older leaders. I'd like to believe they are counseled by younger people to know what it's like in the real world, but I'd have to say there's limited knowledge . Also, there's a line where ignorance meets knowledge. Ignorance meaning, if they choose to ignore the facts, it's going to burn people along the way. If they choose knowledge of the facts, it'll burn people along with the way. YOu can't please everybody, therefore the church takes a stand. I honor that stand, although I am a believer that it's not choice.

We are born a certain way, chemically, physically, with DNA and everything else about us in place when life starts in the womb.

JanSan | 12:21 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

re:Richard
You know I really get tired of people saying that we as LDS people HATE the gay people - just because we do not agree and are fighting against what they are trying to accomplish. I DO NOT HATE GAYS!!!! I am LDS and I do not live in California - but I am still against gay marraige!! I have that moral,legal and emotional right. That does not make me a horrible person just because I can think and make choices on my own - and I chose a certain way. And as has been said in some of these comments - it is NOT JUST the LDS that feel this way - this is not a matter or hate but a matter of choice and belief and that is my right!

Lynne | 12:22 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

It doesn't matter, the LDS church doesn't need to take it to these extremes, they can simply opose it, religion doesn't need to be mixed with politics. Its unfair that they have raised raised almost $8 million+ to ban gay marriage, when that money could be going to a more important issue such as starving children in Africa.

oops | 12:34 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

To Gladdits A FreeCountry,

Hi. You have a funny name! (:
You spelled "forefathers" incorrectly.

Riggs | 12:34 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Under current California law same-sex unions, or domestic partnerships, have the same rights as married heterosexual unions. It's not about rights or love, it's about trying to legislate respect and that just won't work in a free country. This is very similar to the Boy Scout of America issues; for example, I have no problem whatever with having the "Gay Scouts of America", but I sure don't want my sons or grandsons to be required to be in a troop with gay scoutmasters; or to see BSA troops lose tax or other community status because they refuse to accept gay scoutmasters. Likewise, I do not want to see the laws require LDS, Catholic or any other church be forced to perform or accept "gay marriages" within their churches under threat of tax or other penalties of law.

Common_Sense | 1:09 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Jesus had unconditional love for the sinners (us). However, he also taught how we should live. He told the adultress to go in sin no more. Can you imagine Jesus telling a homosexual anything different? I could imagine Him healing the person of the desire. I believe He still can do that. It may not be easy, but any person can be healed of any sin.

Shame on You! | 1:25 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman! Shame on gays for wanting to change what the definition of marriage has always been since the beginning of man! Trying to distort and twist the meaning of marriage (and change the moral fabric of society) offends me and I am tired of these people trying to take MY rights away! Pretty much all legal rights of marriage are already there for domestic partners, and nobody is telling you that you cant have your own free will to do whatever you do with your partner, but quit complaining when it is YOU that are trying to destroy the sanctity and definition of something I find sacred, holy and ordained of God! SHAME ON YOU!

BWHA?! | 1:41 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Being homosexual is natural?

I didn't know nature provided a way for two men to make a child.

I also didn't know that nature provided a way for two women to make a child.

Seems very artificial.

Hypocrites ??? | 1:51 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Why do the same people who are always for all things natural, the same ones who are for all things unnatural when it comes to marriage?

This same group of people have one law for everybody else and different or no laws for themselves. We already defeated the original bill by a vote of the people but because the Gay advocates don't respect the vote of the California people, they got a court to change the vote which brings us back to this current bill.

If you think it's OK to use the courts to change the voters decision on marriage, then why don't you let us do the same with Roe vs Wade? If you can't respect the will of the people at the voting booth stop trying to rewrite the rules of the game later in court.

Ca voter | 1:54 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Plenty of studies have shown that children of single parents on average do much worse than children of married heterosexual couples. They are much more likely to go to jail, do poorly in school, and wind up in poverty. Staight marriage works. Same sex marriage does not because of the lack of either a male or a female parental influence in those situations. Why promote what clearly does not work on so many levels. Vote yes on Prop 8.

CA Cougar | 2:03 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Fight the good fight for yes on prop 8. You can see by these postings that the opposition is extemely hateful and angry. Confused and illogical also, but we still should try to love them. We need to reject their message and understand their deception. They deal in lies. Homosexuality is wrong. Same sex marriage is wrong. We need to work very hard with likeminded CA voters so our voices will be heard and we can overcome the evil judges on the supreme court that overruled the will of the people to have marriage only be between one man and one woman. Work as hard as you can for yes on prop 8.

COLORADODIRL | 3:00 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I'm glad you left utah also and moved to Laguna...shame on you for judging!

BAC | 3:53 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If gays need love, but a dog or chia pet. Sexual preference is a personal thing. If Obama gets in the office, he will allow gays to practice this preference in the military. I wonder why this subject is never mentioned. His rationale is several Arabic linguists decided they were gay when it was time to deploy after the governent spent thousands of dollars on their training. Do you think they didn't want to go downrange? They were cowards.

Re: Shame on Barack/Biden | 3:59 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

"And if Biden was correct, the church and his campaign are on the same side on this issue."

They aren't on the same side at all. In a letter written by Obama to several gay activist groups in San Francisco in June or July, he said: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."

In an email written at just about the same time by John McCain to the CA Protection of Marriage campaign, he said: "I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

Only one of those positions is in line with the LDS church's stance (and that of many other churches). It's not Barack Obama's position.

Re: Linda Stay | 4:36 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

When you place your family before the Lord, you are breaking a commandment, and a direct charge from Jesus Christ during His mortal ministry.

"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37)

Of course you love your children, and of course they're probably wonderful people. But when you put their desires ahead of Heavenly Father's desires, you won't be able to keep those children you love so much in the next life.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches unconditional love for all, but it also teaches unconditional consequence for our actions and unconditional hate for sinful behavior.

If we claim to believe in Jesus Christ and His teachings, then we need to believe in ALL of His teachings, not just the ones we like or want to follow.

Do you honestly think that President Hinckley and President Monson don't have unconditional love for all? Really? Have you ever once heard them speak? They radiate a deep and abiding love for all - but most imporantly for the Lord, the Savior, and Their teachings.

Paul | 5:46 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman and that's the way it should stay for all of time, we must love and respect people who are different and the Church does care about gay people, and is trying to protect them.

Our Freedoms | 6:38 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Anything that hurts society as a whole can cause loss of freedoms. Marriage and family should be the main basis for society and when it's not we are losing our freedoms. When we became tolerant of divorce and pornography in our society we have seen how those have been related to the decline of society (crimes have increased and thus some people are losing their freedoms, both the victims and the abusers).
Now does that mean that gay marriage is a antagonist to families? YES, because if gay tendencies were so "natural" then gay couples would be able to procreate. Anybody with a science background should know that it is "unnatural" for any being to "procreate" with another being of the SAME SEX. Heavenly Father did not make us that way.
However, I am tolerant of other people's beliefs and feelings as long as they don't have a direct impact on my freedoms. As stated above, gay marriage, in the long run, will have an impact on everyone's freedoms just as we have seen divorce and pornography do the same.

Tom in CA | 6:45 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Re: This article by Christina V. Larsen:

Even The Great One Obama, AND Senator Joe Biden are on record as having openly declared their SUPPORT for the definition of marriage as ONLY "between one man and one woman", and that THEY would NOT support marriage for same sex couples.

I guess they TOO are "misguided"?

Could I have your response on this, please???

As I tried to state by comment yesterday - the 3% minority wants to cram their AGENDA down the throat of the 97% - it has nothing to do with their "Rights", but everything to do about THEIR AGENDA.

William F. Butler | 7:21 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

You are either purposefully hiding all of the facts or you are an incredibly stupid individual who does not understand the social and legal consequences of legalizing same-sex marriage.

At this time, gays and anyone else have full legal rights (in terms of inheritence, health care, etc.) as partners living together without being legally married.

All of this mess is about so much more than simple legality of marriage.

marriage redefined | 7:23 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If two people of the same gender can have their relationship defined as marriage can an animal and a human have their relationship defined as marriage? I know of two people who have sex with their animals and they call themselves "married" to their pet partners. They consider themselves completely within their rights to push for animal/human partnerships...When will this madness stop! Marriage is marriage and the rest of the "relationships" are just deviations or counterfits of the real thing. Next thing you know a woman will want to marry her pet snake or something aweful like that..... wake up people and stop this madness!!!!

STXB | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If you support gay marriage, then you must also support polygamy, marriage between a 17 year old and a 45 year old, any sort of alternative or irregular marriage practice, and even incestuous marriages. It's all about the "love" between 2 (or more) persons, right? The biggest argument for gay marriage is they "love" each other and deserve equal treatment. I can hear it now, "but that's (these other situations)different." Exactly. What's wrong is wrong.

studies??? | 7:35 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If you quote studies, you should cite your references. Although, keep in mind, it's just a "STUDY". It takes years of studies from different sources, to even try to make a point. Points are always attempted to be made, from all different angles.

I have several gay friends, work associates and friend's kids. One friend of mine, has 2 gay kids.

You gay haters just need an experience or 2 to maybe sway your judgment. Thou shalt not judge.

Jeff | 7:45 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Hey, Tom. Why is "agenda" a dirty word? Suppose their "agenda" is to gain their rights. What's wrong with that? All this hoopla over gay marriage is incomprehensible. It would have virtually no effect on anyone except the couples involved. It would grant some civil rights to committed adults. Denying marriage has no other effect than to deny these rights. There's nothing sexy about that.

STXB | 7:54 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If you support gay marriage, then you must support polygamy, no age limits on marriage, any irregular or alternative marriage practices, and even incestuous marriages. The they "love" each other and they want equal treatment argument can apply to all these. It's all about the "love" between two (or more) people, right? I can hear it now, "but those are different situations." Exactly. What's wrong is wrong.

Food for thought | 8:02 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I live in Utah and was born and raised in the LDS church. I have absolutely no issue against gays getting married. Everyone keeps saying that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, but everyone out there is extremely tolerant of unions between man and several women, or just completely ignore the situation. I know the difference between LDS and FLDS, but I saw several LDS members out protesting on the streets of SLC when the children in Texas were taken from their homes. A move, no doubt, to protect those families. Those ABUSIVE families. If you mormons out there want to protect traditional marriage, then protect it on all fronts. Otherwise, you could always just ignore the gay couples like you do those polygamists down the road.

mareao | 8:09 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Why would anyone have a problem with a church taking political action on a moral issue?

Vegas Ed | 8:17 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

If someone wants to do something perverted in their own privacy, that's their right. It's not their right to tell me what I should think about it. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. You can call it what you want, but don't make the rest of the world call it marriage.

The Bible? | 8:29 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

I keep asking the question and in 250+ comments, no one has answered it. What about the 12 passages in the OT and NT (that an amateur like me can find) that state that homosexuality is a sin?

Are you people choosing not to read these, or purposely mis-interpreting them?

Either way, can you see how a Church that accepts the Bible as the word of God would consider homosexuality to be wrong?

Thomas Bell | 8:33 a.m. Oct. 10, 2008

Shame on you for ignoring thousands of years of marriage! I suppose you also told the Catholics, Baptists, and other churches who also support marriage as remaining only between one man and one woman. No wonder California is so screwed up - too many wackos like you have inflitrated.

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.