Reader comments
Calls about Prop. 8 not imminent
243 comments | Read story
Billy | 2:35 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Just to clarify a little for the statisically challenged. When one writes that
"most" pedophiles are heterosexual that is true. The problem is that
92% to 96%(depending on which study you believe) of the population is
heterosexual. So to have higher individual numbers of pedophiles that are
heterosexual should not be surprising. The problem is that homosexuals make up
more than 4% to 8% of the pedophiles. So it is also true to say that
statistically if you are homosexual you are more likely to be a pedophile than a
heterosexual person is. Once you are already o.k. with one type of sexual
deviance it is easier to become o.k. with the next level then the next leve and
so on.
Bryce | 2:41 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This is a serious issue in terms of the effects it could have on the Church and
its marital practices - there are already legal movements in Europe to use same
gender marriage laws to force religions to offer marriage to any
"legally" qualified couple.
There is also a movement to get countries in Europe to not recognize as legal marriages performed by religious bodies that do not perform gay marriages.
So... Why not put language in gay marriage laws that says "neither this, nor any other, law or statute shall ever be used to alter any religious entities right to practice marriage as it sees fit so long as said marriages do not overstep legal bounds (i.e. no polygamy)???
There is also a movement to get countries in Europe to not recognize as legal marriages performed by religious bodies that do not perform gay marriages.
So... Why not put language in gay marriage laws that says "neither this, nor any other, law or statute shall ever be used to alter any religious entities right to practice marriage as it sees fit so long as said marriages do not overstep legal bounds (i.e. no polygamy)???
Comments continue below
re: honest question | 2:49 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Jealous of California | 2:51 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
There are two types of people.
Those who live in California
And those who wish they did.
If you've never experienced a bona fide "live-and-let-live" culture - you haven't lived.
They don't call it the Golden State for nothing.
Best place on Earth!
Those who live in California
And those who wish they did.
If you've never experienced a bona fide "live-and-let-live" culture - you haven't lived.
They don't call it the Golden State for nothing.
Best place on Earth!
Jon | 2:59 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints professes to be led by a prophet
of God. It teaches that if this prophet ever did anything to lead The Church
astray he'd be removed. No one who professes BELIEF in The Church, can
profess to believe otherwise--it would be inconsistent and contradictory.
I think that The Church's vocal involvement in such a momentous and important issue on such a public scale, constitutes "leading" The Church (i.e. the members of The Church). Therefore, I believe that if it wasn't the will of God that The Church's leaders instruct the members as they have, and been so vocally against homosexual marriage, Thomas S. Monson (and Gordon B. Hinckley before him) will be (would have been) removed by God.
For that reason, I wonder how anyone professing a BELIEF (not membership) in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can also express disagreement with the prophet, it goes against what you proclaim to believe.
I'm certainly not suggesting anyone should leave The Church, simply that they should follow the Prophet, it's what you believe in, IF you believe in The Church.
I think that The Church's vocal involvement in such a momentous and important issue on such a public scale, constitutes "leading" The Church (i.e. the members of The Church). Therefore, I believe that if it wasn't the will of God that The Church's leaders instruct the members as they have, and been so vocally against homosexual marriage, Thomas S. Monson (and Gordon B. Hinckley before him) will be (would have been) removed by God.
For that reason, I wonder how anyone professing a BELIEF (not membership) in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, can also express disagreement with the prophet, it goes against what you proclaim to believe.
I'm certainly not suggesting anyone should leave The Church, simply that they should follow the Prophet, it's what you believe in, IF you believe in The Church.
Debates | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I find it interesting that nobody has pointed out the vice-presidential debate.
Joe Biden, himself, when asked about this specific issue said that he AND Obama
are not in favor of changing the definition of marriage. They BOTH believe that
marriage is defined to be between a man AND a woman.
So to try to make this a political debate and the church getting involved when it shouldn't, don't forget that ALL 4 candidates for this nation believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This does NOT take away the rights that are already awarded civil unions.
This is a religious issue. I have a right to believe the way I want to, just like you have a right to make the choices you do. I don't care if people are gay. I don't care if gay people would like to adopt children. But I do care when people scream tolerance when they are unwilling to offer tolerance in return. They should be tolerant of my religious beliefs.
So to try to make this a political debate and the church getting involved when it shouldn't, don't forget that ALL 4 candidates for this nation believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This does NOT take away the rights that are already awarded civil unions.
This is a religious issue. I have a right to believe the way I want to, just like you have a right to make the choices you do. I don't care if people are gay. I don't care if gay people would like to adopt children. But I do care when people scream tolerance when they are unwilling to offer tolerance in return. They should be tolerant of my religious beliefs.
Re *EXTRA, EXTRA!* | 3:05 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
* Extra, Extra, read all about it! *
"We interrupt the broadcast of whatever you were doing and report the following:
It is now concluded that human beings walking on the earth are ALL male & female...."
"It has been reported by science that it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter this fact in anyway,"
The reality is that in fact there are some people born with both sex organs--they are called hermaphrodites. There are some people who are genetically male & female, as some cells in their body contain XX chromosomes while other cells contain XY. Some people are born XXY or XYY(Klinefelter's Syndrome). There are all sorts of genetic variations & mutations. Granted this rare, however, I've wondered how the LDS church as well as other orthodox religions have dealt with such individuals?
"We interrupt the broadcast of whatever you were doing and report the following:
It is now concluded that human beings walking on the earth are ALL male & female...."
"It has been reported by science that it is IMPOSSIBLE to alter this fact in anyway,"
The reality is that in fact there are some people born with both sex organs--they are called hermaphrodites. There are some people who are genetically male & female, as some cells in their body contain XX chromosomes while other cells contain XY. Some people are born XXY or XYY(Klinefelter's Syndrome). There are all sorts of genetic variations & mutations. Granted this rare, however, I've wondered how the LDS church as well as other orthodox religions have dealt with such individuals?
Revelations? | 3:06 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
As for our Harvard Grad friend, you testifying to me that you know the Brethren
are wrong has no application to me. The last time I checked, you don't
have that right to have personal revelation for me. All I know is the next time
I'm asked if I sustain my church leaders, as a Californian, I'll be
able to honestly answer YES.
Poligamist | 3:07 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Practice what you preach.
Hope bill passes | 3:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
For the sake of society and children especially, let's all hope that this
passes and marriage is once again protected in California. I congratulate the
LDS Church for standing for something on a national level. It is one thing to
preach from the pulpit but it is quite another to have the courage to actually
"act" and practice what you preach. The Church will catch a lot of
flack from the godless, liberal left but if marriage , children and society can
be protected and strengthened then so be it.
Bill | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The church is SO true.
re Hey | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Please quote your source as to Jesus and the scriptures condoning gay marriage.
Fas as I know, neither had anything to say about it, pro or con.
KeepTraditionalMarriage | 3:19 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
In the beginning God created a relationship between a man and a woman. In
English, the word for this relationship is "marriage".
Marriage has always been understood to have two purposes: companionship and procreation. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him". - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis).
Although all marriages will not produce children, it has been understood throughout the centuries that procreation is a major right of marriage. For example, how many marriage proposals have included the phrase "I want you to be the mother of my children"?
Same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate. This is simply a matter of biology, and has nothing to do with civil rights.
My question is: why should 4 judges redefine marriage to be only 50% of what traditional marriage has always been? Why do we want to lower the standard? The institution of marriage has already been hurt by selfishness, divorce, abuse, adultery, out of wedlock childbearing, etc. We shouldn't weaken it further by lowering the entry standard.
Happily married father in CA
Marriage has always been understood to have two purposes: companionship and procreation. "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make an help meet for him". - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth" (Genesis).
Although all marriages will not produce children, it has been understood throughout the centuries that procreation is a major right of marriage. For example, how many marriage proposals have included the phrase "I want you to be the mother of my children"?
Same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate. This is simply a matter of biology, and has nothing to do with civil rights.
My question is: why should 4 judges redefine marriage to be only 50% of what traditional marriage has always been? Why do we want to lower the standard? The institution of marriage has already been hurt by selfishness, divorce, abuse, adultery, out of wedlock childbearing, etc. We shouldn't weaken it further by lowering the entry standard.
Happily married father in CA
It's a WORD, Get OVER IT! | 3:20 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
rekathyn | 2:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to kathyn: 10:31. "I understand perfectly the concept of Free Agency. No one is taking away your free agency."
"And no one is stopping gay couples. Just don't label it marriage."
I understand perfectly the concept of consequences. I also understand the concept of "judge not". I understand that my actions have consequences, and so do your's, so if you would not mind cleaning up your own backyard before you go poking around everyone else's, that would be the Christian thing to do.
Everyone seems to be fine with the same sex unions, just not the association of the "word" marriage being attached.
And by demanding that it not be "labeled marriage", are you not taking away individuals right to free agency?
I just wonder how petty we are by holding firm to this idea. Is the next constitutional ammendment proposed going to limit a person's right to be "married to an idea"?
Quite frankly right now, it is embarassing to know that people of my same faith are acting so petty and un-Christlike. WWJD? He would love the sinner, but hate the sin.
It's a WORD...
to kathyn: 10:31. "I understand perfectly the concept of Free Agency. No one is taking away your free agency."
"And no one is stopping gay couples. Just don't label it marriage."
I understand perfectly the concept of consequences. I also understand the concept of "judge not". I understand that my actions have consequences, and so do your's, so if you would not mind cleaning up your own backyard before you go poking around everyone else's, that would be the Christian thing to do.
Everyone seems to be fine with the same sex unions, just not the association of the "word" marriage being attached.
And by demanding that it not be "labeled marriage", are you not taking away individuals right to free agency?
I just wonder how petty we are by holding firm to this idea. Is the next constitutional ammendment proposed going to limit a person's right to be "married to an idea"?
Quite frankly right now, it is embarassing to know that people of my same faith are acting so petty and un-Christlike. WWJD? He would love the sinner, but hate the sin.
It's a WORD...
California #1 | 3:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I am Californian, NOT the
�Californian� who wrote at 10:52 Oct.
8 �With all of the evil, killing and problems of war,
poverty and oppression�the LDS church finds this as the
best use of its resources. It is pathetic and full of
hate..��
That �Californian� fails to recognize that the best use of LDS Church resources is the same as God�s, �to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.� The earthly vehicle He has provided for that purpose is the family, with children enjoying the blessings and benefits of a father and mother who have formalized their commitment to each other, and are faithful to each other and to their responsibilities as parents. Participation in the campaign to codify that institution into civil law is totally consistent with �best use of the resources.�
�CA Prop22/8�: "I realized then that I resented all the pressure I felt from the church.�
Let's talk about pressure. Ordinary people resent the unrelenting, in-your-face pressure from a special interest lifestyle advocacy group to redefine marriage and family in ways that fly in the face of God, Jesus Christ, religious institutions for eons, secular governments throughout human history, and common sense.
That �Californian� fails to recognize that the best use of LDS Church resources is the same as God�s, �to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.� The earthly vehicle He has provided for that purpose is the family, with children enjoying the blessings and benefits of a father and mother who have formalized their commitment to each other, and are faithful to each other and to their responsibilities as parents. Participation in the campaign to codify that institution into civil law is totally consistent with �best use of the resources.�
�CA Prop22/8�: "I realized then that I resented all the pressure I felt from the church.�
Let's talk about pressure. Ordinary people resent the unrelenting, in-your-face pressure from a special interest lifestyle advocacy group to redefine marriage and family in ways that fly in the face of God, Jesus Christ, religious institutions for eons, secular governments throughout human history, and common sense.
RE: DONOVAN | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To prove God is real?
All you have to do is look around you and see everything around you - how it's organized from the tiniest cell - the change of season's - rotations of planets - how everything in the plant/animal kingdom reproduces in it's respective element - our own bodies, how they function and operate. This is NOT by mistake or manufactured by some "big-bang theory" - it is created by a divine God.
And part of His creation, is us. In order to fulfill His creation and purpose of the earth - there is NO WAY he would create someone to "be born gay." That is merely an excuse for justification.
All you have to do is look around you and see everything around you - how it's organized from the tiniest cell - the change of season's - rotations of planets - how everything in the plant/animal kingdom reproduces in it's respective element - our own bodies, how they function and operate. This is NOT by mistake or manufactured by some "big-bang theory" - it is created by a divine God.
And part of His creation, is us. In order to fulfill His creation and purpose of the earth - there is NO WAY he would create someone to "be born gay." That is merely an excuse for justification.
conservative AND liberal POV | 4:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The conservative in me tells me a union between two people of the same sex is
difficult to comprehend.
The liberal in me tells me it's none of my business.
The liberal in me tells me it's none of my business.
All are male or female? | 4:27 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
That shows that you don't know enough. There is a minority of people that
are neither....and they have to choose. Ask any medical professional if you
don't think it's true. Likewise, there is a minority that is not
attracted to their opposite gender. Like it or not, it is true. These people
have always been here...they are just speaking out now.
Re: ExMoWeHoMo | 4:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You must be the mom.
Mainstream opinion | 4:43 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
McCain, Palin, Obama and Biden all oppose the redefinition of marriage to
include homosexual relationships. Not a surprise - this is the mainstream
position in America. At least three out of the four, and most Americans, do not
oppose equal civil union rights and protections for gay couples.
But equal "rights" for gay couples are not really what's at stake in Calfornia. What is at stake is a license for extremists to push the envelope and take away the right of individuals and religions to oppose homosexual behavior based upon moral grounds.
There is more bigotry and hatred on the "no" side of Proposition 8 than upon the "yes" side, as evidenced by the tone of comments on this article.
But equal "rights" for gay couples are not really what's at stake in Calfornia. What is at stake is a license for extremists to push the envelope and take away the right of individuals and religions to oppose homosexual behavior based upon moral grounds.
There is more bigotry and hatred on the "no" side of Proposition 8 than upon the "yes" side, as evidenced by the tone of comments on this article.
Liberty of Religion? | 4:45 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I can't believe the leaders in our church actually believe that religious
liberties are being threatened. By meddling in this proposition aren't we
taking aways others "religious" or non religious liberties? What
hypocrites we are!
Anonymous | 5:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I live in wonderfully liberal California.
I used to live in Utah.
I've never been happier.
I used to live in Utah.
I've never been happier.
@2:49 | 5:22 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Sorry, but Soddom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed because of homosexuality.
Go read your Bible again.
mtnews | 5:27 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to do. Let us all focus in on & put our money on other more important things
in our country, like the environment/alternative energy, community building,
families & the better definition of what it means to be an American.
m6tnews | 5:28 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to deliver with your choice.
We desire your happiness. Partnership is a legal & contractualizing institution that is appropriate for your concerns. Your desires to push for a higher institution are not provable by a preponderance of facts. It would take many, many generations to even complete a first study. The lawmakers are expected to look to the welfare of the child first & always. With your fantastical social institution it's currently impossible to provide a socially stable & constant environment for children. So far you have barely been able to get along in your society much less request the High & Holy calling you demand. We don't want a return to Sodomy laws. But we do need to move onto other more important issues that are pressing at our doors. The endless appeals & repeals need to be directed into a positive approach to what you can do, & accept that America can't bend to your will but rather you need to bend to ours.
Learn to accept who you are. Be truthful in all things. Live by love. Let anger go. Choose a partnership contract to protect your rights. It's the right thing
We desire your happiness. Partnership is a legal & contractualizing institution that is appropriate for your concerns. Your desires to push for a higher institution are not provable by a preponderance of facts. It would take many, many generations to even complete a first study. The lawmakers are expected to look to the welfare of the child first & always. With your fantastical social institution it's currently impossible to provide a socially stable & constant environment for children. So far you have barely been able to get along in your society much less request the High & Holy calling you demand. We don't want a return to Sodomy laws. But we do need to move onto other more important issues that are pressing at our doors. The endless appeals & repeals need to be directed into a positive approach to what you can do, & accept that America can't bend to your will but rather you need to bend to ours.
Learn to accept who you are. Be truthful in all things. Live by love. Let anger go. Choose a partnership contract to protect your rights. It's the right thing
mtnews | 5:29 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
the marriage idea based on many tragic & overwhelming circumstances, that
has left them scarred, bitter, hostile, inappropriately forceful & overall
as a group, not a primary source to afford or utilize as placement for children
or in other words obtain the definition of marriage. It isn't in the best
interests of the established political institutions to shift that political
power away from the core issue that one man & one woman constitute marriage,
& such offspring as are produced leave the greatest source of freethinking
individuals necessary to carry on the service, traditions, & honor of
maintaining the United States of America.
Therefore, you who are purveyors of this proposed gay & lesbian marriage, know of a certain your battles in MA & CA, VT & elsewhere in your political activity, to gain an acceptance of your desires, can all be turned by away by the USA, as has been demonstrated before.
Part 4 Polygamy & gay Marriage. Relics
There is no shame in trying. Nor in expressing your political views. Your failure is to address this solitary issue (although there are others) in a reasonable & honest manner. Your desires outstrip your ability
Therefore, you who are purveyors of this proposed gay & lesbian marriage, know of a certain your battles in MA & CA, VT & elsewhere in your political activity, to gain an acceptance of your desires, can all be turned by away by the USA, as has been demonstrated before.
Part 4 Polygamy & gay Marriage. Relics
There is no shame in trying. Nor in expressing your political views. Your failure is to address this solitary issue (although there are others) in a reasonable & honest manner. Your desires outstrip your ability
mtnews | 5:29 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
alternative to the gang style life that has developed in America. Friendships
& relationships to develop that would foster tolerance & understanding
of the lifestyle choice, in the long could become beneficial to the community as
a whole.
Part 3 Polygamy & gay Marriage. Relics
The argument that children are born this way has failed any reasonable scientific study. Scientific studies have indicated a chemical reaction is more likely in play. Testosterone, an anabolic steroid, progesterone, a steroid hormone & estrogen, also a steroid hormones, & their reaction with the physiology of various adults engaging in sexual activity, create individually unique levels (perhaps even overdoses) of steroids in the human body & while thus engaged may be acting out of a type of steroid, (drug induced) set of decisions. These can been seen in the gay & lesbian community as: living in a relationship that isn't child producing yet arguing & demanding rights similar to those actually engaged in an existing lifestyle involving child rearing by its very nature, unhealthy addictive behavior, heightened anger, demanding, gregariousness, changes in speech & other cognitive behavior.
A vast majority of gays & lesbians have chosen these relationships over
Part 3 Polygamy & gay Marriage. Relics
The argument that children are born this way has failed any reasonable scientific study. Scientific studies have indicated a chemical reaction is more likely in play. Testosterone, an anabolic steroid, progesterone, a steroid hormone & estrogen, also a steroid hormones, & their reaction with the physiology of various adults engaging in sexual activity, create individually unique levels (perhaps even overdoses) of steroids in the human body & while thus engaged may be acting out of a type of steroid, (drug induced) set of decisions. These can been seen in the gay & lesbian community as: living in a relationship that isn't child producing yet arguing & demanding rights similar to those actually engaged in an existing lifestyle involving child rearing by its very nature, unhealthy addictive behavior, heightened anger, demanding, gregariousness, changes in speech & other cognitive behavior.
A vast majority of gays & lesbians have chosen these relationships over
mtnews | 5:30 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
necessary sexual boundaries for the youth of America. Previous attempts to
experiment with it have universally reached disaster. A gay or lesbian home is
not a place for children that haven't obtained the age of consent. The
whole of the relationship is based on a non-child producing arrangement.
Producing children for this purpose would be, in itself, be expensive &
improper for the government to rewrite existing laws concerning the adoption of
children which are not based on the premise of "What is best for the
parent." but rather it's "What is best for the child."
Children can't enter into the legal contracts of the 50 states until they have reached the age of consent & are fully able to protect themselves, at that point there are State laws that would permit adoption, residency & other benefits. Owing to the likelihood of graduating adults wanting to learn more. It may be reasonable to think that 18 - 24 yr old age group, is generally in an age of service to country, higher education, apprenticeships, community, world, church service & marriage. There may be a real need in communities to allow & encourage this as an
Children can't enter into the legal contracts of the 50 states until they have reached the age of consent & are fully able to protect themselves, at that point there are State laws that would permit adoption, residency & other benefits. Owing to the likelihood of graduating adults wanting to learn more. It may be reasonable to think that 18 - 24 yr old age group, is generally in an age of service to country, higher education, apprenticeships, community, world, church service & marriage. There may be a real need in communities to allow & encourage this as an
Religious Liberty? | 5:32 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I believe in a religion that DOES accept homosexuals as children of God, that
DOES want them to be married and happy in families, that DOES support them and
not abandon them.
You are attacking MY religious liberties by voting FOR prop 8. Anyone say hypocrites? Do only YOUR religious liberties matter?
These people bleed the same color as you. Their bodies perform the same functions as yours. And yet you continue to treat them as an alien species. The Christ would be very ashamed of you indeed.
You are attacking MY religious liberties by voting FOR prop 8. Anyone say hypocrites? Do only YOUR religious liberties matter?
These people bleed the same color as you. Their bodies perform the same functions as yours. And yet you continue to treat them as an alien species. The Christ would be very ashamed of you indeed.
very concerned | 5:57 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
i never imagined i would see the day when something like this would be
happening. the morals of this nation have been turned into a sewer of corrupt
filth. do any of you know exactly what kind of love life gays have? this nation
is going to hell fast. we are going to get what's coming to us.
I demand.... | 6:42 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I demand to marry the tree in my backyard. We are in love. I defy you to prove
it does not consent. And why would you care, you don't ask for consent to
cut them down.
I cannot believe all the hateful people that want to deny me this right, which is inalienably mine. It won't hurt anyone.
Stay out of our business Utah. We've had as much of your common sense as we can take. If my true love becomes a desk you'll pay!
I cannot believe all the hateful people that want to deny me this right, which is inalienably mine. It won't hurt anyone.
Stay out of our business Utah. We've had as much of your common sense as we can take. If my true love becomes a desk you'll pay!
Anonymous | 6:54 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Another huge drop on the markets today. 388,000 people in Utah have no health
insurance. Our debt topped ten trillion the other day, $86,000 and cange per
family across the nation. Three billion of us on this planet, all apparently
Gods' children, will go hungry today. Is persecuting gays in another state
the most christian thing we can be doing right now?
plural marriage | 7:16 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
and since the new "definition" of marriage will say that it's
"between 2 adults who love each other" - well.....I love my neighbor
Bob next door, and Jim down the street - oh and I forgot about Ruth my best
friend and her son John.....
Oh. I almost forgot - my dog. Him too.
Oh. I almost forgot - my dog. Him too.
RE: Religious Liberty? | 7:16 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Would it be ok if a guy and a girl met each other, fell in deep love, and you
both knew you were the one for the other, but that girl ended up being the guys
daughter?! The government has already made a law that this is illegal, and we
call it incest.
So what is ok then? Obviously mr. "I demand" there are some things the law has said you can't marry already, like your son or daughter, your nephew or niece. But you can marry someone of the opposite gender to which you are not related to. So, there is a line, but where is it?
Anyone who says the government should allow everyone to marry whatever or whoever they want, why don't more people protest for incest?? Because its wrong, and so is homosexuality!
Marriage: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)
So what is ok then? Obviously mr. "I demand" there are some things the law has said you can't marry already, like your son or daughter, your nephew or niece. But you can marry someone of the opposite gender to which you are not related to. So, there is a line, but where is it?
Anyone who says the government should allow everyone to marry whatever or whoever they want, why don't more people protest for incest?? Because its wrong, and so is homosexuality!
Marriage: 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (Merriam-Webster's Dictionary)
Re: Liberty of Religion? | 7:35 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Its actually common knowledge that the catholic church had to stop its adoption
service in Massachusetts because the state allowed gays to marry, and by law,
the catholic church would have to start giving kids to gay couples if they
wanted to give them to straight ones, which the catholic church didn't want
to do, so they discontinued their adoption service in Massachusetts.
You might want to do your research before you make ignorant comments like "How does this affect religious rights??!!" Think outside your narrow view!
Homosexuality is a sin, its not a religion. Just like any other sin, it spawns from a temptation, a temptation in which most people say cannot be overcome. This is a fallicy, and completely false. If there is anything I learned in church, its that Jesus Christ has the ability to heal all people, and can help all people overcome all their temptations and all their sins. Any teachings contrary are not true, and are certainly not christian.
Here is a question we should ask: When it comes to Prop 8: What would Jesus do?
You might want to do your research before you make ignorant comments like "How does this affect religious rights??!!" Think outside your narrow view!
Homosexuality is a sin, its not a religion. Just like any other sin, it spawns from a temptation, a temptation in which most people say cannot be overcome. This is a fallicy, and completely false. If there is anything I learned in church, its that Jesus Christ has the ability to heal all people, and can help all people overcome all their temptations and all their sins. Any teachings contrary are not true, and are certainly not christian.
Here is a question we should ask: When it comes to Prop 8: What would Jesus do?
Let's get our act together! | 7:54 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Opponents of Prop 8 we need to stop pretending to be active members of the
church.
As soon as we profess to belong to a church who's main tenet is that the leaders are directed by God, and then disagree with said leaders at every opportunity, we lose all credibility. We are either discovered that we are not members or we appear extremely mixed up because we disagree with what God directs our leaders to do. We are giving a very poor showing.
So quit all the 'I'm active LDS but hate prop 8' and 'I'm going to stop paying tithing'. They're not buying it and its only hurting our cause. From now on say that you 'went to Harvard', or are 'an astronaut', or 'won lots of purple hearts', or 'once lived in Utah', etc. This way we will get the respect we deserve!
As soon as we profess to belong to a church who's main tenet is that the leaders are directed by God, and then disagree with said leaders at every opportunity, we lose all credibility. We are either discovered that we are not members or we appear extremely mixed up because we disagree with what God directs our leaders to do. We are giving a very poor showing.
So quit all the 'I'm active LDS but hate prop 8' and 'I'm going to stop paying tithing'. They're not buying it and its only hurting our cause. From now on say that you 'went to Harvard', or are 'an astronaut', or 'won lots of purple hearts', or 'once lived in Utah', etc. This way we will get the respect we deserve!
John Pack Lambert | 8:00 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Dave,
There is no "technically not breaking the law of chastity" in same gender relationships. They are a violation of the law of chastity, always have been and always will be. No amount of sophistry will change this.
We will not tolerate practicing homosexuals in our ward any more than we will tolerate practicing fornicators.
The law of chasitty will not be changed or compromised.
There is no "technically not breaking the law of chastity" in same gender relationships. They are a violation of the law of chastity, always have been and always will be. No amount of sophistry will change this.
We will not tolerate practicing homosexuals in our ward any more than we will tolerate practicing fornicators.
The law of chasitty will not be changed or compromised.
John Pack Lambert | 8:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To the 1:52 commentator,
If you believe that the First Admendement has any force in defending religious freedom than you have been totally ignorant of all post-Employment Division v. Smith (or maybe it is the other way around) laws.
A government can enforce any neutral laws on anyone as long as they can not prove that the laws were specifically designed to harm them. Since peyote use is virtually all in the Native American Church even if we could demonstate that the only people who refused to perform same gender marriages attempted to so refuse on religious grounds, it would be hard to show that the law was actually meant to hurt religious organizations.
The effects on education will be even greater.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what the maximum inpact of California's ruling will be. Their ruling that someone can not refuse service on clear and overriding religious grounds is disturbing. So was the ruling that even the fact that people believe that their child getting an autopsy would doom the spirit to a horrible after-life and the fact that there was no compelling reason involved at all.
If you believe that the First Admendement has any force in defending religious freedom than you have been totally ignorant of all post-Employment Division v. Smith (or maybe it is the other way around) laws.
A government can enforce any neutral laws on anyone as long as they can not prove that the laws were specifically designed to harm them. Since peyote use is virtually all in the Native American Church even if we could demonstate that the only people who refused to perform same gender marriages attempted to so refuse on religious grounds, it would be hard to show that the law was actually meant to hurt religious organizations.
The effects on education will be even greater.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows what the maximum inpact of California's ruling will be. Their ruling that someone can not refuse service on clear and overriding religious grounds is disturbing. So was the ruling that even the fact that people believe that their child getting an autopsy would doom the spirit to a horrible after-life and the fact that there was no compelling reason involved at all.
People hear what they want | 8:23 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Both Obama and Joe Biden stated first that they are for the equal rights of gay
people in civil unions and also in churches that believe in these types of
unions. They stated AFTER that they do not personally believe in gay marriage.
The difference in the majority of Democrats is that we believe in the equality
of people (we may not always agree or understand all the issues or people), but
we don't have to. We usually agree that they have rights under the
constitution.
You insecure people | 8:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
comparing the love of TWO people with plural marriage or with animals and trees!
You are ridiculous and apparently not able to see the true issues of the world.
Gay people don't need | 8:29 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
to be "healed". We are just fine thank you! While some religious
people are so narrow viewed and unable to think "outside their box"
that we feel sorry for you! Move into the 21st century and see the world and
it's issues. Or perhaps you would be happy in a third world country where
they don't have to do that.
John Pack Lambert | 8:48 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Emily Hayes,
bishops offer large amounts of pre-marriage counseling. Stake presidents will always give advice on marriage to people before they get married.
bishops offer large amounts of pre-marriage counseling. Stake presidents will always give advice on marriage to people before they get married.
John Pack Lambert | 8:56 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Marriage is not just a word.
The action and curriculum of schools are determined by what is and what is not marriage.
The action and curriculum of schools are determined by what is and what is not marriage.
John Pack Lambert | 8:57 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Billy,
Actully the percentage of pacticing homosexuals in the population is only about two percent.
Actully the percentage of pacticing homosexuals in the population is only about two percent.
Treeman | 8:59 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
How dare you attempt to trivialize the relationship I have with my tree. You
are as narrowminded as everyone in Utah. I thought this group would defend
me!
We have a love that it deeper than anything you could even dream of. How hypocritical and myopic. Guess I'll have to start my own movement and hope Utah turns their head. I am secure in my relationship even if you're not.
Oak all the way!
We have a love that it deeper than anything you could even dream of. How hypocritical and myopic. Guess I'll have to start my own movement and hope Utah turns their head. I am secure in my relationship even if you're not.
Oak all the way!
John Pack Lambert | 9:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"Actually the percentage of practicing homosexuals in the population is only about two percent."
Thank you for providing an absolutely unverifiable number to this conversation.
Anonymous | 9:14 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Does anyone even listen and understand??????
By an egregious act of judicial activism, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 decision, has overruled Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 2000 by 61.4% of voters, explicitly amended the California Family Code to limit marriage in California to one man and one woman. Prop. 22, was approved BY THE PEOPLE in 2000 and overturned by the state Supreme Court in May. Prop 8 is the new constitutional ammendment to Prop 22, that simply defines marriage between a man and a woman. That's it. Simple definition.
Prop 8 is supported by everyone running in the Pres. Election. Since we can't list actual websites, try www . prop8isgreat . blogspot . com and see the video clip. Also search on yahoo or youtube for the vidoe that shows an actual school setting where teachers are "role playing" and teaching same sex relationships. What does this mean to your family and children?
By an egregious act of judicial activism, the California Supreme Court, by a 4-3 decision, has overruled Proposition 22, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 2000 by 61.4% of voters, explicitly amended the California Family Code to limit marriage in California to one man and one woman. Prop. 22, was approved BY THE PEOPLE in 2000 and overturned by the state Supreme Court in May. Prop 8 is the new constitutional ammendment to Prop 22, that simply defines marriage between a man and a woman. That's it. Simple definition.
Prop 8 is supported by everyone running in the Pres. Election. Since we can't list actual websites, try www . prop8isgreat . blogspot . com and see the video clip. Also search on yahoo or youtube for the vidoe that shows an actual school setting where teachers are "role playing" and teaching same sex relationships. What does this mean to your family and children?
Markusjbear | 9:29 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I am glad I can vote this November and I am glad that I support Prop 8.
re:I demand.... | 6:42 p.m | 9:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Soooo....
Marry your tree then.
I guess that is sarcasim, but I really think it drives home the point that we should not worry about who loves who...
Marry your tree then.
I guess that is sarcasim, but I really think it drives home the point that we should not worry about who loves who...
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.
- Snow may fly with weekend warm-up 6:33 p.m.
- ATK to cut 800 jobs 6:11 p.m.
- Cops: Artist's son swipes paintings 5:57 p.m.
- Incentives to create new jobs 5:51 p.m.
- Teen to be tried as adult 5:45 p.m.
- Study: 5 steps to creativity 5:44 p.m.
- Former CEO is Entrepreneur of Year 5:40 p.m.
- Calendar of events for December 5:36 p.m.
- New films and special screenings 5:30 p.m.
- Jacksons' reality show feels phony 5:24 p.m.
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness
- Few details on missing W.V. mom
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.
- Crash landing next to I-15
- I-15 expansion barreling south
- Palin signs books, chats with fans
- BCS = power conference monopoly
- Y.'s Emery bruised, but rarely beaten
- 5 officers lose their certification
- Mutated version of H1N1 found
- Letters: Global warming a lie
254 - TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall193
- Palin signs books, chats with fans158
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil149
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax142
- Max Hall wants to look ahead123
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness117
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.106
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Love him or hate him, Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch knows how to get attention.
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
Latest comments
Judgement has been made! $50,000 dollars says he doesn't have a chance. His...
Governor Herbert also gave eBay $30 million in tax incentives. Is all...
Nice article, thanks...I have his xmas CD, it has a mix of French, Spanish,...
If TCU would have played Florida and beaten Florida soundly which I don't...
His numbers will drop by about 25% during his Senior year. The replacement...
There are two things that strike about her critics, first they are afraid of...
BOOOOO Aaron Hernandez. Ridiculous. Dennis Pitta, you're the man. Ute...
I don't know Josh, but I am proud of him for stepping up to the plate and...
What the heck are you dorks doing harasssing the writer? Have any of you READ...
i think that sloan is too old to even care about the game anymore. He really...
Advertisements
her�maph�ro�dite (hr-mfr-dt)
n.
An individual having the reproductive organs and many of the secondary sex characteristics of both sexes.
Facts do not have loopholes.
"Stay tuned as the campaign to protect and restore marriage hangs in the balance of a very ignorant civilization! It is highly suggested that everyone EDUCATE themselves before marking no on their ballot."