Reader comments
Hundreds take to S.L. streets to protest, support Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage
558 comments | Read story
John Pack Lambert | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The most negative comments regarding sexual orientation I have ever heard come
from people who would claim to be "enlightened". It comes from church
members who are at least dangerously close to accepting the redefinition of the
family, and get mad when you speak for the core support of the family. Yet they
see nothing wrong with making comments that are at least border line hurtful
implysing that the reason someone is 29 and unmarried may be that he has sexual
orientation issues.
It is these people who have taken too much of their learning from the world and too little from the scriptures who make such comments. It is not people who have learned to see things through God's eyes, or even started to move towards such an understanding. They may be members of the church in name, and show up to church regularly, but they have clearly failed to let the teachings of Christ cause them to have a new attitude towards their fellow beings.
It is these people who have taken too much of their learning from the world and too little from the scriptures who make such comments. It is not people who have learned to see things through God's eyes, or even started to move towards such an understanding. They may be members of the church in name, and show up to church regularly, but they have clearly failed to let the teachings of Christ cause them to have a new attitude towards their fellow beings.
Roger Carrier | 12:28 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I'm straight, but most all gay people that I know believe that Mormons are
Christians. You cannot say this about the Mormon allies in California. They
think Mormons are NOT Christians. There is no hate for the LDS Church, only a
lot of anger at the church getting involved in California politics.
I think many Mormons believe that crusade was ill-advised.
I think many Mormons believe that crusade was ill-advised.
Comments continue below
Rob | 12:30 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The LDS church once again has violated the separation between church and state.
It should lose its tax-exempt status. It is time that the theocracy ends.
Jon B. Holbrook | 12:35 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The Deseret News needs to remember that it has a unique mission. That is to
defend the history, doctrine and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
It appears to me that whenever the Deseret News covers the debate conserning the homosexual rights movement, it is editorially more sympathetic towards the gay-rights movement than the LDS Church. Joe Cannon needs to re-examine the overall editorial policy of the Deseret News and its place in regards to the Church that it is to defend.
Thank-You
It appears to me that whenever the Deseret News covers the debate conserning the homosexual rights movement, it is editorially more sympathetic towards the gay-rights movement than the LDS Church. Joe Cannon needs to re-examine the overall editorial policy of the Deseret News and its place in regards to the Church that it is to defend.
Thank-You
Anonymous | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The people voted. You lost, get over it!! And do you really think if we voted
on a marriage between a man and a woman that it would not win. What cloud is
your head in.
Mark | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To redefine marriage to include Gay couples is making the claim that both unions
are equal when they are not. Nature's design of our bodies endorses
marriage between a man and a woman - not a man and a man nor a woman and a
woman. Marriage between two people of the same gender cannot equate to the
potential of marriage between a man and a woman - not by man's design but
by nature's design. It's really quite simple. Proposition 8
sustained an ideal that has sustained humanity for thousands of years since its
inception. Could Gay marriage on its own have done that? How then can we
responsibly as a society claim that both are equal when they are not.
Proposition 8 wasn't a derogatory statement against anyone nor any group.
It simply supported the obvious facts of life.
To J. Holbrook | 12:44 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I thought the mission of a newspaper is to report the news. If you feel upset
that this newspaper's reporting covers both sides of a story, that merely
reflects your own religious bias. Do not expect the media, even in a peculiar
state like Utah, to only side with the mormons. Try, just a little bit, to be
more realistic and maybe even, ummm, fair?
It is not pointless | 12:54 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
While some folks may never change their minds ---
Point in fact --- some people today hold on sexist beliefs that date them clear back to the 50s --- and they still cling on to them in the name "of tradition."
There are, however, points to be made and discussions to be had. I say, let all the discussion on the table, allow for "some people" to re-visit the issue and some will undoubtedly change positions, one way or the other --
You cannot negate the fact that like it or not, society has become less homophobic. Example, many businesses now have "orientation" as a cause of harassment where that would not have happened ten or fifteen years ago.
So there is more discussion to be had. If we allow for discussions to cease, there will be growth in understanding. Clearly, by reading some of these entries, I can see people being "out of touch" on both sides --- some are out of touch about LDS theology --- others are out of touch of what it means to be LGBT identity. You do not have to accept any ideology, but being an informed citizen allows people to vote wisely.
Point in fact --- some people today hold on sexist beliefs that date them clear back to the 50s --- and they still cling on to them in the name "of tradition."
There are, however, points to be made and discussions to be had. I say, let all the discussion on the table, allow for "some people" to re-visit the issue and some will undoubtedly change positions, one way or the other --
You cannot negate the fact that like it or not, society has become less homophobic. Example, many businesses now have "orientation" as a cause of harassment where that would not have happened ten or fifteen years ago.
So there is more discussion to be had. If we allow for discussions to cease, there will be growth in understanding. Clearly, by reading some of these entries, I can see people being "out of touch" on both sides --- some are out of touch about LDS theology --- others are out of touch of what it means to be LGBT identity. You do not have to accept any ideology, but being an informed citizen allows people to vote wisely.
Hundreds Protested . . . | 1:01 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
While millions of parents sat home with their children helping them with their
homework and teaching them correct principles.
guarded bard | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Gays boycott Utah... "Let's get the Film Festival." Nail those
liberals in Park City. Do we really want a trade war? If the Prop 8 people are
as mean spirited as the gay activists think.... shouldn't a minority worry
about a boycott of the theatre, dance, and restaurant businesses in which they
work and own?
to Roger Carrier | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Thank you--a voice of reason.
Mormons are the victimizers in this--not the victims.
Please look at your views and values with LOVE. When i see love i know it's of God. i don't need a church leader or anyone else to tell me what love is or what God accepts. if you're not sure--let people be and let God judge.
from a Mormon who beleieves in a God of LOVE
Mormons are the victimizers in this--not the victims.
Please look at your views and values with LOVE. When i see love i know it's of God. i don't need a church leader or anyone else to tell me what love is or what God accepts. if you're not sure--let people be and let God judge.
from a Mormon who beleieves in a God of LOVE
Civil Right??? | 1:24 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
This is not a "civil rights" issue and this is why black Californians
who voted for Obama did not vote in favor of your gay agenda. The fact is,
civil unions afford homosexuals the same rights, but the gay agenda wants more.
The reason you attack the sacredness of marriage is because you want to
influence Moral Perceptions! Marriage historically is based on procreation and
the progenity of the human race, not an effort to discriminate. Gays must not
sit in the back of the bus. Gays are not barred from a whites only restroom or
the right to vote. Gays have the right to live (thanks to the natural act of
heterosexuality). Gays have the right to liberty and PURSUIT of happiness.
What other civil right is anyone else entitled to above and beyond???
True...seperation of church/state but not God and state. You will not legislate morality.
True...seperation of church/state but not God and state. You will not legislate morality.
tc5bw | 1:32 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The arguments that churches shouldn't be involved in this discussion is
shallow. Marriage has been been only between a man and a woman for centuries. To
change that institution is to produce a whole set of consequences of which many
are unintended. Civil unions give all the rights, privileges and honors afforded
heterosexual marriage...without the name. It's not wrong for people to
oppose what they view seriously as a change that would hugely impact family and
social structure in such a way as to take the rights of parents to teach their
values to their children. This whole issue is one of the government choosing to
engage in social engineering according to their values. Courts, mayors,
governors and city councils should listen to the voice of the people. Since the
people have spoken twice in California then it's time to ponder and act not
protest.
John Pack Lambert | 1:35 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
While I would not go as far as Mr. Holbrooke did, especially since often the
Deseret News is publishing articles from other sources, verbatim, to give us a
feel for what is occuring on the outside, I do feel that at times Deseret News
reporters need to think more deeply on wording before writting articles and
explore the assumptions and impressions language makes.
This was not an issue about making anything illegal as normally understood. If something is illegal, you can be fined or jailed for it. Nothing of the sort results from same-gender unions under Prop 8, they merely do not recieve the government endorsement accorded to marriage.
I would point out though that since the Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church, the 12:44 commentator misses the point. The issue is not what position should be taken by a paper published in Utah, but what position should be taken by a paper owned by the LDS Church. You have to start with an understanding of the discussion and issues to ever reach a consensus.
This was not an issue about making anything illegal as normally understood. If something is illegal, you can be fined or jailed for it. Nothing of the sort results from same-gender unions under Prop 8, they merely do not recieve the government endorsement accorded to marriage.
I would point out though that since the Deseret News is owned by the LDS Church, the 12:44 commentator misses the point. The issue is not what position should be taken by a paper published in Utah, but what position should be taken by a paper owned by the LDS Church. You have to start with an understanding of the discussion and issues to ever reach a consensus.
SoCal resident | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Hundreeds protested? Yah--this movement is dying--we have much more important
issues to be dealing with--the people voted, so let it be written--so let it be
done. Two more words: NUFF SAID!
CO Coug | 1:58 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
How about you quit protesting a legal, democratic vote and go back to California
and hand out blankets and food to the firemen fighting to save your homes.
Just an idea.
Just an idea.
To Roger Carrier... | 1:58 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
You sorely underestimate LDS doctrine if you think members of this church regret
the stance our leaders have taken. The gay agenda is trying to open up a can of
worms which will inevitably affect Christian doctrine and our right to preach
it. Gay marriage is NOT the end goal. Legitimizing the false morality of
homosexuality is the end goal. Making all accept it and be "tolerant"
is their end goal. Redefining the sacred institution of marriage is a
kingpin.
We don't care if other religions view us as Christian or not. That is altogether a different subject, but all religions who appreciate the promulgation of the human race will stand with us on this.
Being tolerant of every human whim is to take a stand on NOTHING. When it comes to the obvious opinion of our Creator found in the Bible...I will side with Him on this issue. I will also be an advocate for Him on this issue.
We don't care if other religions view us as Christian or not. That is altogether a different subject, but all religions who appreciate the promulgation of the human race will stand with us on this.
Being tolerant of every human whim is to take a stand on NOTHING. When it comes to the obvious opinion of our Creator found in the Bible...I will side with Him on this issue. I will also be an advocate for Him on this issue.
JW | 2:01 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Richard G! Is the Mormon church the only one that was for Prop 8???
80% of the funding | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Since the LDS church didn't donate, but individual LDS people did, I'm
curious how the "80% of the funding" figure was arrived at.
Re: rob | 2:08 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Take a class on the constitution and ask the professor if you can base your
grade on your answer to the question of "Did the LDS church violate the
separation between church and state by its role in the Prop 8 Election."
He or she will either laugh, or look at with that "how does this person
survive on their own" look on their face, then give you an "F".
LDS Church position | 2:10 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I'm curious as to how many people, gay or straight, LDS or not, have
actually read the church's position (available on their website) on same
gender attraction.
Anonymous | 3:11 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
It is interesting that gays need a church to be a "catalyst to help focus
[their] cause to move forward."
If the right to marry someone of the same sex is so self-evident (i.e. a basic right), then why do you need a church that supports a ban to act as a "catalyst"?
Also, why persecute a church that raised awareness of the issue - the money spent on the campaign did not force anyone to vote a certain way.
If the right to marry someone of the same sex is so self-evident (i.e. a basic right), then why do you need a church that supports a ban to act as a "catalyst"?
Also, why persecute a church that raised awareness of the issue - the money spent on the campaign did not force anyone to vote a certain way.
to domestic partnership | 3:11 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
You say Sir Elton John doesn't speak for you. Why? I suspect it is because
he speaks the truth when he says people are put off by calling civil
partnerships a marriage, and that civil partnerships have the same rights as
married spouses. I appreciate his words and understanding of other people's
point of view.
straight dude | 3:16 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
ok..i'm all for civil unions, etc..and rights for the gay and lesbian
folks..but suggesting that marriage falls under the 14th amendment breaks the
rubberband..
Marriage is for a man and a woman, period. Maybe we'll protest.
p.s...i'm not a mormon.
Marriage is for a man and a woman, period. Maybe we'll protest.
p.s...i'm not a mormon.
Skippy | 3:19 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The voice of the people have spoken to support Proposition 8.
LDS in Cali | 3:21 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I laugh when people incorrectly assume that many Church members regret the
involvement in prop 8. No way, I even put my yes on 8 bumpersticker in my
journal so my posterity will know how I felt about protecting their future.
What is really funny is an anti LDS website directed at those who supported prop
8. They state that THREE HUNDRED AND ONE Mormons were against prop 8.
Apparently in SLC three hundred and one people signed a petition denouncing the
LDS involvement in prop 8 and took it to Church headquarters. They don't
seem to realize there are tens of thousands of members in Utah and 13 million
members worldwide. Imagine that, over 5.3 million Californians voted to ban gay
marriage. That's not quite half of the entire membership of the Church in
the whole world. And that number includes children who are too young to vote.
Be thankful... | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Judging from all the comments here, you should be thankful and grateful for gay
people. Holding up their sin, and keeping their unions illegal seems to be the
glue holding you together.
Churchisgood | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Briefly -
I have to say I am thrilled with this new program. Regarding the temple demonstrations, have you ever seen so many inactive Mormons and non-Mormons show up to church?
Not only that, I can tell that many more will likely listen for a prophet's voice in the immediate future. (Oh come on, that was funny! have a sense of humor.)
Definitely an inspired direction for the church.
Churches get to speak on moral issues. Deal with it.
Utah Territory (overwhelmingly Mormon) was the first to give US Women the vote. Mormons are pro-rights people, but marriage is based on biology, not just law. Gay marriage would undermine my marriage, and force churches to condone the prohibited act of homosexuality.
I do not doubt GBLTer's will try again, and may eventually win. If that happens, we may have to leave again. But stop saying we have polygamy...we gave up polygamy over a century ago, and it nearly crushed the church to practice it. Yeah, we know what it's like to be on the wrong side of the law especially on an issue like this.
Kinda sucks, right? Give it up. Change, like we did. Even better, repent.
I have to say I am thrilled with this new program. Regarding the temple demonstrations, have you ever seen so many inactive Mormons and non-Mormons show up to church?
Not only that, I can tell that many more will likely listen for a prophet's voice in the immediate future. (Oh come on, that was funny! have a sense of humor.)
Definitely an inspired direction for the church.
Churches get to speak on moral issues. Deal with it.
Utah Territory (overwhelmingly Mormon) was the first to give US Women the vote. Mormons are pro-rights people, but marriage is based on biology, not just law. Gay marriage would undermine my marriage, and force churches to condone the prohibited act of homosexuality.
I do not doubt GBLTer's will try again, and may eventually win. If that happens, we may have to leave again. But stop saying we have polygamy...we gave up polygamy over a century ago, and it nearly crushed the church to practice it. Yeah, we know what it's like to be on the wrong side of the law especially on an issue like this.
Kinda sucks, right? Give it up. Change, like we did. Even better, repent.
randy | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
and these folks arent moving to conn or mass because why ??
they have relief .. take it ..
the majority is pretty pissed for having to pay so much for the minority for so long ... get the hint minority folks .. .
the majority has had a enough ...
pack yourselves up and get back to where you are being accepted .. take advantage just like millions before you who gathered themselves (pick a group, sect, lifestyle etc)
enjoy the trip and quit wasting our time and your time .. we arent watching and we arent listening .. you have a place of relief .. use it
they have relief .. take it ..
the majority is pretty pissed for having to pay so much for the minority for so long ... get the hint minority folks .. .
the majority has had a enough ...
pack yourselves up and get back to where you are being accepted .. take advantage just like millions before you who gathered themselves (pick a group, sect, lifestyle etc)
enjoy the trip and quit wasting our time and your time .. we arent watching and we arent listening .. you have a place of relief .. use it
Obama & Gay Marraige | 4:01 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I want gay rights activists to acknowledge and accept my basic right to
participate in a democratic process.
Also, why not single out President-Elect Obama? His position regarding same-sex marriage is essential the same as the LDS Church - gay rights ok, gay marriage, no.
Also, why not single out President-Elect Obama? His position regarding same-sex marriage is essential the same as the LDS Church - gay rights ok, gay marriage, no.
Ragingliberalhippie | 4:27 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I've lived in California all my life, with good friends and neighbors who
are members of the LDS church. I'm not gay and I'm not angry at the
passage of Prop 8 just...disappointed at the role the Mormons had in its
passage. Our nation was founded on a compromise position that there would be no
religion in the state for the very fear that one would be used to oppress the
others. The church talks about the freedom of choice for its members and voting
what is morally correct, but I doubt they'd say the same thing if Sharia
Law were placed on the ballot. Further, all churches take advantage of their
tax write-off, which is fine but not when it is thrown back into politics
directly or indirectly. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and leave our
state constitution alone, for you're inviting a whole slough of problems
both for the future California and the future of religions of all types.
Misleading Article | 5:04 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Why didn't they title this article, "Millions of Utahns don't
Support Anti Prop 8 Rally?" Instead, we give front page press to talk
about a "movement" of "hundreds."
Give me a break!
Give me a break!
and the band played on | 5:10 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
It's quite chilly in here , isn't it? this sounds like a game of
"I know you are but what am I" Peace out!
re Obama & Gay Marriage | 5:11 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Are you sure your church is for gay rights? Here in Utah, they weren't in
2004 when they heavily endorsed Amendment 3. Due to that, gay couples in Utah
have No legal rights. Obama is in favor of Civil Unions for gay couples, not
Gay Marriage. Are you sure your church shares the same position?
Mormon Defender | 5:31 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I don't know what the gays have against Utah. Let's do the math: 12
Million California Residents voted in the 2008 Presidential election. About 52%
of voters voted against the legalization of same-sex marriage. This adds up to
about 6.25 Million Californians voting against same-sex marriage. 2% of
California's popualtion is LDS. This adds up to about 720,000 Million
Mormons in California. Plus, if you count kids who aren't old enough to
vote and elderly in Rest homes, this is anywhere to 600,000 to 700,000 mormons
who could have voted for Propositon 8, but those who have gay children voted
against it obviously. The people in California have spoken. Stop bashing the
mormons.
Domestic partnership | 5:39 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
When I said that Elton John does not speak for me, if I may, I never gave my
voice for Elton John to speak on my behalf.
Do you allow for others to write/express on your behalf? I assume that your views and not those of others --- or is someone else writing down your opinion?
Please explain.
As far as "truth" is concerned --- it is not so much "truth" as it is opinion. You cannot expect for any community to reach a concensus on everything 100% of the time.
Look at the LDS church, it's split down the middle for crying out loud --- some devout LDS members are against Prop 8. The LGBT community has a wide range of views --- and you cannot expect that all members of the community will view this issue with the same lens. My point being, is there one sole person speaking for the entire heterosexual community? And who is that, by the way? If so, perhaps you can give me his/her contact name and I will address him instead of talking to you.
Your opinion made as much sense as someone who does not get out much.
Do you allow for others to write/express on your behalf? I assume that your views and not those of others --- or is someone else writing down your opinion?
Please explain.
As far as "truth" is concerned --- it is not so much "truth" as it is opinion. You cannot expect for any community to reach a concensus on everything 100% of the time.
Look at the LDS church, it's split down the middle for crying out loud --- some devout LDS members are against Prop 8. The LGBT community has a wide range of views --- and you cannot expect that all members of the community will view this issue with the same lens. My point being, is there one sole person speaking for the entire heterosexual community? And who is that, by the way? If so, perhaps you can give me his/her contact name and I will address him instead of talking to you.
Your opinion made as much sense as someone who does not get out much.
Undermine marriage? | 5:52 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I don't get you fundamental LDS people.
Or for that matter, any person who says "gay marriage" would undermine their marriage.
Really?
Well, in the State of California 18,000 gay marriages were performed already, up until this debacle.
How exactly did those marriages undermine yours?
Your neighbors' marriage has no power to undermine your marriage as YOU have to undermine your own marriage.
Moreover, the argument keeps popping up, "marriage is a tradition."
A lot of things are traditions. Marriage goes back in history.
And so does gay history. It goes wayyyyyy back.
That's a tradition also. I'm using your own logic here.
Here are some things that are possible deterrents to a good marriage:
* divorce --- a big one, maybe ban that. That will preserve marriage in a jiffy.
* domestic abuse --- another big one.
* infidelity --- hmmm ---
* child neglect
I wonder why none of these came up in a Preposition to amend the constitution, if we are going to use the logic of "morality." Clearly the above are immoral, ban those --- and by far, they have a far greater impact to affect your own marriage than your neighbor's.
Or for that matter, any person who says "gay marriage" would undermine their marriage.
Really?
Well, in the State of California 18,000 gay marriages were performed already, up until this debacle.
How exactly did those marriages undermine yours?
Your neighbors' marriage has no power to undermine your marriage as YOU have to undermine your own marriage.
Moreover, the argument keeps popping up, "marriage is a tradition."
A lot of things are traditions. Marriage goes back in history.
And so does gay history. It goes wayyyyyy back.
That's a tradition also. I'm using your own logic here.
Here are some things that are possible deterrents to a good marriage:
* divorce --- a big one, maybe ban that. That will preserve marriage in a jiffy.
* domestic abuse --- another big one.
* infidelity --- hmmm ---
* child neglect
I wonder why none of these came up in a Preposition to amend the constitution, if we are going to use the logic of "morality." Clearly the above are immoral, ban those --- and by far, they have a far greater impact to affect your own marriage than your neighbor's.
Equal rights in California | 6:01 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Re: "Obama and Gay Marriage" --- you raise an excellent point.
Many of the posts on here say that gays already have equal rights.
Point taken. Fine, we'll go with that. Let's make believe for a moment a couple with a domestic partnership in California moves to Utah. By some of these arguments, that gay couple, barring marriage, has all equal rights available to everyone else.
They move to Utah, and boom. Where are those 'assumed equal rights' that you speak of?
Oh? You strip those when they get to Utah?
You have no kind of rights for the LGBT community? Am I understanding this correctly?
By your own assumption, you are saying that gays in California already have equal protection under the law based on the fact that we in California have domestic partships.
Or are equal protection under the law relative? depending on what state you live in?
Let me guess, what will you say? Stay out of Utah politics?
Exactly.
Utah, stay out of California politics.
Many of the posts on here say that gays already have equal rights.
Point taken. Fine, we'll go with that. Let's make believe for a moment a couple with a domestic partnership in California moves to Utah. By some of these arguments, that gay couple, barring marriage, has all equal rights available to everyone else.
They move to Utah, and boom. Where are those 'assumed equal rights' that you speak of?
Oh? You strip those when they get to Utah?
You have no kind of rights for the LGBT community? Am I understanding this correctly?
By your own assumption, you are saying that gays in California already have equal protection under the law based on the fact that we in California have domestic partships.
Or are equal protection under the law relative? depending on what state you live in?
Let me guess, what will you say? Stay out of Utah politics?
Exactly.
Utah, stay out of California politics.
To Obama & Gay Marriage | 6:06 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Obama & Gay Marraige | 4:01 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Obama and the LDS Church see eye to eye in relation to same-sex marriage.
I believe you haven't read enough, my friend.
The LDS Church would condone any kind of gay "lifestyle," as you would call it.
Obama would want to extend all rights to LGBT at the federal level that hetero couples enjoy in marriage.
True, while Obama does not call it marriage, I do not believe that the LDS Church would ever endorse all rights to gays at the federal level.
Obama and the LDS Church see eye to eye in relation to same-sex marriage.
I believe you haven't read enough, my friend.
The LDS Church would condone any kind of gay "lifestyle," as you would call it.
Obama would want to extend all rights to LGBT at the federal level that hetero couples enjoy in marriage.
True, while Obama does not call it marriage, I do not believe that the LDS Church would ever endorse all rights to gays at the federal level.
Hmmm, all this over a word | 6:12 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
All this over one word, "marriage."
Gays want to share the word.
fundamentals want the word all to themselves.
They do not want to share their toys in the sandbox.
The fundamental kids in the sandbox say "you cannot have my toys because they have always been mine. Go play with those other toys, instead, see, they are just as nice, just don't call those toys 'marriage.' Only my toys can be called marriage."
So the gay kids play with the other toys called "domestic partnerships" and they find out they are not the same toys. Different toys altogether. Different playground.
Moreover, fundamental kids say "if you call your toys 'marriage' that will hurt what I call my toys and it will give less meaning to these toys."
Gays want to share the word.
fundamentals want the word all to themselves.
They do not want to share their toys in the sandbox.
The fundamental kids in the sandbox say "you cannot have my toys because they have always been mine. Go play with those other toys, instead, see, they are just as nice, just don't call those toys 'marriage.' Only my toys can be called marriage."
So the gay kids play with the other toys called "domestic partnerships" and they find out they are not the same toys. Different toys altogether. Different playground.
Moreover, fundamental kids say "if you call your toys 'marriage' that will hurt what I call my toys and it will give less meaning to these toys."
Florida resident | 6:13 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The reaction by a large group of gay supporters to the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints and its memberships position regarding California's
reciently defeated Proposition 8 is having an impact on many folks in Florida.
The reaction is mainly that of support. Yesterday the Missionaries in my area
told me that as they have gone from home to home doing as missionary's do
they are getting support rather than doors shut in their face. As they tell
folks who they are many have offered a response of "hey your from the
church that supported the defeat of Prop.8" Then they promptly say,
"I appreciate what your chuch did." In the long run, I believe the
protestors will have a great influence on the growth of the church. The gay
protestors are actually helping the church move out from obscurity in an area
where few know anything about the doctrine's of the church exept what
they've hear from a negative pastor or anti-mormon pamphlet.
Can we have a vote | 6:40 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I would like to vote on this subject in Utah.
Jeff C. | 7:32 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
EXPAT: What you fail to realize is that this is NOT about being bigoted or
homophobic. We have been tolerant, respectful, civil and have accepted your need
to be together as a family. When we (Members of the LDS community) financially
supported Proposition 8 it wasn't out of homophobia or hate, it was done in
an effort to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined by GOD. We do not hate
homosexuals, in fact there are members of the church who are homosexual and
realize the importance of following GOD's word by doing their best to
follow his teachings. Voting to protect the sanctity of marriage as defined by
GOD is not an attempt to destroy a person's marriage, and is therefore NOT
about hate or intolerance. I don't think the people of UTAH would have a
problem with civil unions. Quit trying to equate your fight with the civil
rights movement. The truth is that your CHOICES don't make you a minority,
since you can STOP being a homosexual at any time. You can't stop being
black, hispanic or asian. Take your civil unions and leave traditional marriage
alone.
TO Hmmm, all this over a word | 7:40 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Great analogy!
immature kids and their toys. more like sandbox bullies!
When will Mormons understand that their $$ paid for a campaign full of LIES and played on people's FEAR. an unrealistic fear. You were the biggest contributor and you wonder why the protests, the vandalism, the hate coming your way???
you started it, now deal with the aftermath!!
i will stand beside my gay friends and relatives as they fight for equality and respect.
my Mormon ancestors who were persecuted are rolling in their graves right now. the persecuted have become the persecutors. sad, sad, sad.
immature kids and their toys. more like sandbox bullies!
When will Mormons understand that their $$ paid for a campaign full of LIES and played on people's FEAR. an unrealistic fear. You were the biggest contributor and you wonder why the protests, the vandalism, the hate coming your way???
you started it, now deal with the aftermath!!
i will stand beside my gay friends and relatives as they fight for equality and respect.
my Mormon ancestors who were persecuted are rolling in their graves right now. the persecuted have become the persecutors. sad, sad, sad.
to domestic partnership | 9:50 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To say the LDS Church is split down the middle, is showing a great deal of
ignorance. I guarantee you that the VAST Majority of members of the Church agree
with the Church's stance. Of course there are those who do not understand
why the Church took the stance, but the majority of them are still devout,
active members of the Church. There is a VERY small minority of LDS members who
are letting it destroy their faith and they seem to be the most vocal. However,
the Church is far from being split down the middle. Many more people will be
brought into the Church because of our position than those that will leave
because of it, mark my words.
tenx | 10:11 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
We all supported our own views on the subject and one side won and the other
lost. Same with the political election. So lets move on and accept the
results.
MOJ | 10:37 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
One of the basic premises of the field of Sociology is that cultural norms
influence and are influenced by each member of a given culture. When a
particular path is seen as normative in a society, it increases that likelihood
that members of that society will pursue that path.
Thus, the argument that lifestyle choices have no impact on others is myopic, from a Sociological standpoint. Perhaps it is true in the narrowest sense (that my choices, alone, have no direct impact on you), but in the aggregate (my choices, multiplied by thousands/millions of others like me), those choices combine and contribute to the "climate" of our culture.
This is, essentially, a wrestle over the cultural climate. I can't blame the GLBT community for wanting to build a cultural climate that is in line with their worldview. But neither can I blame the Mormon community for wanting to build a climate that is in line with theirs.
Thus, the argument that lifestyle choices have no impact on others is myopic, from a Sociological standpoint. Perhaps it is true in the narrowest sense (that my choices, alone, have no direct impact on you), but in the aggregate (my choices, multiplied by thousands/millions of others like me), those choices combine and contribute to the "climate" of our culture.
This is, essentially, a wrestle over the cultural climate. I can't blame the GLBT community for wanting to build a cultural climate that is in line with their worldview. But neither can I blame the Mormon community for wanting to build a climate that is in line with theirs.
Juston | 11:37 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
If consenting adults is the criteria for gay marriage then you cannot deny the
polygamist marital recognition as well. Anyone supporting gay marriage should
also ponder if they would support polygamists or other consenting adult
marriages. If not, then a consenting adult arguement rings hollow.
Anonymous | 12:05 a.m. Nov. 18, 2008
GAY MORMON,
I don't know where you go to church, but I would consider changing wards or stakes or something because you are definitely in a very BAD one. I have NEVER heard a joke demeaning any of the people or religious groups mentioned in your post, and I have been in the LDS church since 1993. I doubt that kind of stuff happens at all in 99% of the LDS stakes out there, but since we are all human I can be pretty sure that it happens at one time or another. Being gay does not keep you from being a member of the LDS church, as you could most likely vouch for, but being actively gay in a sexual relationship would prohibit you from being able to go to the temple or administer sacrament. Gays and Lesbians are openly welcomed to our church services, and I would greet and treat them as I would any other person that walks through our doors to attend sacrament. If your priesthood leaders are allowing this kind of treatment I would take it to the Bishop, or if needed the Stake President, who would deal with it right away.
I don't know where you go to church, but I would consider changing wards or stakes or something because you are definitely in a very BAD one. I have NEVER heard a joke demeaning any of the people or religious groups mentioned in your post, and I have been in the LDS church since 1993. I doubt that kind of stuff happens at all in 99% of the LDS stakes out there, but since we are all human I can be pretty sure that it happens at one time or another. Being gay does not keep you from being a member of the LDS church, as you could most likely vouch for, but being actively gay in a sexual relationship would prohibit you from being able to go to the temple or administer sacrament. Gays and Lesbians are openly welcomed to our church services, and I would greet and treat them as I would any other person that walks through our doors to attend sacrament. If your priesthood leaders are allowing this kind of treatment I would take it to the Bishop, or if needed the Stake President, who would deal with it right away.
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.
Related content
- Crash snarls I-15 near 10300 South 8:18 a.m.
- Iran to limit cooperation with IAEA 8:17 a.m.
- Ft. Hood unit deploys 8:11 a.m.
- Clinton: allies can help turn tide 8:00 a.m.
- Polanski begins house arrest 7:53 a.m.
- U.S. Marines launch large offensive 7:46 a.m.
- Somalia blames al-Qaida for bombing 7:40 a.m.
- Suicide attackers kill 35 at mosque 7:36 a.m.
- Nov. jobless rate falls to 10 pct. 7:30 a.m.
- AP: GM to announce changes 7:17 a.m.
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- Phoenix signs off on LDS temple
- Harpring's NBA career is over
- Aggies shoot past Cougars
- Toddler dies trapped under mattress
- Crews to seal Nutty Putty Cave
- Doctor deems Mitchell competent
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Felt's Facts season recap
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
406 - Max Hall issues apology393
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal361
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?287
- Utes won't respond to Hall278
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS220
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game188
- Aggies shoot past Cougars175
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry163
If you want to learn what it's like to be an astronaut on the...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
I tend to agree with "Endorsements". If we are to buy his product, golf, and...
coach is smart enough to take a food taster with him. Maybe a U frosh in...
To Anonymous 3:39 26-23, HAHA...Grow up and take a loss like a man. The...
If you play you have to pay--old Chinese proverb
Yeah, Mitt, it's that easy. I'm sick and tired of Republican politians...
ya really, I wouldn't pay $10 to eat lunch with him right now. What's going...
Since, in your opinion, the only thinkers and decision makers on the planet...
for U fans to back off! 26-23!
I guess it's true that this is a problem that parents aren't aware of -- no...
Wow what memories — green unis & Bernard King I remember going to...
Advertisements
If you were really for fairness, you would be after the most glaringly unfair laws around. These are the laws that make it a crime for a man to recognize and support more than one woman as his wife, but if he sleeps around and takes no responsibility for his additional children, it is perfectly legal.
I would believe the argument these people believe one should be able to marry whoever they love if they were seeking to decriminalize plural marriage. Since they are not doing so, I have to conclude that there is really some other agenda, and that people are being disengenous about their theories about living together.
The government has an interest in kepping child rearing in the bounds of matrimony.