Reader comments
Couples pucker up to make positive point
475 comments | Read story
Anonymous | 12:16 p.m. July 16, 2009
"Well, that is exactly how the gay community is acting. Stop being a bunch
of whiny, screaming babies! It's really getting old. All of your protests
and whatever other dramatic production you can come up with isn't going to
change anything, it just makes you look bad. "
How many showed up for that Kiss-in? 60? 100?
Do you have any idea how many gays there are right here in the Salt Lake Valley?
Please, yourself! Do not judge all gays by the actions of a few. It is as unfair as judging all seminary principals by...well, you can figure that out.
How many showed up for that Kiss-in? 60? 100?
Do you have any idea how many gays there are right here in the Salt Lake Valley?
Please, yourself! Do not judge all gays by the actions of a few. It is as unfair as judging all seminary principals by...well, you can figure that out.
Dear Anonymous @ 12:01 pm | 12:24 p.m. July 16, 2009
We aren't normal. We're a peculiar people and proud of it. We
aren't targeting pedestrians, only those who don't follow the
universally known guidelines.
Comments continue below
Anonymous | 1:20 p.m. July 16, 2009
"only those who don't follow the universally known
guidelines."
How are they universally known? Did you know that public displays of affection were not allowed on the plaza? I didn't. I thought it was a regular occurance for couples to kiss and hug on these grounds.
There is no listing of guidelines once you enter nor is there a statement that you are now on private property.
How are these universally known?
Please tell me the universally known dress code for the plaza. They have one, you know.
How are they universally known? Did you know that public displays of affection were not allowed on the plaza? I didn't. I thought it was a regular occurance for couples to kiss and hug on these grounds.
There is no listing of guidelines once you enter nor is there a statement that you are now on private property.
How are these universally known?
Please tell me the universally known dress code for the plaza. They have one, you know.
Anonymous | 1:22 p.m. July 16, 2009
Nice how Mormons insist that nobody judge ALL of them by the actions of a few
(like a certain seminary principal and pedophile), but then they use convenient
labels such as "the gay community" to attack and dismiss ALL gay
people with one harsh judgment!
I guess by those standards, we are safe to say that Mormons are all bigots, right?
I guess by those standards, we are safe to say that Mormons are all bigots, right?
Anonymous | 2:03 p.m. July 16, 2009
I suggest you keep YOUR missionaries off gay's and lesbian's private
property. You aren't going to like OUR security guards knocking you to the
ground, tie wrapping your wrists behind your back, and screaming how DISGUSTING
you are.
"treat others as you want to be treated"
Guess you missed that RULE!
"treat others as you want to be treated"
Guess you missed that RULE!
Anonymous | 2:13 p.m. July 16, 2009
Tourists Utah is knocking themselves out trying to attract as your foreclosures
reach the top 5 states and jobs are dropping like flies. Aren't going to
journey back to 2 Centuries ago to spend their money in your bigotted Hate
state.
So keep having your temple goons attack couples, kinda like they murdered the body guard of the elder who dared ordain a Black man. Same haters different year.
It's your homes and your jobs that you hurt.
So keep having your temple goons attack couples, kinda like they murdered the body guard of the elder who dared ordain a Black man. Same haters different year.
It's your homes and your jobs that you hurt.
SJ | 2:55 p.m. July 16, 2009
Mr. Anonymous seems to have been quite busy. He must not have a life so he
hangs out on here making multiple posts that are absurd at best and are supposed
to appear like they are from different people. Sad that this appears to be his
only outlet in life.
Anonymous | 4:07 p.m. July 16, 2009
Silly SJ.
Anyone who does not enter a name is given the title "anonymous." It probably IS several different people.
Anyone who does not enter a name is given the title "anonymous." It probably IS several different people.
Anonymous | 4:11 p.m. July 16, 2009
@SJ
First someone posting here yourself, is kinda hypocritical chastising me for posting.
Second I have many outlets for my opinions, I'm just slumming in UTAH today. You can find me at Huffington Post and most major LGBT forums...oh you wouldn't even know where they are....nevermind.
First someone posting here yourself, is kinda hypocritical chastising me for posting.
Second I have many outlets for my opinions, I'm just slumming in UTAH today. You can find me at Huffington Post and most major LGBT forums...oh you wouldn't even know where they are....nevermind.
re: To the lame "Waste" | 4:22 p.m. July 16, 2009
Religious behavior is a protected right...homosexual behavior is not.
Here is why:
religion produces a sense of self-worth, promotes order, peace (the most violent killers of the last century were atheists of Russia and China), and other society-benefiting virtues.
Homosexual behavior produces and promotes nothing of value to society. It actually harms society by eliminating two potential procreators. Homosexual behavior is not one's identity. It is a chosen, unproductive, and unecessary form of sexual gratification.
Check out DemographicWinterdotcom. For more information on the dangers of homosexuality to society.
Here is why:
religion produces a sense of self-worth, promotes order, peace (the most violent killers of the last century were atheists of Russia and China), and other society-benefiting virtues.
Homosexual behavior produces and promotes nothing of value to society. It actually harms society by eliminating two potential procreators. Homosexual behavior is not one's identity. It is a chosen, unproductive, and unecessary form of sexual gratification.
Check out DemographicWinterdotcom. For more information on the dangers of homosexuality to society.
re: re: to the lame waste | 5:49 p.m. July 16, 2009
"Homosexual behavior produces and promotes nothing of value to society. It
actually harms society by eliminating two potential procreators. Homosexual
behavior is not one's identity. It is a chosen, unproductive, and
unecessary form of sexual gratification."
And so goes the beat of uninformed bigotry. Ever talked to a gay person? Asked them why they are gay? Asked them what they get out of their relationship? Asked them how they feel about the idea of having a heterosexual relationship instead?
Did you choose your heterosexuality? Your ignorance on the subject is highlighted by "It (homosexuality)...is (an) unnecessary form of sexual gratification." You just don't get it.
And so goes the beat of uninformed bigotry. Ever talked to a gay person? Asked them why they are gay? Asked them what they get out of their relationship? Asked them how they feel about the idea of having a heterosexual relationship instead?
Did you choose your heterosexuality? Your ignorance on the subject is highlighted by "It (homosexuality)...is (an) unnecessary form of sexual gratification." You just don't get it.
re: re: re: to the lame waste | 7:40 a.m. July 17, 2009
I've talked to plenty of people who practice homosexual behavior and they
engage in it in pursuit of sexual gratification.
I don't necessarily choose my sexual feelings, but I do choose my sexual behavior, just like everybody else does. The question of recognizing homosexual behavior through marriage isn't one of "feelings," it's a question of what is best for society. Since we need population growth moving forward (how else are we going to pay for Obama's spending and proposed spending?), it makes no sense to recognize any kind of sexual behavior (through marriage or civil unions) other than what occurs between a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance (like a teenager to a parent). Now please tell me where I am wrong.
I don't necessarily choose my sexual feelings, but I do choose my sexual behavior, just like everybody else does. The question of recognizing homosexual behavior through marriage isn't one of "feelings," it's a question of what is best for society. Since we need population growth moving forward (how else are we going to pay for Obama's spending and proposed spending?), it makes no sense to recognize any kind of sexual behavior (through marriage or civil unions) other than what occurs between a man and a woman who are married to each other.
Thank you for pointing out my ignorance (like a teenager to a parent). Now please tell me where I am wrong.
Red | 11:59 a.m. July 17, 2009
"When another establishment has a sign that says "no shirt, no shoes,
no service" and you don't have shoes on and they kick you out, does
anybody put up a fit?"
Fair 'nuff.
However, if I'm not wearing any trousers, they've got to serve me, right?
Fair 'nuff.
However, if I'm not wearing any trousers, they've got to serve me, right?
Red | 12:10 p.m. July 17, 2009
"... as the gathering was beginning to disperse, about 35 protesters
crossed onto church property and walked around the reflecting pond, eliciting a
call to police ..."
As described, the lip-locks had taken place on undisputed public-access land (non-LDS-controlled sidewalk), and were over.
People who had attended the kiss-in -- but who, now, were perfectly demure non-demonstrators -- then calmly went to the reflecting pond and were forced to leave, despite behavior identical to everyone else who visited the pond.
Doesn't sound right, if their behavior/dress/etc. *while on Church property* was unobjectionable.
As described, they didn't go onto Church property to protest. They went sightseeing *after* a protest. If the report tells the whole story, they shouldn't have been asked to leave.
As described, the lip-locks had taken place on undisputed public-access land (non-LDS-controlled sidewalk), and were over.
People who had attended the kiss-in -- but who, now, were perfectly demure non-demonstrators -- then calmly went to the reflecting pond and were forced to leave, despite behavior identical to everyone else who visited the pond.
Doesn't sound right, if their behavior/dress/etc. *while on Church property* was unobjectionable.
As described, they didn't go onto Church property to protest. They went sightseeing *after* a protest. If the report tells the whole story, they shouldn't have been asked to leave.
re: lame waste | 12:58 p.m. July 17, 2009
"I've talked to plenty of people who practice homosexual behavior and
they engage in it in pursuit of sexual gratification."
If you believe the above then the only reason you married was for sexual gratification. I know hundreds of gay people, as my son is gay. I have lived with my son and his partner. Their relationship is as fulfilling and their commitment is as complete as any married couple I know. It is not any more about sexual gratification than my marriage to my wife is. Love extends far beyond the sex. They have been together long enough in a monogamous relationship to prove that to me. That's where you are wrong.
Your argument re: it's senseless because there will be no kids is as dumb as saying people who don't want kids and therefore don't should not get married. But maybe you'd say that too.
If you believe the above then the only reason you married was for sexual gratification. I know hundreds of gay people, as my son is gay. I have lived with my son and his partner. Their relationship is as fulfilling and their commitment is as complete as any married couple I know. It is not any more about sexual gratification than my marriage to my wife is. Love extends far beyond the sex. They have been together long enough in a monogamous relationship to prove that to me. That's where you are wrong.
Your argument re: it's senseless because there will be no kids is as dumb as saying people who don't want kids and therefore don't should not get married. But maybe you'd say that too.
Focus on the facts... | 1:10 p.m. July 17, 2009
More information has come to light about this incident. Why it was left out of
the original story is beyond my knowledge. However, the details provide more
context and would have never been brought to light had these two men not made
such a big deal out of it.
"As we [LDS Newsroom] said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called."
(See LDS Newsroom, July 17, 2009)
The actions of these two gentlemen may well have been addressed in a similar fashion in store or library. They did it in spite looking for a fight and this should simply be laid to rest. Let's move on.
"As we [LDS Newsroom] said earlier on this matter, these men were asked to stop engaging in behavior deemed inappropriate for any couple on the Plaza. There was much more involved than a simple kiss on the cheek. They engaged in passionate kissing, groping, profane and lewd language, and had obviously been using alcohol. They were politely told that the Plaza was not the place for such behavior and asked to stop. When they became belligerent, the two individuals were asked to leave Church property. Church security detained them and Salt Lake City police were called."
(See LDS Newsroom, July 17, 2009)
The actions of these two gentlemen may well have been addressed in a similar fashion in store or library. They did it in spite looking for a fight and this should simply be laid to rest. Let's move on.
LDS newsroom | 1:55 p.m. July 17, 2009
"They were politely told"
And the LDS newsroom "knows" this because.....
And the LDS newsroom "knows" this because.....
oh bother | 2:38 p.m. July 17, 2009
The government didn't "GIVE" temple square to the Mormons, the
Mormon put in sweat equity and MADE Temple Square. It is private property just
as my home and yard are private property. Just as I make rules for my property,
so too may the Mormons create their own rules.
A Gay couple was on private property and disobeyed the known rule...please do not suggest otherwise and no I'm not a Mormon. It was a purposeful act with an agenda. This "kiss in" is another agenda again on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I voted for gay marriage once...I won't do it again.
A Gay couple was on private property and disobeyed the known rule...please do not suggest otherwise and no I'm not a Mormon. It was a purposeful act with an agenda. This "kiss in" is another agenda again on PRIVATE PROPERTY. I voted for gay marriage once...I won't do it again.
@1:10 | 3:00 p.m. July 17, 2009
The funny thing I would have to say about this comment that you made, and the
churchroom made... Why is it being issued ONE WEEK after the original incident?
Why not issue it the next day. It would have a lot more credibility. Also, the
church has security footage of this incident, if they are bent on clearing the
air on what "really" happened, why not release the footage. Put to
rest the controversy.
Maybe they won't do this because they are putting a spin on it to make them look better, and if the real evidence was released, we would see they are lying.
Or maybe they don't want to add fuel to the fire, want to take the high road. If that is the case I am fine with it, but if it is again... Why a week later?
Maybe they won't do this because they are putting a spin on it to make them look better, and if the real evidence was released, we would see they are lying.
Or maybe they don't want to add fuel to the fire, want to take the high road. If that is the case I am fine with it, but if it is again... Why a week later?
Oh bother | 3:34 p.m. July 17, 2009
The Church isn't required to make a statement because it is a police issue.
I am getting real sick of the "hate them because they are Mormon"
attitude. Nope, still not Mormon and never will be..will until some Mormon
decides to do something after I am dead, but I'm agnostic so it
doesn't matter though I do find it silly. Still though, the issue remains,
their property their rules.
@3:34 | 4:01 p.m. July 17, 2009
I do not hate the Mormons. I am a mormon. I was meerly pointing out the
suspiciousness of the Church in waiting a week.
If it is as you say, "The Church isn't required to make a statement because it is a police issue" Then why do they bother.
I was taught to question my surroundings, and read more into something to see if there is any other intent other that what is said.
I am sorry if me posting my train of thought offended you.
If it is as you say, "The Church isn't required to make a statement because it is a police issue" Then why do they bother.
I was taught to question my surroundings, and read more into something to see if there is any other intent other that what is said.
I am sorry if me posting my train of thought offended you.
Jrodr | 12:14 a.m. July 18, 2009
1. Any self-respecting organization would want to gather the facts before
issuing a statement.
2. The Church might, or might not, have security footage of the incident. (Did I miss something, or has it been established that such footage exists?)
3. It seems highly unusual that a simple kiss on on the cheek would elicit a security response. As an Hispanic man, it is customary for me to kiss my male friends, my brother, my sons, on the cheek. We sometimes walk arm in arm down the street. I have done so countless times in the area in question without eliciting such a security response.
4. Church security are highly trained individuals. If this were not the case, surely complaints of this nature would have occurred more frequently.
The Church maintains that more was occurring than a simple "kiss on the cheek". I have to assume that there is some merit to this, as I have stated before, that I have "kissed" many male acquaintances on the cheek with affection in this same location without any problems.
2. The Church might, or might not, have security footage of the incident. (Did I miss something, or has it been established that such footage exists?)
3. It seems highly unusual that a simple kiss on on the cheek would elicit a security response. As an Hispanic man, it is customary for me to kiss my male friends, my brother, my sons, on the cheek. We sometimes walk arm in arm down the street. I have done so countless times in the area in question without eliciting such a security response.
4. Church security are highly trained individuals. If this were not the case, surely complaints of this nature would have occurred more frequently.
The Church maintains that more was occurring than a simple "kiss on the cheek". I have to assume that there is some merit to this, as I have stated before, that I have "kissed" many male acquaintances on the cheek with affection in this same location without any problems.
Jmann | 8:23 p.m. July 19, 2009
Is there a public service type sign within this area that states these
"rules"? If i was asked to leave a property due to a PDA, i could
understand being angered if it was not somewhere stated. I don't mean to
say "stated on the news or in a comment in a newspaper", i mean
somewhere in plain sight on this property. This is just my personal inquiry in
an attempt to understand the full story. I highly doubt that the church
"saw them peck and whipped out a pair of handcuffs", but that
doesn't mean i agree with it. Either way, i would appreciate a comment or
even an article with a much more detailed turn of events and the answer to my
query. Thank You :)
Midde aged | 9:55 a.m. Nov. 4, 2009
I am a southern, middle-aged lesbian and property owner who absolutely believes
in individual property rights. I am also totally grossed-out and offended by
heterosexual PDA. Why? I don't know. I just am. It just seems so
unnatural. I would hope that the Mormon church would "clamp down" on
all forms of PDA just to be fair, I think my position is equally moral. Lastly,
I think that the concept of "private ownership" is not so clear when
owned by a tax exempt-collective who is calling upon tax-funded peace officers
to intervene on a property that has all the appearances of a public space a park
atmosphere. From the earliest time, parks (as opposed to open fields) have been
common grounds. This "private" public place is at best, deception.
The Mormon organization should be taxed for it. Also what is this testimony
thing? Sound like cult language.
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.
- Stocks ended higher 2:59 p.m.
- S.L. County OKs budget, tax increase 2:45 p.m.
- 20 years ago: Jazz 2:44 p.m.
- College football top 25 2:43 p.m.
- UVU volleyball comes up short 2:42 p.m.
- Workers prepare for 2010 Census 2:37 p.m.
- Man sentenced in W. Jordan homicide 2:31 p.m.
- In football, Horns are cash cow 2:26 p.m.
- Tips for beating holiday blues 2:26 p.m.
- The buzz on table saws 2:25 p.m.
- Hot Rod behind mic for Lakers
- Cougars use depth to beat ASU
- Max Hall wants to look ahead
- Non-BCS schools not given fair shot
- Snow brings big chill
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill
- Jazz go up against 'the best'
- Many seek to wipe clean misdeeds
- Haws playing like a veteran
- Doctor calls Mitchell 'naive,' 'inept'
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
287 - Letters: Global warming a lie225
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl206
- BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall175
- Cougars going back to Vegas150
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil145
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest121
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony100
- Revive full food tax?98
My wife Lisa and I would prefer never to argue. But that's not going to...
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
If Congress is too busy they can always vote "Present" just like Obama!
Life imitates art.
I think this young woman's photograph should be on the front page of the...
Harold may be ugly, but if he is hung like a donkey will still be very...
I don't understand why Liberals are considered thinkers and intellectuals....
There is a difference between climate and weather.
I, for one, agree that although impractical, they should have maybe gated...
Montreal has continually shown through their performance in the Champions...
So an $8 dollar ticket with hype sells for $25...no big deal right?? It's...
Actually, the very fact that this IS an issue big enough that so many of you...
Advertisements
Ya do know NORMAL states don't give whole city blocks to a THEOCRACY with their private goon squads targeting pedestrians...don't ya?