Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church
489 comments | Read story
Mike Richards | 1:24 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
The "shame" is misdirected. Rebellious people have always brought
"shame" on themselves for directing their anger for their own failure
to accept and live laws at someone or something else.
Isn't it strange how quickly someone will reject a government, a church, or God when government, church or God limit socially unacceptable behavior? Just what is the role of a church? Is it to condone all actions and all activities? Is it to dismiss sin or evil or socially unacceptable behavior? Too many people mistake the role of a church.
A Christian church is founded on a belief in Jesus Christ. It promotes principles lived and taught by Jesus Christ, including Christ's teaching that He could not look upon sin with any degree of allowance. Yes, of course He loved the sinner, but He expected all who followeed Him to rise up above the natural man and live His laws.
When "shame" is directed at the sin and not at the law giver, then personal progress can begin.
Isn't it strange how quickly someone will reject a government, a church, or God when government, church or God limit socially unacceptable behavior? Just what is the role of a church? Is it to condone all actions and all activities? Is it to dismiss sin or evil or socially unacceptable behavior? Too many people mistake the role of a church.
A Christian church is founded on a belief in Jesus Christ. It promotes principles lived and taught by Jesus Christ, including Christ's teaching that He could not look upon sin with any degree of allowance. Yes, of course He loved the sinner, but He expected all who followeed Him to rise up above the natural man and live His laws.
When "shame" is directed at the sin and not at the law giver, then personal progress can begin.
Nathan | 2:52 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
For those people like "Please Explain" who say, "How will gay
marriage affect me?", please go to the LDS Church's statment on Gay
Marriage. It gives a wonderful explanation on why gay marriage will harm
society.
Since I can't post the link, go to LDS.org and then, Newsroom which is on the right hand side of the homepage. On the right hand side it is titled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage."
Since I can't post the link, go to LDS.org and then, Newsroom which is on the right hand side of the homepage. On the right hand side it is titled, "The Divine Institution of Marriage."
Comments continue below
mirror | 5:02 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"I am tolerant and anyone who disagrees is a bigot"
Anonymous | 5:53 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
There is a difference between legal rights and church blessings.
Legal marriage is a right of every American. Church blessed marriages (matrimony in some churches) may be determined by the church.
Just because someone has the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage does not mean that a Church has to accept it.
Legal marriage is a right of every American. Church blessed marriages (matrimony in some churches) may be determined by the church.
Just because someone has the legal rights and responsibilities of a marriage does not mean that a Church has to accept it.
Gladdits A. FreeCountry | 6:19 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Thank you, for all your commemts but, if I'm not mistaken freedom of
religion and personal liberty was already given to us by our forfathers. They
gave their lives for us to have our right to choose. If a church wants to remind
it's members to read the Bible, they should have that right with-out shame.
They didnot say you MUST do this. What was ask, was for people to make their
choices with prayer, AND study. That is what we should be doing with all our
life-changing steps, no matter if you agree or dissagree, isn't it
incredable that we have a choice! This church just wanted to remind their
members (those who chose to join) to remember what they promised,and make this a
matter of prayer. Those who are willing to listen to people to our elders and
learn from them, are not limited to the Church of Jesus Christ. There are alot
of them,a few Native Indians, Japanese, Egypt thought so much of this they
burried gold,food,and even servents to help the dead. it seams we NEED yet look
back to find a sham to pick. Which one is next.
tolerance | 6:46 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Shame on all who support any far-right philosophy.
It's moralizing ugliness is ruining this country and puts us closer to fascism that we've ever seen.
It's moralizing ugliness is ruining this country and puts us closer to fascism that we've ever seen.
Glad you left too | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.
Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of Gay, let's not change the meaning of marriage.
A church, and it's members have a right to stand up for what they think is wrong.
The people of California already voted not to have gay marriages, it was a political move that made it legal, now the voters can again vote it down.
Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of Gay, let's not change the meaning of marriage.
A church, and it's members have a right to stand up for what they think is wrong.
The people of California already voted not to have gay marriages, it was a political move that made it legal, now the voters can again vote it down.
Anonymous | 7:28 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
really? you are going to trote out every stupid argument that has already been
refuted a hundrered time before? just for example "please explain"
trots out no adoption of children, I have seen this addressed at least twenty
times on these threads. The peer reviewed research refutes your claims. there is
no psychological concerns with gays adopting children.
lost in DC | 7:32 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Christina, I didn't see where the church told anyone who they could and
couldn't love. The church actually teaches love of all mankind.
Gays are not being denied rights. gay men can't marry other men, staight men can't marry other men. Gay men can marry any single woman who'll have them, the same as straights. no difference - same rights.
Study after study has shown that children are more likely to succeed when raised in families with one father and one mother. that being the case, societies and governments have an interest in protecting traditional marriage. That is one reason why legalizing gay marriage weakens society.
Gays are not being denied rights. gay men can't marry other men, staight men can't marry other men. Gay men can marry any single woman who'll have them, the same as straights. no difference - same rights.
Study after study has shown that children are more likely to succeed when raised in families with one father and one mother. that being the case, societies and governments have an interest in protecting traditional marriage. That is one reason why legalizing gay marriage weakens society.
Poor Christina | 7:38 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
You say you have left Utah, but you feel the need to write back and tell us your
gripes about Utah. How are we going to miss you if you won't go away?
michael mccarty | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Beware of those that call evil good and good evil.
If you give a mouse a cookie, then she will want a glass of milk.
Homosexuality is a choice, just like hetrosexuality is a choice.
Marriage is different because is has the full backing of the government, which is the same as saying the full backing and support of society.
It is limited to those who have the courage to try and make a relationship work with someone of the opposite sex.
Children are better raised with a male and female influence.
when you cut either out you are going against nature.
If you give a mouse a cookie, then she will want a glass of milk.
Homosexuality is a choice, just like hetrosexuality is a choice.
Marriage is different because is has the full backing of the government, which is the same as saying the full backing and support of society.
It is limited to those who have the courage to try and make a relationship work with someone of the opposite sex.
Children are better raised with a male and female influence.
when you cut either out you are going against nature.
Darin to Lost in DC | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
DC, you are truly "lost" somewhere. Your arguments (the same ones
we've read in threads before) make no sense. To love mankind is not the
same question as loving your life partner yet being denied the right to legalize
that relationship. And how is it in anyone's interest to have gay people
marry individuals of the opposite sex? What about the other person in that
relationship? Finally, even if it's true that children are generally more
like to succeed in a home where a mother and father are present, no amount of
wishful thinking will guarantee such a home to every child. If you look around,
you will find that many children succeed in single-parent homes, and even in
homes headed by gay couples.
Anonymous | 8:26 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
All of you are going to be terribly sad on Nov 5th when you wake up and your
"they voted it down once, so gay marriage will be voted against again"
philosophy comes crashing back to the reality that proposition 8 will not pass
in California. Anyone who thinks it will simply does not have even a remote
understanding the the difference between the 2000 vote and this one.
@lost in DC | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
do you care to provide the names of those studies Lost in DC. There are peer
reviewed studies by the American Psychological Association, the national
Association of social workers and the American pediatric society. You can go to
their websites and read it for yourself.
re tolerance 6:46 | 8:50 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Please re-read mirror 5:02 and consider why you dont do your cause any favors.
glad you're in Cali. | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Dear Christina, Unlike government with its ever changing laws to suit the fad
of the decade, the LDS church is not going to change its doctrine to suit a
minority of gay people. If gay people and gay marriage supporters don't
like the LDS churches standard on this issue, find another religion that suits
your agenda. To that I say, shame on gay marriage supporters inside and outside
the LDS church, for expecting it to change its morals and standards to conform
to your ideology of marriage all in the name of "equality". One has to
look no further than California to see how the rest of the country will go with
liberals in charge.
PJ | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Please explain | 12:50 a.m.: "This said, will someone please tell me how
allowing gays to marry will hurt my or anyone's marriage? how is not
allowing gays to marry a defense of marriage? Will someone please
explain?"
It cheapens it... If pearls are highly valued and swine is not... the advise is to not cast your pearls before swine. Make sense?
It cheapens it... If pearls are highly valued and swine is not... the advise is to not cast your pearls before swine. Make sense?
to Mike Richards | 10:00 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"Isn't it strange how quickly someone will reject a government, a
church, or God when government, church or God limit socially unacceptable
behavior? Just what is the role of a church? Is it to condone all actions and
all activities? Is it to dismiss sin or evil or socially unacceptable behavior?
Too many people mistake the role of a church."
The role of a church is to minister to its MEMBERS. Please do not think that working to make ALL Californians live LDS standards is its role. What happened to allowing all men to worship how, where, and WHAT they may?
The role of a church is to minister to its MEMBERS. Please do not think that working to make ALL Californians live LDS standards is its role. What happened to allowing all men to worship how, where, and WHAT they may?
Alex | 10:02 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I doubt that Christina's gripe is really with the Church's stance on
homosexuality; rather, her problem is with the LDS Church. If her problem really
was with the Church's stance on homosexuality, woukdn't the complaint
likewise be towards the Catholic Church and the hordes of other Christian
denominations opposed to gay marriage?
Anonymous | 10:03 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Glad you left too | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.
Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of Gay, let's not change the meaning of marriage."
You are way too LATE to try this argument. Gay "MARRIAGE" is already in Norway, Great Britian, South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. Where was the church when these countries were passing these laws that CHANGED THE MEANING OF THE WORD "MARRIAGE?"
"Marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman.
Homosexuals have already changed the meaning of Gay, let's not change the meaning of marriage."
You are way too LATE to try this argument. Gay "MARRIAGE" is already in Norway, Great Britian, South Africa, Spain, Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. Where was the church when these countries were passing these laws that CHANGED THE MEANING OF THE WORD "MARRIAGE?"
@lost in DC | 10:38 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
if you actually bother to read the research i sited above you will find that
they do not support your claims.
Gus Talwynd | 10:41 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
There is a gigantic wall between those who use a religious argument to support a
particular point-of-view and those who use a secular argument. The problem with
the religious argument is that not everyone shares the same religious beliefs.
The only "common" perspective is non-religious dealing with human
rights and the rights provided to our citizens under the Constitution.
Certain, the religious ideologues can lecture all they want and take the judgemental approach on social issues they find offensive, but their argument falls on deaf ears. Saying that "God this" and "God that" will not work with those who do not think like them. They can only preach to the choir.
Issues like gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, sex education, evolution, and other concerns of Americans today are never discussed intelligently in forums like this. Where religion is used solely as the defense for a controversial position, that position becomes only relavent to true-believers.
If you want my support for your position on any issue, you need to convince me that you have a good argument. Saying that "God says it's so" does not cut it because, for one, my God may be different from your God.
Certain, the religious ideologues can lecture all they want and take the judgemental approach on social issues they find offensive, but their argument falls on deaf ears. Saying that "God this" and "God that" will not work with those who do not think like them. They can only preach to the choir.
Issues like gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, sex education, evolution, and other concerns of Americans today are never discussed intelligently in forums like this. Where religion is used solely as the defense for a controversial position, that position becomes only relavent to true-believers.
If you want my support for your position on any issue, you need to convince me that you have a good argument. Saying that "God says it's so" does not cut it because, for one, my God may be different from your God.
Glad to be gone | 11:09 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
So the letter writer is glad to be out of Utah?
Well I'm glad you're gone too.
So tell me.....if you hate Utah so much, why are you bothering to read our newspapers?
Well I'm glad you're gone too.
So tell me.....if you hate Utah so much, why are you bothering to read our newspapers?
Robert | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
To 'Please Explain":
I'll try.
Because marriage is a valuable social institution, society has a stake in preserving it. Society derives many benefits from marriage. It is society's best means of starting and nurturing the next generation of its citizens. If government changes a social institution like marriage, society risks losing the benefits society derives from that institution.
For example, take our monetary system. We go to great lengths to protect the dollar from counterfeiters. Why? Counterfeit money devalues real money.
Similarly, if government changes marriage to make it less recognizable as a unique institution, it devalues marriage and thereby risks losing the benefits it derives from the marriage institution.
How? Try teaching a child that marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, but that it's also the legal union of any two adults. Will the child understand marriage, or become confused? More importantly, will the child understand why marriage deserves a unique status in society and why marriage provides unique benefits to society? I think not.
In short, if we change the meaning an institution has had for time immemorial, we risk losing that institution and the benefits we get from that institution.
How's that?
I'll try.
Because marriage is a valuable social institution, society has a stake in preserving it. Society derives many benefits from marriage. It is society's best means of starting and nurturing the next generation of its citizens. If government changes a social institution like marriage, society risks losing the benefits society derives from that institution.
For example, take our monetary system. We go to great lengths to protect the dollar from counterfeiters. Why? Counterfeit money devalues real money.
Similarly, if government changes marriage to make it less recognizable as a unique institution, it devalues marriage and thereby risks losing the benefits it derives from the marriage institution.
How? Try teaching a child that marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman, but that it's also the legal union of any two adults. Will the child understand marriage, or become confused? More importantly, will the child understand why marriage deserves a unique status in society and why marriage provides unique benefits to society? I think not.
In short, if we change the meaning an institution has had for time immemorial, we risk losing that institution and the benefits we get from that institution.
How's that?
Joe Moe | 11:30 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Re:Tolerance 6:46
I'm amused at how many people say we are quasi-fascist in this country, while so many others say we are quasi-socialist.
Which is it? Or are all these folks delusional?
I'm kind of tired of people arguing every issue from a hunkered down, "the sky is falling" position.
And, at the end of the day, all should be welcome to debate the merits of the opinions of the various churches on social issues (the LDS is not unique here), but not the right of these churches to express their opinions.
And, at the end of the day, individual voters get to express their will. I suggest we should all be happy with that process, because it's the core of what we are as a nation.
I'm amused at how many people say we are quasi-fascist in this country, while so many others say we are quasi-socialist.
Which is it? Or are all these folks delusional?
I'm kind of tired of people arguing every issue from a hunkered down, "the sky is falling" position.
And, at the end of the day, all should be welcome to debate the merits of the opinions of the various churches on social issues (the LDS is not unique here), but not the right of these churches to express their opinions.
And, at the end of the day, individual voters get to express their will. I suggest we should all be happy with that process, because it's the core of what we are as a nation.
wrz | 11:49 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Gus Talwynd | 10:41 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"Saying that "God says it's so" does not cut it because, for one, my God may be different from your God."
Perhaps you could use a different god for this occasion. Do you have other of gods you could sort through for answers? It's often done.
"Saying that "God says it's so" does not cut it because, for one, my God may be different from your God."
Perhaps you could use a different god for this occasion. Do you have other of gods you could sort through for answers? It's often done.
Randy | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"No church or government has a right to say who someone should
love."
Count me as among the closed minded against two sisters marrying, homosexual marriage, and adultery.
Count me as among the closed minded against two sisters marrying, homosexual marriage, and adultery.
Straight Shooter | 12:33 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I'm for diversity- that's why I'm heterosexual.
@Robert | 12:41 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
nice try but I fail to see how allowing "two adults" to show a
commitment to each other that comes with the beinifts and obligations you
descripe weakening the instituion of marriage. it seems to me that allowing
people to marry would strengthen the society by creating the stability of more
married couples.
two side notes: First stop with the lame "but please wont someone think about the children" shrell
second: marriage has not been defined as a union between one man and one women since "time immemrial"
two side notes: First stop with the lame "but please wont someone think about the children" shrell
second: marriage has not been defined as a union between one man and one women since "time immemrial"
Oregonian | 1:07 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
For the record, I have gay co-workers (some ex-LDS) and I have no problem with
them. I could care less what they do on their own time. My only question is: if
gay love is natural, why do they force government to provide them that which
nature can't provide them (children). My biggest concern is for the
children. Society has already messed up a generation of youth by condoning
affairs and divorce. Can we afford to add to the confusion? And please
don't compare worst case marraige scenarios or natural aberations (sterile
couples). Taking religion out of it, Nature (evolution!) shows that it takes a
man and women to bring a child into this world. Marriage is a 5,000+ year proven
institution to raise up a child in society. We are already paying the price for
messing with it.
Do you what you want in your own bedroom. Let religion do what they do. Government can protect your rights as individuals. But let's don't play "god" with nature.
Do you what you want in your own bedroom. Let religion do what they do. Government can protect your rights as individuals. But let's don't play "god" with nature.
Queen Christina has spoken | 1:08 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"...No church or government has a right to say who someone should
love."
The Church has never told anyone who they should love. You can love whoever you want and the Church won't care.
"Gay marriage will not hurt the institution of marriage."
The Church hasn't suggested that gay marriage would hurt the "institution of marriage." It has suggested that it would redefine the "institution of marriage" and opposes doing so.
"On the contrary, it will give all people the rights that those of us who are not gay have."
The Church doesn't support denying gay people their rights but like most people recognizes that it can be accomplished in more than one way.
"This is a matter of equality. It truly is about equal rights, not just marriage."
If it was about equal rights than it wouldn't be an issue but for many homosexuals it is about forcing society and Churches to promote homosexual marriage. We don't want to deny them their rights but we won't be forced to promote their lifestyle.
My advice to you is to stop trying to force everyone to agree with you and to promote gay marriage. This is about your desire to force.
The Church has never told anyone who they should love. You can love whoever you want and the Church won't care.
"Gay marriage will not hurt the institution of marriage."
The Church hasn't suggested that gay marriage would hurt the "institution of marriage." It has suggested that it would redefine the "institution of marriage" and opposes doing so.
"On the contrary, it will give all people the rights that those of us who are not gay have."
The Church doesn't support denying gay people their rights but like most people recognizes that it can be accomplished in more than one way.
"This is a matter of equality. It truly is about equal rights, not just marriage."
If it was about equal rights than it wouldn't be an issue but for many homosexuals it is about forcing society and Churches to promote homosexual marriage. We don't want to deny them their rights but we won't be forced to promote their lifestyle.
My advice to you is to stop trying to force everyone to agree with you and to promote gay marriage. This is about your desire to force.
To Robert | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"Try teaching a child that marriage is the legal union of a man and a
woman, but that it's also the legal union of any two adults. Will the child
understand marriage, or become confused? More importantly, will the child
understand why marriage deserves a unique status in society and why marriage
provides unique benefits to society? I think not."
I have had no problem teaching my children to respect others choices and that gay couples that want to marry are in love, just as heterosexual couples that marry are in love. I think maybe YOU are confused as to why gay couples would want to marry? If you are going to give special rights to married couples, you MUST share those with all Americans.
My confusion stems from how you teach your children that gays should NOT have the same rights as you enjoy. Do you tell them that they are evil? Do you tell them that God doesn't like what they are doing so we should not let them have the same rights as us? Does that not cause confusion with those children as to why a murderer, rapist, or child molester can marry?
I have had no problem teaching my children to respect others choices and that gay couples that want to marry are in love, just as heterosexual couples that marry are in love. I think maybe YOU are confused as to why gay couples would want to marry? If you are going to give special rights to married couples, you MUST share those with all Americans.
My confusion stems from how you teach your children that gays should NOT have the same rights as you enjoy. Do you tell them that they are evil? Do you tell them that God doesn't like what they are doing so we should not let them have the same rights as us? Does that not cause confusion with those children as to why a murderer, rapist, or child molester can marry?
LOL | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
You can't use logic to battle emotion and superstitions. Of course gay
marriage can't effect the marriages of others. Morality can't be
codified by laws. There are laws that provide access to alcohol and cigarettes.
This doesn't meant to must drink or smoke. It's your right to think
being gay is a sin. It's your right to reject living a gay life style.
Every problem should be this easy to solve.
@Robert | 1:32 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Your inability to explain something to a child is a terrible reason for fighting
gay marriage and would be laughable if it weren't so insulting.
Pahleez | 1:32 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
What a crock this whole discussion about gay marriage is. I am sick and tired
of hearing that "I was born this way and I can't change..."
Let me tell you, I am coming off of a horrible time with being addicted to sex. While I never dabbled in gay sex, I know that I was only one step away. I was/am totally addicted to sex. All kinds. Only after nearly destroying my wonderful wife and children have I finally understood what the results of my ACTIONS are and were. There is nothing that any research, anecdote, or public pressure can do to ever let me know that same sex attraction or other sexual addictions aren't a result of selfishness in ones heart and soul brought on by various external stimuli. Difficult to overcome? You bet, almost impossible and probably next to impossible in many respects, but not totally. Will I always have to be on alert? YES!
When we ever understand that and realize the damage we are doing to our society by giving in to our selfishness? We see this in the current presidential race, in our financial difficulties and even in our current energy crises.
Let me tell you, I am coming off of a horrible time with being addicted to sex. While I never dabbled in gay sex, I know that I was only one step away. I was/am totally addicted to sex. All kinds. Only after nearly destroying my wonderful wife and children have I finally understood what the results of my ACTIONS are and were. There is nothing that any research, anecdote, or public pressure can do to ever let me know that same sex attraction or other sexual addictions aren't a result of selfishness in ones heart and soul brought on by various external stimuli. Difficult to overcome? You bet, almost impossible and probably next to impossible in many respects, but not totally. Will I always have to be on alert? YES!
When we ever understand that and realize the damage we are doing to our society by giving in to our selfishness? We see this in the current presidential race, in our financial difficulties and even in our current energy crises.
@Oregonian | 1:36 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Talk to Children in the foster care system and ask them if they would rather
stay in foster care or be allowed to go to a family with two gay parents who
want them in their family and love them. Saying that gay couples aren't
worthy to raise children is saying that thousands of children shouldn't
have loving families.
All of the arguments against gay adoption are laughable because they say "Children deserve a mom and a dad" when most adoption laws today allow SINGLE people to adopt. Pray tell how is allowing a single person to adopt better than a loving gay couple? The only answer I see is bigotry.
All of the arguments against gay adoption are laughable because they say "Children deserve a mom and a dad" when most adoption laws today allow SINGLE people to adopt. Pray tell how is allowing a single person to adopt better than a loving gay couple? The only answer I see is bigotry.
Greg | 2:01 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I disagree with the author of this letter for all of the reasons stated in the
thoughtful editorial on Sunday about the importance of protecting traditional
marriage and religious liberty.
Joe to Darrin | 2:36 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"Finally, even if it's true that children are generally more like to
succeed in a home where a mother and father are present, no amount of wishful
thinking will guarantee such a home to every child."
The simple fact is that if gay marriage is legal, it will be legally impossible to show any preference for heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples in child placement. And personally, I think kids do better when they have both a female and male role model to help develop their personal identity, even if it cannot be guaranteed to every child. Shame on us if we embrace an alternative that guarantees a child will not have both role models as a constant part of their lives.
And I wouldn't put much stock in the APA's position that kids essentially do as well in same sex marriages as they do in heterosexual marriages. They also take a strict position in favor of further gun control measures, despite the statistical evidence that legal firearm ownership in citizen's hands leads to less rather than more violent crime and death. It's called research that is biased toward the position you already support.
The simple fact is that if gay marriage is legal, it will be legally impossible to show any preference for heterosexual couples rather than homosexual couples in child placement. And personally, I think kids do better when they have both a female and male role model to help develop their personal identity, even if it cannot be guaranteed to every child. Shame on us if we embrace an alternative that guarantees a child will not have both role models as a constant part of their lives.
And I wouldn't put much stock in the APA's position that kids essentially do as well in same sex marriages as they do in heterosexual marriages. They also take a strict position in favor of further gun control measures, despite the statistical evidence that legal firearm ownership in citizen's hands leads to less rather than more violent crime and death. It's called research that is biased toward the position you already support.
Gus Talwynd | 2:56 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Sarah Palin's job as slime merchant is definitely pathetic as she tries to
remain upbeat and chipper in her attempt at Swift-boating Barack Obama.
Certainly, honest criticism is valid, but where she cherry-picks information
from a New York Times article and presents it as completely opposite of the
conclusion in the article (i.e. Barack Obama's pseudo-relationship with a
60s radical), is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove acolytes serving the McCain campaign are doing themselves a disservice when they adopt the same tactics as were used against their own candidate in his 2000 presidential bid for the Republican nomination.
When John McCain was accused of fathering a black child out-of-wedlock with a prostitute and he was deemed mentally incompetent following his incarceration during the Vietnam War, it was just a bogus set of lies. Now McCain, through his Palin surrogate, is doing the same with Obama.
The effort the McCain is exerting to cover Sarah Palin's past is immense: beauty contestent with a B.A. in journalism after attending five different colleges, married to a husband who advocated Alaska secede from the United States, is for/against earmarks, is for/against big government, believes dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
The Lee Atwater/Karl Rove acolytes serving the McCain campaign are doing themselves a disservice when they adopt the same tactics as were used against their own candidate in his 2000 presidential bid for the Republican nomination.
When John McCain was accused of fathering a black child out-of-wedlock with a prostitute and he was deemed mentally incompetent following his incarceration during the Vietnam War, it was just a bogus set of lies. Now McCain, through his Palin surrogate, is doing the same with Obama.
The effort the McCain is exerting to cover Sarah Palin's past is immense: beauty contestent with a B.A. in journalism after attending five different colleges, married to a husband who advocated Alaska secede from the United States, is for/against earmarks, is for/against big government, believes dinosaurs lived alongside humans.
Robert | 3:00 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"If you are going to give special rights to married couples, you MUST share
those with all Americans." Wrong.
There are lots of rights that are not shared equally. Citizens can't vote until they turn 18 years old. Those who are 17 years, 11 months can't. One can't serve as a U.S. Senator unless one is 30 years old. Twenty-nine won't do. If I want a lawyer to defend me against charges that I have committed a crime -- a right the constitution affords me --, I either have to pay for one myself, in which case I get a good one with lots of experience, or I accept the services of a court-appointed attorney right out of law school who lacks the experience I need. The list goes on and on.
My point is that the institution of marriage must not be tinkered with if we want to maintain the benefits society derives from that institution, just like we can't allow our monetary system (institution) to be tinkered with by counterfeiters if we value our money. That's what I teach my children.
There are lots of rights that are not shared equally. Citizens can't vote until they turn 18 years old. Those who are 17 years, 11 months can't. One can't serve as a U.S. Senator unless one is 30 years old. Twenty-nine won't do. If I want a lawyer to defend me against charges that I have committed a crime -- a right the constitution affords me --, I either have to pay for one myself, in which case I get a good one with lots of experience, or I accept the services of a court-appointed attorney right out of law school who lacks the experience I need. The list goes on and on.
My point is that the institution of marriage must not be tinkered with if we want to maintain the benefits society derives from that institution, just like we can't allow our monetary system (institution) to be tinkered with by counterfeiters if we value our money. That's what I teach my children.
Sam | 3:13 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Oregonian | 1:07 p.m.:
"My only question is: if gay love is natural, why do they force government to provide them that which nature can't provide them (children)."
What??? Two women who marry can have children. Both of them... doubling the size of a family in half the time. "How could they possibly get pregnant?" you may ask. Think for a moment. And if there's any question, you could send them to me for a quick review.
"My only question is: if gay love is natural, why do they force government to provide them that which nature can't provide them (children)."
What??? Two women who marry can have children. Both of them... doubling the size of a family in half the time. "How could they possibly get pregnant?" you may ask. Think for a moment. And if there's any question, you could send them to me for a quick review.
Christina S. Johnson | 3:42 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
I just want to say that I live in California and I am so proud of the mormon
church for standing up for the moral high ground.. I wish so bad that I lived in
Utah.
Anonymous | 3:45 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
People in Utah are always intrigued by why it is that those who moved away
follow what is happening?
Answer: A morbid curiosity similar to witnessing a train wreck.
Answer: A morbid curiosity similar to witnessing a train wreck.
Another Oregonian | 3:53 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Just a clarification - "love" is not nor has it ever been a
requirement for marraige. It sure helps, but it's not mandatory. For many
cultures in human history, arranged marraige was the norm.
Further, marraige as an institution has historically been for the purposes of protecting and enlarging human societies. It holds the parents responsible for each other's welfare as well as the welfare of their children. To say that marraige is about two people who love each other completely misses the bigger picture.
Finally, love is not remotely the same thing as sexual relations. Love is a selfless emotion, focusing on the welfare of others, while sexual activity at its core is based on self-gratification. Both can certainly be manifest in a healthy, constructive relationship. Gay people and straight people can and certainly do love others, but let's be honest: "Gay marraige" is not about two people loving each other, it's about an effort to legitimize homosexual behavior in a family setting in our society.
Further, marraige as an institution has historically been for the purposes of protecting and enlarging human societies. It holds the parents responsible for each other's welfare as well as the welfare of their children. To say that marraige is about two people who love each other completely misses the bigger picture.
Finally, love is not remotely the same thing as sexual relations. Love is a selfless emotion, focusing on the welfare of others, while sexual activity at its core is based on self-gratification. Both can certainly be manifest in a healthy, constructive relationship. Gay people and straight people can and certainly do love others, but let's be honest: "Gay marraige" is not about two people loving each other, it's about an effort to legitimize homosexual behavior in a family setting in our society.
@Robert | 4:26 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Again Robert the things you list have reasons behind limiting them based on
reasoning. What specifically would be the harm to "marriage" if gay
marriage where allowed? You cannot just arbitrarily draw a line without
supporting evidence; otherwise I could say that no one under six feet tall
should be allowed to have children because we suffer when people are short.
Nonsense? of course but no more so then the evidence you have provide up to this
point. How about also addressing the 12:41 post as well? I am not trying to be
rude I am just trying to get you to think about your responses.
wrz | 4:31 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Gus Talwynd | 2:56 p.m.:
"...beauty contestant"
And she won. Obama would win in an "ugly contestant."
"with a B.A. in journalism after attending five different colleges"
Lies. She went to two. And by the way, journalism is not such a bad career. The media have been deciding elections for years.
"married to a husband who advocated Alaska secede from the United States"
Her husband is not running for anything. The only running he does is running a snow mobile in an Alaska snow mobile race.
"is for/against earmarks"
Obama is for getting big donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with corrupt executives who had to be taken over by the government.
"is for/against big government"
Obama is for increasing taxes. And your guy was a trainer and lawyer for ACORN who is now being investigated for voter registration fraud in all close states.
"believes dinosaurs lived alongside humans."
They do. They're called "birds."
"...beauty contestant"
And she won. Obama would win in an "ugly contestant."
"with a B.A. in journalism after attending five different colleges"
Lies. She went to two. And by the way, journalism is not such a bad career. The media have been deciding elections for years.
"married to a husband who advocated Alaska secede from the United States"
Her husband is not running for anything. The only running he does is running a snow mobile in an Alaska snow mobile race.
"is for/against earmarks"
Obama is for getting big donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with corrupt executives who had to be taken over by the government.
"is for/against big government"
Obama is for increasing taxes. And your guy was a trainer and lawyer for ACORN who is now being investigated for voter registration fraud in all close states.
"believes dinosaurs lived alongside humans."
They do. They're called "birds."
Anonymous | 4:57 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
The LDS church preaches love - except for same-sex relationships.
What hypocrites!
What hypocrites!
clean-up time | 5:15 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Shame on the LDS church for delving into the lives of people who aren't
bothering them one bit.
Judging from these posts, they'd be better served cleaning up their own back yard.
Judging from these posts, they'd be better served cleaning up their own back yard.
Next stop.... | 5:19 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008
"I am so glad I left Utah. No church or government has a right to say who
someone should love."
Fine, if I love a 10 year old then by the writers perspective I should have equal rights to marriage!!
Fine, if I love a 10 year old then by the writers perspective I should have equal rights to marriage!!
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.
- Power.com sues Facebook 11:40 a.m.
- Stocks falter 11:39 a.m.
- Mandela stays away from exhibition 11:38 a.m.
- Obama artist makes plea deal 11:33 a.m.
- Cuba acknowledges desertion 11:30 a.m.
- Goosen shoots 63 to lead Scottish 11:29 a.m.
- Boston man begs to repay Brady 11:28 a.m.
- Movsisyan to remain through season 11:22 a.m.
- Teacher faces new sex charges 11:19 a.m.
- Lawmaker: CIA dir. ended program 11:09 a.m.
- Jazz talking Boozer trade?
- Stadium of Fire flag burning was fake
- Jazz in back of line for free agents
- Okur signs two-year extension
- A primer for the 6th Potter film
- Jazz won't meet Lopez on Europe trip
- Restaurant destroyed by fire
- Reactions on Boozer speculation
- Mall owner seeks to retain zoning
- Jazz rally for OT win at Orlando
- Bronco collecting a galaxy of recruits
140 - Letters: Palin mistreated137
- Teachers struggle with district cuts135
- Blazers may offer Millsap a contract123
- Jazz talking Boozer trade?117
- Fairness of BCS debated81
- Moon landing: Let's hear from you79
- Chaffetz eyes challenging Bennett73
- Letters: Single-payer system best70
- Services bids farewell to Jackson70
By now you've probably read about the investigation that showed just how...
Sen. Scott Jenkins was name-checked by Jay Leno Monday night during his...
Latest comments
I like the quote from Sorry Charlie: "But its not about saving the planet......
City Ordinances involving dogs are violated in every city in America,...
re: finally | 7:26 a.m. July 10, 2009 Exactly. Science is fluid, dynamic,...
i work on market street and i'm disappointed that emmert moved the building...
re: Please! | 7:36 a.m. July 10, 2009 Actually, its lemmings that blindly...
Love the David Copperfield comment. Brilliant!
Fact: there are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide who disagree with...
Billions of dollars so they can spy on american citizens. Nobody here cares...
You never to watch listening to conservative propagandist trying to incite...
Just as memories of the Bush/Cheney (fiasco of follies) legacy begins to fade...
Advertisements
This said, will someone please tell me how allowing gays to marry will hurt my or anyone's marriage? how is not allowing gays to marry a defense of marriage? Will someone please explain?
I do not agree that children should be adopted by gays, but no one else seems to care much about this, at least I haven't heard anyone speak out against it.