Reader comments
Sore losers won't let go in California
714 comments | Read story
IllinoisP | 3:49 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
It's sad to see so called people of God so angry at their rights being
taken away by allowing someone else to get married. Gay people don't want
to get married in your temple.
The Mormons are losing this battle, slowly, but surely. Just like they lost the Negro Doctrine battle too. You're all on the wrong side of history, you just can't admit it, you're too blind to see it.
I thought the Catholics were behind the times. No wonder so many of you hide out in Utah and Idaho. You'll never be mainstream, because you cling to your antiquated view of the world.
The Mormons are losing this battle, slowly, but surely. Just like they lost the Negro Doctrine battle too. You're all on the wrong side of history, you just can't admit it, you're too blind to see it.
I thought the Catholics were behind the times. No wonder so many of you hide out in Utah and Idaho. You'll never be mainstream, because you cling to your antiquated view of the world.
John Pack Lambert | 3:50 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Actually what realitycheck has ignored the most is that the pro-marriage
admendment was defeated two years ago in Arizona. Yet they revised it, came
back and passed one this year.
The claimed trend away from measures defending the family has not played out the way the enemies of the family have predicted it. Prop 102 passed.
The claimed trend away from measures defending the family has not played out the way the enemies of the family have predicted it. Prop 102 passed.
Comments continue below
re Bill 2:41pm | 3:51 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
oh come on, Sarah. Don't you have enough things to do in Alaska instead of
posting your days end theories here?
maybe days end will be the return of the dinosaurs... oh - wait - you don't believe in dinosaurs... my bad...
go back to Alaska, Sarah. You weren't elected for a reason, girl.
maybe days end will be the return of the dinosaurs... oh - wait - you don't believe in dinosaurs... my bad...
go back to Alaska, Sarah. You weren't elected for a reason, girl.
realitycheck | 3:58 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
poster at 3:08pm
wow - you all certainly know how to read, huh? It's totally unclear why you would think I was talking about the mormon church having to accept gays or anything like that. But what will happen is the US supreme court will uphold that gay couples can "marry". Now - if you don't want the term marriage used, you better come up with a solution that provides them the same rights without the word marriage.
and that's all I meant. is that clear enough? anyone else confused and want to lecture about freedom of religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point?
didn't think so....
wow - you all certainly know how to read, huh? It's totally unclear why you would think I was talking about the mormon church having to accept gays or anything like that. But what will happen is the US supreme court will uphold that gay couples can "marry". Now - if you don't want the term marriage used, you better come up with a solution that provides them the same rights without the word marriage.
and that's all I meant. is that clear enough? anyone else confused and want to lecture about freedom of religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point?
didn't think so....
cantslodown610 | 3:58 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re: realitycheck
I reread your post and it still seems like you want to force mormons to change their beliefs and anyone else who don't believe the way you do. And yes I do have a much better solution. Get marriage out of the government. Give it back to the religions and let them deal with the issues. The Government should then license the ability to have children and tax breaks would only come at the point of having children. Adoption would no longer be an issue and neither would what classifies as a family.
I reread your post and it still seems like you want to force mormons to change their beliefs and anyone else who don't believe the way you do. And yes I do have a much better solution. Get marriage out of the government. Give it back to the religions and let them deal with the issues. The Government should then license the ability to have children and tax breaks would only come at the point of having children. Adoption would no longer be an issue and neither would what classifies as a family.
John Pack Lambert | 4:01 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the 1:59 commentator,
The measure in Arizona went so far as to explicitly deney state benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The anti-marriage people played this issue up and ran the "don't hurt the people who can't remarry because of pension issues, help people openly defraud the government by having their cake and eating it too". At least in Utah we did not buy that rubbish. I lived in Utah during the Prop-3 deapte and the ads like that the anti-3 people ran alientated me to the anti-position and are probably the single biggest reason that Scott Matheson Jr. is not in office, since he unwisely put his political future in line with people who thought it was good for us to help people who lived as married people but denied the form of such to fradulently continue to collect pensions from their deceseaed spuses employer.
As you can tell, I have nothing but disdain for people who live together but do not get married when it is a method of fraud.
The measure in Arizona went so far as to explicitly deney state benefits to domestic partners of state employees. The anti-marriage people played this issue up and ran the "don't hurt the people who can't remarry because of pension issues, help people openly defraud the government by having their cake and eating it too". At least in Utah we did not buy that rubbish. I lived in Utah during the Prop-3 deapte and the ads like that the anti-3 people ran alientated me to the anti-position and are probably the single biggest reason that Scott Matheson Jr. is not in office, since he unwisely put his political future in line with people who thought it was good for us to help people who lived as married people but denied the form of such to fradulently continue to collect pensions from their deceseaed spuses employer.
As you can tell, I have nothing but disdain for people who live together but do not get married when it is a method of fraud.
John Pack Lambert | 4:10 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the 2:24 commentator,
I think you fail to understand the mindset of those who truly believe that homosexuality is a sin. If it is a sin, than giving any government recognition to such relationships, which are inherently and eternally sinful, does not really make sense.
In an ideal world people who had these urges would work to overcome them, and people would not establish "domestic partnerships" or anthing of the kind.
This is obviously not an ideal world, and we have compromised with such a situation. However, it is a compromise where we have moved away from the perfect ideal we wish we could have.
Your idea that we have shifted to a more focused concentration on marriage may be somewhat accurate.
However the fact is that we have made a compromise and stepped down from the ideal world we would really want to live in.
What is clear is that the church will excommunicate you for being in a "domestic partnership" or at the least disfellowship you. The church does not oppose them as a legal issue, but as a personal choice for a church member they are unacceptable.
I think you fail to understand the mindset of those who truly believe that homosexuality is a sin. If it is a sin, than giving any government recognition to such relationships, which are inherently and eternally sinful, does not really make sense.
In an ideal world people who had these urges would work to overcome them, and people would not establish "domestic partnerships" or anthing of the kind.
This is obviously not an ideal world, and we have compromised with such a situation. However, it is a compromise where we have moved away from the perfect ideal we wish we could have.
Your idea that we have shifted to a more focused concentration on marriage may be somewhat accurate.
However the fact is that we have made a compromise and stepped down from the ideal world we would really want to live in.
What is clear is that the church will excommunicate you for being in a "domestic partnership" or at the least disfellowship you. The church does not oppose them as a legal issue, but as a personal choice for a church member they are unacceptable.
Two parents? | 4:11 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Excuse me, but the comment that children need TWO PARENTS, one male and one
female, but a Mormon poster, is already outdated, unreal, and rather
insulting.
What about all those single parents out there? What about kids with no parents. Would you propose taking these kids away from that parent in order to "preserve" them?
What about kids in abusive homes (that would inlude ABUSIVE Mormon homes)? Shouldn't they be removed to nonabusive homes where there are two parents? And what if those nonabusive parents were upstanding gay citizens?
Seems there is so much narrow mindedness about the "traditional" marriage and family that people's ears touch.
What about all those single parents out there? What about kids with no parents. Would you propose taking these kids away from that parent in order to "preserve" them?
What about kids in abusive homes (that would inlude ABUSIVE Mormon homes)? Shouldn't they be removed to nonabusive homes where there are two parents? And what if those nonabusive parents were upstanding gay citizens?
Seems there is so much narrow mindedness about the "traditional" marriage and family that people's ears touch.
John Pack Lambert | 4:12 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To the 2:37 commentator,
The notion that our rights are guaranteed us by our creator comes straight out of the Declaration of Independence.
The notion that our rights are guaranteed us by our creator comes straight out of the Declaration of Independence.
John Pack Lambert | 4:18 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To realitycheck,
So now you are trying to vilify us with the stereotype of someone else. Just because you have never seen the waste alchohol leaves in its wake, never had an alchoholic relative who could have been so good, never had a step-dad who was too stressed and fell to alchohol and never recovered so you grew up with no father at all when you could have had one, just because you have never had a friend or relative killed by a drunk driver, does not mean other have not experienced such and have every reason to fight alchohol and its ills with all their souls.
There are lots of inacuracies in old westerns, and I will not admit them as evidence into a discussion of what should and should not be our current law. That is about as sensible as trying to understand what really happend in reconstruction by watching "Birth of A Nation", the film that single handedly lead to the re-birth of the KKK.
So now you are trying to vilify us with the stereotype of someone else. Just because you have never seen the waste alchohol leaves in its wake, never had an alchoholic relative who could have been so good, never had a step-dad who was too stressed and fell to alchohol and never recovered so you grew up with no father at all when you could have had one, just because you have never had a friend or relative killed by a drunk driver, does not mean other have not experienced such and have every reason to fight alchohol and its ills with all their souls.
There are lots of inacuracies in old westerns, and I will not admit them as evidence into a discussion of what should and should not be our current law. That is about as sensible as trying to understand what really happend in reconstruction by watching "Birth of A Nation", the film that single handedly lead to the re-birth of the KKK.
re poster 3:44pm | 4:21 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
what facts are you asking for? and are opinions unacceptable here? because
that's about all I've seen so far here.
re John Pack Lambert 3:50pm | 4:28 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
John - you and I both know something will have to give. Gays will get their
same sex union rights. The only questions are when and how. It would be much
better to have input on the solution rather than just trying to stop it...
of course, mormons aren't known for their progressive stance, so it may be that it will be done through court ruling - which will provide the moral majority fewer options in the solution. That would simply be bad planning by the mormons - which is suprising since the seer stones should be giving you all kinds of warning by now. I'm assuming they are glowing and humming and making quite the racket. Perhaps you all should listen...
of course, mormons aren't known for their progressive stance, so it may be that it will be done through court ruling - which will provide the moral majority fewer options in the solution. That would simply be bad planning by the mormons - which is suprising since the seer stones should be giving you all kinds of warning by now. I'm assuming they are glowing and humming and making quite the racket. Perhaps you all should listen...
BYU Student | 4:51 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I'm a BYU student obviously and a lifelong LDS member. I have one question
to pose simply as a question. I really don't have a firm stance either
direction to be honest. I am a guy and have been in a heterosexual marriage for
2 1/2 years and have no homosexual ties whatsoever. However, I am confused by
the logic of church members to be honest. I have no intention of hurting
feelings, but I just want to hear what you all have to say.
Question...
If the supreme court passed a law stating that gay marriage will be legally acknowledged and protected, in what way would that threaten the beliefs of the church? Would it lead to any type of threat on temple marriage? I don't want to hear that God and the prophets say that its wrong because that means nothing to non-members and to people who want this passed. I just want to know how this is so threatening to anyone else. I ask not be be coy, I ask because I don't know and can't think of any reasons. Tell me what you think.
Question...
If the supreme court passed a law stating that gay marriage will be legally acknowledged and protected, in what way would that threaten the beliefs of the church? Would it lead to any type of threat on temple marriage? I don't want to hear that God and the prophets say that its wrong because that means nothing to non-members and to people who want this passed. I just want to know how this is so threatening to anyone else. I ask not be be coy, I ask because I don't know and can't think of any reasons. Tell me what you think.
Boyd | 4:52 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
@ to Boyd (2:26pm):
Same-sex marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. Two straight men could get married in a same-sex marriage. This does not make them gay. Because marriage is a legal contract, gender can not be used for discriminatory purposes, which it currently is in terms of the marital contract.
This is federal law. The Supreme Court doesn't want to hear these cases because they would be forced to decide that same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment (which incidentally supercedes all state constitutional amendments banning the practice).
Just wait ... it'll happen. It is a logical certainty.
Same-sex marriage and gay marriage are not the same thing. Two straight men could get married in a same-sex marriage. This does not make them gay. Because marriage is a legal contract, gender can not be used for discriminatory purposes, which it currently is in terms of the marital contract.
This is federal law. The Supreme Court doesn't want to hear these cases because they would be forced to decide that same-sex marriage is protected by the 14th Amendment (which incidentally supercedes all state constitutional amendments banning the practice).
Just wait ... it'll happen. It is a logical certainty.
realitycheck | 4:54 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re cantslowdown610 3:58pm
"The Government should then license the ability to have children..."
what?
wow - sorry, but this isn't China....
"The Government should then license the ability to have children..."
what?
wow - sorry, but this isn't China....
St. McCleod | 5:10 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I can't believe all these "Intellectuals" who have thought
themselves into a corner with "equality for everyone" rhetoric.
Let�s have some common sense. There is still absolutely no
definitive scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn biological
affectation.
The truth is that there are a couple of studies I can site you on homosexual behavior in animals. And, given the number in the genus and percentage of occurrences, the amount of homosexual animals is surprisingly few. Very few in fact. If this is true and holds to the human animal, then our percentage ratio of born homosexuals is way out of wack. We are far over our allotted anomalous number of homosexual specimens.
How do we answer the scientific evidence?
Simple, it is a behavioral choice based on environment and peers.
So don�t equate it with being African American or a female. Which have entirely reasonable scientific qualifications for exsisting.
The truth is that there are a couple of studies I can site you on homosexual behavior in animals. And, given the number in the genus and percentage of occurrences, the amount of homosexual animals is surprisingly few. Very few in fact. If this is true and holds to the human animal, then our percentage ratio of born homosexuals is way out of wack. We are far over our allotted anomalous number of homosexual specimens.
How do we answer the scientific evidence?
Simple, it is a behavioral choice based on environment and peers.
So don�t equate it with being African American or a female. Which have entirely reasonable scientific qualifications for exsisting.
realitycheck | 5:12 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re John Pack Lambert 4:18pm
villify you? not at all. but if the shoe fits.... even you must admit your morals fit more into the 1800s than the 21st century. After all, your entire religion is based on rules written back then - and you follow them all, no matter how bizarre (except polygamy - you lost that one too).
and it's unclear to me why you and several others bring up the KKK, nazi germany, etc. What does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use those analogies, use them on yourselves. You are the ones trying to deny peoples' rights... and I'm sure (and several have posted such) that you would prefer gays just be put in a concentration camp. So who's the nazi here?
and this is similar to your fight about polygamy - except reversed. And your church leaders will probaly have a vision saying gay marriage is acceptable after the court rules in it's favor, just as you said polygamy is wrong after the courts ruled... now that will be amusing to see...
like I said - if you're not part of the solution, then live with the results...
villify you? not at all. but if the shoe fits.... even you must admit your morals fit more into the 1800s than the 21st century. After all, your entire religion is based on rules written back then - and you follow them all, no matter how bizarre (except polygamy - you lost that one too).
and it's unclear to me why you and several others bring up the KKK, nazi germany, etc. What does that have to do with anything? If you are going to use those analogies, use them on yourselves. You are the ones trying to deny peoples' rights... and I'm sure (and several have posted such) that you would prefer gays just be put in a concentration camp. So who's the nazi here?
and this is similar to your fight about polygamy - except reversed. And your church leaders will probaly have a vision saying gay marriage is acceptable after the court rules in it's favor, just as you said polygamy is wrong after the courts ruled... now that will be amusing to see...
like I said - if you're not part of the solution, then live with the results...
re Boyd 4:52pm | 5:18 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
you are 100% correct, but your words are falling on deaf ears. the mormon
church will simply fight and fight and lose in the end.
of course, that may in fact be their intent - so they can petition the court to allow polygamy. I for one will fight that harder than they fight the gay marriage issue. That's all we need - millions of FLDS... the ozone can't handle that much hairspray...
of course, that may in fact be their intent - so they can petition the court to allow polygamy. I for one will fight that harder than they fight the gay marriage issue. That's all we need - millions of FLDS... the ozone can't handle that much hairspray...
cantslodown610 | 5:19 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To BYU Student;
Logic says that if as some proclaim the Supreme court allows gay marriage then the logic is that the Supreme Court would force that Practice on Churches. In Other words if that is allowed then the temple would be forced to perform homosexual marriages. This of course according to the logic by Boyd and realitycheck.
Logic says that if as some proclaim the Supreme court allows gay marriage then the logic is that the Supreme Court would force that Practice on Churches. In Other words if that is allowed then the temple would be forced to perform homosexual marriages. This of course according to the logic by Boyd and realitycheck.
Uh, realitycheck... | 5:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"anyone else confused and want to lecture about freedom of religion, which
has absolutely nothing to do with my point?"
Actually, the primary thing I'm confused about is why YOU, realitcheck, have the slightest idea that freedom of religion has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Actually, freedom of religion has EVERYTHING to do with what you're talking about, and it has EVERYTHING to do with your point. It's at the core and heart of this debate. Even the gay-rights commentators acknowledge that. Why don't you?
BTW, your Temperance Analogy--ah, I see, it comes from MOVIES you saw!--STILL gets older and less relevant every time you use it. Perhaps someone who enjoys calling themselves "realitycheck" needs to learn the difference between MOVIES and "real life"? Just a thought.
Actually, the primary thing I'm confused about is why YOU, realitcheck, have the slightest idea that freedom of religion has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Actually, freedom of religion has EVERYTHING to do with what you're talking about, and it has EVERYTHING to do with your point. It's at the core and heart of this debate. Even the gay-rights commentators acknowledge that. Why don't you?
BTW, your Temperance Analogy--ah, I see, it comes from MOVIES you saw!--STILL gets older and less relevant every time you use it. Perhaps someone who enjoys calling themselves "realitycheck" needs to learn the difference between MOVIES and "real life"? Just a thought.
To BYU Student | 5:27 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
If you really are an active LDS how can you ask a question like you posed. Have
you read "The Family - A Proclaimation to The World"? It gives you
every possible answer you need.
Giving in to evil NEVER is good in any way, shape or form! The "side affects" of this type of attitude truely would jeopardize the family as God has established and as you learned in Primary on up there is right and wrong.
How would you feel if the Church was sued to allow gay temple marriages? Is that OK with you as well?
Where do you draw the line? as stated earlier, evil never works for goood, never!
Giving in to evil NEVER is good in any way, shape or form! The "side affects" of this type of attitude truely would jeopardize the family as God has established and as you learned in Primary on up there is right and wrong.
How would you feel if the Church was sued to allow gay temple marriages? Is that OK with you as well?
Where do you draw the line? as stated earlier, evil never works for goood, never!
Boyd | 5:29 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
@ BYU Student:
That is my confusion as well. It won't. While I'm sure there is bound to be some gay couples who want the LDS church to recognize their marriages, the church does not have to. The First Amendment protects their right to decide that one.
I don't think same-sex marriage will be the destruction of society. Honestly, I don't think anything will change. I think a lot of people are worried for whatever reason. Maybe they believe gay people choose to be gay, and if there are positive examples of gay relationships, children will view it as okay to be gay (God forbid it be okay to be gay!).
That is my confusion as well. It won't. While I'm sure there is bound to be some gay couples who want the LDS church to recognize their marriages, the church does not have to. The First Amendment protects their right to decide that one.
I don't think same-sex marriage will be the destruction of society. Honestly, I don't think anything will change. I think a lot of people are worried for whatever reason. Maybe they believe gay people choose to be gay, and if there are positive examples of gay relationships, children will view it as okay to be gay (God forbid it be okay to be gay!).
To; BYU STUDENT | 5:29 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
How can it hurt our church and society? Have you ever heard of extinction?
To reality check | 5:36 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Wow that first comment in the first paragraph reminds me of the gays trying to
push their morals on all of America. Seems like you've got things a
little backwards.
Anonymous | 5:40 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I pray the day does not come when we get to vote as to whether or not Mormonism
is in fact Christianity! Not to mention whether or not you are allowed to
practice it(separate church and state). I would never vote to prohibit a civil
liberty. As to the people who feel that only a man and a woman can produce good
children...I challenge you to open your eyes! How many children with a mother
and a father have gone on to become drug addicts, alcoholics, abusive,
criminals, etc? Perhaps it has not to do with your gender, but rather we should
focus on the quality of care!
Anonymous | 5:40 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To BYU Student:
Well, if homosexual marriage was legalized, and gay people wanted to get married in the temple, obviously that would cause a lot of problems. The church would push against it as long as it could, but, because it would be considered discrimination, the church would lose its tax exempt status. The church puts forth 1 million dollars a day in humanitarian aid, this would be heavily taxed.
And there are plenty of non-members that believe in the Bible, hence Christianity, so it should matter to some of them.
Well, if homosexual marriage was legalized, and gay people wanted to get married in the temple, obviously that would cause a lot of problems. The church would push against it as long as it could, but, because it would be considered discrimination, the church would lose its tax exempt status. The church puts forth 1 million dollars a day in humanitarian aid, this would be heavily taxed.
And there are plenty of non-members that believe in the Bible, hence Christianity, so it should matter to some of them.
To BYU Student | 5:44 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
By legally sanctioning gay "marriage," the Supreme Court would alter
the existing definition of marriage. It would not change the beliefs of the
church (it would probably affect the language employed by the church). Such a
change would also make it easier for impressionable members of society to equate
the value of same-sex marriage with opposite-sex marriage. The relationships are
different. Certain social benefits from opposite-sex marriage cannot flow from
same-sex marriage. No man can replace a mother and no woman can replace a
father.
Temple marriage could be affected. In cases where religion has clashed with gay rights, religion has lost. For example, in one court case a Dr. was forced to provide artificial insemination for lesbians even though it conflicted with personal religious views. Other examples also exist.
Temple marriage could be affected. In cases where religion has clashed with gay rights, religion has lost. For example, in one court case a Dr. was forced to provide artificial insemination for lesbians even though it conflicted with personal religious views. Other examples also exist.
Re: re Boyd 4:52pm | 5:46 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
You need to get your religions straight. The LDS church wants NOTHING to do with
the FLDS. So decide who you're talking about, LDS people or FLDS people
because there is a huge difference. LDS people (I'm sick of hearing
'Mormons' because it's used in such a derogatory way, same with
the word 'gay') do not practice polygamy. They have in the past, yes,
but they don't currently.
Terrah | 5:49 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
We�re heartbroken & stunned by the malice of the
losers. Had we lost, we wouldn�t be doing what
we�re now enduring. I�d never have
believed it of the Gay community, but no one can deny documentation of
willingness to punish people for voting by conscience�a
solemn duty! Under siege & held hostage by hate-filled retaliation,
innocents face vulgarities, accusations, vandalism, slander, mockery, threats to
people & property, intimidation, religious persecution, witch-hunt
vigilantism, vicious name-calling (i.e., hate speech)-- even anthrax scares!
Terrorism. Dr. Martin Luther King, who endured bigotry, said,
�Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which
rejects revenge, aggression & retaliation.� The rage
weakens anti-8ers� argument & proves our fears valid.
Once the bullying began, sympathy shriveled. Many now regret voting
�no�. Mature individuals accept that
differing opinions aren�t necessarily hateful; but no one
can deny that what we�re enduring is anything BUT hate.
�End-the-hate� sign-holders, please
heed your own advice. Hate solves nothing! You can�t read
our minds so you can�t know our motives; but actions speak
volumes; and violence sends an undeniable message.
To BYU Student continued | 5:52 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Genders are complementary. Children certainly receive added benefits from having
both a caring mother and a caring father as opposed to two caring mothers or two
caring fathers.
The funny thing about your question BYU student is that it states, in question form, one of the main arguments used by the opponents of Prop. 8, namely that allowing gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage. It certainly does as I have stated.
I am really wondering if you are a BYU student at all or just someone wanting to deploy the argument.
The funny thing about your question BYU student is that it states, in question form, one of the main arguments used by the opponents of Prop. 8, namely that allowing gay marriage does not affect heterosexual marriage. It certainly does as I have stated.
I am really wondering if you are a BYU student at all or just someone wanting to deploy the argument.
Terrah | 5:57 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Haha! Loved the typo. My original said "isn't anything but"--
yet somehow came out without the "n't". Hmmm... Inexplicable!
Dan M | 5:59 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Realitycheck needs to check reality.
Do you look at facts before you post? Have you read any of the posts John Pack Lambert has written over the past several weeks? Have you ever studied Mormon history of the 1880's and 1890's?
I've never seen Mr. Lambert say anything negative about the gay community, let alone anything remotely close to you justifiably stating he would like to see them in concentration camps.
The LDS church has never spoken against its doctrine of polygamy. They did decide to stop the practice of it as a result of laws instituted by the US government, but they have never apologised for the earlier practice. It is still in the Doctrine and Covenants.
You said earlier that you enjoy a good debate. It seems to me that what you really enjoy is picking an unwarrented and unnecessary fight
Do you look at facts before you post? Have you read any of the posts John Pack Lambert has written over the past several weeks? Have you ever studied Mormon history of the 1880's and 1890's?
I've never seen Mr. Lambert say anything negative about the gay community, let alone anything remotely close to you justifiably stating he would like to see them in concentration camps.
The LDS church has never spoken against its doctrine of polygamy. They did decide to stop the practice of it as a result of laws instituted by the US government, but they have never apologised for the earlier practice. It is still in the Doctrine and Covenants.
You said earlier that you enjoy a good debate. It seems to me that what you really enjoy is picking an unwarrented and unnecessary fight
Another view | 6:02 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I've always wondered why we refer to male homosexuals as 'Gay".
Current protests illustrate that they are not, they are angry. Let us have a
vote banning the theft of a legitimate word that defines me--I'm
hetrosexual--and happy to be so. That makes me gay. At least the females of
that life style have their own word to define them and i'm glad for them.
Anonymous | 6:06 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"As to the people who feel that only a man and a woman can produce good
children..."
What about the people who believe that only a man and a woman can PRODUCE children at all? Seriously, find me two men or two women who can, without anyone else, procreate, and I'll back down. Imagine...Adam and Evan as opposed to Adam and Eve. Or Lindsay and Eve. Would we exist? No.
What about the people who believe that only a man and a woman can PRODUCE children at all? Seriously, find me two men or two women who can, without anyone else, procreate, and I'll back down. Imagine...Adam and Evan as opposed to Adam and Eve. Or Lindsay and Eve. Would we exist? No.
realitycheck | 6:09 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I must admit - at this point I am confused. (I know you were waiting for
that..)
You state that if gay marriage is allowed, then churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. Yet then you quote the 1st amendment stating religion cannot be controlled.
so which is it?
and yes, poster @ 5:20pm - I got my view of the Temperance League from old movies. Since I wasn't alive then, how else does one get it? And the Temperance League analogy was simply that - stating that all you uptight mormons remind me of that scene in the movies. is that so difficult to understand?
and freedom of religion is your right to practice your religion. Not your right to force it on anyone else. No one is forcing you to accept gay marriages. I'm quite sure you will always be against it - and that's fine. I'm not much for it either - but people have a right to pursue happiness - and if that makes them happy, and it hurts no one, then I say let them do it.
and to the 5:36pm poster - cite a comment so we know what you're talking about....
You state that if gay marriage is allowed, then churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. Yet then you quote the 1st amendment stating religion cannot be controlled.
so which is it?
and yes, poster @ 5:20pm - I got my view of the Temperance League from old movies. Since I wasn't alive then, how else does one get it? And the Temperance League analogy was simply that - stating that all you uptight mormons remind me of that scene in the movies. is that so difficult to understand?
and freedom of religion is your right to practice your religion. Not your right to force it on anyone else. No one is forcing you to accept gay marriages. I'm quite sure you will always be against it - and that's fine. I'm not much for it either - but people have a right to pursue happiness - and if that makes them happy, and it hurts no one, then I say let them do it.
and to the 5:36pm poster - cite a comment so we know what you're talking about....
U of U Student | 6:33 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Don't let same sex relationships defame the name of marriage, let them use
something like "fairage" or "patromony".
The really funny thing... | 6:55 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
is that California had already passed a proposition defining marriage as between
a man and woman in 2000. The LDS Church supported it, and the gay activists
raised hardly a peep afterwards. The reason, I think, is they were confident
that they could get California's screwy Supreme Court to do what they
couldn't get at the ballot box. However, this time was the trump card
because the Court will find it extremely difficult to overturn a constitutional
amendment. I agree that the gay community are sore losers, but they are worse.
They exhibit all of the hate that they supposedly are trying to fight. It's
the worst case of an attempt to dictate to the majority in the history of the
USA.
Definitions | 7:02 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To: Think about this..
I didn't mention marriage at all in my post. I only gave the definition of a banana split.
I didn't mention marriage at all in my post. I only gave the definition of a banana split.
re: realitycheck | 7:03 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
To realitycheck-
What solutions do you porpose?
If you're against gay marriage and only want to see that rights are given equally, what exactly should be done about it?
Why do you sit here and antagonize a dozen other people that believe as you do (or as you say you do)?
How is it that we are bigots yet all you've got to show for all your posts is a large amount of discrimination and self-agrandizement?
In my eyes, only a fool would present himself the way you have - close-minded, egotistical, uninformed...
As you seem to be irreligous I will take the religous connotations out of the phrase "holier than thou". Instead, lets call your attitude something like "i think I'm so smart and you're all so dumb so I'm obviously better than all of you"
What solutions do you porpose?
If you're against gay marriage and only want to see that rights are given equally, what exactly should be done about it?
Why do you sit here and antagonize a dozen other people that believe as you do (or as you say you do)?
How is it that we are bigots yet all you've got to show for all your posts is a large amount of discrimination and self-agrandizement?
In my eyes, only a fool would present himself the way you have - close-minded, egotistical, uninformed...
As you seem to be irreligous I will take the religous connotations out of the phrase "holier than thou". Instead, lets call your attitude something like "i think I'm so smart and you're all so dumb so I'm obviously better than all of you"
David | 7:20 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I think that protesting "civil rights" while participating in
religious bigotry is incredibly hypocritical! Where were these guys before the
election? And now they are threatening to make this an issue until they get
their way or else? I am sorry but holding this on the same level as civil
rights is absurd. The majority of Americans agree that sexual attraction is not
an unalienable right, it is a chemical response and quite frankly how we frame
the definition of marriage should exclude certain types of sexual attractions
from being within the definition. It is our right as Americans to shape the
course of our society and how we define marriage is perfectly justified. The
majority agrees. Don't defame those brave civil rights leaders of the turn
of the century and since who fought to make racial equality and gender equality
imperative in our country. Marginalizing an entire moral outlook simply because
it is the majority is not right... we voted, we won, end of story.
To 9:57 am post | 7:25 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Just as you suggest that the norms are set by society, that is the point of this
great article. The winner is the society and it is a lop sided victory for the
norm to be marriage between a man and a woman. End of game, end of discussion!
only 1 right | 7:38 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
The only right I can think of that is bequeathed to one and all, of whatever
species, upon arrival on the planet is the "right" to be until death
for however long that may take.
All the rest of this is a lot of stuff and nonsense in the end. Well worth our snarky behavior, I'm sure.
Everyone is somebody's loved one. Have you hugged your loved ones today?
All the rest of this is a lot of stuff and nonsense in the end. Well worth our snarky behavior, I'm sure.
Everyone is somebody's loved one. Have you hugged your loved ones today?
cantslodown610 | 7:50 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
re realitycheck;
No not like China, in a whole new way. The idea is to take Marriage out of the equation altogether. So Just do away with it completely and let couples who want to be married utilize the churches that they attend to perform that function. Until then there is no seperation of church and state as the state allows the churches to perform the marriages they license.
You did say you would Forcce this belief on people. Are you recanting Now?
No not like China, in a whole new way. The idea is to take Marriage out of the equation altogether. So Just do away with it completely and let couples who want to be married utilize the churches that they attend to perform that function. Until then there is no seperation of church and state as the state allows the churches to perform the marriages they license.
You did say you would Forcce this belief on people. Are you recanting Now?
to "the really funny thing" | 7:52 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
Maybe bearing up under the pressure of living "less than" lives
finally became unbearable and the proverbial straw broke the camel's back.
boo hoo | 8:01 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
What gets me more than the so called sore losers the author refers to are the
sore winners who can't stop whining about the attention they've drawn
to themselves.
Children's Rights? | 8:13 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
These days, about 36% of women giving birth are not married. If children really
have the right to be raised by a mother and a father then there would be laws
requiring any woman, gay or otherwise, to be married before reproducing. Maybe
that should be the next issue to be voted on in Cali.
Thanks to DesNews | 9:26 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
I would like to thank DesNews for having so many articles on prop 8 and
homosexuality over the past few months. It is because of the attitude of church
members that I no longer want to associate with them. I still have deep-rooted
feelings for the gospel, but I have arrived at a point of disgust for so many
members. If it hadn't been for this portal into the souls of so many LDS
members, I probably would have not seen what is within so many.
I am an LDS California parent of a gay child and cannot believe the utter disregard for the human spirit shown by so many.
I am an LDS California parent of a gay child and cannot believe the utter disregard for the human spirit shown by so many.
Anonymous | 10:00 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
It's not that a child has a right to be born to a mother and father,
it's the right the child has to choose between having a mommy and a daddy
and having two mommies or two daddies, and I say it this way (mommy/daddy) to
help you see the innocence of a child. If a child was asked, "which would
you rather have, two mommies, two daddies,
or one mommy and one daddy?" Honestly, how many would choose homosexual parents? I myself, am bisexual, and I understand plenty well how a person can feel that way for a person of the same sex, but I'd have voted yes on 8 had I the
chance. And dont try to tell me that I'm only confused, or that if I were gay I'd feel differently. You dont know me.
or one mommy and one daddy?" Honestly, how many would choose homosexual parents? I myself, am bisexual, and I understand plenty well how a person can feel that way for a person of the same sex, but I'd have voted yes on 8 had I the
chance. And dont try to tell me that I'm only confused, or that if I were gay I'd feel differently. You dont know me.
Re: Think about this | 10:12 p.m. Dec. 2, 2008
"MARRIAGE: does not mean the joining of one man and one woman. It simply
means joining or uniting, as in the marriage of two companies. We have many
types of marriage: civil, temple, gay, interracial, of convience, shot gun, etc.
You became too specific in your defination. "Dessert" covers all the
types of treats that you named and "marriage" covers all the types of
unions that contain rights and privileges granted by the state."
Interesting. So, according to you, every dictionary on the planet is wrong? Because in every dictionary I've ever seen, including online and foreign to English dictionaries, marriage is the legal union of a man and woman.
Interesting. So, according to you, every dictionary on the planet is wrong? Because in every dictionary I've ever seen, including online and foreign to English dictionaries, marriage is the legal union of a man and woman.
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 Murray families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology380
- Hall reprimanded by MWC375
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal318
- Utes won't respond to Hall259
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome112
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Pres. Obama stopped playing golf long enough to decide? What Chaffetz...
Extreme judgments and hate are just not going to make your life any better...
Today I had to listen to all my Ute fan friends tell me-with a straight face,...
And then more.
A Ute perspective here. I was not offended by Max's comments although I think...
"Why does everyone hold BYU and Mormons to such a high standard?" The...
To those who think BYU shows a double standard by saying this is settled,...
BYU's silence speaks volumes.
Our country is already so in dept americans losing everything left and right...
acceptable to express hate for anything or anyone, especially if you are from...
Advertisements
obviously you have never seen the old westerns with the holier-than-thou preacher and his crew of "so rightous it's scary" women followers, marching down the dusty street, carrying Temperance League signs and pushing thier morals onto everyone.
For if you had, you would easily see the similarities between them and the mormon culture - the holier than thou attitude, the self-rightousness, the "only real church" attitude...
just because you don't like the analogy doesn't make the analogy any less true. (I'll assume you understand what an analogy is, since you wouldn't want to look like an idiot when you are calling me one...)
Are mormons a breakaway cult of the Temerance League? probably not. Do they act like they are? most definitely...
and poster 2:53pm - my agenda is for you all to open your eyes and see that you had better come up with a decent proposal or the gay community is going to get what they want.
and yes - I do enjoy a good debate, especially with people out of touch with reality - but perhaps your seer stones will guide you...