Comments about ‘LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 24 2010 12:15 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
mark

Hey Utah how's that tourism going?
How's your deficit going?
How's your foreclosures and unemployment going?
How's the scaled down "purer" Sundance Festival going?

The concerned Gays and Lesbians of America ask, because we care and love you....mean it.

Anonymous

I find it sad when people tout the 'traditional' marriage and yet the Octo-mom can have 16 kids and no husband.
Heck, she's so non-conformive, she dosen't even need to have a job.

Jeff

@ Pagan: Is this a contest to see who was the most persecuted? I concede that homosexuals have been terribly treated throughout history. You could equally concede that Mormons have been terribly treated.

The issue of the article is that religion is under particular attack right now. I agree that that is so. If the article had been about violent attacks on homosexuals (Laramie has been referenced above), then I would agree that the attackers should be punished.

A side issue that has arisen is the question of whether or not religions deserve to be attacked because of their support for Proposition 8 in California. While I concede that the political arena involves figurative battles, I do not think that political disagreements should allow attacks on individuals or property.

Homosexuals who support same-gender marriage insist that they will eventually win the political battle, and they cite the progress they are making propagandizing the young as evidence that that will happen. While I will fight it with all legal and political means I possess; if it ever happened, I would oppose attacking people, desecrating their homes, and terrorizing them.

hello (knock, knock)

Is Religion Oppressed??? YES!!! IT IS!!! I have no problem saying so, and I thank God every day that it is!


Fact is, Religion is one of those entities (much like government) that have to be on very short leash... Can you imagine where we would be if the bible-thumpers had control of this country??? Can you say Iran?

Re:Mark

"Hey Utah how's that tourism going?
How's your deficit going?
How's your foreclosures and unemployment going?
How's the scaled down "purer" Sundance Festival going?

The concerned Gays and Lesbians of America ask, because we care and love you....mean it. "


Actually they are doing pretty well they have an unemployment rate of 6.3% as compared to a National average of 10.%: UTAH’S EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: NOVEMBER 2009. But thanks for asking.

Pagan

'...I would oppose attacking people, desecrating their homes, and terrorizing them.' - 11:20 a.m.

Jeff, I am glad that we can agree on this.

I also, would never advocate violence to get a message across. We have examples of human history to the contrary.

Let us agree to disagree on this topic then.

You can agree to dislike gay marriage and fight with with legal and politcal means. And I will agree to fight in support of it with any and all legal and political means.

But let us never resort to violence.

Anonymous

to --- RE: realitycheck | 6:05 p.m

["Actually if I can convince majority to go along with me, I can legislate morality. That's how this system, this constitutional republic works."]

not true. the majority cannot make unconstitutional laws - ie - laws that teat different segments of the population differently than any other segment. The majority cannot force the minority. Othewise we might still have slavery.


["EVERY LAW has an underpining of morality."]

what is the morality or a speed limit? your statement is blatantly false.

Anonymous

@Re:Mark

Don't forget you are number one in housing foreclosures, having a job and living under a bridge...pity.

Anonymous

Actually they are doing pretty well they have an unemployment rate of 6.3% as compared to a National average of 10.%: UTAH’S EMPLOYMENT SUMMARY: NOVEMBER 2009. But thanks for asking.

That's all well and good. However, after Prop 8 I will never give Utah my money now.
And that's my legal right. Not my opression Utah's faith.

re -- pragmatist | 7:50 p.m

["What marriage law should be about is to protect children born of a union."]

nice (but unreasonable) thought, but you leave out huge segments of the population - older people, sterile people, etc.

["Whether born in or out of marriage every child deserves the right to know who both their parents are, and to demand support from both parents."]

and if the parents are deceased? and are you now banning invitro fertilisation?

["If we need more laws concerning marriage, we need laws about the rights of children "]

there ae TONS of laws concerniong the rights of children. and gay marriage preserves the rights of the children being raised by gay couples. so that is where laws are needed.

Anonymous

"Actually if I can convince majority to go along with me, I can legislate morality. That's how this system, this constitutional republic works."


It's also called Tyranny.

re -- Jeff | 11:20 a.m

["Homosexuals who support same-gender marriage insist that they will eventually win the political battle, and they cite the progress they are making propagandizing the young as evidence that that will happen."]

"propagandizing"? Jeff - you need to get out more. It's not that the youth are being propogandized. It is that gay people are no longer hiding. So every teenager and young adult knows gay people, and understands they are just like you and me.

the reason you will not win your war on gays is that all the youth of america now has gay friends and cannot understand what the big deal is.

they also know that it is not contagious and will not rub off on them! if they are straight, they will not suddenly become gay by having gay friends.

do you have ANY idea how many teenagers know or have friends that are gay, and their parents say gays are bad, but the teenagers can plainly see that they are not?

more and more people cannot even understand what you are making such a big deal about. inevitably gays will have full rights to marry, DADT will go away, etc. they are just regular people.

re -- John Pack Lambert | 9:16

["For the hundredth time, how is ANYONE trying to dictate another person's life."]

you are trying to force gay people to either be single forever or to marry someone they don't want to marry, and you are denying ta family to those children being raised by gay couples.

if you STILL don't see that, after all these posts, then we cannot help you. You'll just have to continue living in your little world of denial.

Anonymous

Cutting out your twelfth grade, means your youths will flee your state a year EARLIER.

RexidaWyo-ME

People look at the years when States actually enacted laws and/or constitutional amendments that established marriage between a man and a woman. You will notice that it was when the gay activist movement began. Before this time it was to end plural marriage.

Government enacted a law to end plural marriage because it harmed who? I am glad that there are laws that prohibit such a practice. Now states need to enforce those laws.

Back to the gay movement. Religion began to speak up in order to protect children. From what? You say. From what nature itself prohibits.

You claim to be gay because you were born that way. Then by nature you are unequal and as in all diseases that prohibit conception your genes are removed from the pool which there by removes you from not only genetic transfer but by nature likewise influence.

You want what nature thus prohibits. Thus we are in our current dilemma.

Well, God made me this way. Then Jesus is not your Savior/God because his Apostles (Paul NT) condemns it with a number of other condemnable sins.

Christ said "go thy way and sin no more."

Choice! What say ye?

Vince

Re: Rexida

I don't believe you have read the LDS literature on the topic of gays.

No disrespect, but if you had, you would know that the literature teaches that indeed being gay is not a choice.

Moreover, the Church has come out plainly speaking and made remarks to the effect that the Church does not take a stand as to what causes people to be gay.

But say you, yes, the behavior is a different matter, granted.

The argument that you are making that "nature prohibits" I suppose gays from procreating. I make the following argument - adoption has existed ever since forever. The role of non bio parents has been set in different societies at different times for the very purpose of raising children, to those who want to raise them.

The counter argument to not being gay is that gay people were what, born straight and somehow they chose to go against their nature and experiment?

Gay people do not, trust me, wake up one day, and think, hmmmm - I am attracted to the opposite sex, but I am really quite bored, I think I will be go against my nature and be gay.

Vince

Rexida (continue)

I would also find issue with the comment "Religion begain to speak up in order to protect children."

There are a lot more children in needs of adoption than the system is able to deliver to two heterosexual parents. Moreover, it bypasses the question that gay parents are somewhat incompetent.

Gay parents are no more competent or incompetent than heterosexual parents and children do not need to be saved from them.

Good parents are good parents because they are just that - good parents.

Need proof? I bet when people make the allegation that "children need to be protected" they do not know gay functional households with children. If they did, they would speak with a degree of background and certainty. Otherwise, they are being phobic, irrational, and making believe they want to protect their own children from a ghost of their own imagination.

The gay parents are raising children and are doing just fine or just as fine and anyone else's children are intact.

Scripturally, the quote you read attributed to Christ "to thy way and sin no more" is speaking to someone caught in adultery. The Savior was not chastising an "unrepentant gay sinner."

RE: Anonymous | 9:36 a.m

Clearly you do NOT know the sheppard case,

if did you would not use it,

sheppard was NOT murdered because he was gay.

RE: Anonymous | 11:43 a.m.

NO, it is not tyranny.


If the minority had NO oppottunity to speak up an try to convince others to vote their way, and ameliorate or change the majorty postion, then it would be tyranmy,

but that is not the case.


but communites and states are allowed yo make the laws they want, as long they do not violate the federal constitution,

and you are free live where you want,

in communites that share your values and morals,

and so do conservative and religous people,

and others.

John Pack Lambert

To the 9:19 commenator,
What I am talking about in the "governor and attorney general not fulfilling their legal duty" is that in the case of Perry v Schwarzenegger the lead attorney for the defense should be the Attorney General of California, since it is an admendment to the California Constitution that is being challenged, and officially it is the governor of California who is the lead figure in the defense.
In actually practice the main lawyers have been Andrew Pugno who was previosly the counsel for the Yes on 8 campaign, with various lawyers from the Alliance Defense Fund also aiding. So the question is, why is Brown shirking his legal duty to defend the California State Constitution.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments