re -- John Pack Lambert of Michigan | 3:29 p.m"There is something
inherently wrong with our system if one man can overturn the will of over 7
million voters"one man didn't overturn the will of 7 million voters.
he overturned the will of 500,000 voters (or did you forget that 6.5 million
voted against it?)"I do not get the sense that they have even
tried to understand why people care so much about keeping man/woman marriage"why does that surprise you? no one has been able to explain it so that
it makes sense. all anyone hears is "it's always been that way" and "it's a
sin".once you figure out that gays are a natural occurence, maybe
you will stop thinking like you do.
gulf vet: "Is the gay community any different (for example NAMBLA)? "NAMBLA was expelled by gay activists decades ago. They are pedophiles.
There is a big difference between two loving gay people who want to marry and
pedophiles who want to abuse.Do not equate them. Gays see them for
who they are and reject them as you do.
Gulf Vet | 8:39 p.m. Aug. 14, 2010 Why is "marriage" so important to the
gay and lesbian community? I believe it is that this group of people desire
their lifestyle to be seen as normal. Civil unions will offer the same benefits
without the current conflict. If gay/lesbian marriage is legalized
will polygamy also be made legal? I have heard members of the gay community
comment that a polygamous lifestyle is just not right. Where is the line to be
drawn?----------------Why is the word "marriage"
so important to you? Can you not share the meaning with your fellow
law-abiding, tax paying citizens?I have NEVER heard a gay person say
that polygamy is not "right." They have made legal questions about it (how
many, ss, inheritance) and questions of it practice (under age marriages), but
the only people on these boards that cry about it becoming legal are those
against ssm.These problems that you are so fearful of are NOT
happening in countries that have had gay marriage for over ten years. The
slippery slope you talk about has never been built.
the truth: "There is more evidence that is a life style choice, or
envirnomental or "nurture" "Sorry, that is not the truth.
Where did you get that information?the truth: "IN
europe and canada, the have been priests and preachers, pastors, etc.who have bee narrested for "hate" speech for speaking out against
homosexuality.This is where we are headed."That is
because they do not have freedom of speech or of religion like we do. This is a
falsehood too. Unless we repeal the 1st amendment, churches can speak their
beliefs with impunity.
ClarkHippo: "How exactly would they go about doing this?"Get
rid of the breakfast with the legislature before every session starts. Get rid of the full time lobbist that the church has in our
legislatureDo not allow legislators to discuss legislation with key
church members before they vote on issues. Teach them correct
principles and let them govern themselves.
samhill: "If citizens (repeatedly) VOTE to preserve their traditional
definition of marriage despite vigorous and, in many cases, offensive political
maneuvering by the opposition, including several attempts to overturn the
voter's decision, then LET THEIR DECISION STAND!What we are losing
in this battle is not only the sanctity of traditional marriage but the sanctity
of DEMOCRACY. "--------------We do not live in a
democracy where a person's rights may be voted upon by the majority. We have a
constitution that protects individuals and the minority.Read it.
You will change your tune.
What reconciliation? Next month an excommunicated person is going to mock the
temple on stage in Salt Lake City and the local paper aimed at readers who
practice homosexuality has advertised this.Somehow I do not get the
sense they are trying to build any sorts of bridges. I do not get the sense
that they have even tried to understand why people care so much about keeping
man/woman marriage.I also have a strong sense that they have failed
to read Monte N. Stewart's papers on the topic. I reccomend to all who really
want an understanding of this issue that they read Stewart's papers.
Judge Walker said in his ruling that the view that homosexual relationships
are sinful is "harmful to gays and lesbians". This wording enshrined as a
"statement of fact" is scary for basic freedom.I really hope that
the 9th Circuit stays Judge Walker's ruling until it can be properly appealed.
There is something inherently wrong with our system if one man can overturn the
will of over 7 million voters.
The LGBT community is not campaigning to outlaw Mormon marriage. Mormons
should mind their own marriages (50% divorce) and keep out of other people's
Why is "marriage" so important to the gay and lesbian community? I believe it
is that this group of people desire their lifestyle to be seen as normal. Civil
unions will offer the same benefits without the current conflict. If gay/lesbian marriage is legalized will polygamy also be made legal? I have
heard members of the gay community comment that a polygamous lifestyle is just
not right. Where is the line to be drawn?There is opportunity for
abuse and violence in all relationships. Clearly any situation of child or
spouse abuse should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, whether in a
heterosexual, homosexual, or polygamus relationship. Many people argue against
polygamy becsue they say it promotes child abuse. Is the gay community any
different (for example NAMBLA)? Where will it end? I cannot
support bigotry or other forms of discrimination. I also cannot support taking
centuries of tradition and religious teaching (based on the Holy Bible) and
turning it upside down. We can learn to coexist without stepping on
each others beliefs, lifestyles, traditions, etc.
I was thinking of how the fed enforced desegregation. And I don't think CA
officials have done anything wrong. The people of CA can vote them out if
they're unhappy. Remember, over 6.5M people voted against prop 8. If you used
the process to amend the federal constitution prop 8 wouldn't have passed. (I
may be backwards on prop 8) I think the state has spoken and now its a federal
issue. There are lots of precedent for feds overruling states and enforcing
with force or at least implied force. And utah was basically in rebellion.
Utah history books aren't that accurate.
I remember in Utah history class that the federal government did try to take the
LDS Church out of politics in Utah. We did not vote for our first governer he
was appointed. NO American should have to live like our ancestors did. They were
arrested and jailed for marriages that had occured years earlier. They chose to
follow the law. And the law in Utah is very clear, forced on our ancestors to
become a state by the federal government. It states one man and one woman as a
marriage. Federal law! in Utahs Constiution.
RE: Esquire YOu can any OPINION of the cause homosexualtiy that
you want to have ,but there is no hard scientific evidence that it
is "natural",there is NO KNOWN "gay" gene or genome.There is more evidence that is a life style choice, or envirnomental or
"nurture"(not being attacted normally to the opposite does NOT
equate to being gay)Funny how those whio talk about the
"middle" never define what the middle is.The "middle" for gay
activists here it total acceptance of ther lifestyle choice.They do
NOT want reconciliation, but demand acceptance and full capitulation their
lifestyle choice.and they will fight with venom and meanness and
even violence, any who will not capitulate and accept their lifestyle
choice,even God and religion.IN europe and
canada, the have been priests and preachers, pastors, etc. who have
bee narrested for "hate" speech for speaking out against homosexuality.That is where we are headed, loss of free speech and freedom of
religion.and shackled under LEFTEST political correctness. When comes to immorality there is no "middle ground",you are
either moral or you are not.How can one expect the_church to move
toward acceptance of immorality?
@Doctor 11:10 - Okay, let's just sit back for a moment and imagine your scenario
taking place. Let's say federal troops march into Utah and begin
issuing edicts against the LDS Church in order to stop, as you say the "...undue
influence of Mormon doctrine in state lawmaking."How exactly would
they go about doing this? Should LDS people no longer be allowed to serve in
elected office or even vote? Would anyone who supports the LDS Church be
arrested for treason? Would LDS people be forced to live in segregated
neighborhoods? Perhaps LDS people would be forced to wear tags that separate
themselves from everyone else. Come on folks! Let’s hear
some specific, concrete ideas on this subject. And while you’re at it,
explain how this scenario could be accomplished using the U.S. Constitution. I
mean, don’t you hate those parts that talk about freedom of religion and
freedom of expression? Is this what some people have in mind when
they talk about “reconciliation?”
Flashback lamented, "I for one get sick and tired of them constantly whining
that they want to be "accepted" by the church for who and what they are."Wow, that's funny because I haven't heard a single gay person say
that. What I've heard them say, many, many times, is that they'd sure
appreciate itif the Church BUTT OUT of their Constitutional rights and
mind it's own business.
Doctor 11:10 a.m.: "I wonder what the feasibility is of the federal government
taking over utah state government on the basis of undue influence of Mormon
doctrine in state lawmaking?"How about the Feds taking over
California on the grounds that the governor and attorney general are unable and
especially unwilling to do their jobs? (Not to mention the undue influence of a
special interest lifestyle-based agenda that most people do not favor but are
terrified to oppose for fear of being slandered as bigots). California's officials failed and betrayed the people. They had a sworn duty
to defend the law and they refuse to. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown have been
actively fighting against the people on this. I'd be thrilled to see
US Marshals, FBI agents, the National Guard, National Park rangers, even armed
postal inspectors and IRS invetigators march into the corrupt Capitol and
corrupt city halls of San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, and a few other
cities and throw the tyrants out.Bring on the Feds! :)
Our Mormon ancestors told the government that they had a constitutional right to
determine their own marriage pattern, and that the government had no right to
stop them.To me it seems that's pretty much the same argument that
gays are making now.So I really feel that if we agreed with our
ancestors making that argument then, we shouldn't be so outraged and emotional,
or offended, that gays would make it now.That doesn't mean that we
don't clearly declare that we understand things about the true nature of men and
women that were revealed, and that will bring greater joy if adhered to, than if
not.And we should certainly vote for laws that align with our moral
view (as all law is morality.)But I feel we shouldn't be so
surprised that others would make a similar argument to what our own ancestors
I wonder what the feasibility is of the federal government taking over utah
state government on the basis of undue influence of Mormon doctrine in state
I don't live in Utah or California anymore, but I would imagine that if there is
any animosity felt by Mormons for the GLBT community, it's because of the temper
tantrums they threw, all the fear they caused Mormons wanting to use the temples
in California and Salt Lake. It's all sour grapes, since the people against prop
8 raised several million dollars more than those for prop 8, and yet still
couldn't get out the vote.
Hurray for FREEDOM of thought and expression.If the LDS church has a
doctrine that prohibits homosexual behavior, then let them freely assemble and
promote that ideas as they wish.If homosexual people believe the
doctrines of the LDS church are wrong, then let them freely assemble and promote
their ideas as they wish. Even the idea that marriage should include homosexual
couples despite centuries of contrary precedent.If citizens
(repeatedly) VOTE to preserve their traditional definition of marriage despite
vigorous and, in many cases, offensive political maneuvering by the opposition,
including several attempts to overturn the voter's decision, then LET THEIR
DECISION STAND!What we are losing in this battle is not only the
sanctity of traditional marriage but the sanctity of DEMOCRACY.
The homosexual community is responsible for any animosity that they feel. They
know what the church stand is on homosexual behaviour. Gordon B. Hinckley
outlined it in clear terms. If they choose not the follow the standards and
practices of the church, it is not the fault of the church. Their hissy fits
and moaning about it won't change what is happening. I for one get sick and
tired of them constantly whining that they want to be "accepted" by the church
for who and what they are. That's fine, but they need to commit to live the
standards of the church and not participate in behaviour that is deemed as
against church teachings.
My problem is that homosexuality and gender identity issues do, in fact, seem to
be based in nature, and as such were thus created by God. Religions claiming to
be Christian need to somehow address this issue rather than issue a blanket
condemnation. I've observed some situations that mandate that the churches deal
with it rather than close their eyes and push away people dealing with this. It
most cases, it is not a choice, from my observations, like deciding to smoke a
joint or rob a bank. There should, at minimum, be dialogue.
Worldly opinions do not influence the decrees of God. Legality does not dictate
morality. The position of the Lord is clear, and is not negotiable. Sin remains
sin regardless of it's disguises.
What does it say about being in the middle? There is not gray area here.