@pageni don't think you understood my comment:"a
homosexual union does in no possible way have the CHANCE of naturally
propagating itself, while a heterosexual union DOES have that CAPABILITY, even
if INDIVIDUAL situations may vary. This is a fact. It is not out of hate,
discrimination or elitism that I say this. It is the way things are
designed."the point is, the two factors needed to create life:
sperm and egg, are MALE and FEMALE. always will be no matter what. no one can
change that. homosexuals cannot PRODUCE children by themselves. it is not meant
to be. a heterosexual union has that POSSIBILITY even if an individual
male/female couple has fertility issues. it is not a punishment- it is the way
Gays could/can go to any clergy who will marry them to be married, if that is
what they want. There is discrimination in the sports field, true. So should
anyone be punished for their lifestyle or opinion?BTW - why does
Pagan get a pass on the limit of four comments? Because???
MountainMan: This is not about black civil rights, as you know. I am for civil
rights (always have been), but what about Mr. Vidmar's right to act as an
Olympic leader? What I am decrying is the METHOD by which he was ousted - the
use of intimidation, all because of his opinion.
cyndycare,Imagine your words, modified only slightly, as they may
have been spoken 50 years ago:cindyacre | 11:48 a.m. June 2, 2011
Shelley, IDUsing intimidatioon and bullying to get "one's
way" will only confirm in people's minds the fears that they have about the
black community. And whether you are for or against blacks, the result will be
Using intimidatioon and bullying to get "one's way" will only confirm
in people's minds the fears that they have about the gay community. And whether you are for or against gay behavior or SSM, the result will be the
People demanding that Peter Vidmar step down because of his opinion about a
civil, and now political issue doesn't make sense in light of what his job was,
which is in the sports industry (and would it make sense in any other employment
catagory? I HOPE NOT.) An opinion is an opinion - and that is his right. To
demand he quit because of his opinion (acted upon, yes, but was still his right
as an American to support issues that concern him) is UNAMERICAN. We have the
right to think and act for ourselves, and yes, even to act on our conscience.
He had the right to hold that position.The more people use tyranny
and intimidation to subject people to their will and thinking, rather than use
the political system which we are all benefited by is essentially mob rule.
@Charles The only way states have (same-sex marriage) is when judges
mandate it through their rulings. No statewide election has every voted FOR
homosexuality.KJK#1 That's not true and #2 The only reason
Blacks and Whites can marry in the South was due to judges making them. #3 Just
because something is democratically voted in does NOT make it right. Look at
the "democracy movement" in Egypt now. Most people over there want
those who leave Islam to be killed. They want Sharia law imposed. Ben Franklin
was creditted, though wrongly, as saying that "democracy is 3 wolves and a
sheep voting on what to eat for lunch". It's a great deal if you are a
wolf, but lousy if you are a sheep.We LDS were the sheep 125 years
ago regarding our own unique form of marriage. Today, we've taken the other
role and gays are the sheep. Thank Heaven that God established America NOT as a
democracy, but as a constitutional republic where the civil rights of the weak
and unpopular are still protected from unsympathetic majority. May it ever be
It is truly sad that Peter Vidmar did not stand up for his beliefs. He has let
both the Olympics and Prop 8 supporters down.
Vidmar did not back down from public pressure. He backed down from a few loud
protesters. He showed no backbone by backing down. We need people that stand up
for what they believe in.
Re:Pagen"someone as informed as yourself must realize then that
discrimination due to orientaiton in SLC was perfectly legal until April 2010.
And is still legal in all cities in Utah except for 11 cities."I've said this before and I will say it again. It is wrong to discriminate
against homosexuals based on sexual orientation. Two wrongs do not make one
right. I won't talk about it again in this thread. Get back to the topic or take
your uncivil comments (they are uncivil because they are off-topic) and find
someone else to talk to."14,000 discharged under 'Don't Ask,
Don't Tell.'"It's interesting you brought this up while saying
in another post "Because, you know charles, this artlce was ABOUT STD's.
That's your 'civility' at work."Because you know Pagen, this
article was ABOUT DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL. That's your civility at work. Civility
requires that you don't bring in issues that have nothing to do with this
article so those of us who want to have a civil discussion can do so without
your distractions.Can you show that much respect?
@Pagan: I can quote you any survey you desire. But when the issue is put to the
people to vote on for their state's constitution, has it ever failed? Not to my
knowledge.The only way states have it is when judges mandate it
through their rulings. No statewide election has every voted FOR
homosexuality.Sorry to tell you pal, but your chosen behavior is not
marriage no matter how much you want to whine about it. It's a destructive
behavior to those involved in it. Wouldn't it be awesome if we didn't waste
money on AIDS research and spent it on MS, cancer or some other worthy cause?AIDS/STD's are totally controllable. Abstinence before marriage and
total fidelity afterwards. Simple!I do laugh at your Bristol
comments all the time. She obviously didn't practice abstinence or she wouldn't
have gotten pregnant. Abstinence works every single time. Maybe you
should actually read articles and get past the headlines. You must like to sit
and Google for them which you think proves some point. You never do.Homosexuality as marriage? The nation will continue to pass.....
Re:ptsjunkie"I appreciate the point you are trying to make
here, but there are a few logical inconsistencies I take issue with. Mainly,
"agree to disagree" is basically a one way street."It's not a one way street to say that someone shouldn't lose jobs, homes or
opportunities of advancement based on their political opinions and that it's
right to "agree to disagree." If I saw an employee's post on Facebook
that I don't agree I don't go fire them for it. If I see a student's Facebook
and I don't like what they have to say I don't give them a lower grade. Instead
I'm going to "agree to disagree.""Instead Peter and
others campaigned to force everyone else to live by their religious beliefs and
take a right away from gay couples in California and take religious freedom from
my church."So now the right to something from the government is
a religious right? When did this happen? Will you ever admit that you are the
one who says "I believe in gay marriage and the majority will issue me a
marriage license or else."
Re:Blue"Denying a basic civil right to law-abiding American
citizens because they don't share in your religious beliefs is not
"agreeing to disagree." It's more like, "My way or the
highway."Having an opinion which differs from yours and
standing behind it isn't a "my way or the highway" attitude. Referring
to marriage as a basic civil right and not a statutory creation which is
definable by the sovereign authority of this country is and declaring everyone's
else opinion a violation of civil rights is"You are attempting
to force your own religious rules on people who do not share your
religion."It's you who is trying to force your own rules on
people who don't share your opinion."You therefore shouldn't be
surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism for arguing that
position."Criticism is one thing but I suspect gay people
wouldn't be okay if they were to show up to work and were told by their employer
"I saw your comment on the Deseret News website or Facebook and you are no
longer working for us."Not seeing that is a sign of mental
'The point is that a homosexual union does in no possible way have the chance of
naturally propagating itself...' - spaghetti | 11:47 p.m. I would
point out, that neither do some heterosexual 'unions.' Octo-mom. 14
kids. No husband. Now, let's look at 'traditional' families. John and Kate plus 8. In-vitro fertilization to have six children and
raise two more. The couple is now divorced. Also, how is the
abstinence-only teachings? My example on this? Bristol Palin. As for homosexuals do not have children.... *'Lesbian Utah
legislator carrying baby for gay couple' - SLtribune - 01/08/10
'...Rep. Christine Johnson, D-Salt Lake, at her home on Friday, is 16 weeks
pregnant. Johnson is acting as a surrogate for a gay Salt Lake County couple,
her close friends, after they expressed frustration with the difficulty of
adopting a child in Utah.' According to the Child Welfare
Information Gateway, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised by gay
parents. With no detriment. "In most ways, the
accumulated research shows, children of same-sex parents are not markedly
different from those of heterosexual parents." - AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS (AAP) Feb '02 - Vol 109 - pp. 339-340
'Most of the nation is saying, thanks, (to gay marriage), but no thanks.' -
@Charles | 7:18 p.m. This is once again, not based on the facts of
the matter. *'Poll: More Americans favor same-sex marriage' - CNN -
04/19/11 'With 51 percent of respondents saying that same-sex
marriages should be legal, it is the first time that a CNN poll has found
majority support for same-sex marriage.' Now, am I saying majority
rules? No. Otherwise the Missouri executive order 44, on
October 27, 1838 would be completely justified. I do not agree with
that. I am pointing out that the claim of the 'majority' of America
being against gay marriage is rapdily being a 'misspoke.' Other
examples: *'Single mothers less accepted than gay parents, report
says' - By Marjorie Cortez - DSNews - 03/17/11 *Gay families more
accepted than single moms By Linda Carroll MSNbc 03/15/11
I M LDS 2 "(SSM opponents) couch their position in terms of
"defending traditional marriage", which implies an attack on
traditional marriage that would ostensibly weaken, restrict, or harm traditional
marriage in some substantive way."KJKAgreed. Perhaps
those who fought against giving women and Blacks the vote could have claimed
that they were "defending the historic definition of democracy that had
existed for over 2000 years from the time of antient Greece". Did giving
women and Blacks the vote weaken or strengthen democracy? Obviously the latter.
The same is true for SSM and marriage. marriage will be strengthened because
it'll be seen as something worth fighting for.
'You wanna be a homosexual and get married, move to a state that allows it.' -
@Charles | 7:18 p.m. Ah. So gay people should move to have some of
the benifit's of marriage... but not heterosexuals.
Thank you for supporting that civil unions and even the states that allow gay
marriage do NOT factually offer ALL the benifits of marriage heterosexual
couples enjoy. And apparently, covet. Which is why DOMA
and Prop 8, are floundering in federal court. *'Gay marriage wins
rulings in pair of federal challenges' - By Denise La*'Judge: Federal gay
marriage ban unconstitutional' - By DENISE LAVOIE - AP - 07/08/10 'U.S.
District Judge Joseph Tauro ruled in favor of gay couples' rights in two
separate challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, a 1996 law
that the Obama administration has argued for repealing. (sic) 'The state
had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in
Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.'
*'Judge: Federal gay marriage ban unconstitutional' - By DENISE LAVOIE - AP -
'Those who support a definition of marriage that dates to thousands of years...'
- Article It is truly sad that those who claim to be informed,
misrepresent this. Polygamy. Legal in Utah until 1890.
Interacial marriage. Denied in America until Loving vs. Virginia. Supreme Court
Ruling in 1967. So easy to forget Amendment 3 in Utah. 2004. A state
amendment to the Utah state consitution factually changing marriage in Utah from
'two people' to 'one man and one woman.' Coincidentally, this
happens the same year that MA is the first state to allow gay marriage, 2004. So that 'thousands of years'? It's really seven. How is that going, you may ask? *After 5 Years of Legal Gay
Marriage, Massachusetts still has the lowest state divorce rate.' - Bruce Wilson
- AlterNet - 08/24/09 'Massachusetts retains the national title as
the lowest divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US
divorce rate was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.' You can disagree to anything. But you cannot create, your
If its about equal rights then lets repeal/ammend DOMA and have there be no
definition of Marriage under Government Jurisdiction. Marriage can be
defined by two individuals under a consentual contract with the right
provisions. Personally, I don't think marriage should be defined by law
and receive special priveledges. I also don't believe that my kids should
be taught in school that it is perfectly fine and normal to be gay and for gay
people to get married and have children etc. Under law, it will be taught. I will fight with my gay brothers and sisters for equality but not for
priveledges. But I highly doubt that it will suffice their satisfaction.
Blue 9:24The argument that homosexual couples not being able to
produce offspring is the same as heterosexual couples not being able to produce
offspring does not hold any water.The point is that a homosexual
union does in no possible way have the chance of naturally propagating itself,
while a heterosexual union does have that capability, even if individual
situations may vary. This is a fact. It is not out of hate, discrimination or
elitism that I say this. It is the way things are designed.Those who
believe that acting on homosexuality is wrong, should have the right to share
their opinions and not be hated, attacked or vilified. I also believe the same
should be true for those who believe otherwise. Agreeing to disagree...
To me, the concept of agreeing to disagree means we engage in civil and hearty
debate, put it to a vote, and when the votes are counted, opponents shake hands
and agree to treat each other respectfully despite the disagreement, and
understand that the debate will continue until one side realizes there is no
hope of change, or no hope of momentum reversal.Obviously, this is a
matter of serious passion for people of both sides, with sincere perceptions of
right and wrong. To either side, losing represents a terrible societal mistake.
The gay community has made incredible progress over the past 30 years, and are
literally on the verge of tipping the scales in their favor at the ballot
box.As one who votes the other direction, I must acknowledge that
the momentum is not on my side. I love my homosexual brothers and sisters, and
treat them with respect anyway. When they win the votes - and I believe it is
inevitable - I intend to shake their hands, and hope they will return the
kindness and respect that I have given them, despite our disagreements.Obviously, civil respect amid passionate disagreement is impossible for many
on both sides.
Post it. It doesn't break any of your rules!@lds4homosexualmarriage:
We don't live in Saudi Arabia. We live in America! The COTUS is our guiding law
of the land.States can make whatever laws that fit their
constitutions and that the people vote for. It's pretty simple.You
wanna be a homosexual and get married, move to a state that allows it. You wanna
drive faster on freeways than what we have in Utah? Move to a state that allows
it.There are 50 states to choose from. Find one to your liking and
go there. Maybe it's still Utah, I don't know.Homosexuals used to
cry that what they do in their bedroom between 2 consenting adults is no one's
business. Now, they want states to recognize their abnormal relationship as
marriage. Most of the nation is saying, thanks, but no thanks.That's
our right to say sorry, your behavior is not acceptable to society and we will
definitely not condone it as marriage. If you are LDS and actually
believe the doctrine, can you tell me how homosexuality fits into pre-mortal
life and life after this earth?
All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Animal Farm, George OrwellHomosexuals are apparently more equal.
Gay marriage isnt about civil rights or equal rights. At its core, gay marriage
is about advancing a political and social agenda to normalize abnormal behavior.
According the CDC's National Health Statistics Reports No. 36 dated March 3,
2011 less than 2% of the age 15-44 US population self-identify as homosexual.
Homosexuality isn't nearly as pervasive as its advocates and the media would
have you believe. 2% is not equivalent to 98%.
@rok"Everyone already has the same equal right to get married and
everyone is prohibited against entering a same-sex marriage, so saying that
there is inequality in marriage rights is incorrect. "LDS4Consider the following and compare it to the logic quoted above -In
Saudi Arabia, Christians can't build churches. I imagine that when Christians
ask permission to build a church, Saudi officials suggest that Christians don't
deserve "special rights" just for them and if they want the benefits
of public worship, that they attend a mosque like everyone else. The Christians
will say that since they are not Muslim, that that doesn't make sense. The
official may tell the Christian that they CHOOSE to be Christians and that Saudi
Arabia won't provide Christians with "special rights" based on their
lifestyle choices. What Christians do in the privacy of their own homes is one
thing, but why should Saudi society, which was based on Islam, have to change to
accommodate Christians' chosen lifestyle? It appears that the same
logic is the same. Minorities don't have rights. We LDS used to be the preyed
upon minority. Too bad we've forgotten what that's like.
Wow, another terribly written editorial by the Deseret News editorial board.
Nevermind the grimace inducing bad arguments made by the writer, the writing
would not even pass muster with the most leniant of high school English
teachers.Anyone over there ever hear of making a concise argument?
How many different subjects do you guys feel like you should discuss in a very
short essay? I counted, off the top of my head, without reading back through, at
least five different subjects. You guys are running a
professional newspaper. Aren't you? Try to raise your game just a bit. Or is
this just another example of citizen journalism?
No, ScottCA 1:07. I am saying the gay community (and the far left) has sought
to invalidate the rights of citizens to defend and support long-standing laws
and the standards upon which all policies regarding marriage have been
predicated in our day. I would compare it to someone deciding to
move into an unused room in your house and then, when you tell them to leave,
maligning you and calling you selfish and hateful. After all, it isnt hurting
you for them to move into that room. That attitude misses the point
entirely. If it is not your house--Get out.The LDS Church currently
approves of the laws the way they have always been and they will not stop
defending them regardless of how much anyone attempts to paint them as the bad
guys. If you want to build laws dealing with same-sex relationships, go ahead.
But do not attempt to build it in a house that has been previously established
and force the long-standing residents to accept it.
So RAB you're saying that the gay community has fought to invalidate all LDS
The scriptures being cited in these posts are mere evidence of the deceptions
being perpetrated by (perhaps) well-meaning people against members of the LDS
church. The assumptions being made are truly insulting. The use of the
indicated scriptures amounts to an accusation that LDS Church members want to
judge and control people outside of their faith. That is a lie.Members of the LDS Church are NOT the ones trying to change the laws and
redefine important institutions to suit their own value system. On the
contrary, they are trying to defend and maintain current laws and terminologies
that coincide with and support their belief system. They are defending the
countrys current value system. They are the ones being maliciously judged.
They are the ones that others are attempting to control.
Mike Richards - LDS are probably less than 2% of the U.S. population. During the
fight to overturn slavery blacks were probably around that percentage as well.
The percentage of a group who are not being allowed appropriate legal
protections should have no bearing on whether they should.To me,
this hinges on whether sexual orientation is genetic. I acknowledge there is no
hard, fast scientific evidence identifying specific genes. And I acknowledge
that environment probably plays a role. But it is my experience with gay
individuals I know that they don't just choose to be gay any more than I choose
to be straight. In fact, most tried to fit in with cultural expectations of
heterosexuality and only after much pain and heartache (often involving a spouse
and children) did they finally give in and realize they could no longer pretend
to be someone they are not. None that I know chose to be gay because it would be
such an easier life. Many of these posts make it clear why no one would think
being gay would be some kind of societal advantage. I believe there
is a large genetic component. Therefore, we should not discriminate.
Mike Richards 11:14 a.m.There are more gays and lesbians in this
country than Mormons. Who gives YOU the right to define anything for the rest
of society? Unless you can prove that "God" exists, all we have is
your saying so (which is pretty typical, actually.)The Deseret News
seems to have an odd obsession with keeping this topic fired up and for all the
comments on these boards, I never see an anti-gay-marriage poster give an
argument more substantial than "being gay is gross because God said it
is." If anybody has real evidence that gay marriage is bad for society,
let's see it. Otherwise, your biases aren't a sufficient basis for laying down
laws the rest of us have to follow.
@rok"Everyone already has the same equal right to get married and
everyone is prohibited against entering a same-sex marriage, so saying that
there is inequality in marriage rights is incorrect. "It
doesn't mean it's right though... like let's go with this example I think we all
agree on. With interracial marriage eeryone had the same right to get married
and eeryone is prohibited against entering an inter-racial marriage, so saying
there was inequality in marriage rights is incorrect... but of course that
position was declared wrong by the courts.@lbone"Supporting same-sex marriage is actually an affront toward one's own
parents."For your position to have consistency you must also
believe being single or childless is an affront toward one's parents.@mytymouse"Then when their point of view lost, they DEMANDED the
courts overturn that decision that the PEOPLE voted for."Well
yeah... I mean they think it's unconstiutional. That's what you do for something
that's unconstitutional. Let's say Massachusetts banned guns statewide via
ballot initiatie and put it in the constitution... you'd say it's
unconstitutional so the courts should strike it own.
@EJM"Do we not have the opportunity now to do just that? "I laugh at the fact you only have one recommendation... and by laugh I
mean die a little inside. Certainly we can discuss ways of being productive. I
think the compromise solution is to get gov't out of marriage and give gay and
straight couples civil unions with rights equal to what marriage currently has.
It's either that or we fight for another 15 or so years until all states have
gay marriage. Olsen and Boies really want their case to go to the supreme court.
They think they can win. Really it might be only 2 years before the entire
nation has gay marriage. Frankly, I think the prop 8 side really needs to
consider the compromise deal because in a few years there might be too much
momentum for the anti-8 side to care anymore about deal-making.
Some things can be debated. Some things can be put on a shelf for later debate.
The most fundamental unit of society is NOT one of those things. There can be
no compromise with the definition of marriage. There can be no compromise with
the definition of family.God instituted marriage. To compromise
marriage is to say that God had no idea what He was doing and that the gay
activist is more intelligent than God. God Instituted the family.
No activist group has the authority to over-rule God.Agreeing to
disagree is fine, but it cannot involve absolutes. To let less than
2% of the population can redefine marriage and can redefine the definition of
family, means that we have a problem that cannot be negotiated. We
cannot let 2% of the population define the most fundamental unit of society. 2%
does not have that right. They would have us believe that they somehow have
been granted the authority to dictate to the rest of us the definition of
family, of "right", of "wrong", of "marriage".Who granted them that right?Are we to sit idly by and let
them proceed with their nonsense?
One problem is that... agreeing to disagree works only at the personal level. As
far as the law is concerned one of the two sides has to win (unless there's some
compromise deal like getting gov't out of marriage, because why should something
sacred be in the gov't anyway, and giving straight and gay couples civil
unions).@lifelong republican"Don't disagree with us or we
will force you out of your job even though you were doing an excellent job.
"Since your side of the aisle opposes job anti-discrimination
laws for sexuality, I really don't think your side is in much of a high ground
position here either.@twobitsworth"It is our right to
exceed the speed limit and anyone who does not agree with us should be vilified
and fired -"You know, this more accurately represents some of
those who oppose Roe v Wade who send threatening letters to abortion doctors,
stalk them, protest at their houses, and sometimes kill them.@counter intelligence"The first few posts provide a great example
of why it is so difficult to agree to disagree."Then you
immediately show examples of only one side...
Regarding Civil unions or Domestic Partnerships, consider this statement by
Elder Lance B. Wickman, Church General Counsel in an interview he gave along
side of Elder Dallin H. Oaks on the Church's Newsroom site. He stated - "If
you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights
traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label
on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it's
given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our
doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, 'That is not right. That's not
appropriate.' " His statement is a clear call for the Church to
continue getting involved in the realm of Caesar and is therefore contrary to
the Lord's call for separating Church and State and also contrary to the
scriptures. D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 denounce using our religious beliefs
to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.Will SOMEONE...ANYONE...Please show me where I have misinterpreted those
verses in likening them to the same-sex marriage controversy? Thank You.
The hyperbole and fear mongering of these comments just drains me. If the entire gay community came to a consensus tomorrow and took the word
"Marriage" off the table, most of you STILL wouldn't be happy. You
won't support civil unions because they look and act like marriages. You won't
support changes in family law to protect GLBT families that already have
children because you won't acknowledge them as REAL parents, or REAL families.
You won't acknowledge the disproportionate numbers of Hate Crimes
committed against LGBT victims. You don't stop to think about the REAL
inequalities LGBT employees and their dependents face daily due to reduced
compensation and benefits, their higher taxation rates, or legal insecurity,
because you don't see gays and lesbians as individuals with real lives, and real
relationships. They are just a nameless, faceless, abstraction that you can
anonymously rail against.I have to ask: Is this really about
"Marriage" or is this just a socially acceptable way of channeling
your anti-gay sentiments?
I M LDS 2 - Please show me(chapter and verse) where god has said anything
specifically about the CIVIL LAW of marriage, or even where god has said
religion should be the basis of CIVIL LAW.LDS - Scripture actually
prohibits us from using our religious beliefs to justify infringing upon the
CIVIL RIGHTS of others (1 Cor. 10:29, D&C 134:4). gays HAD the right/liberty
to marry in CA before 8 and we let our "religious opinions prompt (us) to
infringe upon the rights and liberties of others".Brian - When
gay marriage becomes legal how long will it be before the first lawsuit is filed
against the LDS church for not allowing a gay couple to marry in the temple? LDS - If ANY court orders that, a constitutional amendment protecting
churches would pass so fast it wouldn't even be funny. Most gays would support
it too because they too respect freedom and disagree with the extremists in
their ranks. The Church could also forego performing legally binding marriages
there as it does outside the US. People get LEGALLY married at City Hall. Gays
would have no grounds for temple weddings.The sky isn't falling.
Re:procuradorfiscalYou are so wrong. The U.S. allowed the L.D.S. church
to discriminate against against blacks, essentially keeping them out of the
temple. Many churches, including the LDS church continues the practice of an all
male clergy. So if they allow discrimination based on sex and race I don't see
them being forced to perform same-sex marriages.
The problem with this whole subject is that the religious right is under the
impression that everyone believes in their God. So they cannot fathom how
anyone could not take their God into account when dealing on any type of moral
issue.Their tolarance is and always will include this premace. So the non-religious left is left having an arguement with someone who
can't think out of the box because their religious views don't allow them
too.Hence...the concept of live and let live cannot happen without
conflict and disagreement.So while the theory of this story is very
"Christian", the reality is that Christian values don't allow others
to think and live differently. Funny...but that's not that much
different that Jewdisim or Musulim religious rules.
Idaho Coug,Please show me(chapter and verse) where god has said
anything specifically about the CIVIL LAW of marriage, or even where god has
said religion should be the basis of CIVIL LAW. In fact, please explain how
D&C 134:9 should be interpreted to deny the right to marry to same-sex
couples whose "religious beliefs" obviously permit them to marry.
Re: "The LDS Church, or any church, will NEVER be forced to marry any
same-sex couples against its beliefs. And any "lawsuit" would be
laughed out of court."We have your word on that? And you're
speaking for the whole LGBT victimization industry?The history of
LGBT activism is one of relentless incrementalism. To simply dismiss that as
"an effort to play on people's religious fears" is neither honest nor
historically valid.General acceptance of legalized LGBT marriage
will inevitably lead to the next step -- legislative "protections"
from "discrimination." The form of those protections is impossible to
accurately gauge today, but could certainly include sanctions on religious
activity, as currently exist on public prayer.That these sanctions
would violate the Constitution is clear, but so is prohibiting prayer in a high
school valedictory address or graduation ceremonies in a church.Yet,
here we are.The burden's on LGBT activists to prove the radical
changes they advocate won't affect religious rite and practice.They
refuse to do so.That should tell us something about their motives.
The sad part of this debate is that supporters of non-traditional marriage
constantly cry out for tolerance from the other side, yet they will do
everything in their power to mock traditional marriage and not allow tolerance
for views contrary to their own.
Landmark cases are now beginning to take shape, leading to the inevitable
erosion of the right to freedom of speech.These were assuredly the initial
steps to the eventual stoning of the prophets, in times of yore. But instead of
stoning, it will be with other methods, more insidious, and then eventually
blatant.History is now about to repeat itself.
The idea behind "agreeing to disagree" is to leave the matter in
questioned unresolved for the sake of civility and peace amongst the
participants. The problem though with 8 is we LDS were NOT happy to "agree
to disagree". We used our Money and manpower to settle the issue the way
we wanted it settled. Gays at the time of 8's passing HAD the right to marry in
California. Why didn't we simply agree to disagree and use kindness,
gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to pursuade people to live righteously?
Nope, we ignored scripture which forbids using religious beliefs as
justification to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (1 Cor. 10:29,
D&C 134:4). We didn't care about agreeing to disagree for the sake of
peace. We LDS only want peace once our position had prevailed. When the other
side had the right to marry, we had NO interest in wanting peace.If
the 9th Circuit Court agrees that 8 is invalid, will we LDS simply walk away and
agree to disagree? Unless we say yes, the whole idea about a call to
peacefully agree to disagree is blatantly hypocritical.
To ask Peter Vidmar to step down is every bit as hateful and discriminary as if
we were to ban all gays from the olympics. There is no double standard. This is
not the America I grew up in when Ronald Reagon was President. I will stand up
for marriage between a man and a woman. Even if my life is threatened which it
already has been.
I think it is a terrible shame that Vidmar and the Olympic committee has given
in to the discrimination and threats of the gay activists. Vidmars duties in the
Olympic committee/orgainization have nothing to do with gay marriage. At this
point, it is no different than any other "political" position. Will
political affiliation now be a issue for serving is these type of positions. Even if Vidmar didnt want to go through the public battle these gay
activists started, he should have done it for all the others who now are
expected to give in to these types of pressures. The Olympic committee also
should have insisted that they fight this pressure for the same reasons. Every
argument about discrimination or civil rights that gays make against Vidmar can
also be made against what they are doing to people who support traditional
marriage. Lets not give in to their threats, hate and discrimination.
"The difference between liberal judges, of which Walker is a very good
example, and conservative judges is that conservatives interpret the law as it
really is and liberals interpret the law as they want it to be. Big
difference."1) Walker was originally nominated by Ronald Regan
but his nomination was blocked by LIBERAL Democrats2) Walker was nominated
again and finally confirmed under George HW BushSome liberal
"When gay marriage becomes legal how long will it be before the first
lawsuit is filed against the LDS church for not allowing a gay couple to marry
in the temple?"Well it's been legal in Massachusetts and many
other states for years now and not one single lawsuit. Why? Because your
argument is a complete fallacy. The LDS church is not forced to marry ANYONE in
the temple that it doesn't want to. They can, and will continue to be able to,
exclude non-members, members they deem to be unworthy of temple ordinances, gay
couples, etc from Temple marriage.The LDS Church, or any church,
will NEVER be forced to marry any same-sex couples against its beliefs. And any
"lawsuit" would be laughed out of court.This is merely an
effort to play on people's religious fears where no real threat to LDS Temple
@Ultra Bob: I respectfully disagree that the debates over marriage is a waste
of time. I cannot think of a subject more critical to the well-being and
survival of the human race than the family unit: father, mother, and children.
The mechanism which grants the greatest possibility of survival and protection
of the family is: serious commitment, which means taking marriage vows very
seriously.Any activism to protect this most fundamental unit of
society is greatly desired. As an active LDS, I'm grow in greater daily awe at
the Church's emphasis and loving value placed upon making families strong,
healthy, and happy. I would hope you might reconsider the damaging
consequences of apathy towards the wonderful organization known as "the
re: Einchdorff"The difference between liberal judges, of which Walker
is a very good example, and conservative judges is that conservatives interpret
the law as it really is and liberals interpret the law as they want it to be.
Big difference. "Wrong. Conservative judges, appointed by
Republican Presidents, inserted themselves into Florida's election and put
Republican George W. Bush in the Whitehouse. In the most recent case,
Conservative Supreme Court Judges in Citizens United, decided corporations were
people and overturned years of decisions, including previous Supreme Court
Blue,I am glad you stopped commenting.Marriage may not
be exclusively dependant on procreation, but every law, right, and regulation
ever created with respect to marriage was created based on the premise that
traditional marriage results in child bearing. The truth is: if children were
not an expected result of traditional marriage, there would have been no laws
created with regards to marriage. No one would have ever cared who was with
who.Citing some judges ruling on marriage will not convince anyone
that the constitution guarantees everyone the right to marry someone of the same
sex. The actual constitution is also available on the internet. Read it. It
is not in there.Your posts prove that YOU are the one obsessing
about the actions of Americans who dont share their religion. People like me
are merely concerned that people are attempting to morph our country into
something that condones behavior that so many Americans clearly do not condone.
Me religion is a huge part of me and I am part of this country. I
wont sit and be trampled while people like you attempt to change my country into
a vast amoral monster.
I M LDS 2 - the answer to your question is simply "because God said
so". I am not demeaning other's belief that God truly did say so. But that
pretty much sums it up.
I think that comments are deviating from the issue which is how do we handle
disagreements, even on issues that are so divisive as this. It is
concerning to see tactics like firing individuals for their beliefs, picketing
their homes, and personal attacks. Intimidation in these ways should not
I dont buy the editorials argument. By way of analogy, say the old issue about
the Main Street Plaza was settled by referendum, and 53% of the citizens of Utah
created a Constitutional Amendment that guaranteed that that block of main
street would be a public space. We could agree to disagree about the issue in a
philosophical sense, but I wouldnt fault Mormons for no longer patronizing the
people and businesses that fought the hardest to take away the Churchs right to
Funny, I thought that Peter was appointed for his expertise in his chosen field,
in which he excelled at, not his religious or political or otherwise beliefs. I
wonder how many other coaches feel the same way Peter does, but don't verbalise
them. Prehaps we could all have a witch hunt and get people to declare their
feelings about gays, then we can sack those who disagree. Peter fell on his
sword. But many of the comments here smacks of McCarthism of the 1950's. Those
who call for equal rights are those denying others of theirs. The hypocrisy is
their way or the highway, and no tolerance.
In the case of the Main Street plaza, the judge had no vested interest. It did
not benefit the judge, his family, or his standing as a judge. His decision did
not affect him personally in any way. Walker, on the other hand,
stood to benefit directly and personally from his own decision. He should not
have adjudicated the case.The fact is, there is no law,
constitutional or otherwise, that even addresses the question of whether two
people of the same sex can get married. It is not even about the law or rights.
It is about the definition of marriage. For thousands of years the definition of
marriage has been between a man and a woman. All of the laws that provide a
legal framework for recognizing valid marriages have used the traditional
definition. Walker pulled his decision out of thin air only because he wanted
it, not because there was any legal basis. There isn't.The
difference between liberal judges, of which Walker is a very good example, and
conservative judges is that conservatives interpret the law as it really is and
liberals interpret the law as they want it to be. Big difference.
I am puzzled by the thinking displayed by this DN opinion. They couch their
position in terms of "defending traditional marriage", which implies
an attack on traditional marriage that would ostensibly weaken, restrict, or
harm traditional marriage in some substantive way.But nobody has
ever shown an iota of evidence, much less a reasonable argument, supporting this
claim that expanding the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples somehow
weakens, restricts, or harms any traditional marriage.I benefit from
a traditional marriage. My opposite-sex partner and I have enjoyed those
benefits for almost 30 years. If the same-sex couple next door are legally
allowed to marry, my traditional marriage will continue unaffected. Indeed, in
an important sense, my marriage is enhanced because now I participate in a
societal institution that is more popular, vibrant, and recognized than before
when it was only available to opposite-sex couples.As a principle of
law, those alleging that same-sex marriages "harm" traditional
marriages must prove that claim. So far, nobody has been up to that task.Please show me how same-sex marriage harms or in any other way detracts
from traditional marriage, and the harm justifies marriage discrimination.
Two questions:For those decrying Vidmars pressured resignation, how
many of you would take the same view, that a person should be free to state an
opinion without blowback, in the hypothetical situation that an LDS Area
Authority gave a significant donation and participated in rallies for the
anti-Prop. 8 cause? Wouldnt you be making the argument that an organization
needs to be allowed to decide what it does or doesnt stand for, and that those
representing the organization should abide by those decisions? Perhaps not
perfectly analogous, but close, I think.For those finding no problem
in pressuring Vidmar to step down, where is the line between appropriate and
inappropriate pressure on representatives? Suppose a public school teacher (a
representative of the state) worked for the Prop. 8 cause, though didnt bring
that viewpoint into the classroom. Would it be appropriate to try to pressure
him/her to step aside as someone insufficiently committed to human rights? In a
situation where the key (unresolved) social debate is precisely what constitutes
a right in relation to marriage, how far is it appropriate to go in pressuring
those who understand rights differently?
When gay marriage becomes legal how long will it be before the first lawsuit is
filed against the LDS church for not allowing a gay couple to marry in the
DNI have written several comments over the past few days which aren't
getting posted. What is going on? Have you increased your censorship?
Are you having trouble with your server? What gives? If you are having trouble
with your server you ought to say so.
As I understand the facts, this editorial is incorrect about the situation with
Paul Clement. Although it was originally reported that the law firm abandoned
representation it had accepted, later reports indicated that the firm's board
had never approved the client's representation agreement, which would have
limited the personal advocacy rights of all employees of the firm. Clement, who
was new to the firm, apparently jumped the gun. So while the call for civility
is appropriate, the facts in the editorial are wrong.
"Your use of Perry vs Schwarzenegger is rich. Vaughn Walker should never
have been allowed to be the judge in that case. He should have recused himself
because he has a vested interest in the outcome."How is a gay
judge any more "biased" than a straight one? The argument can be made
that a straight judge would have just been biased the other way, no?And how bout the LDS judge who decided the Main Street Plaza case? Were you
fine with THAT "vested interest" in the outcome?The fact
is that the Prop 8 team had no solid legal defense for prop 8 and on the basis
of LAW the court ruled that it was a violation of the Constitutional protections
we have in this country.
Marriage can serve to strengthen and stabilize society, regardless if it
involves heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. In case people havent
noticed, marriage among heterosexuals is declining, and more children are being
born into single-parent families. Maybe we ought to focus on addressing those
issues. It seems akin to focusing on a campfire while ignoring the already
raging forest fire.For those who supported Prop 8 with donations of time,
money, and votes, the people you voted against arent going to just go away.
Every minority group that has fought for their equal rights they will continue
to pursue those rights just as you would. Im extremely disappointed that those
who presented themselves as having the moral high ground resorted to ugly
tactics to accomplish their goal. It didnt reflect what I learned in church in
any way, shape or form. DN's frequent printing of articles on this
topic is tiresome.
BlueYour use of Perry vs Schwarzenegger is rich. Vaughn Walker
should never have been allowed to be the judge in that case. He should have
recused himself because he has a vested interest in the outcome. Besides, that
ruling may very well be overturned.Nothing about the issue has
changed, regardless of Walker's ruling, which was completely wrong. Same-sex
"marriage" is in fact not a marriage and it is not constitutionally
guaranteed.To Idaho Coug, the question of the Church's practice of
plural marriage is irrelevant to the question of whether same-sex marriage is a
right or not.
Here's an easy fix. Get the government out of the marriage certificate business
for the sake of receiving tax deductions and other governmental entitlements.
Even traditional man/woman married couples should not receive perks just for
being married. This is taxation without representation and is unfair to singles,
whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, that today are footing the bill for
benefits granted to the married class.If churches want to perform
weddings for people that have tendencies toward unnatural sexual acts, let them.
Let God be the judge of the parties involved for such behavior. Regardless, we need to stop governments from rewarding people just for being
married. If there are no financial benefits for marriages or other forms of
civil unions, homosexual marriage would probably become a moot point.
I found this article very interesting, yet disturbing also. How disappointing
that the law firm of King & Spalding did not support one of their attorneys,
Paul Clement, for his work with DOMA--that they didn't have the backbone to
stand up against the gay activists to defend one of their own. The same
activists who gripe that they're being victims of hate are those who spew forth
hateful declarations against those who don't embrace their philosophies. I
remember their disrespectful, mob like demonstrations against various LDS
Temples when Prop 8 won. Then when their point of view lost, they DEMANDED the
courts overturn that decision that the PEOPLE voted for. I say give it a rest,
be a good loser, and live your lives the way you want, but within the law. Oh,
so I don't get verbally attacked, I have known, and know, many good people who
are gay/lesbian, I even have a son that I love dearly who is gay, yet they
choose to live peaceably and not try to convert everyone to their way of life.
Fourth and final post.Marriage is _not_ dependent on procreation.
Do we require fertility tests for marriage licenses? Do we annul the marriages
of childless couples?Marriage _is_ a constitutionally guaranteed
right. Read the ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. It's all detailed there in
plain, real-world evidence-based language. It's easily available on the
Internet. Also, google the phrase "A witness stand is a lonely
place to lie."Adoption, in vitro fertilization, and children
from heterosexual experiences prior to a gay or lesbian "coming out"
mean that there are plenty of children living with gay and lesbian parents.
Those kids don't go on to become gay at rates any greater than the children of
straight parents. If your religion doesn't want to perform same-sex
marriages, then by all means, don't. Beyond that, however, leave other
Americans who don't share your religion alone and stop obsessing about them.Your straight marriage is not in any way diminished or jeopardized by a
same-sex marriage.The best way to ensure that government does not
meddle with your religion is to keep your religion from meddling with our
Blue,IMHO: "On a separate point, the "right" you feel
should be granted or say has been taken away -- the right to marry -- was for a
moment in time, in a specific place, and historically has not recognized as a
right. "That is incorrect. The right to marry has been
identified many times by the courts as a fundamental civil right. --------------Let me clarify -- but for a brief moment in time, same-sex
marriage has never even been contemplated, much less recognized. By both
default and convention marriage has always been between genders. Try and find a
court ruling where marriage has been parsed into male/female, male/male,
female/female.To say the "right" to marry includes someone
of the same gender is a very, very, very great stretch.Blue, Are you saying that childless couples can't adopt? You're saying that
there are two separate classes of marriages - fertile and infertile? Seriously?
You may want to think more carefully about that.------Inherent
in the pairing of a man and woman is the potential to propagate. Same sex
marriages are incapable of such and are inherently different -- are thy not?
Really DN's monthly articles on gay marriage is tiresome. I guess someone
thinks it is a winning issue--to continue to "preach to the choir" or
remind others of the LDS involvement in an ugly campaign. I don't see this as
promoting civility or building bridges with the wounded.Furthermore,
marriage among heterosexuals is in such dissaray it's like focusing on the
campfire and ignoring the raging forest fire.
"Agree to disagree" does NOT apply to bigotry. It's an attempt to
excuse their prejudices and nothing more. Although the winguts of the era wanted
to "agree to disagree" that black slaves were property or that women
couldn't handle the responsibility of voting this great nation saw through their
lies and made the right decisions. Hiding ones prejudices behind the claim of
"I have a different POV" is a joke.BTW what does religion
have to do w/ a marriage license? A marriage license is issued by the
government, just like a drivers license or a building permit. No church
approval is required.
And speaking of the past, there is substantial historical evidence to suggest
members practising polygamy married women who were already married to other men.
What are two men married to the same woman... husbands-in-law? Although they are
not having relations which each other, are they not all part of a big marriage?
The point here is Idaho Coug is correct. With our past (two of my great
grandfathers were polygamists) I do not feel two comfortable taking the lead
trumpeting "traditional marriage" to the world.
It is troubling to see radical gay activism promoting same-sex marriage as
though they were the offspring of same-sex marriage! Absolutely ZERO
homosexuals and ZERO lesbians have parents who were of the same gender. They owe
their very existence due to the life-sustaining and life-propagation of the
union of their own parents! Supporting same-sex marriage is actually an affront
toward one's own parents. If a person wants to display the utmost
measures of love, honor, and respect towards his/her parents, he/she would want
to honor the institution of marriage between one man and one woman. Endorsing
same-sex marriage in families brings more shame and embarrassment rather than
Is they time coming that you need the mark of the beast to engage in economic
I wonder if LDS commenting here in opposition to gay marriage have really
thought what they would do if the church came out and re-initiated plural
marriage? The Church and it's members are so vocal in support of traditional
marriage. And that is every bit in their right to do so. But for those who
really know the LDS history of plural marriage and the current reality of the
temple sealing policy, and believe it was initiated and then suspended by God
not man, have to know that it should not come as a surprise if it were
re-established. Some day the Church and members may find themselves in the
minority position - again - of trying to argue that one man and multiple women
should be an acceptable form of marriage.It just really baffles me
that, given our history of plural marriage, current sealing policies, and real
possibility of plural marriage again in the future, so many LDS can feel so
comfortable proclaiming what traditional, acceptable marriage is and should be.
Everyone already has the same equal right to get married and everyone is
prohibited against entering a same-sex marriage, so saying that there is
inequality in marriage rights is incorrect.
No, "I Love My Wife" nobody asked my employer to fire me. Nobody
asked any employer to fire anyone over Prop 8.Let's take Scott Ekern
for example. He was a director for the California Musical Theater and he
donated to Prop 8. The gay community said "we will not support this
organization because their director donated to take away our ability to
marry".Ekern DECIDED to step down to avoid harming his
organization, Peter Vidmar DECIDED to step down to avoid harming the Olympic
Committee. Nobody was "fired". You seem to take offense at a group
of people not supporting organizations that have harmed them or employ people
who harm them.In a Constitutional Republic like this one (not a
democracy), minorities can use their constitutional rights like free speech and
decide NOT to support anyone they wish for any reason.
ILMY (11:46 am): "This is a country where majority rules, that hasn't
changed from the foundation of this country."That statement is
so wrong it makes my head hurt. Civil rights are not subject to
popularity contests. We are fortunate to live in a country where a
constitution guarantees freedom to all citizens - even citizens in an unpopular
minority. Or would you really prefer to live in a "majority
rules" country where evangelical Christians, who vastly outnumber Mormons,
get to decide which religious activities are worthy of 1st Amendment protections
and which are not?Pendulums swing both ways - you may one day come
to rely on constitutional protections when you find that you are the the goat
among wolves voting on what to have for lunch.
Stuff... there are more non mormon Californians than there are mormons. If it
were just mormons voting prop 8 would have lost by a lot, not winning.
Those who once plead for tolerance and acceptance now provide no tolerance and
accept no opinion but their own. They even go farther by trying to destroy the
lifestyle of those they once sought acceptance from. What a sad commentary on
Agreeing to disagree? The problem is that there is no compromise, as was the
case with the end of Jim Crow laws.
ScottCA, were you harrassed and were you fired or asked by others to have you
fired because you supported the anti prop 8? It isn't the same!!!! This is a
country where majority rules, that hasn't changed from the foundation of this
country. I haven't seen a bitter loss taken by any minority in the history.
Get over it and get on with your life rather than telling me my OPINION is wrong
and YOURS is right.
It seems really strange to me that the gays would attack Peter Vidmar for
advocating the same form of marriage that brought those gays into the world in
the first place.
the more the gays try and make a political statement like they did in these two
situations described in the editorial, the more I will push back.......and
strongly.live and let live.......cool. shove it in our
faces.......not cool!let the legal system define and conduct civil
unions. let the religions decide who they want to marry. .....and don't
believe that the gays don't want to force religions to perform marriages. if
you believe that nonsense, you probably believed them when they stated they
simply wanted the states to decide who they can marry. they are already trying
to get the marriage in a gay state recognized by ALL states. they
are definitely the wolves in sheep's clothing.
You cant just toss out a passive aggressive Lets agree to disagree editorial
while you are actively slanting the debate.A very quick search of
the Deseret News archives shows 11 articles or editorials critical of gays and
lesbians, or purporting religious persecution in the last few weeks (there are
probably many more under peripheral headings). Sadly, the articles havent
clarified anything, or by the comments posted, changed anyones existing opinions
on either side. Its all heat and no light. Thats great for
generating page views and web traffic, and riling up your readership base, but
it accomplishes very little else.
Let's get back to the editorial. Agreeing to disagree. Why is it tough for even
posters on here to rip on the DNews for calling us to a greater degree of
civility? What took place in CA between both groups did not, in many instances,
exhibit that civility. Do we not have the opportunity now to do just that?
The Supreme Court decided Americans must tolerate private homosexual behavior,
but being forced to publicly accept a gay life style is tyranny of the minority.
When homosexuals are denied acceptance by the results of an election or a
constitutional amendment, they react as though they are the victims of a grave
injustice. They are then at liberty to engage in whatever tactic is necessary to
retrieve what is rightfully theirs. But people in our society do not have a
legal right to prevent criticism of their beliefs or even their way of life.
I'm sorry Mom of Five but your brother did not simply "voice his
support". He donated an amount of money over $100 which is disclosed
legally under California law and is nothing new.He wasn't denied his
vote.I donated well over $100 to the anti-8 campaign and my
information was published by the state along with his. I'm also in the same
searchable database that the LA Times published.
Isn't it ironic? Gays want to marry and straights want to live together and
BlueThe argument that is used most often to support the idea that
marriage is a civil right is the Loving vs. Virginia case. The Suprement Court
declared that the two people in question, one of whom was black and one who was
white, could not be prevented from getting married on the basis of their race.
It wasn't about the right to get married per se, but that the state could not
prevent a marriage of a MAN and a WOMAN on the basis of race.This is
irrelevant to same-sex marriage. The definition means that unless it is one man
and one woman, it is not a marriage.Same-sex unions are not
Forcing Vidmar out of his position for his beliefs is as fair as it would be to
force a gay skater off the team for his homosexuality.
"Those who support a definition of marriage that dates to thousands of
years, that has provided demonstrable success in child-rearing and social
stability, and that is sanctioned by Biblical and modern revelation, should be
able to make use of peaceful democratic and legal institutions to defend that
definition without fear of intimidation and reprisals."Actually, the current so-called, stable definition of marriage doesn't
necessarily date back thousands of years. The marriage ideal has always been
fluid in ideology through the ages. For instance, Polygamy was common in old
testament times. Throughout Greece, Rome, and aristocratic European history,
marriage was seen solely as producing a legitimate, pedigreed heir. Having
several mistresses or concubines for was the standard norm and accepted.
Homosexual romances were also quite common in Greece, somewhat in Rome and often
among the many kings of Europe and accepted in many societies of the past
including tribal societies of Micronesia and Africa. With that said, I agree
that this is the first time in history that actual definitions of marriage and
ceremonial rituals are trying to include the same gender.
My brother, who lived in Half Moon Bay, California during this time, had his
name, address, and telephone number published in the local paper, along with any
other person who had voiced support for proposition 8. The paper published the
information and asked prop 8 opponents to harass and bully the supporters by
sending hate mail, making anonymous hate phone calls, putting signs up at their
homes, etc. They also asked companies who employed these people to fire them,
which we know actually did happen.Suffice it to say that my brother
no longer lives in California. So, yes, I think the bullying description is apt,
and the "agree to disagree civilly" request rather than intimidating
and bullying, and yes, even criminally attacking the other side is very, very,
very appropriate here.
As someone who was actually here in California and experienced the Prop 8
campaign, perhaps my perspective here will be helpful.It is one thing to
disagree (and I respect all the viewpoints expressed above) but the campaign was
a total war. As we know, the first casualty in war is the truth and this war was
no exception. Respect, dignity, and civility were also abandoned and many
people here in California are still pretty upset about it. Just as the
Civil War has simmered for 150 years, this war is simmering here and creating
fallout. In my opinion, BYU not being invited to join the PAC 12 was unfair
fallout, and now Peter Vidmar losing his job is unfair fallout. That said, the
call for respect and civility is a little late here in California given all the
disrespectful and unsupportable lies that flew during the campaign.
Freedom of religion means mine prevails. That's what I read. You can disagree
with it, but that's where it ends. Such freedom is not universal. We've picked a
winner religion. Yours ain't it.
Having had to sit through far too many educator workshops run by the pro gay
groups who would not allow those who disagreed with their viewpoint the right to
disagree, I used to wonder why the fierce antagonism toward us who disagreed?
Could it be possible that in allowing both points of view equal legitimacy they
felt that looking at the long term results might shift someone's opinion?
IMHO: "On a separate point, the "right" you feel should be
granted or say has been taken away -- the right to marry -- was for a moment in
time, in a specific place, and historically has not recognized as a right.
"That is incorrect. The right to marry has been identified many
times by the courts as a fundamental civil right. It should be
self-evident that secular marriage is a right available equally to all citizens
regardless of religious traditions. It's sad that it is not."The pairings you speak of, by their very nature, have and never will
produce offspring. That makes them different than marriages from the beginning
of time. Whether those unions should receive all or some of the same benefits as
a heterosexual couple... "Are you saying that childless couples
can't adopt? You're saying that there are two separate classes of marriages -
fertile and infertile? Seriously? You may want to think more carefully about
that.Religious traditions have also included prohibitions against
marriages between people of different religions or race. Fortunately, we
outgrew those bigotries. It's time we outgrew religious bigotry
against same-sex couples, too.
sptsjunkie,Your arguments do not hold water...you state that
'agreeing to disagree' is not a stance which can be taken. The only position
you will accept is your position, which by defination is not working
together.You have your point-of-view but do not allow the opposite
point-of-view to be part of the decussion. Shame on you.Peter's
position was and has never been part of his leading of the IOC team. You are
jumping from one lilly pad to another without any connectability. You should reflect on the things you have stated and re-evaluate.Plain and simple, your attitude does not help with either sides position.
The IOC does NOT support equality for all based on your definition. Events are
segregated -- by gender. To hold the belief that marriage should retain its age
old definition of a union of a husband and wife is no more bigoted, hateful or
radical than saying than men should compete against men and women against women.
No one has established that two people marrying one another even if they don't
meet the requirements is a basic human right. Peter Vidmar believes that
marriage is between a man and a woman. This is not something that is specific
to his religion. 80% of the world's cultures have the same view.History doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme and but what I see in the
arguments about gay marriage rhymes with McCarthyism where people were being
fired because they weren't politically correct with the standards of the
I'm afraid I'm not going to give up my first amendment rights to please people
who spent quite a bit of money to strip me of my right to marry.1.
I will not spend money at the business of a pro prop. 8 donor.2. I will
question the wisdom of putting a pro prop. 8 donor in a position of power.Both of these things are well within my rights of free speech and I
refuse to give them up under the guise of "agreeing to disagree".
@Blue 12:22You said - "You are attempting to force your own
religious rules on people who do not share your religion. You therefore
shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism for arguing that
position."Ironic comment, considering groups like Americans
United for the Separation of Church and State are quick to go after any church
congregation which says anything political on the right, while totally ignorning
liberal churches which engage in many more political issues than any
conservative church ever has.In other words, it's okay to force your
religion on others, so long as your religion meets the standard of political
correctness.@sptsjunkie 1:57You said - "...agree to
disagree is basically a one way street."You're absolutely
correct. The one way street is simple. The right must be tolerant and open to
everyone, while the left can be as intolerant, hateful and hurtful as they want.
The right says, "Agree to disagree" while the left says,
"You disagree with us and your a close-minded, bigoted, neocon idiot."
As usual, any news article or person who puts forth any effort to defend the
traditional definition of marriage and resists efforts to change what society
accepts as a "family", will be pilloried by many who advocate gay
marriage.As the first two comments here show, they will be painted
as religious bigots who would deny basic human rights and are "forcing
everyone else to live by their religious beliefs".Like it or
not, every adult (man or woman) in this country has the same right - find one
adult person of the opposite sex who wants to marry you and get married.We can all argue until we are blue in the face if gay marriage is a
whole new "special" right or just a reinterpretation of this existing
right. We can also argue all night about if gay marriage will change the basic
fabric of our society or if it will have absolutely no effect on traditional
marriages.Neither side of this argument will budge on those two
issues. Like the article states, we should agree to disagree and use the
legislative and judicial system to promote our views and have some respect for
the other side.
If you disagree with a gay person, you are a homophobe and hate them, right?
glbt...they have all the tolerence in the world, as long as you go along with
their way of thinking. the more in your face they are the more the vast majority
of people will dig in their heels. having vidmar step down is really going to
help their cause....in what way? the 1.8% that are gay (according to the latest
reports) will continue to throw temper tantrums until the 98% of straights put
their collective foot down and say enough is enough.
No one is being denied a civil right. I'm sick of hearing gay marriage called a
civil rights issue. It's your behavior that makes it so you can't get married.
It's not the color of your skin or your gender that is causing problems, its
your sexual behavior. If you want to live together thats fine but marriage is
between a man and a woman. Gay people can't have children. I guess
nature is discriminating. Even if gays can change common law they will never
change the laws of nature.
Same-sex marriage is not a right. This whole question has nothing whatsoever to
do with rights. It is a question about how marriage is defined. Marriage laws at
the moment are not discriminatory at all. Anybody, regardless of their sexual
orientation, can get married. It's just that the marriage must be between a man
and a woman if it is going to be a valid one and recognized under statutory
law.Not even all possible heterosexual combinations are valid under
the definition of marriage. Men cannot marry their mothers, sisters, or
daughters. Women cannot marry their fathers, brothers, or sons. People cannot
marry more than one person of the opposite sex at the same time.I
repeat that this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with rights. Those who
demand same-sex marriage want legitimacy for it. I think it is clear they will
settle for nothing less.
Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As
the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of
world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what
he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as
society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no
society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has
survived. Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands
of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that
virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were
preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by
the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.When marriage loses its
unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving
same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special
status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right
but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of
marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the
assault on marriage.
Well,in "my" social organization we don't agree with the traffic laws.
We maintain that it is our "right" to exceed the speed limit because
it is in our bylaws. One of our members has a different opinion - he/she
believes that we should obey the law because it was established by a majority
vote of the people and because that majority believe it is in the public
interest to have speed limits in order to protect the lives and rights of
others, as established by long held traditions and by majority vote of
"all" the citizens of society in general. Well, baloney on
that! Let's get rid of the bum. It is our right to exceed the speed limit and
anyone who does not agree with us should be vilified and fired - and that
includes the Chief of Police, the County Sheriff and all those police officers
who hide along the highways and try to catch me when I drive faster than the
posted speed, etc., etc., etc.Ballot Box??? Why should I agree with
a Ballet Box? I am right and the majority is wrong.
Gestapo tactics are alive and well in America. No opposition will be tolerated,
period. In the words of "Blue," it is "my way or the
highway." Peter knows this well.
The editorial is dead on! Suggesting that the position of disagreeing is
somehow "forcing" religion or views on the rest of society is exactly
how I feel about the "gay agenda". I'm willing to "agree to
disagree" but it sounds like many in the gay community are not. Surprise
I like Peter Vidmar and wish him the best but it's easy for me to see why many
would feel he is not appropriate for the job. If Peter were to happen to
believe certain members of society due to race are unable to marry we would
never say in this day and age that it's fine to disagree. Better yet, if Peter
were to say single parents, divorcees, former child abusers, etc. should not
have the right to remarry or raise kids, we'd also likely chase him out of the
position. I'm not saying being gay is analogous to any of the above but I do
feel putting it in this context allows us to more easily understand what those
who believe in and support gay marriage are saying. They feel marriage is a
fundamental right and opportunity and see any opposition to that as denying
basic rights to a segment of Americans, which is very un-American. I initially
disagreed with their position but after doing my own study and research have
come to agree and even feel Peter is best moving on.
The poster above said, It's more like, "My way or the highway."Yep that is exactly what the pro gay marriage crowd says. Don't disagree with us or we will force you out of your job even though you
were doing an excellent job.
Blue and sptsjunkie, the central point of the editorial wasn't which position is
right and which is wrong, it is that the debate should be civil, and a person
shouldn't be pressured, intimidated or punished for their position. Clearly,
Vidmar was pressured.On a separate point, the "right" you
feel should be granted or say has been taken away -- the right to marry -- was
for a moment in time, in a specific place, and historically has not recognized
as a right. The pairings you speak of, by their very nature, have and never
will produce offspring. That makes them different than marriages from the
beginning of time. Whether those unions should receive all or some of the same
benefits as a heterosexual couple (such as the rights of visitation, bequest,
inheritance, employment, shelter, rent, own, etc.) is a debate of our day, maybe
THE debate of our day -- and everyone should be able to participate in that
debate freely and without reprisal.
I thought this was a calm, pretty evenhanded approach to this issue.
Disappointed to see the scathing attacks ensued. There clearly can never be a
dialog on this issue.
I appreciate the point you are trying to make here, but there are a few logical
inconsistencies I take issue with. Mainly, "agree to disagree" is
basically a one way street. If we are going to agree to disagree, than go ahead
and perform only straight marriages at your church and my church can continue to
officiate both gay and straight marriages and the state can recognize them all
equally - we can agree do disagree. Instead Peter and others campaigned to
force everyone else to live by their religious beliefs and take a right away
from gay couples in California and take religious freedom from my church.Furthermore, while I am against someone losing their job over a
political position, this was a very unique case. Peter was not a sales person
or accountant. He was an ambassador for the IOC. One of the job requirements is
to represent the values of the IOC. This includes equality for all people
(right there in the bylaws). By taking the position he did, Peter actually came
into direct conflict with the values he was sworn to represent in his role. In
this case, an amicable split is best for both sides.
Denying a basic civil right to law-abiding American citizens because they don't
share in your religious beliefs is not "agreeing to disagree." It's
more like, "My way or the highway."You are attempting to
force your own religious rules on people who do not share your religion. You
therefore shouldn't be surprised to be on the receiving end of criticism for
arguing that position.Genuinely "agreeing to disagree"
would be for those who don't want to marry someone of the same sex to have the
right to not do so, and allowing those who do to follow their hearts and
participate in the same civil rights and public expressions of commitment that
you take for granted.