Quantcast
U.S. & World

Role reversal: Gay-rights advocates 'not tolerant'

Comments

Return To Article
  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2011 10:58 a.m.

    FA - Lds4 seem(s) to argue that if LDS speak out against ANYTHING (murder, pedophilia, speeding, gay marriage etc) that we are forcing our religion on others.

    KJK LDS4 (and I) don't condemn speaking out against those things. I have read LDS4 state several times that that we are to use gentleness, meekness persuasion and love unfeigned to get people to live righteously. He condemns us using our religious beliefs to justify infringing upon the legal rights of others. Proposition 8 infringed upon the existing CIVIL rights of gay. The verses LDS4 quotes shows that infringing upon the rights of others, especially when founded upon our subjective religious doctrines, is condemned.

    Pedophilia is objectively wrong because it involves harming children who don't and can't give their consent. I doubt LDS4 would support pedophilia or condemn laws against it.

    Gays make up only about 2% of the population and even a smaller % of marriages. Allowing gays to marry won't affect whether straights get married or not. Do you REALLY believe that a straight couple will state that if gays are allowed to marry, that they will refuse to marry and instead simply live together? Of course not.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2011 10:41 a.m.

    A voice of Reason - One cannot justify LDS doctrinal support for gay marriage.

    KJK - I, and I'm sure LDSforgaymarriage, agree that homosexual acts, including marriage, are contrary to established LDS doctrine. The dispute is whether Mormons should try limiting the LEGAL rights of others preventing them from violating our faith's doctrines. The verses LDSforgaymarriage cites clearly show that God frowns on this idea and I haven't seen any interpretation of his and other verses that permit Mormons to infringe upon the rights of others.


    AVOR - It is doctrine. It is from our prophet, the 12, the scriptures, etc.

    KJK - John Widtsoe said, "In no sense can the Church be called autocratic. No one, from the President down, can dictate to the Church. All must be done in harmony with gospel principles, and by common consent. Even new revelations from the Lord are presented to the people for acceptance as part of the doctrine of the Church." Until the Proclamation or a First Presidency/12 Apostles statement is approved via Common Consent, they are NOT doctrine. They must bow to scripture and scripture condemns our infringing upon the rights of others as Proposition 8 objectively did.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    June 17, 2011 12:49 a.m.

    Lds4 I agree with Jeff.

    Activists often seek to silence religious voices. You seem to argue that if LDS speak out against ANYTHING (murder, pedophilia, speeding, gay marriage etc) that we are forcing our religion on others. This recurring argument means only Agnostics etc can speak/vote on moral issues.

    This is contrary to the Standard works, so I reject it.

    The research indicates that gay marriage is harmful to all. I've seen eternal procreative families destroyed by gay propaganda.

    Gays will survive without marriage.

    The World won't survive without keeping hetoerosexual marriage sacred.
    Think of all.

    Vince, stats on gays and pedophilia depend on who you get your info from. The claim that mainly heterosexual men are molesting males doesn't work for me.

    Pedophile organizations are intertwined with the gay/lesbian coalition (See Mirkin H. 1999 and "Man/boy love and the American gay movement" in Journal of Homosexuality.

    And Pedophile activists present arguments very much like gay activists: "the sexually privileged have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheer political force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement."

    From narth article: "On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have Known"

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 17, 2011 12:22 a.m.

    One cannot justify LDS doctrinal support for gay marriage.

    The first presidency released a statement on this issue with the following quotation- "The Churchs teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal."

    It is doctrine. It is from our prophet, the 12, the scriptures, etc. It is one thing if you want to argue about one source being fallible within the church. But when every official authority within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands firm and gives us a clear definition of what is the truth from our Father in Heaven (a man who has more ability to reason than anyone on this Earth)... it is very clear, the truth has been given to us.

    There are those who do not accept it regardless. While I urge those to reconsider, I understand that it happens. But to try to convince others that your own ideas of LDS doctrine are the truth, Joseph Smith both commanded and revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants the line of authority when receiving revelation. It is a serious transgression to try to sway people away from God's truth, if you feel you may be doing this, please reconsider.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2011 10:05 p.m.

    Jeff |
    To "lds4gaymarriage": I am increasingly troubled by your insistence on trying to use LDS doctrine and teachings to prove the prophet wrong. (T)here is something wrong with your use of LDS scripture..
    LDS4
    The prophets have stated that their words are NOT official doctrine. Only the scriptures are. You don't like my take on D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29? When IS it OK to use religious belief to justify infringing upon the rights of others? Is it OK for just us, or are antis, Muslims, etc...also allowed to?

    ...there is nothing .. to imply that the Church should sit back and allow unrighteousness to be sanctioned by law; nor ..prohibit..lobbying..

    The Church should only use persuasion to promote righteousness. ETB stated,Government is force. Force is of Satan. McConkie stated,
    In this present world where wicked men will not repent and come unto the fulness of the Lord's perfect order of government, there must be two separate powers 'ecclesiastical and civil' the one supreme in spiritual matters, the other in temporal. Neither power can dictate to the other. "

    We need to obey scripture and render unto Caesar. The prophet isn't Caesar too.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 16, 2011 8:02 p.m.

    @ "Vince here": I think you read things into my response that weren't there or weren't intended.

    I had never heard of "NARTH" before your post; so it's true that I haven't done any reading on that score, but I have read a lot on the subject from a variety of other sources both pro and con.

    I do not equate pedophilia with either homo- or heterosexuality directly, except insofar as the sexuality manifests itself in same or opposite gender acts. I meant to suggest that, regardless of the strength of a person's passion, s/he does not become a pedophile until s/he acts on the impulse.

    In my definition, "homosexuality" is not a temptation; it is an action. Same-sex attraction is the temptation. No, I do not believe people with same-sex attraction should marry someone from the opposite sex until or unless they find themselves attracted to the opposite sex (some do).

    I do not believe that sexuality is a determiner of happiness or unhappiness. It is certainly possible to be celibate and happy, just as it is possible to be sexual and unhappy.

    I agree with you that growing up effeminate is not necessarily gay.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 16, 2011 7:46 p.m.

    To "lds4gaymarriage": I am increasingly troubled by your insistence on trying to use LDS doctrine and teachings to prove the prophet wrong. There is nothing wrong with your having a personal belief that so-called "gay marriage" is a good thing (though you're wrong); there is something wrong with your use of LDS scripture to try to justify something that cannot be justified by using LDS scripture. Your reading of D&C 134 is strained; there is nothing in that section that is meant to imply that the Church should sit back and allow unrighteousness to be sanctioned by law; nor does it prohibit the Church from reasonable lobbying; nor does it prohibit the Church from telling members what is right and wrong and asking them to defend the right. Do D&C 121 and 134 take away all of the rights of the Church? No. And they certainly don't take away a fundamental belief of the Latter-day Saints--that there is a modern prophet on the earth to direct us.

    If we are called names by those who want to give legal weight to unrighteousness, then so be it.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 16, 2011 7:22 p.m.

    Jeff | 12:41

    Jeff, it is clear by your comments that you haven't done your reading - my question was meant to see where your logic took you. NARTH, incidentally, argues that there is no such thing as homosexuality, there is only heterosexuality. I wanted to see your initial reactions, and sure enough, your comments are, sorry to say, superficial.

    As to the comment of pedophilia - the vast majority of incarcerated pedophiles are self-identified heterosexuals.

    What I mean by the comment of "growing-up gay" means that I, like many gay males, identify with a large part of feminine traits and behavior characteristics, nothing to do with sex, but with identity. To that effect, some heterosexual boys "grow out," so to speak, of feminine behavior from early childhood just as some girls grow out of being tomboys. Behavior and identity is not always synonymous.

    If you equate homosexuality with temptation, I submit the alternative - what would gays do, if homosexuality is a temptation, as you defend? Marry a heterosexual? The vast majority of those marriages don't last. Become a heterosexual? Psychotherapy does not work. Be celibate and alone? And unhappy? I thought happiness was the purpose of life.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2011 5:04 p.m.

    JM | 

    LDS4 The standard Works encourage voting on laws (and when majorities go against righteousness they ripen for destruction) Helaman5:2; and they also condemn homosexual acts.

    LDS4
    I agree with 100%. Homosexual acts ARE in direct opposition to the scriptures and Church doctrine. No argument from me here. That isn't the issue though. We LDS are to promote democratic principles, but the scriptures rein us in a bit. D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 denounce us using our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. We are forbidden in denying others their rights, even if it means people use their liberties to sin. Satan was all about forcing righteous behavior. We LDS are forbidden to use force to get others to behave righteously.

    I also agree that when majorities go against righteousness they ripen for destruction. Does this justify using force? No. We are to use kindness gentleness, meekness, persuasion, long-suffering and love unfeigned to get others to eschew sin and live righteously.

  • firstamendment Lehi, UT
    June 16, 2011 1:38 p.m.

    LDS have called for civility and love, and many activists have called to "destroy." LDS have had rocks thrown, been fired, had windows shot out, imitation anthrax sent (just "a prank") etc.

    I hoped the HRC would call for a stop to this bullying, they didnt, still there is now a pretense to kindness, but the underlying hatred seems still there.

    Here is one of many activist comments showing the attitude Ive encountered in media, most of the others the DN won't post:

    "We are going to go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is overturned...I would delight if everyone voting for 08 ended up unemployed, penniless and starving on the street...Boycott all Moron businesses. Drive them into the ground and let them know what we'll do when they spend money to hurt us."

    Contrast this with LDS statements that bullying is never ok, that no one need feel guilt for desires, Christ was likewise tempted etc.

    Activists are also fulltime posting anti-Mormon propaganda, and posting as offensive Mormons (I guess to increase hate towards LDS??) and otherwise attacking LDS and faith on unrelated articles.

  • JM Lehi, UT
    June 16, 2011 1:34 p.m.

    The Civil War was fought partially because some tried to override the majority opposition to slavery, and thus Government "by The People."

    LDS4 The standard Works encourage voting on laws (and when majorities go against righteousness they ripen for destruction) Helaman5:2; and they also condemn homosexual acts.

    In our Democracy, The People say we dont have certain rights. Murder; pot (once legal); polygamy (formerly legal); gay and bisexual marriage; speeding etc are not rights.
    Voting is.

    Im4gays, but now strongly oppose gay marriage. Marriage legally binds into crucial heterosexual relationships, sending a message to all that such are sacred.
    I love my gay family, friends, and coworkers.

    However activists have deceived us about homosexuality. While final causes are unknown, research indicates:

    1 Homosexuality is more influenced by environment than genetics (see narth). We create environment.

    2 Mainstreaming homosexuality through marriage, school courses (often including only history/studies manipulated by activists), etc increases homosexuality.

    3 Increasing homosexuality increases suicide (even where gays are accepted majorities), addiction, violence, domestic violence, etc.

    Ive seen the tears (some mine) and broken families caused by mainstreaming homosexuality.

    I also oppose Jeffs (polygamist) and gays overturning voted upon laws concerning polygamy and gay marriage.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2011 12:54 p.m.

    Mick
    I believe that the gay community should have all rights that the government has the ability to grant.

    LDS4
    In a 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 contrary to the Lord's call for separating Church and State and also contrary to D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 which denounce using our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others.

    The Church has already fought against Civil Unions being adopted. This is why the LGBT community calls us haters.

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 16, 2011 12:41 p.m.

    "Vince here" asked me if, by my logic, "heterosexuals need to engage in sex in order to be heterosexuals?"

    The answer would be yes.

    I don't believe that we are defined by our temptations, but by how we choose to act.

    Given that, I don't know what you mean by "growing up gay." Do you mean that you grew up having sex with other males, or simply wanting to? Or do you mean that you grew up identifying with tradtionally female activities as opposed to traditionally male activities? If you were sexualized at a very early age, what caused that?

    All of us grow up with perceived intolerance from others, and most, if not all, of us feel "different," lonely, and rejected during various periods of our lives. Almost all of us question our sexuality in some way and worry about our relative normalcy.

    What do you say to someone who was sexualized at a very early age, and is constantly tempted toward pedophilia. Is that person a pedophile even if they don't act?

  • 1Infidel APO, AE
    June 16, 2011 10:45 a.m.

    I question again the DN policy of 4-posts per thread and the obvious inconsistency in allowing one P p p poster here, by whatever means and number of logins, to continue to abrogate that policy.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    June 16, 2011 10:00 a.m.

    LGBT community-

    I believe in the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. I believe that the gay community should have all rights that the government has the ability to grant.

    That is not hate. Please don't twist my words.

    I hope youe afford me my beliefs without hate of my religion or beliefs.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 16, 2011 7:53 a.m.

    The article does a poor job at generalizing who gay rights groups advocates are and moreover, the article shows those groups as anti-faith.

    Nothing can be further from the truth.

    There are gays of all kinds - religion, or the lack thereof, is not the standard by which to measure sexual identity. Should it?

    That there exists bigotry is true. Bigotry and intolerance should not happen. Try growing up gay and see how much intolerance there is.

    Faith (religious) people should, of course, feel that they have religious freedom, but not at the expense of denying others the same right, in terms of identity and rights.

    One of the groups listed in the article, Exodus, however, is there to perpetuate nothing more than falsehoods and empty promises. Their studies are baseless, their logic thwarted, and the results dismal.

    In other examples, again, religious-based organizations should not promote legislation based on outright lies for political purposes. Duly granted, families, of all types, nuclear and non-traditional, are the basis of society. Love and respect are the ties that bind family groups together.

  • Vince here San Diego, CA
    June 16, 2011 7:18 a.m.

    Jeff | 9:04 p.m. June 13, 2011

    According to your logic if neither gay nor heterosexual represent identity but only sexual practices, then, please explain the following,

    "Do heterosexuals need to engage in sex in order to be heterosexuals?"

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 15, 2011 6:58 p.m.

    Well, Globetrecker, my question would be WHY DO THE REST OF US HAVE TO FOLLOW YOUR BIBLE? Why are you so insecure that everyone has to be forced to play by the rules that make you the most comfortable? Wasn't that Lucifer's plan?

  • Globetrecker Arlington, va
    June 15, 2011 3:18 p.m.

    Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of alternative/immoral lifestyles to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view--and to silence them by applying labels like "homophobic."

    Those who believe behaviors (whether open marriages, homosexuality, incest, etc). are immoral are threatened. Even my little nieces and nephews know that it's not normal acceptable behavior.

    I guess my other question would be this: WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS OKAY? Men with men? Women with women? If the bible and God teach that it is normal and equal, so be it. But nothing, nowhere, does it teach pro-homosexual acts are normal. But it does teach to follow morals while loving people. But it never, ever says to condone sinful behavior. Never.

  • 1Infidel APO, AE
    June 14, 2011 7:02 a.m.

    I don't for a minute believe the proclaimed poll claiming over 50% of Americans support gay marriage. As the article rightly emphasizes, while a few percentage points of people probably openly support gay marriage, it is just or more likely that the others who ended up as statistics in the poll on the "supportive" side did not have an argument to counter it, walked away waving their hands "whatever" or felt that the pollster or those standing by would make judgments about them for stating their true opinion, and thus gave the PC answer before breaking away. Any political science student knows how polls can be written, presented, and parsed, and the demographics leveraged to get the desired responses.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 10:11 p.m.

    How can one take a right away that is not already directly defined in the constitution?
    **The CA Supreme Court said it was a right and we let our religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights of others in direct violation of D&C 134:4.

    How can one justify the claim that the whole must recognize a minority belief?
    **Ask the lovings who wanted inter-racial marriage in the South. They were in the minority.

    How can one justify taking something to court to rule against a vote by the people to amend their constitution?
    **When that vote violated Equal protection and the spirit of the Loving ruling.

    How can one justify demonizing a religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their disagreement?
    **Raising half the funds and 90% of the foot soldiers in an organized effort to deny people their EXISTING rights is hardly peaceful and freindly.

    How can one justify forcing society to adopt the acceptance of behaviors it does not believe in?
    **Again, go ask the Lovings. Southerners didn't believe in mixed race marriage. Perhaps the Court got that decision wrong. Eh?

  • Jeff Temple City, CA
    June 13, 2011 9:04 p.m.

    Arguments in favor of same-gender marriage (and any other acceptance of deviant sexuality) revolve around fluidly defined words. "LGBT," for example, is used to represent a specific group, which it doesn't. Both the "B" and the "T" in the acronym are groups with a choice, and only the "B" group is capable of creating children, so the so-called "gay family" is a misnomer.

    One definition of "to pervert" is "to turn to an improper use; misapply," in which case all forms of biologically useless sexuality could be considered "perverted."

    "Gay" is not an identity. "Gay" has become a political word with a variety of meanings, none of which have been successfully pinned down in any of these threads. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are not identities, either, but represent sexual practices.

    "Homophobic" used to mean "having an unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." Now it means (officially in some places) "intolerant of homosexuality." How "phobic" (Greek for "afraid") can mean "intolerant," makes no sense out of a political universe.

    For the record, "deviant" means "deviating or departing from the norm," which clearly fits my opening sentence.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 6:40 p.m.

    I respect those who disagree; with that, my argument-

    How can one take a right away that is not already directly defined in the constitution?

    How can one justify the claim that the whole must recognize a minority belief?

    How can one justify taking something to court to rule against a vote by the people to amend their constitution?

    How can one justify demonizing a religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their disagreement?

    How can one justify forcing society to adopt the acceptance of behaviors it does not believe in?

    How can one justify saying that people are born a certain way when the only real evidence (being that living beings must be able to reproduce to be a functional living thing) - how can one claim that that their 'version' of number 1 and number 2 equals 1 and 1?

    Believe and live as you wish, but forcing me to have to legally agree with you isn't just morally wrong, it will only bring devastation not only to our society and legal structure... you will see, even your own LGBT community will suffer bad legal outcomes because of your own ignorant claims.

  • a man Zed LOS ANGELES, CA
    June 13, 2011 6:36 p.m.

    It's not the LDS role to "accept" other people's civil marriages. Why do they have to pass an LDS religious test?

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    June 13, 2011 6:34 p.m.

    "Talk about social experiments. Do you have a daughter you'd like to have marry a gay man?"

    Well, I would like my daughter to marry someone in the temple. If the gay man is temple worthy, then it shouldn't be an issue. The problem is very few gays are temple worthy (because most hate the Chruch anyway).

    And for the record, I am not saying that homosexuals are criminals. I am saying that homosexual acts (including gay marriage) are sins, as God said they are.

    I am not taking God's position as judge. I am not judging people. I am merely following His counsel on this matter. Recognizing an act as sin is not the same as taking on oneself the role of Supreme Judge of all mankind.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 6:30 p.m.

    And to the commenter about 'not having the right to oppose gay marriage as it would be like opposing women'.

    I certainly do have the right to oppose anything I desire to, including women. I do not oppose women but I certainly have the right to if I wish.

    Please, anyone, explain to me where in the constitution you find state recognition of same-sex marriage mentioned in literal writing (as the law requires, yes Roe v Wade was a violation of legal authority, as neither the term 'implied' works in law nor does the Supreme Court have any constitutional authority to exercise judicial review) - where in literal writing do we find any mention of state recognition for same-sex marriage? We don't.

    And amazingly we can somehow find words in the constitution that do not exist and people have such outrageous claims to even look over an entire amendment and disregard all of our rights to believe and speak as we wish.

    You may disagree with me because you have the right to - I guess for some reason, I lost that right when the masses decided religion was too imposing on them.

  • a man Zed LOS ANGELES, CA
    June 13, 2011 6:29 p.m.

    Belief is one thing, but if you advocate discrimination in the public or business sphere, then being called "bigot" is not persecution. Persecution is denying people their rights in civil society because of their sexual orientation... or religion, for that matter.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 6:20 p.m.

    Why is it that no one understands something so very simple. Gays can get married in Utah (YES, even right now!)

    But I as a citizen have voted NOT to have the state, a creation of, for, and by the people, recognize their contract.

    I vote to sustain what I believe to be moral as do my neighbors. I have religious, secular, and religious supported by secular arguments and beliefs to support my vote.

    I being LDS believe that all were given the Agency to choose for ourselves. I do NOT believe in taking someone else's right to choose for themselves. I do not believe I can tell a Gay couple to be straight or to not do as they wish in their own home. They currently have that right and no one has infringed it. They can marry and be as they wish. - But while I respect their right to live peacefully as they wish I demand and will fight for the same right. The masses are showing no ability to reason when they can't see that state recognition of something isn't a right. Proof? The U.N. just 'made' having internet a right. HA!

  • md Smithfield, UT
    June 13, 2011 4:03 p.m.

    Hey Pagan/Pagen, why not Pagin?
    You really spend an amazing amount of time trolling this website for anything mentioned about gays, the church and politics so you can cite articles as "proof" that you are correct in your views.
    Sad life.

  • Schwa South Jordan, UT
    June 13, 2011 3:09 p.m.

    The anti-gay crowd playing the victim rings hollow with me. Show us your Matthew Shepard. I don't endorse violence or vandalism, but I will remain intolerant of intolerance.

    I will agree to disagree, if you agree to live and let live. Is that a deal?

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    June 13, 2011 1:25 p.m.

    RanchHand: "What about the religious rights of those religions that believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry? Their religious rights are being denied and infringed by your religious rights. And Separate But Equal is not equal."

    If the believe that way, then they can do that, but my point is that people shouldn't be forced to accept something that is anathema to their beliefs.

  • Maggie Saint George, UT
    June 13, 2011 1:22 p.m.

    Who did not know this? However,I laud you for having the courage to bring this to the forefront.
    Hey,if you just mention that you do not want to comment re GLBT preferences you can get in trouble with them. You are no longer able to NOT comment in their favor or you are attacked as homophopic.
    Somedays I just do not want to go out of my house and be in contact with society. You're a racist if you disagree with President Obama and a homphobic if you are not publicly declaring your support of the GLBT movement. A good day is when neither subject presents itself.

  • EAO MINNEAPOLIS, MN
    June 13, 2011 12:29 p.m.

    1. One must look at a pattern of historical, long-term oppression to put this into context. Those who identify as GLBT have been persecuted over generations, while those who now claim to be victims have had heterosexual and (usually, but not always) Christian privilege for even longer.

    2. One must resist the temptation to take a few exceptions of aggressive behavior and apply it to an entire population, especially when looking at a minority population.

    3. One may take note that heterosexual men, usually of a higher profile or position of power, can commit adultery, have affairs, abuse women, etc but no media, no religion, no government regulation either labels ALL such men to be adulters/abusers or creates legislation to prohibit ALL such men from having the rights and privileges that others have. EXAMPLES: Arnold Schwarzenneger, Tiger Woods, What's-His-Name Weiner, Bill Clinton.

    4. "The Church" has erred and even bullied (representing the majority culture) in the past: It has used the Bible to condone/support slavery; the Holocaust; witch burnings; and pressuring Native Americans to be Christianized.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    June 13, 2011 12:16 p.m.

    After the Ball cont

    "Generally speaking, the most effective propaganda for our cause
    must succeed in doing three things at once.· Employ images that desensitize
    . . . [T]he rational message serves to camouflage our underlying
    emotional appeal . Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and, therefore,
    upon their gay sponsors... To be accepted by the most prestigious media, such as network TV, our messages themselves will have to beat least initiallyboth subtle in purpose and crafty in construction

    In explaining how to produce idealistic gay advertisements, Kirk and
    Madsen state. "[I]t makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because were using them to ethically good effect"

  • Y-Ask-Y? Provo, UT
    June 13, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    If you don't like homosexual behavior, don't do it.

    If you don't like same-sex marriage, don't get one.

    But allow all men (and women) the same privilege, let them worship (and marry) how, where, or what they may.

    Do not engage in UNjust actions by mingling your religious influence with civil law and deny others their rights to practice their religious and marital rights on an equal footing with your own.

    It really is not that complicated.

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    June 13, 2011 11:48 a.m.

    A note of correction to my previous post. When the APA put removing homosexuality from the list of DSM mental illnesses, less than 33% percent of the APA voting membership voted to approve this change.

    According to Barbara Gittings, a noted gay activist,"It was never a medical decisionand thats why I think the action came so fastIt was a political move. Thats how far weve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.

    In their book,After the Ball,Kirk & Madsen explain their plan for gay activists to use the media in their agenda to mainstream homosexuality in the US "The goal here has been to forge a little entente or conspiracy with the power elite, to jump ahead of public sentiment or ignore it altogether. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which sidestep
    the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils . . .constitute political payoffs by elected officials whose candidacy the
    organized gay community has supported"

  • johnnylingo62 Gray, TN
    June 13, 2011 11:34 a.m.

    The amount of vitriole for "freedom" for such a small minority of anomalies for sexual preference is quite mind boggling. The contention that is being created over this "gay marriage" (not "gay rights" for legal rights) comes from only one source - and it's the opposite from the pure love of Christ.
    Bitter, hateful, spiteful name-calling is rampant whenever this topic is broached.
    This "movement" for exceptional religious recognition to an alternate lifestyle will find little traction to dissuade anyone from their entrenched position of opposition, yet the battle rages on.... reminds me of the outcome of World War I (the trench war) where the battle lines didn't move, just the body counts continued to rise. In the end, everyone went home defeated and disheartened with malice.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 13, 2011 11:32 a.m.

    After reading Larry H. Miller's autobiography "Driven" I was impressed by the fact he discussed the incident involving the movie Brokeback Mountain.

    Soon after Miller pulled the movie from his theaters (In a way which in hindsight he wish he had handled better) Miller attended a meeting of LGBT students at the U of U. He described being moved to tears upon hearing how gay and lesbian couples were harrassed at movie theaters and in other of Miller's facilities. In this way, the Brokeback Mountain incident, from Miller's perspective, turned out to be a good thing.

    A news article such as this one must have the same affect on all sides. No matter how strongly you feel about the subject of same-sex marriage, it will do no good to malign, mock or bully people you have never even met.

    Wasn't there some old war story about seeing the white's of your enemy's eyes before you shoot? Maybe if we all truly looked into the white's of each other's eyes, we wouldn't feel so inclined to harrass and bully one another.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 13, 2011 10:56 a.m.

    "I'm pretty sure Mormons are completely fine with a homosexual man marrying a woman."

    Talk about social experiments. Do you have a daughter you'd like to have marry a gay man?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2011 10:53 a.m.

    @RivertonCougar & America First;

    And you say we're the intolerant ones.

    I can assure you that I'm no murderer nor am I a "social pestilence". Can Organized Religion say the same thing? Think the Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials before you answer that.

    And if God will be the judge, then why are you usurping his role?

  • 22ozn44ozglass Southern Utah, UT
    June 13, 2011 10:47 a.m.

    I am surprised that the AP would even run such an article as this given the fact that it is so politically incorrect to say anything, no matter how true it is, that does not portray the gay community in a positive light.

    The intolerance of the gay community was clearly manifest in the early 70's when gay activists used intimidation, threats, violence, disruption of academic conferences, deception, political pressure, and subversion to get the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM list of mental disorders. The change to the DSM took place in 1973, and the gay activists at the heart of the campaign to either discredit psychiatry or to force them to change the DSM openly admitted and bragged that this change was due to political pressure and intimidation and not due to a multitude of paradigm changing studies.

    Oddly enough this change was made with more than half of the voting membership voting on this issue, and many of those doctors who opposed the change were politically blackballed for openly stating their opposition to removing homosexuality from the DSM list of mental disorders.

  • American First Merced, CA
    June 13, 2011 9:53 a.m.

    Sexual preference doesn't rise to the level of a human trait such as race or sex, the only characteristic that binds gay rights special interests is behavioral deviance and social pestilence.

  • tmaxr Santa Rosa, Ca
    June 13, 2011 9:42 a.m.

    Facebook groups demand legal action! Petitions! Democracy is SO unfair...

    When gays start beating Christians to death, (as Christians did Matthew Sheperd, David Kato, Jose Sucuzhanay, Anthony Collao and Noxolo Nogwaza) Christians will have reason to complain. Until then, they just sound like a bunch of whiny bullies complaining there's nobody to beat up and rob of their lunch money.

    Who ELSE thought he'd have black slaves serve him in a utopian fantasyland after this world ended in flames?

    Oh yah. Charly Manson.

    After being raped by bigger black kids in the Indiana reformatory, Manson joined the Church of Scientology.

    "Once you get men to believe absurdities, it's easy for them to commit atrocities."
    -Voltaire

    Sharon Tate found that out the hard way. Bullies and rapists in an Indiana reformatory helped create the world's most famous serial killer. Not petitions or democracy. Get a sense of proportion, please, your sufferings are nothing compared to the victims of gay bashing, "corrective rape" and Uganda's "Kill the Gays" culture, imported by American Christian groups like Doug Coe's "The Family."

    Charly Manson had a family, too.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    June 13, 2011 9:27 a.m.

    Some people suggest that we "take religion out" of legal issues, such as marriage. They claim the founding fathers were not religious or inspired by God in any way, only saying they were to appease the religiously-minded people.

    However, I believe religion to be the foundation of society's view on right vs wrong. If we "take all religion out of it", as they say, then we would live in anarchy. As President James E. Faust said:

    "Some who wish to appear broad-minded say, under the guise of not imposing religious belief, I dont drink or gamble, but I dont think we ought to have any laws to control others that wish to. This completely ignores the health and social costs to society of the vices. They foolishly argue that laws cannot control human behavior. My long legal career has led me to conclude that all criminal laws have a moral basis."

    In the eyes of religion homosexuality is a crime (in fact, sexual sins are just behind murder in seriousness according to the Book of Mormon), so this can be considered a law with a moral basis. In the end, God will prevail.

  • windsor City, Ut
    June 13, 2011 8:53 a.m.

    dcj07

    Well said. Amen.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 8:14 a.m.

    It is not my place to start calling the other side names. Like 'disgusting' or 'perverse' as been called homosexuals on this very site.

    I will, point out a few things.

    This story points out five examples of 'discrimination' based on taking a position AGAINST lgbt rights.

    Five.

    1) 31 states still have laws on record that allow you to be fired for being gay.

    2) 14,000 service men/women have been, and continue to, be discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Source? Service Members Legal Defense.

    3) In the SLC Discrimination report from July 2009, there were x3 cases reported of discrimination in housing due to orientation alone.

    Three cases, per month.

    So, that's 31 states, 14,000 people discharged, and three cases per month in SLC alone...

    compared to five.

    While I would be foolish to say discrimination doesn't HAPPEN on both sides, I think this gives a clear indication as to WHICH side is actually being tolerant...

    and which side is only playing, the victim.

    LGBT face discrimination on a daily basis. And it is NOT protected by majoirty of goverment yet, as religion.

    Choose the right side of history.

  • Albemar West Jordan, UT
    June 13, 2011 8:11 a.m.

    In typical fashion, the persecuting now claim to be the persecuted. Please hold onto your views and free speech. Please Anti-Gay followers, continue to explain how you promote discrimination, the world is watching and wising up to the reality of this promoting of prejudice. For decades this group has used these very same tactics to deny gay and lesbian families their equal rights and now cry fowl when the tables & tides are turned. Not much sympathy from me...

  • Hey It's Me Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 7:23 a.m.

    In my neighborhood of Sugarhouse Park there are lots of gay people. I associate with them the same way I associated with my illegal neighbor, however, it doesn't mean I accept their position, it means I respect them because they are human. I bellieve they are both wrong in their positions, but I also know how to treat people with dignity. I believe they will be judged for their actions someday. I don't need to be a hater of polite, well mannered realy nice people. I don't think they should be allowed to marry, I think they should have pairrage. Two people pair up and unite. They are here on this earth to make choices and let someone else be the judge. I want to thank them for being caring loving neighbors. There are always a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else (those that throw gayness in your face) but most of them are just as respectful of me as I am of them.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2011 7:23 a.m.

    TJ:
    "According to the bible homosexuality is "an abomination in the sight of God". "

    ---So is eating shellfish and wearing clothing made of multiple fibers. Yet you probably commit these abominations each and every day since you probably wear manufactured clothing. If you eat clams, oysters, shrimp and lobster, you also commit abominations. Where is your condemnation of these abominations?

    sjgf:

    "Replace homosexual with any other minority (Black, Jewish, Mormon)
    You can't do that. Being black, or white, or some other race, is not a choice."

    --- Homosexuality, just like Heterosexuality is also NOT a choice.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2011 7:22 a.m.

    Tekakaromatagi:
    "There is no place in a progressive, tolerant society to persecute individuals for exercising their freedom of conscience. "

    --- Exercise your consience all you want, you however, do NOT have the right to deny equality based on your "consience". Your conscience is for YOU to live by.

    Seronac:
    "What I don't understand is how they can say such opposition is hateful. I am opposed to gay marriage... They should have access to the legal rights that married people do, so I support a civil union, but marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena infringe on religious rights."

    ---What about the religious rights of those religions that believe GLBT couples should be allowed to marry? Their religious rights are being denied and infringed by your religious rights. And Separate But Equal is not equal.

    The Caravan Moves On:

    "It absolutely shocks me that the pro-homosexual crowd demands that churches... has no right to get involved in matters of morality. "

    --- Your church has every right to tell YOU how to live, but your church has abolutely NO RIGHT to tell Non-Members how to live or what is "moral".

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 13, 2011 7:17 a.m.

    "We are unjustly called 'haters' and 'bigots' by those who have carefully framed their advocacy strategy,"

    --- If you act like a bigot there is not reason you shouldn't accept the label gladly.

    "... biblical worldview on sexuality..."
    --- Fiction and superstition shouldn't be the basis of public policy.

    I find it amazing that the actual bullies, those pushing to deny GLBT Americans the rights they themselves enjoy are trying to make themselves feel better by calling us the bullies. Pitiful actually.

    There is absolutely no reason to tolerate bigotry. YOU all call US intolerant, yet when have we ever lobbied to legislate away YOUR religious rights? NEVER.

  • ClarkHippo Tooele, UT
    June 13, 2011 5:11 a.m.

    @slcskp 10:53 p.m.

    You said - "When the gays start circulating petitions among the electorate to dissolve LDS marriages and interfere in your families, then we can have a legitimate discussion about how gay people and their supporters are just as intolerant as you are."

    Actually, this is happening already.

    -Feel free to browse Facebook or any number of gay rights blogs and you'll find petition drive after peition drive of people demanding the IRS sanction churches which will not marry gays and lesbian couples.

    -In San Diego, straight firefighters sued the city after being forced to march in a Gay Pride Parade where they were repeatedly harrassed. The reaction from the gay community to the lawsuit has been, "Shut up and march, you homphobes."


    @DanO 11:32

    You said - "One of the most violent acts you can do is deny someone their identity."

    And nobody does this better than the left. If your thoughts or lifestlye doesn't go along with theirs, you are automatically pegged as a racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, neocon facist.

    Prejudice is actually okay, as long as the politcally correct thought police are the ones doing it.

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    June 13, 2011 4:50 a.m.

    A few thoughts for everyone here:

    "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
    -- John Adams

    "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises." UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh

    Our beliefs are just that, beliefs, based on what we feel is true. We can argue until we're blue in the face and not get anywhere because the bases of our ideologies are entirely different.

    One more: "People believe what they want to believe." Terry Goodkind, in "Wizard's First Rule"

    Your argument is pointless and fruitless. Only the consequences of our decisions will influence us.

  • Stenar Salt Lake City, UT
    June 13, 2011 3:12 a.m.

    Bigotry should never be tolerated.

  • sashabill Morgan Hill, CA
    June 13, 2011 12:25 a.m.

    People who use terms like "bigot" or "homophobe" to describe perspectives that differ from theirs are not much different from fundamentalists who use terms like "cult" to describe churches which they don't like. In both cases, the mentality seems pretty similar to me.

    I campaigned actively for Proposition 8 in California. Nobody ever asked me how much money I contributed, no "suggested contribution" amount was ever mentioned. and no one tried to get me to contribute by using a tithing envelope.

    Those who raise the issue of Separation of church and state in reference to LDS involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign seem to have no such problem with Unitarian and other religious liberal involvement on the opposite side of that issue. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I find this rather amusing - not to mention blatantly hypocritical.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 12, 2011 11:32 p.m.

    The ultimate display of prejudice is telling someone that they are not who they know they are in their heart. One of the most violent acts you can do is deny someone their identity. It's much easier to judge us when we're reduced to a single act. However, we, like all people are more complex than that. It's like saying that being LDS means you sit through church for three hours every week and that's your sole definition. Homosexual is a clinical term, but it encompasses only one piece of the entirety that is each of us.

  • Riverton Cougar Riverton, Utah
    June 12, 2011 11:19 p.m.

    "It seems to me that slaves didn't get their freedom, women the right to vote, or blacks get some civil rights by the good will of the majority. The injustices had to be shown first then change had to be advocated. I'm sure at the beginning of this process the majority felt the minority was being intolerant and that they just needed to stay in their place where they belong."
    -----------------------------------
    It's not about who is in the majority, and what the majority believes. It's about what's right. The LDS Church has opposed slavery, advocated blacks' rights and womens' rights, and now oppose gay marriage. What God says goes, regardless of the majority.

    -------------------------------------

    "Mormons spent millions to deny California gays the right to marry."

    -----------------------------------

    That statement is false. I'm pretty sure Mormons are completely fine with a homosexual man marrying a woman. What you refer to (a man "marrying" a man) is not marriage, as most of the nation realizes. Gays don't want marriage-- they deny themselves of that right by refusing. What they want is an alternative to marriage, which is an immoral option that we cannot allow.

  • slcskp Mukilteo, WA
    June 12, 2011 10:53 p.m.

    Wow, thanks so much, unnamed persons on this board, for highlighting what "tolerance" means to you and your fellow believers: the right to call gays "abominable", "abnormal", "perverse", leading our fair Republic to "the brink of disaster".

    And thanks, Deseret News comments board moderators, for validating their vitriol as the sort of civil discourse that you're willing to post.

    So, for the aforementioned-but-nameless posters (to comply with the rules of the DesNews comments moderators against inappropriately inflaming people by using their names):

    1) Under the freedom of speech (and religion) rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, you can continue to call gays the hateful, bigoted names like what you've used on this board.
    2) Under those same rights, we can continue to call you out as hateful bigots.

    Everybody wins!

    And "tolerance" of one another's disparate beliefs and practices demands no less. When the gays start circulating petitions among the electorate to dissolve LDS marriages and interfere in your families, then we can have a legitimate discussion about how gay people and their supporters are just as intolerant as you are.

    Do we have a deal?

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:44 p.m.

    panamadesnews
    Yes, these pro gay rights persons have the right to say or do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon our rights. But we also have the right to say and do what we want, so long as we do not infringe on their rights. ...Let us remember that important teaching in the scriptures. May righteousness prevail.

    KJK
    I agree 100%. Both sides should use kindness, gentleness, meekness, persuasion, long suffering, etc... to convince people. May both sides eschew force and treat all equally. We LDS may not believe same-sex marriage is correct, but we don't believe in the Athanasian Trinity, Calvin's TULIP, women clergy, infant baptism, etc..., but we tolerate them. We should likewise treat SSM. Allow it and try to persuade those with Same-sex attraction to resist yielding to it.

    SSm advocates are not asking anything different than what we LDS asked for 125 years ago regarding our own unique form of marriage.

  • christoph Brigham City, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:44 p.m.

    Organizations without a leader and without unity will disappear; if such an organization is wrong, it will play out over time. If you truly believe your way is the right way, then be at peace. If you feel you are right, then you don't ever need to argue. Not all gays are alike, some oppose gay marriage and are embarrassed by those having to be "even" at everything in society.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:28 p.m.

    @DanO

    "Replace homosexual with any other minority (Black, Jewish, Mormon)"

    You can't do that. Being black, or white, or some other race, is not a choice. Being Jewish or Mormon has elements of choice and elements of indoctrination by the familial society into which one is born.

    However, choosing to be public about being homosexual is strictly a choice. (I don't think very many people concern themselves about people with homosexual inclinations as long as they keep it private. It is when they become so proud of their inclinations that they announce it to the world and make a big deal about it that people have concerns.)

    Being "in your face" homosexual is definitely a choice.

    Being black or white or some other race is not a choice.

    You are not comparing apples to apples.

    People should not discriminate based on things that people have no choice over, such as race or gender. But a decision to be "in your face" about something people consider a vice will offend people and cause them to want to distance themselves from such a person.

    Homosexuals should learn to not be "in your face" about their vices.

  • KamUte South Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:09 p.m.

    I for one love all but have no tolerance for acts I believe to be wrong. I believe homosexuality is wrong. As the vice president of a large company, my right hand man was homosexual. He grew up back East with a conservative family that has shunned him. I don't know all the facts. I know he is a great worker but he and I will never see eye to eye with respects to morality and partnership views.

  • coleman51 Orem, UT
    June 12, 2011 9:46 p.m.

    It is apparent that the Deseret News editors reject that same-sex attraction is an addictive behavior. I would suggest that you read "Letter From One In Recovery From Same-Sex Attraction" page 305 in the book, He Restoreth My Soul, by Donald L. Hilton Jr., M.D. You will find that the same chemical processes that affect those who are addicted to pornography and other sex addictions are the same that govern same-sex attraction. Rather than hide you heads in the sand, you need to look at the problem clearly for what it is. Homosexuality is a sex addiction and to grant those afflicted with it the same rights as someone with normal heterosexual behavior would be the same as granting rights to any other form of sex addiction no matter how egregious and criminal the behavior might be.

  • Hellooo Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 9:38 p.m.

    The only public opinion polls that are real are those that take place in
    the isolation of the voting booth. To date in the US, every time gay marriage has come to the vote of the people, it has been rejected. This in spite of widespread media support, the lock step education lobby of the NEA, and the well funded advocate groups. It will be interesting to see, if that changes based on these new poll findings.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2011 9:19 p.m.

    Certain things have always been wrong/immoral and always will be: Theft of what is not yours, lying, etc. etc. come to mind. Just because the gay community currently tries to couch their behavior in terms of "individual rights", or whatever terms/philosophies will hit the most buttons doesn't mean it's OK.

    But, I will agree that this whole argument (and others like it) depend on whether you believe in God and His prophet. If yes, the path is clear. If no, then I suppose that path is inevitable as well.

    I DO believe in God and His prophet. I feel fortunate to do so. It lends great peace, focus, and happiness to my life.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    June 12, 2011 9:05 p.m.

    With regards to the comment that it is OK to fire someone because they are gay, I disagree. I don't know if it is illegal but I think that it would be termination without cause and that could result in a lawsuit.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    June 12, 2011 8:30 p.m.

    I don't understand why people want to deny the LDS Church's role in defeating Prop 8. The LDS Church was heavily involved in the campaign and was public about its support. The Church leaders urged its members to donate time and means (money) in support of Prop 8. Church members appeared in the commercials. A Church member wrote the "Six Consequences if Prop 8 Passes" missive. A group, "Mormons for Proposition 8" reported:
    "As of Nov. 8, 2008, there are 6,585 total donations of $1,000 or more listed here. Of those, 3,365 (51%) have been identified as Mormon/likely Mormon. These donations represent $15,305,050.17, or 48% of all donations."

    So, own it. Own the success of the campaign. As every Mormon knows we have a very effective ability to organize and raise money.

    Taking a stance means risk.

    If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

    Vandalism and violence are against the law and should be prosecuted.

    As for me, I chose not to suuport Prop 8.

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    June 12, 2011 8:24 p.m.

    Jesus Christ will soon return to the earth. He will resolve this issue once and for all. He will not conduct any polls. He will not ask for a vote. He will not be swayed by majority opinion. When He comes, EVERY knee will bow and the wicked who refuse to repent will be destroyed. I recognize that I have room for much improvement in my life. But I am not trying to change His word to fit my behavior. I am trying to change my behavior to fit His word. That is the only path to true happiness and eternal life. There is no valid alternative!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 7:48 p.m.

    Back to the claim that the LDS church did 'not' donate to support Prop 8...

    *'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn Arave - DSNews - 02/03/2009

    '"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed the final report of its contributions all of which were nonmonetary to the ProtectMarriage coalition," said Scott Trotter, church spokesman. "The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31 deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.'

    The LDS church made continual refferences that it's donation was 'less than 1%' when compared with other donations...

    while 1) Trying to distance itself from the fact that a religion DONATED on a very much politcal issue in another state, California

    and 2) That it did NOT take into account the donations of it's members. Who make up less than 2% of California's population.

  • DanO Mission Viejo, CA
    June 12, 2011 7:36 p.m.

    The Caravan Moves On, whether the Church donates the money directly or instructs it members to do so, the end result and the intentions are the same. The Church just used its people and its people were just happy to oblige.

    And "A Guy With A Brain", replace homosexual with any other minority (Black, Jewish, Mormon) in your scenario and ask if it's not wrong to fire someone because who they are not their capabilities.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 12, 2011 7:35 p.m.

    So, A Guy With A Brain, what exactly is wrong for a private company to fire someone solely for being a Mormon?

    Is this not America?

    If I run a company, MY company, don't I have a right to operate my the way I see fit?

    And yes, if I worked for a company run by a Mormon and they fired me because I opposed Mormon activity, then yes, they have that right to do that as well.

    Again, isn't this America?

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    June 12, 2011 7:30 p.m.

    @ isrred | 7:18 p.m. June 12, 2011

    You're talking about the Church's payment of airline tickets for LDS officials to and from California and other administrative-type expenses.

    The LDS church did not take any money and dump it into the Prop 8 fight in the manner you claim. If you disagree, by all means, cite your historical sources: government documents, dates, form numbers, signatures of LDS officals, dollar amounts, etc.

    Come on, you made your claim first, prove it.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 7:28 p.m.

    'You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that claim is absolutely, positively NOT true.' - The Caravan Moves On | 6:44 p.m. June 12, 2011

    About that...

    *'Mormon Church agrees to pay small fine for mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8 campaign' - by Scott Taylor - DSNews - 06/09/10

    'As the state agency for interpreting and enforcing California's campaign finance rules, the FPPC identified 13 instances of "nonmonetary late contributions made and not timely reported" or the church failing to file daily reports detailing $36,928 in in-kind contributions, including the cost of staff time spent by church employees to help the "Yes on 8" committee.' - Article

    The LDS church has gone on record for almost $200,000. It's MEMBERS, donated much more.

    And DSNews, this is a fact, reported by you. Don't deny this post due to bias.

    When making the CLAIM that the LDS church 'didn't donate funds to support Prop 8'...?

    Make sure they are TRUE.

    It is not. They did. Accept it, or make your objection known.

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 12, 2011 7:25 p.m.

    According to the bible homosexuality is "an abomination in the sight of God". Of course if we say anything about that we are being hateful but if the gay comminity says opposition is being hateful our comments don't get approved. I am on Gods side. Love all his children but condemn immoral behavior.

  • Dan Maloy Enid, OK
    June 12, 2011 7:23 p.m.

    Read this through several times:

    "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant [my insert here: I agree with the article; the "intolerant" these days is largely the pro-homosexual crowd], if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." - Karl Popper

    Now, I am not suggesting in any way that we not tolerate homosexuals by their persecution and death, that obviously is evil in the extreme, too. However, I AM saying that conservatives and the anti-homosexual marriage crowd have every right, and even a moral obligation in the name of tolerance, to not tolerate immoral behavior; to not just roll over and give up in any fight concerning right and wrong.

    In the future, homosexuals in America may very well gain the legal right to enter into 'marriage', but that doesn't make homosexual activity moral nor does it mean conservatives must just give up the fight against evil.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 12, 2011 7:18 p.m.

    "You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that claim is absolutely, positively NOT true."

    The campaign disclosure forms submitted by the LDS church itself, as well as the fines imposed on the Church by the California election commission for improper filings, say otherwise.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 12, 2011 7:17 p.m.

    " It is not hate for people; it is disgust from the perverse acts performed that define what you are."

    It's a sad indictment on your character and the fragility of your humanity that you believe deep love, commitment, and selfless sacrifice between two human beings to be perverse. A God that would be angered over two of his children loving each other to the utmost extent possible is not a being worthy of worship or adoration.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    June 12, 2011 6:56 p.m.

    @Pagan | 5:11 p.m. June 12, 2011

    So, Pagan, what exactly is wrong for a private company to fire someone solely for being a homosexual?

    Is this not America?

    If I run a company, MY company, don't I have a right to operate my the way I see fit?

    And yes, if I worked for a company run by a homosexual person and they fired me because I opposed homosexual activity, then yes, they have that right to do that as well.

    Again, isn't this America?

  • The Caravan Moves On Enid, OK
    June 12, 2011 6:44 p.m.

    @ tmaxr | 11:50 a.m. June 12, 2011

    There you go again, making a false claim.

    You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that claim is absolutely, positively NOT true. It was not the "LDS church" that donated money but individual members. Early in the Prop 8 fight I actually went to my bishop and asked him where I could specify money on the tithing slip to go to the Prop 8 fight and he said there was no way to do that through the Church, that if I wanted to donate I'd have to do it through a private organization.

    It absolutely shocks me that the pro-homosexual crowd demands that churches, and the LDS church in particular, has no right to get involved in matters of morality. Just what exactly do you think churches are formed for?, to just get people together for tea and crumpets?

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 6:29 p.m.

    fortunately, for those of us who support equal rights for all, the tide has turned in our favor. your kids and my kids have realized that a country that values freedom and rights for all cannot deny certain groups those rights just because other groups find them "ichy'. the older generations will pass on and the younger generation will bring equality into existence. it's inevitable now.

  • merich39 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 6:21 p.m.

    those darn gays! they're trying to stop the homophobes from practicing their (perceived) constitutional right to block others from having equal constitutional rights. what a bunch of bullies!

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    June 12, 2011 5:29 p.m.

    Here's the problem: you don't have the right to "oppose" gays. That's like saying, "I oppose women."

    Faith is something you choose to believe in or not. So people of faith, you do not get to make the rules for other people. People of faith can choose to not be gay, if they so believe it is a choice.

    I am excited about the recent developments in benefits for gays. We are making progress!

  • panamadesnews Lindon, UT
    June 12, 2011 5:27 p.m.

    Shame on those alleged 50% in favor of gay rights. It is an abomination that will put our civilization on the brink of disaster, until we people of the United Stated wake up and put this abomination into its rightful place in our thinking. Yes, these pro gay rights persons have the right to say or do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon our rights. But we also have the right to say and do what we want, so long as we do not infringe on their rights. Let's not let them bully us into entering into their way of thinking just to pacify them - let us continue to fight for righteousness for our nation. Let us not call bad, good - and good, bad. Good is good, and bad is bad. Let us remember that important teaching in the scriptures. May righteousness prevail.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 5:11 p.m.

    This article did it's homework. And found cases of people choosing to leave a job profession, it's true.

    But the claims that the LGBT movement are 'intolerant' pale when confronted with one, simple fact.

    31 states still have laws on record that allow them to fire someone for only being gay.

    How is this an example of 'tolerance' from the other side? From those with anti-gay bias?

    Answer: It does not. Now that more and more examples of a majority in SUPPORT of LGBT rights is becoming evident, those against gay rights make claims of those in favor of gay rights as 'intolerant.'

    When Kobe Bryant made an anti-gay slur not 4 months ago.

    This is the example of the 'moral right.' Of the people who claim God is on THEIR side...

    they are now playing the role, of the victim.

  • Linus Bountiful, UT
    June 12, 2011 5:06 p.m.

    One comment included the following: 1) Doubt there is a god, 2) Assurance that if there is a god, he or she will not be displeased with sexual perversions, and 3) if god mistakenly disapproves, then god is unworthy.

    Oh, how far we've come! All the way to Sodom.

  • c00kster Provo, Utah
    June 12, 2011 4:23 p.m.

    Prior comments have hinted at what I think part of the problem in relation to this issue, that is, the shifting of majority view and the resulting relabeling of positions. Whether it is acknowledged or not, the majority view is typically intolerant of the minority (or opposition) view, and often demonizes the minority/opposition. Rarely is it comfortable for the majority to experience this shift away from power and traditional intolerance/ignorance. When the minority fights back and is able to land blows against what has become the "former" majority, the latter often feels victimized and disrespected, as if appealing to the minority, many of whom HAVE been victimized and disrespected for ages, will do them any good. As the forces of both sides equalize it behooves the former majority to understand what the minority knows too well...this is a war and all's fair, including individual persecution and open aggression, unless one establishes personal guidelines of good behavior towards friend and foe alike. My suggestion is to spend one's energy on the group of people who are largely ambivalent about the issue and attempt to win them over to one's point of view and side.

  • sjgf South Jordan, UT
    June 12, 2011 3:53 p.m.

    Part of the problem is that the homosexual community is trying to redefine standard English words, which makes it very difficult for us to discuss things:

    Gay -- used to mean "happy"; now means "homosexual male"

    Hate -- used to mean an emotion bordering on a desire to cause harm; now means disagreeing with someone, even if you love the person

    Marriage -- used to mean a lifelong commitment of a man and woman to live together and be the basic unit of society, typically (but not always) with the understanding that the union might produce offspring and bear the responsibility of rearing the offspring; the LGBT community wants to change the word to include two people of the same sex, to obtain government recognition and benefits even though there is no possibility of producing and rearing offspring.

    Tolerance -- used to mean being civil; now means totally agreeing with the LGBT agenda without question.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2011 1:32 p.m.

    @alt134

    You talk about government staying out of marriage, but in the same posting discuss the merits of a civil union between gay persons. Unless you define a "civil union" differently than what I've seen, you can't even separate the government from the idea of a civil union. The government is involved whether it's a "civil union" or a "marriage."

    Marriage is not just a religious imperative. A man and a woman declare by their marriage that they are committed to each other in the eyes of the law and society. It is a social contract too, that is indeed quite important to and for society. Indeed, gay people want the government to condone same-sex marriages, not just "civil unions."

    But still, a civil union is a relationship recognized by the GOVERNMENT, with certain rights and priveliges. The government is still involved.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    June 12, 2011 1:16 p.m.

    "As the gay-rights movement advances, there's increasing evidence of an intriguing role reversal: Today, it's the conservative opponents of that movement who seem eager to depict themselves as victims of intolerance."

    If the pro-marriage side is protecting marriage (a liberal institution because it fights poverty) and protecting freedom of conscience, how is it they are conservative? The role reversal is deeper than gay rights. It is a role reversal about progressivism. The old liberals are the new conservatives. The old conservatives have become progressive and liberal.

    Tekakaromatagi

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2011 1:14 p.m.

    To conclude:

    2000's AD God, through appointed leaders, preaches tolerance and
    nondiscrimination, while consistently condemning the
    behavior.

    Thank Heavens some things never change.

  • very concerned Sandy, UT
    June 12, 2011 12:57 p.m.

    I don't mean to argue but I don't think the comments of tmaxr are comparing apples to apples. Marriages between a man and a woman may have indeed had their own peculiar set of discriminations as tmaxr illustrates. But, now we are talking about an man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman. Not the same. Never was. Never will be as I understand it. Indeed, "Some things never change." For the present argument, what was wrong decades, centuries, and millenia ago is still wrong.

    My second point is that the Mormon church's view and policies are actually quite accommodating and tolerant when one considers how serious the sin actually is in the eyes of our Lord and Savior. The position is entirely consistent with loving the transgressor, but not the transgression. Coming out in favor of anti-discrimination policies is truly a sign of a tolerant church when it so strongly feels the spiritual/moral/religious convictions against the behavior.

  • dcj07 Mesa, AZ
    June 12, 2011 12:36 p.m.

    @isrred. No, I don't have pictures of family and I do not discuss my family or personal life in the workplace. My personal ethical and value systems prohibit such things. The work place is professional, there are those who do choose to behave as you depicted, I choose not to. Your point is well made, and I would agree with you to a point. However, my remarks were made more towards the intimacies of life, not the familial context in which you took it. My opinion is that personal life is at home, professional life is in the workplace. In regards to this article, if the individuals, lawfirms, or businesses are engaged in lobbying or public information of either side then some generalized discussion on the subject is appropriate, but personal life should not become a forum at any time. To force ones views on another is inappropriate, and as has been mentioned already, we are not judges, only players, even though some do not play well with others in the sandbox of life.

  • tmaxr Santa Rosa, Ca
    June 12, 2011 11:50 a.m.

    Mormons spent millions to deny California gays the right to marry. Perhaps it's time to revoke LDS tax-exempt status, until they get their church out of our government.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 11:46 a.m.

    "marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion, then what's the problem? "

    Well for one atheists can get married so as far as the gov't is concerned it's not a religious union. Secondly, increasing amounts of churches are marrying same sex couples. So for many of them there is religion and God involved.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 11:40 a.m.

    Anyway, we could end this right now by getting marriage out of the gov't and giving all couples, same and opposite gender, equal rights civil unions that have the same rights/benefits currently given to marriage. Either that or we can slug it out until the gay marriage side wins nationally in about a decade.

  • Seronac Orem, UT
    June 12, 2011 11:38 a.m.

    What I don't understand is how they can say such opposition is hateful. I am opposed to gay marriage, but I don't hate anybody, or any group. They should have access to the legal rights that married people do, so I support a civil union, but marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion, then what's the problem?

  • tmaxr Santa Rosa, Ca
    June 12, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    10,000 BC: 'We can't let other tribes marry into ours, the sun god will be angry!"

    1,000 BC: 'We can't let Gentiles marry Jews, it will be the end of the Jewish people!'

    1,000 AD: 'We can't let outlanders marry our women, they eat babies!'

    1500 AD: 'We can't let indians marry whites, the colony will fail!'

    1600 AD: 'We can't let English marry Irish, England will cease to be English!'

    1700 AD 'We can't let Catholics marry Protestant, England will cease to be Protestant!'

    1939 AD: 'We can't let Jews marry Christians, it will be the end of Germany!'

    1959 AD: 'We can't let blacks marry whites, it will be the end of the white race!'

    2011 AD: 'We can't let gays marry, it will be the end of the world!'

    Some things never change.

  • slcskp Mukilteo, WA
    June 12, 2011 11:12 a.m.

    Women have had the vote in this country for 90 years. Anybody who advocated publicly to repeal the 19th Amendment now would be labeled a bigot, and rightfully ostracized. Ditto for anybody who tried to repeal the Civil Rights laws of 50 years ago, or to reinstate slavery. Nobody would be defending them, or advocating to give their positions equal time in the public square in the name of supporting diversity.

    Universal support of civil rights, and women's suffrage, are completely uncontroversial now, but every one of them at point was opposed by a majority of the citizenry. Supporters of all those forms of institutionalized bigotry claimed God was on their side back then, too.

    So it is now with gay rights. Already a majority of voters across the US supports the right of gay people to civil marriage. Fifty years from now, our descendants will probably look back at us and shake their heads at our collective bigotry and ignorance, just like we do now for our forbears who supported slavery and segregation, and opposed women's rights.

    The arc of the universe bends toward justice, and justice will ultimately prevail here too.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    June 12, 2011 11:10 a.m.

    And the DN takes yet another opportunity to play the victim. Yes, the extreme examples of vandalism and the like (which I can count on my fingers) have deservedly been condemned, but the vast majority of the "intolerance" out there has merely been citizens exercising their freedom of speech. You don't get to enter the political arena and then hide behind religion when you don't like the results. Prop. 8 has clearly been a PR disaster for the Church, but instead of trying to learn something, you play the poor-little-us card. Maybe this will change someday, but I'm not holding my breath...

  • xscribe Colorado Springs, CO
    June 12, 2011 10:27 a.m.

    @I choose Freedom: Can't agree with you more, although I'm not a believer. But if there is such a deity, I'm sure "He" will have plenty to say about the intolerance of not only gays, but many other less fortunate in our society! Let "His" judgment begin! Better hope your stance is correct, because I'm sure there's no way a 2,000-year-old bible could get misinterpreted.

  • Ridgely Magna, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:25 a.m.

    Once again another Deseret News article about lumped-together gay issues that has both sides talking past each other, instead of with each other.

    Yes there are individuals on any issues polar extremes, whose financial and political livelihoods comes from hyperbolic rhetoric, and the riled up outrage of their constituency. But these professional provocateurs don't represent the vast majority of people in the middle whose interactions and beliefs are more pragmatic and nuanced, and whose views rarely get coverage.

    It's in the daily life of "the middle" where real change, tolerance, and accommodation is occurring everyday, and to me, that's where the real stories are.

  • Embarrassed in Seattle Redmond, WA
    June 12, 2011 10:24 a.m.

    Beware of tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue...often demanded but seldom returned.

  • Kevin J. Kirkham Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 10:04 a.m.

    The anti-gay rights crowd is simply shedding crocodile tears. The injustices they have suffered pale in consideration of what the majority has imposed upon gays.

    We LDS did the same thing. Brigham Young told the Saints to not to do business with the Gentiles that came to or through Utah. "Kauf Nicht Beim Gentiles".

    The anti-gay rights groups forgets that actions and choices have consequences. Peter Vidmar chose to support Prop.8 and those who didn't like 8 couldn't respect him and so oppossed him being their leader. He had to accept the consequences of his actions. LDS who oppossed Prop.8 (and Prop.22 before that) likewise faced consequences. Some had their temple recommends taken and many were released from callings. Under both propositions, the Saints were directed to send in campaign contributions with a donation slip listing the members' ward and stake. The Church wanted to know who donated what. Does anyone really think that there were no consequences for some with means who donated nothing?

    Sure, the destruction of property protesting the denial of rights is wrong whether it be graffiti on a temple or dumping tea in Boston Harbor.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dhahran, Saudi Arabia
    June 12, 2011 9:39 a.m.

    I agree with this article. There is no place in a progressive, tolerant society to persecute individuals for exercising their freedom of conscience. People who do this in the name of diversity have given diversity a bad name.

  • Sorry Charlie! SLC, UT
    June 12, 2011 9:19 a.m.

    So because the gay community is reacting to the decades of being bulled by these groups active attempts to discriminate against them they are now bullies? You cannot take the effect and make it the cause. you cannot be upset after decades of bulling someone if they finally stand up and kick you in the shin.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 12, 2011 9:17 a.m.

    " Keep your private life private... I don't discuss my private life in public... Please respect my rights and feelings and don't discuss yours."

    Do you have photos of your family on your desk? Do your coworkers talk about the joys and successes of their children in school, sports, music etc? Have you ever taken your wife to a work Christmas party or other function?

    If so, you have NOT kept your private life private and YOU are being the hypocrite. Gay and Lesbian persons have families, and demanding that they pretend that they don't exist IS a discriminatory attitude, regardless of how much you say otherwise.

    Private sexual behavior has no place being discussed in the workplace for ANYONE, and every LGBT person I know agrees with that. Just because a person is LGBT doesn't mean they somehow lack professional standards of conduct. But acknowledging a person's family and loved ones is NOT the same as talking about sexual activity.

  • isrred Logan, UT
    June 12, 2011 8:59 a.m.

    "God will have the final say on this issue. And no one will bully Him!"

    If God does exist, he (or she) will not hold it against me for loving my fellow man regardless of who they love and decide to share their lives with. God will not condemn me for allowing other human beings the same dignities and protections in housing, employment, and family protections that everyone else enjoys. God will not be upset with my for standing up in public when hateful hearted people think it is their place to verbally or physically attack and scorn a gay or lesbian person or couple.

    And if God does hold those things against me, then he certainly isn't a being worthy of my worship, love, and following.

  • Instereo Eureka, UT
    June 12, 2011 8:57 a.m.

    You don't need a constitution for the majority to take away the rights of a minority. It's obvious from the spin on this article and the previous comments that when the minority complains about its treatment, they get labeled with the very terms the majority are trying to shed by its behavior and rhetoric.

    It seems to me that slaves didn't get their freedom, women the right to vote, or blacks get some civil rights by the good will of the majority. The injustices had to be shown first then change had to be advocated. I'm sure at the beginning of this process the majority felt the minority was being intolerant and that they just needed to stay in their place where they belong.

  • dcj07 Mesa, AZ
    June 12, 2011 8:56 a.m.

    If I was to discuss the intimacies of life in the work place I would be hauled into the HR office and summarily reprimanded, disciplined, or let go. Yet if the same behavior was demonstrated by a person who espouses an "alternative lifestyle" did the same thing, and the infraction was handled in the same manner, this person would most likely scream at the highest level that they were being oppressed, that their rights were being infringed upon because of thier chosen lifestyle. I don't despise gay's for who they are, I despise them for the hypocracy that is so clearly outlined in this article. Keep your private life private... I don't discuss my private life in public... Please respect my rights and feelings and don't discuss yours.

  • OlpuebloguyInWyo Evanston, WY
    June 12, 2011 8:47 a.m.

    Gomorrah. The fate of this city was regarded as a warning against sensual wickedness. Sensual meaning those, physical in nature, attitudes and acts which are not natural. Yes, I said it..."not natural". Those who say otherwise are confused. Period. There were 5 cities in total that experienced the same fate. So, those of you who disagree, that's OK. I respect your opinion. Now reciprocate and respect mine. There will be a day where some cities of the world will experience the same fate, either through natural destructions (earthquakes, floods, etc.) or self destructions. It has and will continue to happen. Like you who advocate this "alternative" lifestyle, it is my responsibility to support (in word or $$) those efforts to keep this "lifestyle" away from my backdoor and my family. But only by nonviolent efforts. Not through bullying or intimidation. When those who act in such a way, to me it just means that they are losing their battle and are resorting to whatever means they can to see their efforts succeed....which will not in the end.

  • COUGARNATE Lyman, WY
    June 12, 2011 8:26 a.m.

    This is dead on. Don't disagree with the gay & lesbian activists, or you will be persecuted for standing by what you believe in. It has happened to me before more than once.

  • prunes Tooele, UT
    June 12, 2011 8:25 a.m.

    Gay Rights advocates are, indeed, leading an ugly campaign. I believe one of the first victims many years ago was Anita Bryant regarding their threats and intimidation policy. She was hounded and intimidated for years. These people have a right to their skewed way of life, however their policy of bullying those who disagree with this lifestyle many of us find reprehensible, is not an asset to their cause. It's quite interesting to note what straight society really thinks about gay rights when out of earshot of gayitivists.

  • El caballero Tremonton, UT
    June 12, 2011 8:02 a.m.

    I agree with this article. Pro-gay parties won't allow the "agree to disagree". How many people were bullied for supporting prop 9?

  • I Choose Freedom Atlanta, GA
    June 12, 2011 7:27 a.m.

    God will have the final say on this issue. And no one will bully Him!

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    June 12, 2011 6:39 a.m.

    Another thing, this title is ludicrous. To say it is a "role reversal" is to say that those who hold an anti-LGBT position have been up to this point "intolerant". Nice inflammatory headline, DN.

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    June 12, 2011 6:37 a.m.

    This is all about a vocal minority imposing their will, and an apathetic majority rolling over for lack of a spine. Everyone is entitled to their position, opinion, and the expression of such. But that does not mean I need to embrace an opinion I do not agree with out of fear, intimidation, or to seem PC.

    To tolerate is to withstand. Look it up. In electronics, tolerance is like a filter, to hold things to a higher standard. Judge righteous judgement.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    June 12, 2011 5:51 a.m.

    The article excluded the most egregious example of intimidation by homosexual activists: the intimidation of Mormons in California. They were individually targeted, and the LDS temples descecrated. Falsehoods were perpetrated - that out of state funding by the Church was responsible, when, in fact the Anti-Proposition 8 forces had a greater percentage of out-of-state funding than the Pro-8 advocates, and the Church provided no direct monetary help.