This poll is biased as it was conducted by an anti-gay activist known for
spreading anti-gay propagaganda in the past which completely discredits it. The
questions are presented as an either or - as if same-sex marriage eliminates
man-woman marriage. The two are not mutually exclusive. They're also written to
mischaracterize the issue and tap into the subconscious of the person being
polled i.e. "...should be redefined to include any two people".
"Redefined" is a loaded word and "any two people" implies
marriage between close relatives and/or marriage to minors. Of course that was
the intent. The honest way to ask the question would be: "Do you think that
two unrelated adults of the same gender should have the legal right to enter
into a civil marriage". They won't ask it that way because honest language
is their enemy and they know that, assuming the people in the poll are truly a
representative sample of the population (i.e. the poll wasn't conducted at the
Focus on the Family company picnic), the results will favor same-sex marriage.
O'really breakdown of the family, cheapening of the importance of marriage
and family in society...LDS4A study conducted by Grey Matter
Research (formerly Ellison Research) among a representative sample of 695
Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors to identify the three
strongest threats to families in their own community. The three
most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43%
of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism
(36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a
stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:
Co-habitation before marriage (18%) Pornography (17%) Morality not
being taught in schools (14%) Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy
(13%) Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%) Parental drug use/abuse
(11%) Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%) Teen sexual
involvement/activity (8%) Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children
(6%) Adultery (5%) Poor schools or quality of education (4%)
Teen pregnancy (2%) Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%) The
expense of child care (1%) Other issues (12%) Gay marriage
didn't make the list. The biggest threats come from within families, not
outside evil forces.
Pollster Gary Lawrence: Latter-Day Commentary describes him as an
"LDS, Republican, conservative hawk" who was the "state LDS
grassroots director for the Protect Marriage coalition. Brother Lawrence, who
has served as a bishop has spent over 35 years studying opinions and behaviors
of the American public." Really surprised his poll was against
gay marriage. Really, really surprised.
@ Malcolm SwallReligious people who believe in God and the Bible
HAVE expressed what they feel the harm would be, many times over. To name a few-
breakdown of the family, cheapening of the importance of marriage and family in
society, teaching children in schools that homosexuality is normal and
acceptable, a permissivness in general that leads people to confusion and
unhappiness, very confused children. Non-religious LGBT supporters and even some
liberal but religious supporters and especially the gay community never listen.
They dismiss these potential harms as fairy tales, hate tactics, non-scientific
fear mongering, etc. Those who fear what will happen will keep
warning. The govt. and gay supporters will keep ignoring and dismissing. And in
a few generations when we see these predictions really coming to pass, I hope
those who knew will not say "I told you so" but "I'm so sorry
you're so broken and sad. There is a way out of this darkness. Follow us to
@Jeff 1:19 pm 10/14 "A major problem with the argument that same-gender
marriage causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm
will happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and
harm to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take
two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to
reverse."You are being pretty specific - "...harm to
procreation cannot be determined immediately". and "In this case, it
will take two to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult
to reverse." Yet, at the same time you are being pretty vague -
you don't define any "harm to procreation".If you have
enough knowledge about the harm to correctly indicate "it will
take...generations", you must know what that harm is. You might actually
carry your case if you share that certainty. If you don't actually know what
the harm is, you should admit that you can't possibly know that "it will
@Jeff: "@ Malcolm Swall: You wonder what harm I think will come from
same-gender marriage. You misrepresent what I said. I am suggesting that there
is a problem with suggesting there is no harm from same-gender marriage because
the potential harm will not be evident for at least three generations. I don't
know what harm will come exactly. I suggest that proponents of same-gender
marriage cannot claim that there is no harm, only that it is not immediately
evident."Nice dodge, but you are the one proposing that there
will be harm. I am proposing that there is nothing to indicate that there will
be harm. It is your proposition, it is on you to explain what harm you think
will occur.Importantly, same sex couples are experiencing
demonstrable harm currently (not being able to have the legal benefits of
marriage). How can we objectively evaluate and compare the two cases? You
conceivably could argue that the future harm is of greater cost than the current
harm to SS couples, but you have to quantify what that future harm actually is
to make the point.
The LGBT community does not have a problem with many Americans disapproval of
same sex marraige. They have a problem with this poll. Gallup has been polling
this issue for 16 years and the last time disappoval of same sex marraige
approached the 64% this poll gets is back in 1998.Why does the
Mormon community have such a hard time accepting the fact that a majority of
Americans now support same sex marraige? Why does the Mormon church feel is it
acceptable to spend millions of dollars specifically designed to disaenfranchise
any Americian? If the Mormon Church does not believe in same sex marraige don't
perform them. But don't tell other Americans (including many denominations) what
they can and can't do.
I don't understand why the uproar over this poll from the LGBT community. Why
can't they just accept that many many people are against this relatively new
idea of two of the same gender getting married? Isn't it obvious? Why try so
hard to prove the poll false? Try as they might to convince, plead, dis
religion and morals, turn it around to make non-gays look bad and every other
tactic they employ, many many people will never accept it. It may be 49% or 51%.
Either way it will never ever be 100%. That is a fact. So I would suggest that
they just get used to that fact and go on living their lives and loving their
partner without getting all fussed if people don't like what they're up to.
Jeff A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes
no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen.
Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to
procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to
three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.LDS4Since 98.5% of people are straight, do you really think that
the 1.5%, if granted marriage equality, will cause the 98.5%, within 3
generations, to no longer want to have kids? Gays want to have kids so gays
dont have a desire to curtail population growth.If people stop
having as many kids, it will not be due to gays getting marriage equality. It
will be due to other things like high taxes, continued recessions, pregnancies
no longer covered by insurance, etc...which makes having kids financially
difficult. Id appreciate hearing your theory as to how giving gays marriage
equality could possibly lead to straights having fewer kids.
Wickedness never was happiness.
@Jeff 5:48you wrote:" Do you argue that I should abandon my faith for
your convenience?"Never!! Jeff, " I disagree
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it"(Voltaire)Your religion liberties are safe and very much
protected. The question here is how far are YOU willing to go in
order to defend yourself from an unknown harm that may happens in three
generations down the road?Mormons more than other faiths in the
United States should know the harm that comes from unfounded fear,
missunderstandings and plain bigotry.
Jeff 1:19 pm 10/14 A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage
causes no harm therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will
happen. Marriage, like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm
to procreation cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two
to three generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.Kaliendra 307 PM 10/14 first we do not require people to prove they can
have children and intend to before they get married (not a condition of
marriage), two there are many ways to have children that do not include marriage
or even a man and a women directly, third homosexuality has existed for millions
of years and throughout hundreds of species and has yet to ever caused an
extinction.Jeff 5:48 pm 110/15 Do you deny the problems with the
arguments I mentioned? I think the problems I point out are valid; I've been
reading these threads for several years, and I have never seen anyone refute the
problems with the arguments.Yes I do refute your failed attempt to
@jeff"Do you know what will happen in three
generations?"the same thing will likely happen that has
happened for the hundreds of generations that homosexuality has been around. The
world has not ended despite millions of years and hundreds of species with
@jeffdid you read kalindra's post it clearly refutes each of the
"problems" you bring up.
@ Malcolm Swall: You wonder what harm I think will come from same-gender
marriage. You misrepresent what I said. I am suggesting that there is a
problem with suggesting there is no harm from same-gender marriage because the
potential harm will not be evident for at least three generations. I don't know
what harm will come exactly. I suggest that proponents of same-gender marriage
cannot claim that there is no harm, only that it is not immediately evident.@ Kalindra: It's ironic that you suggest that my "line of
reasoning" is tired. What I was pointing out is that arguments in favor of
same-gender marriage are problematic. What am I reasoning? Do you deny the
problems with the arguments I mentioned? I think the problems I point out are
valid; I've been reading these threads for several years, and I have never seen
anyone refute the problems with the arguments.@ Baccus0902: I'm not
sure you read my post very carefully. You are bringing up a number of straw men
to knock down that I never mentioned. Do you know what will happen in three
generations? Do you argue that I should abandon my faith for your convenience?
The publisher of the poll should carefully consider whether to hold to one of
the tenets of LDS faith "We believe in being honest" or publish such
political propaganda which does not represent public opinion.
Intentionally(?) Deceptive PollWhenever a poll results are
dramatically different from the vast majority of others, it needs to be
scrutinized for methodology, bias, motivation of the pollster, and what the poll
sample looked like. This poll falls into the dramatically different category
and we know very little about the polling details."We can also
intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling
only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something
that is not true, we are not being honest. The Lord is not pleased with such
dishonesty, and we will have to account for our lie." - Gospel Principles
@A voice of reason"If it came down to equality without freedom or
freedom with inequality, what would you choose?"Why does it
have to be one extreme or the other as you outlined it? @IDC" I don't think supporting monogamy in an activity that I consider to be
immoral to be moral."You don't, but I think it is which is why
I used it as an example when someone noted that moral people can still end up
disagreeing on what is moral. @Baccus0902"Gays are
procreating babies all the time."Utah even had a lesbian state
legislator be a surrogate mother for a gay couple.
It seems if you focus on the DEFINITION of marriage, the solid majority of
Americans think it should be "only as the union of one man and one
woman" as the conservative Alliance Defense Fund's recent poll found. Their
results were basically the same as Lawrence's: 62% of Americans agreed with this
statement: "I believe marriage should be defined only as the union of one
man and one woman." 53% definitely agreed. Only 35% disagreed.Lawrence's poll was 64% for traditional marriage, 33% for gay marriage.If you focus on the LEGALITY of gay marriage, you get these results in
favor:Gallup: 53% Public Religion Research Institute: 51%CNN:
51%ABC News/Washington Post: 53%What do we learn from this?
That one set of polls was biased and the other was not biased? Do we pick the
result we like and ignore the others?I hope not.People
should look at poll questions carefully, yes. Both sets of poll questions --
legality and definition -- tell us something about how people feel and think
about same-sex marriage. For example, from a PR perspective: Proponents might
emphasize legality. Opponents might emphasize how legalizing same sex marriage
changes the definition.
Jeff 1:19Come on brother, get on with the program.What is it?
Aren't gays such a minuscule minority that their procreation or lack of it
really will not affect the future of human kind?(psst...let me share
a secret.... Gays are procreating babies all the time. The heterosexual way or
by artificial insemination shhh)Or, do you believe that
Homosexuality is contagious and eventually if we open the gates Heterosexuality
will cease to exist? Do you doubt yourself?You wrote: "we are
taught to be respectful of others and to have compassion for those troubled by
same-sex attraction". Troubled? are you troubled by opposite sex
attraction?There are many faithful, devoted LDS who have no problem
with same gay marriage. Because they know it will not affect them or society
negatively.Other compassionate LDS want same marriage so all can
enjoy the happiness and benefits that a loving, legal monogamous relationship
provides.Jeff, nobody is asking you to change your religious mind.
Just let a secular society make secular decisions. As you enjoy your freedom of
religion and life style. Let others have the same privilege. Is that really too
much to ask?
LValfre says:"...Just like the new revelation removing the
Curse of Cain, "----The curse has been removed?
Bu-but they're still Black. Apparently that "new revelation" was
faulty.@Jeff;Marriage is absolutely not indelibly linked
to procreation. It is possible to procreate without marriage. It is possible to
have marriage without procreating. Thus the two are not indelibly linked. If they were so linked, we would REQUIRE all married people to have
children (even the old, the infertile, etc.). Again VoiceOfReason
says that we live in a free country as long as you DO WHAT YOUR TOLD BY THE
@ Badger55: When it comes from an anti-gay activist and contains intentionally
misleading questions? No, we don't. We prefer our polls to come from sources
like Pew and Gallup. You should too.
@jeffSo you are aware this line of reasoning has been taken before
right? three things, first we do not require people to prove they can have
children and intend to before they get married (not a condition of marriage),
two there are many ways to have children that do not include marriage or even a
man and a women directly, third homosexuality has existed for millions of years
and throughout hundreds of species and has yet to ever caused an extinction. I
now I now as I said before your line of reasoning has been tried on every thread
on this subject so do us all a favor and go back and read the refutations to the
next 20 points you are going to try to make then get back to us with some new
"A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm
therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage,
like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation
cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three
generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse."What "harm to procreation" do you imagine? Anybody can argue
against anything by postulating a future harm that "cannot be determined
immediately". A claim that the world will end next year can't be disproved
this year, that doesn't mean that it convinces anybody.Again, please
specify exactly what harm you fear.
A major problem with the argument that same-gender marriage causes no harm
therefore it should be permitted lies in how that harm will happen. Marriage,
like it or not, is indelibly linked to procreation, and harm to procreation
cannot be determined immediately. In this case, it will take two to three
generations, and by then the harm will be very difficult to reverse.A problem with the argument that religious people should not allow their
religious views to influence their attitudes toward same-gender marriage is at
least two-fold. The first, for the LDS majority who read this newspaper, is
that we are taught to be respectful of others and to have compassion for those
troubled by same-sex attraction; if we abandon our beliefs, we abandon the
teachings of compassion and respect as well. Secondly, a purely biological
discussion of the difficulties of same-gender relationships is not permitted in
this forum, and would be distasteful to most of us anyway. Biology is far more
cruel than religions ever are.Finally, those who think the LDS
Church will abandon its beliefs on marriage do not understand those beliefs.
@voice of reason So wouldnt the LGBT community and it supporters
fighting for more be a part of their individual freedom and maybe a part of
their seeking to be able to make choices about their life? You seem to be saying
to contradictory things. Are you saying People should have individual freedoms
to make choices in life but must just accept the inequalitys they face?
Inequality is always going to be a fact of life in a free society or not but it
seems silly to claim we should have a free society but you must accept your lot
Care to provide any evidence that gay rights had anything to do with the fall of
the rome or our current problems?
Voice of reason, you are free to be completly free. You just have to move
somewhere where there is nobody else around and you can literally do anything
you want. But, if you choose to remain in society you one, have to
help pay for it and two have to not step on other's rights such as marriage when
it truly does not affect you.
Mr Lawrence is not an independent pollster. His bias is reflected in the
results. Why are his results so deviant from reputable independent
organizations such as Gallup?
To all liberals on here:If two principles were inevitably at odds
with each other and all things boiled down to one or the other. If you had to
choose which you could have- what would you choose?Forced equality,
where there is no rich vs poor, no extra benefits for some and not for others,
no pain and suffering for some yet peace and happiness for others... a life
where all things are equal no matter who tried to stop it and no matter who
wanted to elect not to participate... things were equal regardless.Individual freedom, where some will suffer from their choices and some will
gain, some will have extra benefits you don't get, some will treat others well
and you poorly, some will discriminate and be prejudiced, some won't, you will
have great things in this world along with bad things, you are free to choose
what you make of your life, being free to chose right from wrong with what is
yours.If it came down to equality without freedom or freedom with
inequality, what would you choose?I would rather be free to choose
my life, my government, my beliefs. That's true conservatism!
@DeltraFoxtrot,"You may delay it a few years, but ultimately
equality will prevail and the world will keep on turning. "Yep!
You can keep calling it out as blasphemy but it's going to happen. Just like
the new revelation removing the Curse of Cain, it was going to happen no matter
how much you fight it. Equality will prevail and the country started picketing
BYU games for exactly that reason.
Lane Meyer - In fighting for my beliefs, I only mean in the way I vote and
causes I financially support. I won't march against gays or not associate with
or shop at their stores. I won't threaten them or vandalize their homes or
places of work. What are our rights? I believe we all already have the same
right to marry a person of the opposite sex. We all already have the same
rights. I realize my view is limited but just about everyone has limits. I
would guess most who support gay marriage don't also support polygamy. We all
have limits. By allowing gay marriage our country is in a way saying it is okay
and that we all support gay marriage. I don't feel that way.alt34 -
I don't think supporting monogamy in an activity that I consider to be immoral
to be moral. Although I do have more respect for monogamous homosexual and
heterosexual non-married couples than those who are not committed to one
partner. I don't hate or have ill will towards either.
One simple rule folks: Best way to avoid hypocrisy is to mind your own
At one time 64% of the nation was against blacks and whites going to the same
schools.All of you who speak out against gay marriage may as well be
citizens of Mississippi in the 1960's. Change is coming, it scares you, you
don't think it is right. Well it is going to happen anyways. You may delay it a
few years, but ultimately equality will prevail and the world will keep on
The entire problem behind this is the legal definition of marriage vs the
religious definition of marriage.A simple solution. GET THE
GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE. Replace the legal term
"marriage" with "civil union" and guarantee equal rights and
protections under the law for everyone.Let the religious folks (who
are the only ones having a problem with gay "marriage") keep their
religious term "marriage" and define it however they want to.If a couple wants to join together in the eyes of the state, they go down to
the court house and get a civil union. If they want to join together in the eyes
of their deity they go down to the church and get married.It's easy,
it's simple, it's straight forward. Both sides get what they want. It lets the
religious people keep the sanctity of their "marriage" while granting
equal projections and status to everyone else.It's called
compromise... something we've forgotten how to do.
Nature created men and women differently for a reason. It has to do with
perpetuation of the species. Yes, there are aberrations in nature, but
aberrations are not the norm.Marriage, from the beginning, was
intended to be between men and women. Any plumber can explain why this works
L: "If you meet the criteria, you are a man, and find yourself a wife, you
certainly have the same rights to get married that I do if you accept the
"rules" of marriage and not try to redefine it."---------------------------Or if you are a nice cheese and find
yourself a nice wine, then you can be defined as a marriage.Or one
of two companies that merge...that too is a marriage.Look up what a
marriage is under our laws. It is a contract between two individuals and the
state. The state allows these two individuals to become each others closest
relation with rights and privileges to follow. The two individuals pledge that
they will accept this. They do not have to have children. They do
not have to even have sex. They do not have to live together. They do not have
to love each other. But they have become partners legally. This is what
"marriage" means per our laws.This has nothing to do with
religion. This has to do with treating each law-abiding, tax paying American
In response to the comments above, "marriage" must not be treated as
equivalent to the definition of a "family". Today, a family can be
defined in so many different ways so as to fit your own preferences (no one can
control that process). On the other hand, specifically, marriage is
a reconized relationship defined by the condition of "one man to one
woman". It is a unique combination and relationship of "one man to
one woman". In defense of traditional marriage, please find
other deserving names to define, the "one man to one man", or
"one woman to one woman" combinations and relationships for gay
couples (that process should be explored). Polygamy for example is
for a "one man and many women" relationship, polyandry is another, and
Surprise. Surprise. A GLB supporter that doesn't agree with a poll that
suggests 2/3 of Americans think of marriage being between a man and a woman.
"homosexuality exist in over 400 species and homophobia in only one. You
tell me which one is unnatural."I don't care if there are a
thousand species. Animals act only on instinct. Their behaviors don't
necessarily mean "natural". Using deductive reasoning to justify
homosexuality is a poor argument, i.e: monkeys eat bananas, I eat bananas,
therefore I'm a monkey.
The other absurdity of this poll is that it asked about "homosexual
behavior". Of course Maggie Gallagher (the woman who used to say she wasn't
anti-gay but just wanted to "protect marriage" but now through
comments like this proves that she is in fact generally anti-gay) tries to spin
the 20% who refused to answer as anti-gay and uncomfortable with the subject.
I'd say the 20% were more likely thinking "Why are you asking me about
private consensual activity between adults? It's 2011."
So Gallup, a widely trusted non partisan pollster, says 53% of people approve of
it. And this guy, who admittedly has done paid polling for the Yes on 8
campaign, says otherwise. Who do you believe?
GeorgeTry early American history and the prosperous times of the
Roman Empire. The point is, societies decline with gay rights. Our country?
Witness for yourself.
Seems like we argue about a word "marriage." There are lots of words
that have been defined by one source or another. One I am familiar
with is the word "Doctor." I have been called "Doc" for
many years, sometimes even "Doctor" but the truth is I'm not a
"doctor" and I don't meet the criteria. Some people will get upset if
I put that on a business card and say according to my defination I can represent
myself that way, otherwise you are taking away one of my rights (to be called
whatever I want.)You could subistute many other words like
"electrician."I'm sure someone will say that with a lot of
hard work I could become an electrician...well I only have one arm & one leg
and I don't want to try that. I can however get married and I have a wonderful
wife.If you meet the criteria, you are a man, and find yourself a
wife, you certainly have the same rights to get married that I do if you accept
the "rules" of marriage and not try to redefine it. You can be an
electrician if you meet the defination of an electrician.
@Ms.W instinctively understood, real? care to provide some
scientific evidence for that claim or do you expect us to take it on faith?
"Ask yourself this...if you did not have a religious belief that marriage
should be between heterosexuals, would you care if gays were legally
married?"Yes. Because it is instinctively understood that
homosexuality is wrong. I do not support "gay" anything and I've
never needed religion to understand that in the first place.
@CottageCheese,I can't speak for anybody else, but I will answer
those questions:How many homosexual individuals were sexually abused
at some point in their life, particularly in their youth?I was never
sexually abused.How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in
pornographic material?I never viewed nor engaged in pornographic
material. In fact, I avoided that material like the plague because I needed to
be a good guy--what was expected of me. I even avoided Madonna songs because of
the unsavory lyrics. How many homosexuals participated in
self-abuse?I have lived a healthy life and take care of my body. I
have never engaged in self abuse. I'm just wired a little
differently than most people. The reality, however, is that I probably have more
in common with you than you would like to admit.
@worfand no society has prospered suppressing the gay community
either so what your point?
No society has ever prospered with gay rights.
Now what sense do religious people make when they spout off this stuff in thier
comments. It's embarasing really.If I take a poll how many people
think gay is catchy I'd probably get the same number as this poll. So soon, you'll be the minority fighting for your rights as the gay majority
strikes down heterosexual marriage? I won't feel sorry for you.
I'm religious as the next guy.What does that have to do with the US
constitution and personal rights? Nothing.If you can honestly make a
constitutional argument against gay marriage, go for it. So far, courts are
agreeing that denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.When you
actually live in a theocracy then you can quote the Bible while passing laws.
Simple as that.And start writing your anti-premarital sex bill. That
will fix nearly everything.
@VoR:What about religions that believe GLBT couples should be
allowed to marry and believe that is it good to perform said marriages? You
prohibit it. Religious freedom is now infringed upon - by the religious no
less.BTW, the Constitution didn't "state" all rights. It
specifically states that they weren't all enumerated.Refusing
government recognition of our marriages denies us and takes away the very
governmental benefits that you yourself receive (Hypocrisy).@Charlemagne;Allowing gays to marry in no way, NO WAY, damages
traditional marriage.@BillInNeb;If you think something
is wrong don't do it. Simple.What your "god" says is
completely irrelevant. You "know" he's a prophet. So?
(believe is a more appropriate word).@CottageCheese;Your
questions apply equally to heterosexuals and are meaningless.For
those who are quoting "god" and all that "god says"; Please
come up with good, valid secular reasons for prohibiting marriage between
same-sex couples. Your "gods" are irrelevant and their opinions are
meaningless since you can't even prove they said anything at all or that they
Relax people.I'm not hearing horror stories from Iowa, Massachusetts or
anywhere where same-sex marriage is legal, and I'm pretty sure it isn't "
contagious."Why shouldn't we support monogamy?Jesus
commanded us to love our neighbors as ourselves, so that is what I'm going to
focus on, and leave the judging to Him.
Actually, blur, according to SCOTUS 'marriage is one of the "basic civil
rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.' The have
declared this in many a decision. Even if it were a privilege, the 14th
amendment says that the government is to treat everyone equally.
To Lafavre: The problem is that I KNOW he is a prophet of God and you don't.
There is nothing else I need to know about him other than that. He carries the
entire world on his shoulders as the Lord's mouthpiece. Corporate elite? You
really have no knowledge of the man. I have met him, talked with him and seen
the kind of spirit he carries. Have you met him and talked with him. Do you
have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? I do at least I have faith that
I do and that is all I need. Until you can give evidence to the contrary other
than an opinion such as that you know more about the Savior of the World than he
I would possibly listen to you. Otherwise, your opinion of me and other Latter
Day Saints falls on deaf ears.
davidroy | 8:21 a.m. Oct. 13, 2011 Flagstaff, AZPossibly she
didn't read the Book of Genesis in which God creates Adam and Eve. I would
challenge her to find any scripture that references an Adam and Bob or an Eve
and Carol, at least not in a positive light. If Miss Love takes the time to read
the Book of Genesis she might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam
and Gomorrah.==========Are you kidding me. We don't
live in a theocracy, and we don't decide our laws based on a story about a man,
a woman made from his rib, and their talking snake. Yes, the family
is the corner stone of society, but guess what? Gay people are a part of
families. Gay people have their own families. That is FACT, folks. You can't
change that, and why would you even try? Because your religion says being gay
isn't right? Well, then don't be gay. And keep trying to withhold equal rights
from your fellow tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. See how far you get with your
bigotry. You won't get far. You're just wearing a hole in the floor.
@freedom in dangerdictionary dot com any theory holding that
criteria of judgment are relative varying with individuals and their
environment.American Heritage Dictionary The doctrine that no ideas
or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, relative that is,
their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied. Collins Dictionary any theory holding that truth or moral or aesthetic
value, etc, is not universal or absolute but may differ between individuals or
cultures I would be careful accusing Phranc of being uneducated
seeing as their use of the term relativism fits the definition of relativism and
yours does not. "Laws doing require proof, they require
votes. Gays are free whether states support them or not." Again
with such poor sentence structure I would be careful criticizing others
education.Laws are required not to violate a persons right to
individual liberty without a clear reason why those rights should be taken away
(i.e. social harm) not just the vote of the majority.
on my 5:01 commentthat was suppose to read based not passing sorry, that post
was my third try at getting past the monitors, as you can see it is really
abusive and off topic right?
Phranc: "Passing arguments based on religious beliefs is about as relative
as you can get."I'm not sure you understand what relativism is.
Relativism is the moral theory where truth is entirely subjective. Few religious
beliefs claim to only be subjectively true. An argument based on religion is
simply BASING your argument on a subjective idea. That does not make it
relativism, that makes it subjective.Relativism is where you believe
that you have no place telling other people what is moral as for them it is
different. You can't accept "they believe different so I can't tell them
their wrong" without also accepting that Hitler was okay doing what he did.
People say "well as long as it doesn't harm others", but that is
libertarian and in fact NOT relativism. Relativism requires that you accept
another persons behavior as moral independent of any conditions other than what
THAT person believes is moral.I mean you no disrespect in saying
this- but it seems you aren't educated in this subject. I wouldn't blame you if
you weren't. But your comment didn't make sense.Laws doing require
proof, they require votes. Gays are free whether states support them or not.
Michelle Bachman's pastor DID have something to say about Mormons:Although (Pastor) Merritt praised the LDS Church's emphasis on family and
missionary service, he suggested the Mormon faith is "untrue" and
"diluted."That was in 2007.
I haven't read every comment posted so far but I have notice one glaring problem
with the arguments on both side of this issue. Marriage is not a right. I it is
privilege granted by the state. This is why you get a marriage license before
you marry. There are legal proscriptions against certain types of heterosexual
marriage. Last I heard you can be denied a license to marry if you have certain
diseases. The state feels it has a vested interest in marriage and the
offspring of the marital relationship. I'm not sure I agree with or understand
the need for the states involvement in marriage. Right now that is the way is
is.Meanwhile, I haven't seen a good reason to grant people involved
in sexually confused relationships a marriage license. Frankly, granting
marriage licenses to homosexual couples undermines the protections that current
marriage laws provide.
Pagan: You shamed me and accused me of making hateful comments.A
common argument for homosexuality is comparing the behavior of animals to humans
in order to justify our behavior. I ONLY commented on how the same logic would
justify things like murder. I did NOT myself compare the morality; I ONLY
compared the justification that someone else gave- stating that THEIR
justification would in fact be making such a comparison. Which doesn't help
them, but inhibits their claim. I in fact did the very opposite of which you
accused me of.Your comment was full of a hateful and judgmental
attitude towards me. It was a deceitful criticism of my using logic regarding
another comment. I was not disrespectful to them yet you were to me.Previously, you have referenced the LDS Church and gay suicides in Utah as if
there was a connection. While the LDS Church repeats it's loving statements, you
boast hateful ones. While I am not the horrible monster you've made me out to
be, you are in fact using words as a tool for committing what you accuse others
of, hate.I am not ashamed of LDS doctrine, which is entirely of
Twinkleberry...I agree with you.
Interesting that hardly no one here has mentioned how the Constitution protects
us from what the majority wishes for. No matter how much a majority may be
right on something, if it is a law that goes against the Constitution's Bill of
Rights, then it can not be law. That's why Prop 8 is being ruled
unconstitutional. That's why some day in the future, Polygamy will
be allowed because it will be ruled in the near future that the Act against
Polygamy is unconstitutional as well. Got it? We can't wish our wishes on
someone just because of a religious belief we have. Thus said, the Constitution
Bill of Rights for equal rights protects all. That's why we show a great
diversity of who we are. Sure there are a few bad apples in the
thick of it, but so what. I value what the Bill of Right for equal rights gives
us. Now do you finally get it and realize what the silliness is about these
issues? Polls may be interesting and try showing favoritism, but if it goes
against the Bill of Rights, such a law that violates Bill of Rights definitely
will be thrown out.
@whitelines First off let me dismiss a little fable here it is a
biological reality that homosexuality unlike marriage actually has existed for
millennia and has yet to cause a single known extinction so don't worry so
much.With that out of the way let me say, I have been where you are
and I understand the fear and the pain of having to live lies. Please now there
is help, support and even those that love you for who you are. Do not give in to
despair and do not give into the lack of acceptance, judgmental attitudes and
the hate that sometimes is expressed on threads like this they really are not
representative of the real world there is plenty of room for you to be you, all
you need to do is be willing to reach out for it.
@Freedom-In-Dangermorality is a religious term based on individual
beliefs not a scientific or legal facts. Passing arguments based on religious
beliefs is about as relative as you can get. All the things you listed with
homosexuality (i.e. murder, rape) have a proven social harm and are irrelevant
comparison, I could just as easily lump religion in with those same things and
it would be just as relevant to religion (not at all relevant), the point is
there is no proven social harm from homosexuality that does not also exist in
heterosexuality. You have every right to adhere to whatever individual or
collective religious beliefs you wish provided they do not harm others but you
do not have the right to prevent others from the right to act as individuals
when they also do not cause any harm. We have had this debate before many times
on these threads there is nothing new under the sun here.
@Bill in Nebraska,"I gather that no one on this board or even
within the voice of President Monson has any more understanding than President
Monson."He has so much understanding and knows so many things
you don't know Bill ... if you knew everything he knew, you'd question your
testimony with every living breath. Only 'corporate elite', so to
speak, of the church know the truth on certain topics and the history.
Polls can be manipulated to state anything under the sun. I do not concern
myself with who has a romantic relationship with whom. I have some friends who
are homosexual even though it is not a lifestyle I agree with or would choose
for myself. But I also know some individuals who are determined to stick it to
me for none other reason that I am straight , then I get accused of
discriminating if I stick up for myself. I will repeat here what I stated to
these individuals in person recently--It is not discrimination to stick up for
myself, and that I am a proponent of civil unions or a system that is used in
Europe which involves A mandatory civil ceremony, then if the couple wishes,
have it solemnized in a religious one. Hence everyone has their civil rights
recognized, and traditional marriage is left the way it is.
As such the Lordhas the ability to determine who may hold this priesthood. For
a time the Lord determined that certain races were excluded from the priesthood.
Just as he excluded them, at a later date he can include them. That is the
privlege of the Lord, not a prophet. Look again at the temple
endowment ordinance and you will find very little has changed. Certain things
have been omitted but are still relevant through other parts of the endowment.
The wording and certain aspects changed for brevity. You have to understand
why.Does any man alive really understand the ordinances of the
temple? I will answer that with a resounding NO. President David O. McKay
towards the end of his life and over 40 years as a General Authority stated in a
meeting with the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency that he was
FINALLY starting to understand the ordinances of the Temple. I gather that no
one on this board or even within the voice of President Monson has any more
understanding than President Monson. I voice to say that even President Monson
hasn't a complete understanding of the temple ordinances. How can you?
Pagan...I realize that statements that begin with 'how' are
generally questions... and I was asking questions, not stating facts. I was
simply asking some thought provoking questions. Questions that don't get asked
enough. Questions that would lead to quite revealing answers and facts. Facts
that the LGBT community do not want out there.Would you want the
world to know that you were an abused and self abusing pornography addict?
Neither does the rest of your community.
To Pagan and others: You don't have to believe me or even agree
with me. I do not hate you at all but I don't agree with your lifestyle. To me
it is wrong. So many on this board say your God or your Jesus condemns this but
mine doesn't. Really then we read the same Bible but it is clear that God/Jesus
Christ both CONDEMN any sexual sin which is anything sex outside of marriage
between man and woman.To those who continue to use polgamy and
blacks in the priesthood along with temple endowment changes. Either you
misunderstand or really don't understand the differences and why. Polgamy was
stopped for the living. It is still a true practice on the other side of the
veil. Therefore the doctrine is still practiced as indicated in Sec 132 of the
Doctrine and Covenants. The Aaronic Priesthood was originally given only to the
sons of Aaron of the tribe of LEVI. Therefore, unless you were a member of that
tribe you were excluded from the Priesthood. As such members of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have been authorized by the Lord to officiate
in the priesthood.
Mr. Lawrence found in his poll that the majority of people in American do not
support same-gender marriage. Mr. Lawrence is attacked.Someone
suggests that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is sinful. Either the Bible
is attacked, the person's faith is attacked, or someone attacks the Bible's
teachings. (Cf, one of the "abominations" mentioned by Ezekial 14 was
clearly homosexuality. Also, Jesus did not need to teach that homosexuality was
wrong; the Law already taught that. Jesus reaffirmed marriage as between a man
and a woman and rescinded the death penalty for sexual sin.)Someone
argues that marriage is for procreation, and heterosexual unable to procreate
are attacked. The argument seems to be, if homosexuals can't have it for that
reason, no one should be able to.We are told that the Bill of Rights
somehow guarantees the right to same-gender marriage, that the majority should
not rule, that Constitional amendments should be disallowed (as in Prop 8), and
that everyone who disagrees is hateful.If California loses the
battle over Prop 8 and is forced to allow same-gender marriage, it will be
necessary to stop these absurd arguments and amend the US Constitution.
I am a "closeted" 18 year old homosexual. I understand
that many people want to protect marriage because it makes sense biologically.
And that does makes sense to me. However, I did not choose to be
this way, nor would choose to be if I had the choice.To cover-up
this lifestyle, I have resorted to dating women whom I have no attraction
towards.Think about your own love. How would you feel if the world
told you that you couldn't marry the love of your life because some people want
to protect a word?By "protecting marriage" you are
A voice of Reason | 3:27 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011, I apologize. But
leaving an asterik (*) by the claim does not mean they are true, or even
relevant. Your claim that states MAY offer legal protection to see a
dying spouse does NOT negate that gay couples are FACTUALLY prevented from
seeing dying loved ones. Again: *'Kept From a Dying
Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09
Americans are Americans, first. Not Utahns, not Texans and not...
2nd class citizens. And last there is no 'logic'...
WITHOUT irrefutable proof. Your belief, is not something to bludgen
me, with. Freedom-In-Danger | 3:32 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011, Gay marriage is not: 'murder, cannibalism, and rape'. And shame on you, and the moderator for continuing to allow such
hateful rhetoric and then claim you have civil discourse. You cannot claim homosexuals are COMPARBLE to murderers, and then claim to
be... moral, yourself. *'GOP state legislator:
Homosexuality worse than terrorism' - By David Ferguson - Talking Points Memo -
09/10/11 I have never killed, eaten, or raped, anyone.
And to continue to make that implication shows which side is truly moral. The one, fighting to marry.
@LDSareChristians"You miss understand the point. He offered, but were
they raped? No, he knew they would turn down his daughters. His daughters were
safe from those only interested in raping a fellow man."And
you're completely missing my point. Is it suddenly okay to offer ones daughters
just because the men turned that offer down? Of course it's not. You say he
offered something he knew they wouldn't accept. Okay, if that's true then... why
offer it in the first place? He clearly wanted the men to not go after the
angels and apparently to Lot offering his daughters was worth protecting the
angels and if he knew offering his daughters wasn't going to do anything to stop
them then there's no reason to offer. Really, if he cared that much about
appeasing the rapists (giving them someone to have sex with) and protecting the
angels, maybe he should've offered himself before offering his daughters. Besides, I'm not even sure one could say they wanted men... they wanted
the angels (that admittedly were in the form of men, but I'm not so sure they
wouldn't have wanted the angels if they appeared as women).
DanO,"Luckily we have the courts whose job"Hold on there... you find me "Judicial Review" in the constitution
and something stating that the Supreme Court has that power, and I may just
agree with you.Until then, I'll keep on agreeing with Thomas
Jefferson... who said that if it was accepted, this country would face the
despotism of an oligarchy.When Roe VS Wade forced 46 states laws out
the door... I'd call that an oligarchy, wouldn't you? Or do you define oligarchy
different than what it actually means? But then again, that's what liberals
usually do. They find all sorts of meanings, moralities, and twists in words
that we use every day.No wander a word used to mean happy, then it
somehow changed to mean something else.
Phranc: "homosexuality exist in over 400 species and homophobia in only
one. You tell me which one is unnatural."Yeah... murder,
cannibalism, and rape exist in thousands upon thousands of species. We still
don't give those legal protection and call them moral just because they are
popularly accepted now. That's relativism.While an animal may do
whatever it wants and not care. Human beings do. Such a comparison don't help
the LGBT argument, but only shows more weaknesses in the claim.
Pagan,hospital visitation-I promote my ideas in the
public square. Even though I vote not to support state recognition of your
religious practices* I have not denied you the right to practice them, or
hospital visitation, etc. However, such issues are irrelevant as legal
protections from such infringements may exist without state-recognition.How you live is your free right. I live and vote a portion of my
morality into the public creation called government the same as yourself. I do
not vote to take away what is yours**, only for myself and a creation I own a
share of- to represent my view without taking freedom to practice beliefs.I practice many beliefs the state does not endorse. Am I still not
free?*I refer to your belief that gay marriage is moral as a
religion as there is no distinction between religion, irreligion, philosophy, or
ethical system. They are all rooted on the logic of believing without
irrefutable proof.**State-recognition is the state's to give. The
people's. Our not giving you recognition does not take anything away or any
freedom from you.-------Referencing events does not
provide logic and wisdom as I have given.
"Either the polls are flawed in favor of same-gender marriage, or people
are lying in the pre-election polls, and telling the truth with their
votes."Actually, Jeff, there's a very basic issue here and the
very reason why it's wrong to vote on the rights of a minority. A poll is taken
within the comfort of one's home when someone calls them. While the pollster
will ask what the likelihood of one voting and then voting a certain way, the
reality is, they're probably going to say they're more likely to vote than they
actually will.When you're voting on the rights of a minority, there
are two extremes: the minority whose rights are in question, and those who want
to limit those rights, but there are a great deal of people in the middle who
just don't care either way and will either vote for status quo or leave the
question blank. Which, in many cases, is the same effect as voting against the
minority. The minority is always at a disadvantage.Luckily we have
the courts whose job it is to ensure that every law meets the supreme test of
So, what would you think of a poll that asks weather people think mormons are
real christians or not? Or weather a mormon should ever be president?Polls and majorities aren't supposed to trump the constitution. This is basic kindergarten stuff here. You are allowed to marry by your own
choice another adult HUMAN capable of choosing as well.... And you allow others
to do the same. It really is that simple. Now a religious cerimony
is an entirely different issue and there has never been any serious threat to
religious practices, only scare tactics about it. Anyway people,
just by the basic number of the gay/straight population, 90-95% of assumed
"sexual sin", shacking up ect is being done by heterosexuals. Why are
your efforts not focused there? Not very popular? Not so much support for
craking down on premarital sex? Why is that never brought up as what is dooming
society and making god sad or mad? I'd love to hear a republican say
they are proposing an anti-premarital sex and cohabitation bill and see if all
republicans think that is constitutional.
I'm sure similar Head lines were around with Interracial Marriage. Weren't
those the good old days?
We should not give up on protecting traditional marriage. Younger people may
take a more liberal view of same sex marriage than their elders do does not mean
that does not mean that they will continue to do so throughout their lives. Most
people become more conservative as they age and come to realize the real life
consequences of their youthful idealism!
Hutterite, except when SCOTUS unfortunately extended those rights to
corporations.Sadly, too many people thing that a loving
same-gendered couple getting married affects them in some way. If only they
could see the Prop 8 trial tapes and watch as every ridiculous point made by
Prop 8 proponents were summarily decimated by competent legal counsel. In fact,
their own witness ended up confessing that we would be a more American society
the day we allowed marriage equality.
What's also being said, or at least implied, is that mob rule should overturn
individual rights. The individual, by the way, not the family, is the basic unit
of society. And it is individuals, not mobs or churches, to whom basic human
rights are conveyed.
I continue to chuckle at Mr Lawrence's questions on his polls. Ms. Love is
correct, he can write his questions to get the response that he wants. He wants
to further his agenda. His company is hired by organizations to get the poll
results that they want. Why does the Des News continue to plaster his photo and
write articles about his company? Is he a contributor? Does the News fund his
polls?Mr. De Groote, Did your editor assign this story to you? How about
some real journalism?? Walk over to Pioneer park and write a story about all the
homeless people there. What is the city & church doing to help them?Let's stop putting up photo's of Mr Lawrence and get the Des Nes back to a
real journalistic force for SLC.
LValfregoing along with your logic, then let's let our kids decide if they
want to be educated when they are old enough to make that decision on their own.
Let's also not discipline them or teach them anything until they are old enough
to make that decision. Sorry, your logic is illogical.
If the article's premise that because still the majority of American Citizens
disapprove of same sex marriage. It shouldn't be legal in California. By this
same logic, Inter-racial marriage should not have been legal until the 1990s
because the majority of Americans disapproved until then. Despite the fact that
the SCOTUS ruled in 1967 (Lovings vs. Commonwealth of Virginia) I-R marriage was
legal nationwide. There are still legally married same-sex couples in
California. As far as I can tell. The trash gets picked up weekly. I still have
Water, Electricity and Natural Gas whenever I throw a switch. Also LDS Kids go
to California Public schools without issue. Life has gone on. Coreypaul, et al; You bring up an interesting point. The constuction of the
polling questions on the same subject results in different opinion poll results.
Removing The WWJD or WWGD from the question makes the person have to
uncomfortably think for oneself. Can or should this be allowed in this most
I find it interesting that people do not realize that a marriage is a binding
LEGAL agreement between two people, granting certain rights. The CEREMONY is
the religious aspect of marriage. A marriage is just as legal and binding
wether it is performed by a Bishop, Priest, Elvis Impersonator or Justice of the
Peace. Basically, you are preventing two people from entering into a legal
agreement. To me that would be a violation of a couple's right to "the
persuit of happiness".
LDS are Christians 1:20You are repeating what men with little
knowledge have repeated throughout the centuries. The sin of Sodom is explained
in scripture: "This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and
her daughters had pride, excess of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the
poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me; therefore
I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:46-50 In the Old
Testament you will see the constant lament of Jehova and his prophets for the
lack of love and attention to the needy. Some having too much while their
neighbors went hungry. More or less what is going on today.Moses and
Paul of Tarsus are the writers used by those who believe that homosexuality is a
sin. Paul raised a pharisee and educated as a strong Jew under the teachings of
Moses.However, Jesus never mentioned Homosexuality. If you read the
writings of the Apostles who knew and lived with Jesus you will find nothing
about homosexuality. Which is strange because Judea was under the licentious
Romansand traditionally God warned its people against foreign influences
that lead them stray.
'It's not logical to say that you can replace a wife with another man and still
retain all the qualities that a woman brings to the marriage relationship.' - El
Chango Supremo | 1:35 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011 Let's take this a step
further. Is it logical to say you can replace your wife
with...another woman? No. You made a commitment to your spouse,
correct? Love and matramony that is more than 'your fertility and desire to have
children.' If the drive to have children was the ONLY reason to be
married, this argument would make sense. And then, make having a
child, OUTSIDE of marriage... illegal. Octo-mom has x14
children with no husband. The argument has no merit. And, marriage
is needed. My example to support this is: *'Kept From a
Dying Partners Bedside' - By TARA PARKER-POPE - NY Times - 05/18/09'...the couples had prepared for a medical emergency, creating living wills,
advanced directives and power-of-attorney documents.' And yet, even
with Living Will, Medical Directive, Power of attorney and emergency contact
information... Janice Langbehn was kept from the bedside of her
dying partner, Lisa Pond. They were together for 18 years.
Blue,You said, "So... The Bill of Rights is applied to citizens
on the basis of a popularity contest?"--------Some
would propose to ignore the religious freedoms outlined in first amendment and
SCOTUS already added their own "implied rights" with roe v wade. A constitution is strong, not something where you can "interpret
it" to change its meaning. Suggesting "implied" concepts in
someone else's words is making a statement of what you have no objective account
of, being therefore illogical. However, the framers actually did
protect religious belief and practice. NO ONE has taken that away from gays. If
they want to believe it, fine. Practice it? Fine. But if the people vote for the
state not to endorse your practice, while also not prohibiting it... then no
freedom is infringed.The "free exercise thereof" is not
being prohibited. Liberal 'dishing out' equality is but one political philosophy
and IS NOT in our constitution. Our constitution represents diverse views.
Forcing one's single view, AGAINST A VOTE that took no constitutionally stated
and protected right, threatens our freedom. Anything less is
selfishness and greed trying to overthrow what belongs to the masses, the
people- turning democracy into an oligarchy.
OHBU, even if they are old or infertile, the parts still match up!
That being said, there is more to being a man or a woman than just
your "parts". It's not logical to say that you can replace a wife with
another man and still retain all the qualities that a woman brings to the
marriage relationship. Or, replace a husband with another woman and replace all
the qualities a man brings to the marriage relationship. Being a man or a woman
is more than just our fertility or desire to have children. Marriage is a
relationship that unites the sexes and, therefore, shouldn't be inclusive of
homosexual couples. It's not hateful or bigoted to have this
position, it's just the only logical conclusion you can come to when you observe
the way we're made, physically, emotionally, & spiritually.
Mukkake coleman51: "the Church will never change it's
position."Polygamy?Priesthood for Blacks?The
penalty in the temple endowment ceremony?LDS4You forgot about
the First Presidency letter stating that a certain marital act was an unholy and
impure practice and a violation of temple covenants. Within a short time,
bishops were instructed to no longer ask whether couples engaged in this common
behavior. If it TRULY were a violation of temple covenants, shouldn't it still
be warned against?
How surprising! I never would have guessed that a poll conducted by an company
led by a man responsible for spreading vicious and vile lies about LGBT people
finds that more opposition to marriage equality than polls from well respected
mainstream organization. On another note, I took a poll of my friends and
acquaintances and 80% said I am the most handsome man they ever met. Take my
word for it, it was completely scientific and unbiased.
This is a clear example of a push poll. Instead of asking about God
and what one feels God would approve of, what if the lead in questions were Do you believe everyone has equal rights?Do you believe that
government should restrict the rights of people different from you (different
race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, politics, etc..) ?Do you believe
that couples unable or unwilling to have kids should have their marriage
licenses revoked?In light of the above, do you support giving same-sex
couples the same equal rights as straights to marry, even though they are unable
to produce children?How would the polling results be different?Brother Lawrence was the force behind the discredited propaganda piece
Six Consequences the Coalition Has Identified if Proposition 8 Fails. It was so
bad, that a BYU law professor wrote a refutation of it. I wouldnt trust Brother
Lawrence as far as I could throw him.
If I put up a "no smoking" sign it does not mean I hate people who
smoke. If I put up a "no soliciting" sign it does not mean I hate
salesmen. Not allowing gay marriage is not hateful or bigoted. Saying that
marriage is between a man and a woman is not a demonstration of hatred toward
gays. Loving everyone does not mean approving of everyone changing the
definition of a cherished institution like marriage. If you choose to have a
relationship with someone of the same gender, you don't have to apply a name to
that relationship that has already been defined as a union between a man and a
atl134 posted: A story about people attempting to rape angels (we're not talking
consentual homosexual sex here) while the one "good" man in the story
offered his daughters to the rapists? Honestly that story has always bothered me
because offering ones' daughters to rapists should never be an acceptable
solution to a situation. ===============================You miss
understand the point. He offered, but were they raped? No, he knew they would
turn down his daughters. His daughters were safe from those only interested in
raping a fellow man.Has someone ever offered you something knowing
fully well you'd reject it, based on his knowledge of your character?
Indeed the family is the natural unit of society, atomistic or extended, single
or plural, and any gender. BTW, since most families are communes it follows
that the natural economic unit is the commune.
So...The Bill of Rights is applied to citizens on the basis of a
'Prior to "coming out" and openly "practicing"... How
many homosexual individuals were sexually abused at some point in their life,
particularly in their youth? How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in
pornographic material? How many homosexuals participated in self-abuse? Revealing.' - CottageCheese | 12:49 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011 How? These are questions, not facts. *Ex-seminary principal
Michael Pratt pleads guilty in sex case' - By Sara Israelsen-Hartley, Deseret
News - 06/02/10 'AMERICAN FORK A former seminary principal accused
of having a sexual relationship with a former student pleaded guilty Tuesday
rather than go to trial.' CottageCheese, if you have a study to
present, I would love to read it. Until then... 'You are
normal. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical
organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American
Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that
homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual
expression.'Published online: November, 2008Source: Gay, Lesbian,
and Bisexual Teens: Information for Teens and Parents - America
Acadamy of Pediactrics
The data you will never see...Prior to "coming out" and
openly "practicing"...How many homosexual individuals were
sexually abused at some point in their life, particularly in their youth?How many homosexuals viewed or engaged in pornographic material?How many homosexuals participated in self-abuse?Revealing.
While Mr. Lawrence's biases may be a source of criticism in his polling, the
results of his polls coincide more closely with the results of public elections
on the issue. It has long been a source of difficulty for supporters of
same-gender marriage when the pre-election polls indicate a victory, but the
election supports traditional marriage. Either the polls are flawed in favor of
same-gender marriage, or people are lying in the pre-election polls, and telling
the truth with their votes.In either case, Lawrence appears more
'This kind of article certainly does not add to the credibility of this
newspaper.' - Embarcadero | 12:18 p.m. Oct. 13, 2011 Agreed. In fact, I will give example, why I agree with you.
*'President Obama's purported 'weird'-Mormon strategy against Mitt Romney will
backfire, pundits say' - By Hal Boyd, Deseret News - 08/10/11
*'Michele Bachmann's pastor on Mormonism' - By Jamshid Ghazi Askar - DSNews -
09/06/11 To date, Michele Bachmann, her pastor, or Obama have said
ZERO about Mitt Romney's faith. In fact, the Rick Perry &
Deseret News have said more about it. Since the Deseret News has
also published an article about 'anti-mormon prejudice'... they
continue to eat away at their own credibility of this newspaper.
@El Chango Supremohomosexuality exist in over 400 species and
homophobia in only one. You tell me which one is unnatural.
Mr. Lawrence is not a pollster. He is an advocate, someone with an axe to grind.
As a source, he is not reliable or neutral. The Deseret News should
know better than to write an article like this. It's one thing to have a view
point (and clarify that from the beginning), it's another thing entirely to try
to insert that viewpoint as undisputed fact. This kind of article
certainly does not add to the credibility of this newspaper.
Michael De Groote, at 10:23 a.m. said "One thing I was hoping to accomplish
with this article was to illustrate how polls can come up with what appear to be
different results. But I don't think Lawrence's poll invalidates other polls.
Instead I think it fills in the gaps in the other polls."-------This is perhaps the most important point regarding polling.
I've given this commentary before, but I feel this clarification will only add
to Mr. De Groote's statement about how this article is best understood.'Deductive' is provable, but only with true premises. Moral problems and
religious arguments are generally deductive.'Inductive' is only ever
probable, like a statistical guessing game. Scientific data is generally used
inductively. Thus 'good science' requires being open to the possibility of being
wrong (aka: more data).Inductive argument example: It snowed the
last 100 winters, therefore it will next winter. The problem: there always
remains the possibility of a "black swan event" where something occurs
against the pattern we've seen.While useful- polls should never bee
seen as proof, as commonly understood. Polls simply add observations, they don't
negate the unobserved. Thus why polls add to 'the gaps'.
The middle question in the polls that asks "If God were to make His opinion
known etc..." is shamefully put in the rhetorical. It is no longer a
matter of if, it is a matter of do you accept the will of God in this matter.
You ask, "Well, how did His opinion come to be?" It is simple, He
made His will known through both the First Presidency and the Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles by means of 'The Proclamation of the Family'. The very first
paragraph of the Proclamation answers this moral question and puts ALL debate to
the side. The answer is again simple. ONE MAN & ONE WOMAN constitutes a
marriage. No other combination of men and women may substitute for this sacred
companionship. They may try other alternatives, but will ALWAYS come up
frustrated and failed. Even as someone who has engaged in same-sex behaviors in
the past, the Spirit of God has always told me that my deviance was sinful and
NOT sanctioned by Him, His Son and/or the Holy Ghost. Also, my heterosexual one
man and one woman marriage has brought me blessings beyond measure and equal to
none. Always CTR!
@davidroy" If Miss Love takes the time to read the Book of Genesis
she might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam and Gomorrah.
"A story about people attempting to rape angels (we're not
talking consentual homosexual sex here) while the one "good" man in
the story offered his daughters to the rapists? Honestly that story has always
bothered me because offering ones' daughters to rapists should never be an
acceptable solution to a situation. @IDC"and moral values
differ among those who have morals."Indeed, for one I believe
that encouraging gay couples to have committed monogamous relationships via
marriage ia a moral thing to support.
@LBU: Whatever happened to "love thy neighbor?"That's my
gripe with religious types... it's always judge judge judge. Just because you
don't agree with someone's chosen way of life doesn't make it wrong.
@Michael De GrooteI agree and you said that in the first line. I wonder
how many people just read the headline and go from there.I've worked
in politics for years and there are other tricks that can be used. Who you poll
and what weight you give to different demographic groups in tabulating the final
results can make a big difference.
what???? I thought more than 50% of Americans supported gay marriage just a
year ago?...it appears gay marriage support is taking a nose dive.....as it
To see the exact wording of the poll questions, take a look at the graphics that
accompany the article.A sample size of 1,000 is reliable for polling
purposes -- many polls use smaller samples. The methodology he used is pretty
standard.People might, however, take issue with the way he asks
questions. I hope they will do so for all polls. One thing I was
hoping to accomplish with this article was to illustrate how polls can come up
with what appear to be different results. But I don't think Lawrence's poll
invalidates other polls. Instead I think it fills in the gaps in the other
polls. It shows how another look at a issue can help increase understanding of
peoples' complex opinions.
Polygamist married (caugh) couples enjoy all cival rights offered in America.
Has anybody read up on what goes on in those communities?How can anybody
pass judgement on gay people as long as polygamy gets a wink and a nod in
America? It has and still goes on. It is against the law of the land.Yes,
Texas tried to do something, but it is unchecked in Utah. Shame on those who use
God to discriminate.Thats not what my good parents taught us children.
People are confusing acceptance of gay marriage with approval of gay
marriage.Most people will ACCEPT (i.e put up with, allow, permit,
tolerate, etc.) gay people doing whatever they want as long as it does not hurt
anyone. In other words, if a gay couple wants to have a ceremony and commit to
living together for the rest of their livesfew people are going to care. They
are not going to try to arrest them or seek laws to force them to stop. They do
not want them punished. They believe in allowing people to establish their moral
values according to the dictates of their own conscience.However,
the poll proves that most people do not APPROVE of (i.e condone, endorse, agree
with, support, etc.) gay marriage or the gay intimacy that accompanies it.
Consequently, they justifiably do not want laws created that obligate them to
endorse or support those things. Government same-sex marriage laws
are NOT establishing the people's acceptance of gay marriage. That already
exists. Rather, they are forcing the people's endorsement of gay marriage. It
is no different than government endorsing some religion's unique religious
practices. It is wrong.
@IDC,"It is okay for me to fight for what I believe in as long
as it is within the law."So you're okay with fighting to take
away someone's freedom to marry whom they love? That's terrible.I'm
okay with fighting to keep kids out of churches or religious institutes until
they're old enough to make their own decision. Indoctrination is real. A kid
raised in an LDS church, a Muslim church, Catholic, so on and so forth will most
likely stick with that the rest of their life. That's not right when you take
away their choice by shoving it down their throat from birth onward. They don't
have freedom then, it's indoctrinated.
1InfidelWhy does it matter what the number of homosexuals are? If they are only .555% of the population, don't they still have the same
rights and privileges that you have? Aren't they allowed to pursue happiness
the same as you - or do you feel that you need to force the government to comply
with your beliefs?Does it harm you or anyone else if the gay couple
down the block is married and has the same privileges that you and your family
has?Does it harm that gay couple if they do not have those
privileges? Ask yourself this...if you did not have a religious
belief that marriage should be between heterosexuals, would you care if gays
were legally married?If your answer is that your opinion is because
of your beliefs, think about our constitution. Think about why we allow others
to have freedoms even when we do not agree with them. Think about this great
nation and what freedom really means.BTW, it does not mean that you
are not going to be offended by others actions or beliefs. Even though most
Evangicals believe that the LDS church is false, we still have our rights.
1Infidel: "why the commercial kow-tow by corporations and such pandering
organizations and political organization to such a "huge" number of
consumers and voters?"Because they have more disposable income.
Face it, gay money is wroth more than straight money, because even with less tax
breaks, most gay households aren't supporting a stay-at-home-spouse and kids. On
top of that, most gays are also better educated and more career-oriented than
their straight counterparts.I'm not saying gays are smarter or
harder-working, but without non-working spouses and kids sucking up all their
time and money, they are able to get better jobs and spend more money. That's
why corporations are targeting them.This is why straight people
should support gay marriage. Because if they also have to support a spouse,
kids, and a crippling mortgage to house it all, they won't be able to easily out
perform their straight co-workers and get all the raises and promotions. Until
then, your gay coworker will always perform better at work, have more money to
spend, and go on far better vacations.
IDC | 9:14 a.m. Oct. 13, 2011 Boise, ID This is a difficult issue.
Discussion is difficult when there is no common ground. Some don't believe in
God. Some don't have any moral values and moral values differ among those who
have morals. I believe there is a God and I believe that sex and marriage are to
be had between a man and a woman. I believe that sex before marriage or sex
between anyone or anything other than a married man and woman is a sin. I
believe God loves everyone. I believe God has commandments and that he does not
accept any sin. These two facts are not in opposition. We are all sinners and
can be forgiven through Christ's blood and sacrifice. It is okay for me to fight
for what I believe in as long as it is within the law.------------But are you fighting against the rights of other
law-abiding Americans to pursue their own source of happiness? Does our
constitution allow you to make them have less rights and privileges than you
enjoy? Do you really want to do this to other Americans? Will you
If the U.S.were to base equal rights laws on polls. Certain things perhaps would
be different:Perhaps the LDS church would have ceased to exist. Or
would be smaller.Slavery would still be part of the U.S. culture or the
country would have been divided.The rights of individuals should not
depend on the approval of the masses or mobs.What is this, the Roman
Circus? Thumps up or down,...ridiculous!GZE: I am with you on
this.When people will stop putting their nose where it doesn't
belong. What is sad is that they cry foul when things don't go their
way.or, they have the audacity of complaining that GLBT people are pushing
theirlifestyle on their faces.Go, follow and live the precepts
that you think are right. Let other people live the way they want. If other
people habits harm you, you have the Courts to prove it.Gay Marriage
doesn't harm YOU. That is why the courts are ruling on favor of equality under
In other words, if you did a poll asking people if they thought it was best to
marry within their race you would get a different result than if you asked the
same people if interracial marriages should be banned. I think the public has
heard all the scare stories about what will happen if we allow gays to marry and
found them wanting. A clear majority are willing to allow gay marriages. It
will only grow over time.
It's easy to be a Christian and be against homosexuality. "Hate the sin,
love the sinner." Remember, God is no respecter of persons, and he cannot
look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. These two basic tenets tell us
everything we need to know about how God views homosexuals and how we should
So many people are so frightened of so many things, particularly those who have
been sheltered. We see much of this in Utah. Many do not like to
leave"their" state because of the "evil" the invision
lurking in other places. Returned missionaries marry and take their wives to a
new state, only having to return to Utah, as the young wife in unable to adjust
to the outside world.It is sad. They are missing so much. So many great,
kind, loving folks out there. Just because others chose something
different..........Just more of the Michelle Bachmann, and her like,
coleman51: "the Church will never change it's position."Polygamy?Priesthood for Blacks?The penalty in the temple endowment
Pete in Texas: " God apparently doesn't want man to worship any graven
images. Isn't that our "right"? ... It doesn't hurt anybody else, does
it?"... Apparently God has a different view of what our "rights"
should be as individuals. And even though "worshipping graven
individuals" affects no other physical human except ourselves, most
importantly, it affects our relationship to Him."----------Pete,That is why we do not have a law against "graven
images." It harms no one and it is a religious tenet. You are
asking us to pass a law (that does not harm others) to please your religious
ideas. Totally against the constitution. Totally unAmerican, in my mind. We do NOT push our religion on to others and make them live by it. We
do not make a minority of the population live by rules that harm them just
because it is what we BELIEVE our God wants us to do.That is why we
have a secular constitution - to protect the minority from being ruled by the
majority when it is not something that would harm anyone else. If
we had laws against worshipping idols, Wall Street would be illegal. Too many
there worship the dollar, don't they?
The US Census recently backtracked and admitted to overstating the presence of
same-sex households. They were only 39% off in their estimates. This is gov't
accounting we are talking about, so perhaps 39% is not hugely surprising,
especially in this administration who quietly revises labor numbers every week
after the ballyhooed news comes out on schedule, and who skews inflation
statistics to their favor every day. However, it is obvious that politics played
a role in the 39% hopeful over-estimation.The District of Columbia
was the highest reported area, with only 1.39% of the population recorded as
same-sex households. So, where do we get this convoluted figure that 10% of
people are born homosexual, and if the numbers are closer to accurate at 2-3%,
why the commercial kow-tow by corporations and such pandering organizations and
political organization to such a "huge" number of consumers and
voters? Why the limelight and PC-ness? It is obviously uncalled for,
over-played by the community, and skillfully managed by their sympathizers and
those who would capitalize on their victimhood. And those who kow-tow are
witless syncophants. What a waste of attention and money.
This is a difficult issue. Discussion is difficult when there is no common
ground. Some don't believe in God. Some don't have any moral values and moral
values differ among those who have morals. I believe there is a God and I
believe that sex and marriage are to be had between a man and a woman. I
believe that sex before marriage or sex between anyone or anything other than a
married man and woman is a sin. I believe God loves everyone. I believe God
has commandments and that he does not accept any sin. These two facts are not
in opposition. We are all sinners and can be forgiven through Christ's blood
and sacrifice. It is okay for me to fight for what I believe in as long as it
is within the law.
Then 64 percent should not enter into a same-sex marriage. They should,
however, allow the other 36 percent the right to follow their own beliefs. Then
let God decide who was right and who was wrong.Quite simple, really
Why don't these marraige groups start focusing on the 50% divorce rate(so much
for the "sanctity" of marraige)instead of the 5-10% of people in
America who are homosexuals.
Marriage should be between a man and a women. Biologically only a man and a
woman can create life. My answer to the question of "What would Jesus
do?" would be the following: since Jesus is the only begotten son of God
and he came to earth to teach the plan of his father he would never contradict
his father who created Adam and Eve who are the first parents. God the father
loves everyone but hates the sin and his son Jesus would do likewise.
So let me get this "Strait" - this conservative research group didn't
like the results of the Gallop poll so they decided to conduct a new national
poll, changed the questions up a bit and voila, new results! Highly dubious.
Don't like the answer keep cherry picking until we find it. And then publish
the results so they get front page new in most "Red States". Even
more dubious. Someone mentioned most people under 35 just don't
care and it's not an issue. I would probably raise that number to most people
under 45. When the pre-Hippy boomers are dead, the whole "Gay
Marriage" debate in this country will DOA. I seem to recall when most
Americans were against inner-racial marriage, or civil rights, or against Utah
becoming a State, etc.
CHS 85, They're not allowed to protest here in Texas now. We just
passed a law that says they can't, thanks to the larger majority saying that
they didn't feel it was someone's "right" to be able to do this.
Apparently their rights to protest weren't able to trump the rights of people to
hold a peaceful funeral.
Its a good thing that we have the courts to eventually invalidate laws that
discriminate against *some* American Citizens simply because of their sexuality.
Civil rights is not something that is determined by a poll. If we made decisions
simply by popular vote we'd have no Mormon Church, interracial marriage would be
illegal, women wouldn't have equal rights not to mention minorities.Popular opinion is rarely right about these issues and is irrelevant in the
debate. We shouldn't kill people just because the majority of people want us to.
We shouldn't deny people equal rights and protections just because a majority
want us to. We are better than that as a nation and have a strong history of
protecting individual rights. Unfortunately, we are lagging seriously behind in
this one area. But once again, religious leaders can fight against the tide but
they cannot win in the long term. If you don't believe in gay
marriage and your god doesn't approve, then don't do it. I refuse to be held to
your god's standards.
What if posed a question like this in a poll?Do you believe that the
Westboro Baptist Church should protest at military funerals decrying the country
and the dead soldier while the family mourns? How many people would
answer that they should not? I imagine a huge majority - yet the Westboro
Baptist Church continues to protest at military funerals. Why is
that? It is simple, really - we don't base laws on popularity polls! We are a
national of laws, not a nation of mob rule!
Sure 64% may believe gay marriage should be between a man and a woman, but that
isn't exactly related to how someone would vote or how they believe the law
should be applied to this issue. In terms of the law, I really don't see how
this directly applies.As for this poll's statistics, I'm pretty
skeptical. You don't know how these questions are skewed and in what order they
are asked. Considering this research company shot out polls in favor of Prop 8,
I can't consider this source reliable.
This poll does a good job of validating what my man made God has already made
abundantly clear: God and his people are not on board with gay marriage.
"I think God does," Love said. "I don't find a preponderance in
scripture that God's love and acceptance has anything to do with gender and
sexuality. The preponderance has to do with how we treat each other as human
beings as part of a community. It is unfortunate that we are so stuck on this
issue."---------Possibly she didn't read the Book of
Genesis in which God creates Adam and Eve. I would challenge her to find any
scripture that references an Adam and Bob or an Eve and Carol, at least not in a
positive light. If Miss Love takes the time to read the Book of Genesis she
might be further enlightened by the story about Sodam and Gomorrah.
When the first two questions of a three question poll reference judgement by God
and THEN you ask a question about Marriage, that's the very definition of Push
Polling. Beyond creating a splashy headline for the Deseret News
what purpose does this "data" serve when it is so out of context, so
out of synch with other polling data, and so undefined. Were these
respondents from areas where gay marriage is legal, or where civil union laws
are in place, or from places like Utah where gay relationships are
constitutionally banned? And a sample size of 1000 to represent 307 million
coreypaul, It doesn't always have to be a "rights" issue,
however, that's how the gay agenda always poses it. God, Himself, sent the 10
commandments, (as well as others), to man limiting what you might classify as
his "rights". God apparently doesn't want man to worship any graven
images. Isn't that our "right"? Can't we think for ourself as educated
adults as to whether or not that hurts us? It doesn't hurt anybody else, does
it? So what's the problem? Why would He limit our "right" to something
that doesn't affect any other human being? Amazingly, He made a special point to
put it in the 10 commandments Moses brought down from the mountain. Apparently
God has a different view of what our "rights" should be as
individuals. And even though "worshipping graven individuals" affects
no other physical human except ourselves, most importantly, it affects our
relationship to Him. That's why He included it. So even though you may think gay
relationships doesn't affect anyone outside of their relationship, even though
you think it's their "right", it, like the 2nd commandment, affects
the relationship between an individual and God. That's why Christians shouldn't
support that type of lifestyle.
The hardest thing about this is getting people on board with the same religious
beliefs. It kind of contradicts the idea of freedom of religion, when having no
religion is just as protected.It is equally difficult to say two
people that love each other cannot enjoy the same legal protections as others
based on their sex and/or sexual orientation.I'm glad my wife and
kid are the beneficiaries of my hard work. I love them, we take care of each
other, and it should be so. It is difficult that a same sex couple cannot enjoy
those protections and assurances also, especially when they love each other.
This seems to be fairly typical. Two thirds are in favor of one thing, in this
case the time-honored definition of marriage as a contract between a man and a
woman, but all the media hype is on the opposite side of the issue. I no longer
listen to or watch our big corporate media outlets.
" found that 64 percent of Americans feel that marriage should only be
between one man and one woman. Thirty-three percent feel marriage should be
redefined to include any two people"Talk about deliberate and
purposely flawed questions to make the results say what you want! When you give
respondents the choice of "man and woman" or "any two
people" those are not offsetting things. "Any two people"
includes incest, pedophilia, and a number of other disapproved practices.
"Any two people" and "any two consensual adults, regardless of
gender" are not the same thing.Anyone that has ever taken even
a basic methods course (or has a modicum of common sense) can see that this is
just as flawed as those in the article claim the gallup poll was.
Since when is marriage defined by a poll? As far as that is concerned, when is
marriage defined by any person, legislative body, or any group? Marriage is
defined by God, and no person, group, or legislative have any right to define
what has essentially been the union between one man and one woman since the
Garden of Eden. It is highly presumptuous and blasphemous for any people to come
up with any stupid idea that flies in the face of what God has settled on and
that will never change. For those latter-day saints that believe that gay
marriage is a matter of one's preference or a constitutional right, the Church
will never change it's position. Marriage is a union between one man and one
woman and that will never change.
"In our country, God is viewed as the seat of judgment, whereas Jesus is
viewed as the seat of compassion," she said. "I like to ask people
what they think Jesus would do about this because they give a totally different
answer than if you asked them what God would do."I find this
very interesting that people would believe that God and Jesus have two separate
opinions about the same issue, and yet most people believe that they're
essentially the same person....
"64 percent of Americans feel that marriage should only be between one man
and one woman." Satan is very clever. He makes sure, in this
debate, that Plural Marriages is never again considered because he knows that it
is an eternal principle; therefore, he stresses "between one man and one
woman."I don't like writing about this subject because to me it
is like debating with Satan and his followers whether Jesus is the Christ, or
whether man is a product of divine creation or some evolution design.In a country where the Declaration of Independence states that, "All men
are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,
among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, slavery is still in
practice, families are being torn apart, Rachel still weeping for her sons
because they are in a correctional institution some where in this country. Yet
we spend time and ink discussing whether two men are justified for having
unnatural affection towards one another. Is this the discussion that
intelligent men and women find intellectually stimulating?
The two polls aren't necessarily contradictory. A person could very well
believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, at the same time
realizing that an interpretation of the constitution would allow for same-sex
marriages to share the legal rights of heterosexual marriages. Many don't
believe a person should drink, but they recognize their legal right to do so.
@El Chango...the purposes in marriage in American society today have
reached far beyond childbearing. While you may believe that's the purpose for
marriage, for many, many people marriage is a commitment of love between two
people who never plan on having children. This applies to heterosexuals and
homosexuals. If marriage should only be granted to couples in order to
reproduce, then we shouldn't allow barren women, impotent men, or older couples
65 percent. Just added my vote. :)
I thought it was interesting that they mentioned that when people were given the
choice between God and Jesus, they felt the opinions of the two would differ.
That, sadly, goes to show where everyone's knowledge of the two is. Can you
imagine God saying "something is wrong" and Jesus saying "No,
because we love them?" The real irony is that yes.... God can say something
is wrong and love you at the same time. That, in essence, is the message that
those who've been against gay marriages from the start has been fighting with
the gays. If an individual says to me, "Do you think gay marriages are
wrong?" I'd answer, "Of course they're wrong. Gay lifestyles are
wrong." Now a gay individual would label me as a hatemonger for stating
what God has already said. Can God hate? No. Just as Jesus can't. I can say
something is wrong and at the same time still love. I do it every day with my
kids. We all do. From the beginning right and wrong aren't affected or
overridden by love. That is the message that gays won't accept. If I don't
support them, I hate them. Who's the bigot?
God loves all men and women; They are his children. Marriage between a man and a
woman is ordained of God to help his children become perfected. By caring for
someone of the opposite gender, one encompasses the whole human experience in a
tiny new world called Marriage. In that world can come new worlds through
children of their own. These children are nurtured in a shelter of love, peace,
until creating worlds of their own--if they accept someone of their opposite
gender--Choosing likewise to create a new world in Marriage. Thus God has
created a means by which men and women can experience much the same eternal
nature of God, one in which they may know the joys of being a parent, reflect
upon the sacred innocent nature of their created children, care for these
children and provide for the future in a stable and sound covenant-based
society. These relationships may be eternal and linked back to God. Any other
relationship outside of Marriage, while meaningful, does not carry eternal
importance. No other relationship perpetuates society to the next generation. No
other creates worlds without end. No other sociality should be elevated or given
I simply don't respect Mr. Lawrence's work and I would explain why but it isn't
being allowed by the moderators.
If a question was worded like this: "Do you believe everyone should have
equal rights?" the percentage of people who say yes, would most likely be
higher, unless of course you are a conservative Christian, who oddly are always
against equal rights this proven throughout history, while at the same time
believe they have been chosen by their god to rule the world, and believe they
are treated worse than all other groups of people, yet are in the majority and
make laws endlessly in US Congress, making equal rights for all actually
illegal. Clearly, these types of people could not answer "yes" unless
they were lying.
Statistics are always interesting, but we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.
If 64% according to this poll do not support same sex marriage how do you
address what the remainder of the sample feel? Remember that we pledge
allegiance to the flag and to the republic not democracy. This is, was, and
always will be an issue of trying to follow the will of the majority, while
protecting the minorities wishes whatever the cause du jour is. And in the end
why do we obsess so much about causes should we not rather be spending our time
on helping those who have less, families and individuals, who are struggling?
Setting the example rather than constantly writing about things like this?
Sometimes I feel we have lost all perspective on what is really important.
This is a losing issue. The 35 and younger crowd could care less about gay
marriage. 20 years from now, the trend will increase even further.
What's truly puzzling is why NOM has decided to use same sex marriage as the
standard by which to defend "the sanctity of marriage". For years in this country, the rate of divorce has skyrocketed...as has the
rate of couples living together unmarried, and single parenthood (by choice).
Yet, all we're hearing from NOM is how the gays, who make up less
than 5% of the entire population (and many of whom don't even want to marry) are
"ruining the sanctity of marriage". If NOM is truly
interested in the preserving sanctity of marriage as they claim, then they need
to get over their poorly disguised homophobia and focus on the REAL issues at
@Northern"the family unit is the basic unit of society. "And yet this state allows single gay people to adopt but not gay
couples. So much for caring about family.
Of course marriage should be between a man and a woman. Same sex marriage simply
does not make any biological sense. There's nothing hateful or bigoted about
that position, it's just the way we're made!
For Love the real question is "Does God approve of me as a
homosexual?""I think God does," Love said. "I
don't find a preponderance in scripture that God's love and acceptance has
anything to do with gender and sexuality. The preponderance has to do with how
we treat each other as human beings as part of a community. It is unfortunate
that we are so stuck on this issue."---------Wow, talk
about it is "all about the wording." "Preponderance in
scripture" that "God's love and acceptance has anything to do with
gender and sexuality."Woman in adultery: "Neither do I
condemn THEE." In other words, I love you, but "Go thy way and sin no
more." I love you, but I don't want you to sin. Sex outside a
heterosexual marriage is sin, or in other words, BEHAVIOR that Jesus disapproves
of, and there is PLENTY of scriptural evidence of that.
Finally a news article that goes beyond the media hype and simple minded news
headlines and begins to really discusse the complex and substantive nature of
this public policy issue. Thanks you Deseret News for introducing news that
expands the readerships mind instead of the usual superficial news media
So essentially what is being said is the majority of the country does not
support gay marriage. When its all said and done, the family unit
is the basic unit of society.