Comments about ‘LDS Church, other religious groups respond to Prop 8 ruling’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 7 2012 3:53 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

zoar63: "Can you provide a single cogent secular argument against plural marriage."

The most compelling I have heard is that historically, in most cultures that practiced polygamy, the marriages have consistently had uneven power relationships. One person (inevitably the male) held all the power and the wives were subservient. Having watched two seasons of "Sister Wives," the Kody Brown marriages (at least as as portrayed after selective editing) seem to be fairly well balanced, full of mutual respect, and financially self-supporting (no "bleed the beast" as in Short Creek). Not perfect, but better than in most cultures (and better than many monogamous marriages). I don't have too much of a problem with plural marriage if it has balanced power structure, no coercion, mutual consent among the participants, and doesn't burden larger society with caring for its failures. Also, polygamy acceptance would have to include both polygyny AND polyandry with equal opportunity and access for both.

procuradorfiscal @6:09-- Godwin. Written with flair, but still a Godwin.

RAB
Bountiful, UT

What if the government made a law stating that all people MUST agree with and approve of the act of baptizing people in behalf of the dead in accordance with LDS beliefs and that those who believe in baptism for the dead must be financially supported by the government? Would not the whole country be outraged?

Why then is it okay for the government to make a law stating that all people MUST agree with and approve of intimate homosexual activities implicit in gay marriage in accordance with homosexual beliefs and that those who believe in gay marriage must be financially supported by the government?

Simple really. Government endorsement of religious beliefs is apparently only bad when the beliefs can be tied to a particular religion. But if your belief approves of gay marriage and homosexual behavior and cannot be tied to a particular religion, you get to obtain government approval of your religious beliefs.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

"...said the court âhas ruled straightforwardly that the motivation for defending traditional marriage is animus against homosexual persons. "

--- What else do you call it when a law is specifically targeted against one group and one group only? Animus.

You can not vote away the rights of Americans without having a valid reason. "God says" is not a valid reason.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

rpjense says:

"The fundamental problem here is that the people of California spoke. A majority voted in favor of a proposition and this has been overturned by a MINORITY ... a very few judges overturned the will of the majority."

--- You have that backwards sir. The "fundamental problem" here is that THE RIGHTS OF A DESPISED MINORITY were put up to a vote in the first place.

A voice of Reason
Salt Lake City, UT

Here's some sound advice for anyone who wants to be happy and wants to learn the truth regarding this issue and every other facet of our existence...

Read the Book of Mormon. :) I find this to be better advice than anything else I could have possibly debated or disputed on here. This issue and any other 'issue'- will they ever 'go away'? No. It could be rejected. It could be passed. It doesn't matter because in the end what matters is people doing the right thing or not. Every last bit of reason or evidence I've ever seen has supported the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. Everything true points in one direction. Only by hardening one's heart does someone not see that same answer.

There is no such thing as 'gay marriage'. Your body was designed one way, like a one way street. If you want to fight that, fine. But it still isn't the truth. I've said nothing here that should offend anyone, nor have I intended offense. I simply think it's worth stating what I believe to be true. I'll probably go read it now.

Today is a great day. Best wishes to everyone.

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

@VoR;

God has no legal standing in our government or civil laws. Your book of mormon is meaningless as is the bible in relation to these laws. They're not based on "god says".

I've read your BoM, dozens of times and in two languages. It changes nothing.

Marriage id defined by the people entering into the contract. What you want it to mean for you is your personal business and doesn't affect what I want it to mean for me or what Joe Blow wants it to mean for him. For some it is a religious rite, for others it is a civil rite. Nobody should be able to define what it is for someone else.

Here's some advice. You follow your god and your god's commandments. He'll deal with you when you get to heaven. I'll follow my god's advice and he'll deal with me when I get there. In case you didn't understand the subtlety of the above advice, here's a clearer rendition: Mind your own business and we'll mind ours.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

I would like to see governments at all levels get out of the marriage business; let governments focus on civil unions, and let individuals and social groups define marriage any way they want. Marriage, after all, is a social contract between two people. It shouldn't be a basis for property rights, insurance rights, and so forth.

Getting it Right
Sunnyvale, CA

Gary Marriage and its lifestyle is against The Laws of Nature. Forget about rights, definition, equality, etc...we all know the consequences of going against the Laws of Nature. Most of the results are not good and could cost lives. Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be gone in a little over 100 years.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh my gosh yes. There we go. Allow gay marriage and the human race disappears in a century.

Getting it Right
Sunnyvale, CA

@Mark 12:26PM

Mark, Allowing gay marriage does not make the human race disappears in a century, I did not said that, you did. Say what you want to say, it does not change the fact that Gay Marriage is still against the Laws of Nature.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

@Getting it Right It seems to me the topic being discussed concerns agency, whether people can choose the type of marriage they want, or if marriage will continue to be regulated by government. I don't understand your reasoning behind your comments about "Law of Nature". Perhaps you will elaborate why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because it is against the laws of nature?

It's true that two gay people can't have children in and of themselves, but there are many men and women who get married and have no intentions of having children. Should they be prohibited from being married? Do we really want that type of intervention in our lives by government?

I'm an active LDS and support the Proclamation on Marriage, but I also believe that people should have the right to choose for themselves the type of marriage they will have, and I believe that governments at all levels should stop regulating marriage. Let social groups, such as religious churches, define marriage for their organization, and let people choose a social group that practices the type of marriage they want.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

You brought up the specter of humanity vanishing in a century, getting it, er, right. It is absolutely ridiculous to use that idea in a discussion about gay marriage.

And what are these "laws of nature" you speak of? Leave aside the fact that there is an abudence of homosexual acts performed in nature. But do you really think that everything humans do should conform to some arbitrary "law of nature"? There are plenty of species that will eat their young; monogamy is rare; violence and brutality is the norm. Should we really base what we do, as a civilization, on the "laws of nature"?

What do you find conforming to the "law of nature" in brain surgery, or space flight, or the Internet, or indoor plumbing?

ksampow
Farr West, Utah

Phranc - There is no attempt to oppress anyone. The LDS CHurch is not asking for laws against homosexuality. (Though God has already forbiden it in His laws.) People can choose a homosexual lifestyle. But they have no right to force society to change the definition of a time-honored (and divinely established) institution to suit their personal preferences. These activists want to redefine marriage.

Getting it Right
Sunnyvale, CA

Allen, laws of man will always fail. It may not be today or tomorrow but it will. To elaborate on the Laws of Nature; man are not designed, created, evolved and made for man. My point being that this Law is greater than any laws created by man. Just because the consequences are not evident and immediate, as a person trying to defy gravity, does not mean you can cheat it. Humans are imperfect and corruptible.

Mark, tell me. If everyone is gay and would abstain from touching the opposite sex, would humanity survive? It is not absolutely ridiculous but absolutely the truth. Brain surgery, space flight or the internet or indoor plumbing all conforms with the Laws of Nature. Tell me of a brain surgeon, pilot, programmer or a plummer that would say, "Oh, I just went against the laws of nature with what I did today". I don't think so.

Allen
Salt Lake valley, UT

@ksampow The time-honored institution that you speak of was marriage established by social groups, often churches, and controlled by those groups. The basic problem of this topic is that governments took control of marriage and made marriage a legal thing. Thus, some people want marriage to be reserved for a man and a woman, while other want marriage to be open to anyone. Both groups seem to have accepted governmental regulation of marriage a desirable thing. Yet, many of those people would object to governmental regulation of other aspects of their lives. They want to be free from excess governmental control; yet they accept and strive for governmental control of marriage. If government would get out of the marriage business, this whole problem would disappear.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Oh my gosh, what are you talking about?

Of course if all people only had homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out. But they don't and they won't. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that because of gay marriage there is a possibility that everyone, everywhere would stop having heterosexual sex. And such a suggestion has no place in a conversation about gay marriage.

I can't believe I'm responding to such nonsense.

If you are talking about the "laws of nature" being physical laws, then homosexuallity does absolutely nothing in violation of those. Clearly a homosexual act is quite possible under the physical laws of our universe.

Again, what in the world are you talking about?

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@ those who screen the comments: Why will you let one poster - RAB - mention baptism for the dead, but not allow responding posts to mention it?

If I cannot counter his post, using his own argument, then his comment should not have been posted.

My response: An analogy comparing same-sex marriage (SSM), a civil, secular event, with baptisms for the dead, a religious sacrament fails. Baptism for the dead has no civil effect - there is no social recognition nor are there social benefits. No living person is denied anything if baptisms for the dead are banned. (Which is an interesting thought - there has been enough controversy over baptism for the dead. What if the majority of society voted to ban it? Would the Courts be correct in overriding the will of the majority and declaring such a ban unconstitutional?)

One of the arguments against SSM is that gays have the right to marry - one person of the opposite sex, same as everyone else.

What is the difference in the cost to society if the two couples it is supporting are opposite-sex or same-sex? Why is it better to support lies than it is to support love?

Getting it Right
Sunnyvale, CA

"Imagine if all people accepted and practiced gay marriage, we will all be gone in a little over 100 years." - "Of course if all people only had homosexual sex and nothing else humanity would die out." - This is no nonsense.

You, saying that homosexual sex does not violate the Laws of Nature is absolutely nonsense. It is possible but it violates how man is designed, created, evolved and made. Like I told you, it is a fact that violation of Laws of Nature has consequences.

If you tell me that you don't care even if it violates the Laws of Nature and that you live by whatever consequences it will bring, I will rest my case. But don't try to explain your way out of it.

mark
Salt Lake City, UT

Explain my way out of what? Dude, this is the most ridiculous conversation I have had on here in a long time. I'll ask again: what are you talking about? The "laws of nature". What are you talking about? How nature works? The animal kingdom? Violates none of those laws. Physics? Again violates no laws. Laws about how people are designed? Again, violates no "laws" there either. What "law" do you think is being violated? Or do you think the only permissible sexual act is one that leads to conception? Well, that might be your opinion, but it sure is not a "law" no matter what you may think.

Are you trying to say it violates God's law? If so, the first thing you must do is prove there is a god before I'll even contemplate your interpretation of any so called law He or She may have.

I'm through with you.

Some1outthere
Salt Lake City, UT

No sense in voting because if the way I feel and the majority of the voters feel can be changed by one person or a small group of people to favor the losing side then it isn't worth my time to go to the voting polls.

to comment

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