Reader comments
Gay couples in Utah urged not to sue
428 comments | Read story
BLJT | 2:08 p.m. June 18, 2008
Back to my main point: You say that society has no vested interest in
encouraging any relationship if we "remove the child raising aspect"
of it. First, many gay people have kids too. Aren't two parents better
than one? And even for those childless gay couples, my argument is that it DOES
benefit society to have them couple and take care of each other. (See previous
posts).
Allowing same sex couples to marry may give them TEMPORARY preferential treatment over single people, but that's what an incentive is! EVERYONE would then be encouraged to marry and that would benefit society regardless of whether there are kids in the equation.
Allowing same sex couples to marry may give them TEMPORARY preferential treatment over single people, but that's what an incentive is! EVERYONE would then be encouraged to marry and that would benefit society regardless of whether there are kids in the equation.
YBU | 2:11 p.m. June 18, 2008
Oppose away. If following your prophet is more important than the law (we
believe in ...obeying,
honoring and sustaining the law), then work to have your views put into law as you have done in Utah. That does not make it just. Read the Constitution
("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
honoring and sustaining the law), then work to have your views put into law as you have done in Utah. That does not make it just. Read the Constitution
("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.")
Comments continue below
In Texas | 2:12 p.m. June 18, 2008
Again we see the gay community pushing its way into the lives of others, not the
other way around. Gays demanded Hawaii allow gay marriage in the 1990s
precisely, as they put it, to get into places like the LDS Temple in Hawaii and
force the LDS church to perform their marriage. They hoped that if the LDS
church refused, then the church could not perform any marriages. The legislation
failed and the push in the courts failed then too. If any of you think naively
think that the gay community will quit demanding absolute and forceful
acceptance of their lifestyle if civil marriages are recognized think again for
they will take that "right" at the same time take away your rights and
religious liberties, think again. They have already shown their true intent to
destroy religous liberties in this country and smack at the destruction of the
family unit.
to Not LDS, but thankful | 2:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
You said "I pretended to be a 14 year-old boy, confused about his
sexuality. (What child of that age hasn't been at one time or
another?)"
I hate to break it to you but most of us never were confused about our sexuality. I always new I was heterosexual. When you come out of the closet, I will defend your right to marry.
I hate to break it to you but most of us never were confused about our sexuality. I always new I was heterosexual. When you come out of the closet, I will defend your right to marry.
Fragile | 2:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
It's amazing to me how fluid the morals of some of the comments on this
board are. Where is stability? Where is your solid foundation? It's
tragic to me when I think that my 'average citizen' tax money pays the
annual income of someone like Scott McCoy. I have never heard of him before and
I have absolutely no idea how he has employed my tax money for the best interest
of myself and my family. I don't trust that he has my best interests at
heart as well. There are some very solid words that have been published by The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They aren't just words.
They're warnings. They are true. You can debate and question and play the
devil's advocate until the Sun ceases to shine, but truth is truth. Being
homosexual will cause its own condemnation. Facilitating sin - in any form -
will have its own condemnation. Casting your judgment or lack of good judgment
to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for facilitating
righteousness will only result in you discovering at a future time that you were
wrong. - 'choose the right' -
to:RockOn | 8:13 a.m | 2:18 p.m. June 18, 2008
What don't you understand about CONSENTING ADULTS? We need to protect
anything that cannot consent from being abused. Why can't you understand
the difference? It is petty of you to keep bringing up stupid arguments that do
not add to the discussion.
ANON | 2:21 p.m. June 18, 2008
I LOVE THE GAYS! EVEN IF THEY ARE WRONG.
To Bla Bla Bla | 2:22 p.m. June 18, 2008
Your comments perfectly illustrate why gays want more that marriage. "Get
use to it." Well that comment tell the world volumes what we as
hetersexual are going to be told by gays. We will have to give up all our
religious liberties in our own churches if you get your way and demands and
force us to "Get use to it."
SHUSH | 2:23 p.m. June 18, 2008
YOUR FACE IS WRONG.
Hypocrite or Homosexual? | 2:25 p.m. June 18, 2008
hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
The major religions of the world condemn the sins of acting on homosexual tendencies. Why then would a homosexual want to specifically target and participate in a religious ceremony? Why should religions change to accomadate those with opposing views to their principles and doctrines? The senator is basically setting up the state of Utah by suggesting homosexuals "not sue" the state. Utahans may want to rethink their vote for this man when it comes to re-election.
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
The major religions of the world condemn the sins of acting on homosexual tendencies. Why then would a homosexual want to specifically target and participate in a religious ceremony? Why should religions change to accomadate those with opposing views to their principles and doctrines? The senator is basically setting up the state of Utah by suggesting homosexuals "not sue" the state. Utahans may want to rethink their vote for this man when it comes to re-election.
Just have to comment | 2:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
I haven't read all the posts as there are just too many, but I get the jist
of the undertone here. To the poster who says with gay marriage and them raising
kids "it's just reduces to a sperm sample". My daughter was
married in a hetersexual relationship and we refer to the father of her kids as
"the sperm donor", as that is all he was. He left when the kids were
babies, gave up his parental rights, doesn't want to see the kids unless he
thinks they may have a present for him, i.e. Christmas, Fathers Day, etc.
doesn't pay child support, and I can go on and on. It was also stated no
one cares about the children, then someone posted that they wish they had been
raised by a loving homosexual couple than having to endure the abuse they went
through. Just because there's a man and woman doesn't guarantee
anything. My husband is abusive emotionally and has always been to my kids.
Refuses to leave, thinks he's totally in charge of everyone. Kids got out
of the house as soon as they could make it on their own. Was it right for them?
NO!!!
to YBU | 2:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the summer of 1778 in
Phillidephia and hear one of the men in the chamber in the Continental Congress
said, " Oh, by the way, don't forget to include a clause that will
give men and women wanting to marry each other that right a couple of hundred
years from now." Oh yeah, I am sure that was on their minds when they put
in such statements. Hey, I have some pixey dust for you too.
Damwabbit | 2:30 p.m. June 18, 2008
I love the gays, Steven and Steven's yard looks much better than my other
next door neighbors who is not gay. I wake up every morning to beautiful
flowers, Daiseys, Snap Dragons and pretty bushes... the lustfullness of the
bright colors and joyous smells just makes me want to jump around the street
with gee on a daily basis!
to- BLJT 1:59 pm | 2:31 p.m. June 18, 2008
>>>"These "benefit dollars" you refer to are not a zero
sum game. There is not a finite amount of "benefit dollars" out
there"
What planet do you live on?
Benefit dollars ARE zero sum, a dollar spent giving health insurance to a gay "spouse" can not be used to immunize a child or subsidize lunch or provide food stamps.
Government budgeting is all about picking and choosing what to cover and what not to cover.
Create a new class of benefit recipients (homosexual "marriage" partners) and there will be less dollars to help poor children.
What planet do you live on?
Benefit dollars ARE zero sum, a dollar spent giving health insurance to a gay "spouse" can not be used to immunize a child or subsidize lunch or provide food stamps.
Government budgeting is all about picking and choosing what to cover and what not to cover.
Create a new class of benefit recipients (homosexual "marriage" partners) and there will be less dollars to help poor children.
Host/Virus | 2:30 p.m. June 18, 2008
You can live with whom ever you want. I'll always enjoy good neighbors and
friends no matter their background (as long as their good people). But until you
can create your own children there's no way I'll ever call it a full
marriage.
Special privileges for gays!!! | 2:33 p.m. June 18, 2008
Gays...it was very clever and deceitful of you to incorporate the word
"rights" into your movement. The bottom line is that YOU ALREADY HAVE
the same rights as everyone else. A gay man and a straight man can legally
marry exactly the same people (i.e. an unmarried woman of age, a non-relative,
etc.). Instead of "Gay Rights," an accurate term for your movement
would be "Special Privileges For Gays."
THANKYOU | 2:33 p.m. June 18, 2008
THANK YOU SO SO MUCH TO BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!! I AGREE WITH YOU 100% THIS IS A
WASHED UP OLD STORY AND NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT IT ON THE
DESERET NEWS, CHANGE IS COMING! OUR RIGHTS AS HUMAN BEINGS WILL FINALLY BE
GIVEN TO US, AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!
-PRIDE
-PRIDE
to BLJT 2:08 pm | 2:34 p.m. June 18, 2008
>>>" Aren't two parents better than one?"
Not if they are homosexuals who are unable to teach and demonstrate healthy and appropriate gender behavior to the children they have custody of.
Not if they are homosexuals who are unable to teach and demonstrate healthy and appropriate gender behavior to the children they have custody of.
YBU | 2:34 p.m. June 18, 2008
That same beautiful Constitution that guarentees me equal protection under the
law also guarentees each of you the right to believe what you want to. I will
die defending that right. I wouldn't want anyone to HAVE to believe
anything. Please allow many of us to not believe in your bible and the
"sin".!!!
@ To Bla bla bla 2:22 | 2:37 p.m. June 18, 2008
I've read the comments posted today, and I don't see anything to
support your claim that the gay community wants, expects, demands or has even
ASKED ANYONE to give up their religious liberties! Instead, I see a whole lot
of people who are asking the gays to give up their liberties in the name of YOUR
religious intollerance.
To date, I have never had anyone knock on my door and ask me to change my sexual orientation, but I've had several ask me to change my religion, which hasn't happened.
I still have my religious liberties. Your just grasping for something to justify your beliefs.
To date, I have never had anyone knock on my door and ask me to change my sexual orientation, but I've had several ask me to change my religion, which hasn't happened.
I still have my religious liberties. Your just grasping for something to justify your beliefs.
Just Have to comment (cont) | 2:36 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Sooooo..
I feel sorry for you if your whole thinking is the SOLE purpose of marriage is to have children.
Guess that means that when your childbearing years are over, you're free to move on??? Doesn't that make you on a level with animals -- their sole purpose is to procreate their species, right? No committment on their part.
In the 60's guys were being shipped to Viet Nam, there were many marriages entered into which were just a committment between two people who loved each other. Usually no time for the formal stuff. I was one who entered into one and I loved him dearly, and was totally faithful. He came home in a box, and I had no legal status for anything. Parents (his) who were so supportive before were horrible when he died. I can understand how these couples want to be there for each other. They are committed and there's nothing that will change that. They just want to be able to care for each other legally.
How would you feel if someone you cared about were in the hospital and you weren't allowed to visit or anything? That's what faces them. Just lay off!!!
I feel sorry for you if your whole thinking is the SOLE purpose of marriage is to have children.
Guess that means that when your childbearing years are over, you're free to move on??? Doesn't that make you on a level with animals -- their sole purpose is to procreate their species, right? No committment on their part.
In the 60's guys were being shipped to Viet Nam, there were many marriages entered into which were just a committment between two people who loved each other. Usually no time for the formal stuff. I was one who entered into one and I loved him dearly, and was totally faithful. He came home in a box, and I had no legal status for anything. Parents (his) who were so supportive before were horrible when he died. I can understand how these couples want to be there for each other. They are committed and there's nothing that will change that. They just want to be able to care for each other legally.
How would you feel if someone you cared about were in the hospital and you weren't allowed to visit or anything? That's what faces them. Just lay off!!!
fr1nk | 2:37 p.m. June 18, 2008
I dont believe in your god. I think your god is made up. If my god tells me that
mormons are sinners should I be able to make mormonism against the laws of the
land? If gays want to get married, it is their choice. It doesnt effect you or
your family in any way, therefore it isnt up to you.
Ted | 2:37 p.m. June 18, 2008
NO ONE is having to give up any religious liberties!! I don't see how this
argument persists! You may have to give up having your religious beliefs
imposed on others by the government, though. This is consistent with
Church/state separation.
UMM.... | 2:40 p.m. June 18, 2008
A COMMENT TO "JUST HAVE TO COMMENT"....HERE IS MY THERAPISTS PHONE
NUMBER....
NOT SURE THAT COMMENT HAS MUCH TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE CONVERSATION.
NOT SURE THAT COMMENT HAS MUCH TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE CONVERSATION.
YBU | 2:44 p.m. June 18, 2008
So you are telling me that I am not a part of "liberty and justice for
all"? Just because your beliefs are not the same as mine? That is
amazing. Where do you come from?
Ted | 2:41 p.m. June 18, 2008
To Hypocrite...
NO ONE IS ASKING, EXPECTING, REQUIRING ANY RELIGION TO CHANGE ITS CEREMONIES OR PRACTICES. This is about CIVIL marriage--not religious ceremonies!
It is amazing to me the number of you who think that your churches are going to have to perform gay weddings. This is absurd! No wonder these marriage bans pass... so many of you have NO IDEA what they do and don't do!
NO ONE IS ASKING, EXPECTING, REQUIRING ANY RELIGION TO CHANGE ITS CEREMONIES OR PRACTICES. This is about CIVIL marriage--not religious ceremonies!
It is amazing to me the number of you who think that your churches are going to have to perform gay weddings. This is absurd! No wonder these marriage bans pass... so many of you have NO IDEA what they do and don't do!
re: BLT 2:08 pm | 2:43 p.m. June 18, 2008
you said
"Allowing same sex couples to marry may give them TEMPORARY preferential treatment over single people, but that's what an incentive is! EVERYONE would then be encouraged to marry and that would benefit society regardless of whether there are kids in the equation."
You miss the point of the post you are responding to.
Why should someone have to marry a homosexual (or anyone else) just to become eligible for social services?
Why not find a way to extend them to everyone?
How does society benefit from inducing people to enter "marriages" they otherwise wouldn't just to get the benefits?
"Allowing same sex couples to marry may give them TEMPORARY preferential treatment over single people, but that's what an incentive is! EVERYONE would then be encouraged to marry and that would benefit society regardless of whether there are kids in the equation."
You miss the point of the post you are responding to.
Why should someone have to marry a homosexual (or anyone else) just to become eligible for social services?
Why not find a way to extend them to everyone?
How does society benefit from inducing people to enter "marriages" they otherwise wouldn't just to get the benefits?
YBU | 2:51 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Oh, by the way, don't forget to include a clause that will give men
and women wanting to marry each other that right a couple of hundred years from
now." Oh yeah, I am sure that was on their minds when they put in such
statements."
Neither was the thought that men and women of different races would want to marry either. That doesn't mean that it is not perfectly acceptable now. Your argument is falacious.
Neither was the thought that men and women of different races would want to marry either. That doesn't mean that it is not perfectly acceptable now. Your argument is falacious.
To "special privileges for gays" | 2:53 p.m. June 18, 2008
Explain to me how allowing gays to marry would create "special privileges
for gays." Don't you realize that everybody will gain the same
rights: Anyone may marry a person of the opposite sex and anyone may marry a
person of the same sex. Thus there are no "special" rights. Try to
reason through your argument before you post.
BLJT | 2:54 p.m. June 18, 2008
I wish government budgeting were as simple as you make it sound and that
politicians allocated all the money by comparing column A to column B, but
that's not how it works.
I don't even know what is meant by "benefit dollars". My point is that money is not taken from other programs to provide benefits when a new couple marries or when the number of married people increases. The benefits we're talking about are triggered automatically depending on your marital status. No politician is looking at these numbers and saying, "oh, we're paying too much based on marital status, we need fewer people to be married" which is essentially the point I was responding to.
I don't even know what is meant by "benefit dollars". My point is that money is not taken from other programs to provide benefits when a new couple marries or when the number of married people increases. The benefits we're talking about are triggered automatically depending on your marital status. No politician is looking at these numbers and saying, "oh, we're paying too much based on marital status, we need fewer people to be married" which is essentially the point I was responding to.
come on, Ted | 2:55 p.m. June 18, 2008
are you uninformed or being deceitful?
Churches are already losing tax exempt status if they will not allow homosexuals to use their facilities.
Churches that sponsor Boy Scout troops find homosexual activist andDemocratic city officials coming after them.
If you really are uninformed you should listen to NPR to keep up with the great advances of the homosexual agenda.
Churches are already losing tax exempt status if they will not allow homosexuals to use their facilities.
Churches that sponsor Boy Scout troops find homosexual activist andDemocratic city officials coming after them.
If you really are uninformed you should listen to NPR to keep up with the great advances of the homosexual agenda.
to@Bla Bla Bla | 2:58 p.m. June 18, 2008
Research! Quit being a Google search engine "know little". Gays HAVE
an agenda! Gay Pride, Log Cabin Republicans and others make it quite clear in
their interviews where they want their agenda to go. Full aceptance AND
forceful acceptance in churches and private organizations i.e. Boy Scouts, the
Mormon Temples etc. 'In Texas" is right about Hawaii. I was in
Seattle in the 1990s and it was all over the news because of the gay community
there. They were protesting in Hawaii and specifically targeting the Mormon
church's temple. They wanted IN the temple. Gays want it all their way
with no rights for ANYONE ELSE BUT THEM.
wake up | 2:58 p.m. June 18, 2008
To fr1nk-
I don't see where ANYONE in here has asked anyone not to be gay. The problem is that homosexuals seem to think it is necessary to anounce their sexual orientation to the world and throw it in the face of the public, and that is how it effect the children and families of the world. Maybe we should nhave a heterosexual march or parade, or event of some kind.
Drop the Mormon thing. This has nothing to do with mormonism, just good logical healthy lifestyles and beliefs.
I don't see where ANYONE in here has asked anyone not to be gay. The problem is that homosexuals seem to think it is necessary to anounce their sexual orientation to the world and throw it in the face of the public, and that is how it effect the children and families of the world. Maybe we should nhave a heterosexual march or parade, or event of some kind.
Drop the Mormon thing. This has nothing to do with mormonism, just good logical healthy lifestyles and beliefs.
No Agenda Here | 3:02 p.m. June 18, 2008
Really you must calm down. Gays do not want access into your little clubs.
Don't worry, we will allow you to continue your bigotry in the privacy of
your churches.
Similarities | 3:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
Look at every single argument being offered by the folks opposed to equal rights
for gays and you'll see that they could just as easily be applied, and
definitely were applied, to arguments about whether or not women could vote, or
blacks could vote, or blacks and whites could marry.
And then you finally get down the final bottom-line cop-out, "I'm not the one who made the rules, God did. So complain to Him, not me."
What nonsense!
"God" also made the "rules" that said I should slaughter my neighbor and his entire family if they worship a different god than me, that I should kill my own child if she speaks disrespectfully to me, that I should kill the guy next door for working on the Sabbath (which is it, Saturday or Sunday?) and that it is an abomination to eat shellfish.
Come on, people! The ancient rantings of marginally civilized storytellers is not a sound basis for deciding which citizens have their rights protected and which do not.
And then you finally get down the final bottom-line cop-out, "I'm not the one who made the rules, God did. So complain to Him, not me."
What nonsense!
"God" also made the "rules" that said I should slaughter my neighbor and his entire family if they worship a different god than me, that I should kill my own child if she speaks disrespectfully to me, that I should kill the guy next door for working on the Sabbath (which is it, Saturday or Sunday?) and that it is an abomination to eat shellfish.
Come on, people! The ancient rantings of marginally civilized storytellers is not a sound basis for deciding which citizens have their rights protected and which do not.
YBU | 3:04 p.m. June 18, 2008
"Gays want it all their way with no rights for ANYONE ELSE BUT
THEM."
I can tell you that I have NEVER heard the bs that you are quoting come from any gay that I know and I have met quite a few. We do believe in the constitution and know that it is for EVERYONE, regardless of their orientation, religion, color, sex or race. Get a clue. You are being deceived by those who want to put fear into this subject.
I can tell you that I have NEVER heard the bs that you are quoting come from any gay that I know and I have met quite a few. We do believe in the constitution and know that it is for EVERYONE, regardless of their orientation, religion, color, sex or race. Get a clue. You are being deceived by those who want to put fear into this subject.
BLJT | 3:06 p.m. June 18, 2008
I'm not saying people should have to get married to receive benefits or
social services. I was responding to the argument that (1) government started
conditioning benefits on marital status because it made the judgment that
marriage was good for society (married people are healthier, wealthier, more
stable, more likely to own a home, less likely to commit crime...) and so it
wanted to create some rewards/incentives to marry, but (2) society has no
interest in encouraging gays to marry.
My point was that many of the same rationales FOR marriage also apply to same-sex marriage. Society does have an interest and DOES benefit from having two gay people commit to and take care of each other rather than be alone and adrift and ultimately dependent on others. Essentially, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
My point was that many of the same rationales FOR marriage also apply to same-sex marriage. Society does have an interest and DOES benefit from having two gay people commit to and take care of each other rather than be alone and adrift and ultimately dependent on others. Essentially, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
I don't know | 3:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
When I meet people, I don't ask if they're married to a person of the
opposite sex, what their sexual practices are, whether they are faithful to
their spouse, etc. In fact, I can't think of anytime any of this even came
up in conversation.
I don't ask what they think of gay marriagee as apposed to "normal" marriage. I don't ask what they teach their kids as far as proper gender activity.
IT'S REALLY NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T PERSONALLY AFFECT ME. What I do in my own personal relationships with my spouse, my children, my family, etc. should be the only business I should be concerned with. Who has time to dictate what everyone else should and should not do? And if you have that time, have you taken care of your own problems? Whatever happens next door isn't going to affect me or my family -- I don't think.
Maybe I need to start a list of things to ask, and hold survellience on the people around me. Someone may not have declared the kind of relationship they have that may not agree with me. I better get busy.
I don't ask what they think of gay marriagee as apposed to "normal" marriage. I don't ask what they teach their kids as far as proper gender activity.
IT'S REALLY NONE OF MY BUSINESS WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T PERSONALLY AFFECT ME. What I do in my own personal relationships with my spouse, my children, my family, etc. should be the only business I should be concerned with. Who has time to dictate what everyone else should and should not do? And if you have that time, have you taken care of your own problems? Whatever happens next door isn't going to affect me or my family -- I don't think.
Maybe I need to start a list of things to ask, and hold survellience on the people around me. Someone may not have declared the kind of relationship they have that may not agree with me. I better get busy.
awesome | 3:07 p.m. June 18, 2008
The world is a wonderful place because everyone have differences in opinions.
Keep posting the posts. this is fun.
Ted | 3:13 p.m. June 18, 2008
No church has lost their tax exempt status for not allowing gays. that is
simply untrue. It is not I who is misinformed.
The Boy Scouts policy on gays was challenged not because they receive subsidies from churches, but BECAUSE (and on the grounds that)they receive subsidies from the government. And still, these cases have almost always come out in the Scouts favor. If the scouts were funded solely by churches and used no government facilities, there would be no grounds for a suit.
The NPR story you refer to was the CITY of Philadelphia deciding not to subsidize the Boy Scouts rent because the scouts don't abide by the CITY's nondiscrimination policy. It had nothing to do with churches.
The Boy Scouts policy on gays was challenged not because they receive subsidies from churches, but BECAUSE (and on the grounds that)they receive subsidies from the government. And still, these cases have almost always come out in the Scouts favor. If the scouts were funded solely by churches and used no government facilities, there would be no grounds for a suit.
The NPR story you refer to was the CITY of Philadelphia deciding not to subsidize the Boy Scouts rent because the scouts don't abide by the CITY's nondiscrimination policy. It had nothing to do with churches.
Anonymous | 3:16 p.m. June 18, 2008
Simple truth I keep hearing talk from you but no references where I can go a
check this research and facts you claim to have. Please save yourself and the
rest f us the trouble and don�t reference an opinion peace
from concerned women for America, which is what happened last time I asked this
question of someone. Again. Opinions are not facts, you will notice I did not
reference a quote from equality Utah or the human rights campaign, but actual
research from professional human behavior organizations. You obviously are
either incapable or unwilling to read the research that I referenced, but
that�s alright you can continue to talk, because the more
you talk the more you show your true colors. I am sure you are familiar with the
term, you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own
set of facts.
mcKenzie | 3:20 p.m. June 18, 2008
As a mormon adulterer I think that the mormon church should change their policy
to make me feel more accepted at church! I can't really help the fact that
I am attracted to other people's husbands. I think that if the church
really believed in LOVING others they would realize what pain they are putting
me through by having those silly rules. Hey if gays want change why can't
I??
To Ted | 3:23 p.m. June 18, 2008
Again, you got it wrong. In 1978, a case went all the way to the Supreme Court
about groups wanting special status in the Boy Scouts with rights and
priveleges. It was struck down by the high court but the gay activist have
tried to resurrect that same argument under the clause that No government aid (
tax exempt status included) can be given to the Boy Scouts because the
organization did not want Gay Scout Leaders. Gays continue to manipulate the
truth and massaging it in hopes of so distorting the truth about what they are
up to. Their hope is that the rest of us will be so blinded and feel
"guilty" or intimidates by their clever so-called harmless wishes and
not recognize their true intent of taking away other's rights until it is
too late to fight their invasion into our private lives.
to mcKenzie | 3:26 p.m. June 18, 2008
Is your real name Joy?
gay assault on religion | 3:28 p.m. June 18, 2008
A New Jersey church lost tax exempt status on a facility because they declined
to rent it to homosexuals for a wedding.
NPR has on their website a long article about the homosexual movement taking on religion and religious beliefs; in every one (of 8-10) cases they cite religion loses to homosexual activist.
Homosexuals are working (and succeeding) to create a legal climate where you may not believe that homosexual behavior is undesirable and you will be forced to embrace homosexuality.
Freedoms of Association, Religion and Speech are being stripped away.
NPR has on their website a long article about the homosexual movement taking on religion and religious beliefs; in every one (of 8-10) cases they cite religion loses to homosexual activist.
Homosexuals are working (and succeeding) to create a legal climate where you may not believe that homosexual behavior is undesirable and you will be forced to embrace homosexuality.
Freedoms of Association, Religion and Speech are being stripped away.
Anonymous | 3:29 p.m. June 18, 2008
According to Ebby Murphy, Mr Tee was gay.
Broken Record | 3:29 p.m. June 18, 2008
Hey McKenzie-- this isn't about changing the church!
to: mcKenzie | 3:31 p.m. June 18, 2008
We are not asking the mormon church to change. We are asking for our rights as
American citizens. Churches can and will believe whatever they want to. It is
OK with us.
Tired of being disturbed | 3:33 p.m. June 18, 2008
Whether a person is endorsed by a government or whether a person practices what
they do without the endorsement of a government delves into abstract levels of
law in regards to religion and sin. Your money carries the title of God on it.
Your country's commerce is based on the 'God' in which you
'trust'. That God of your country is defined by several religions.
You have your own understanding of God and your own perception of what
'God' is. You need to seek understanding wherever you can find it.
There are absolutes. I believe in a God that forgives me when I repent. I
believe in a God who loves you and me enough to have sent his son Jesus Christ
to rescue us from the fall of Adam and Eve and to render us capable of
overcoming spiritual death. I believe you and I will face God at a future time.
We will either desire to remain in that divine presence or we will want to
depart from that presence. Homosexuality hurts every Eve out there as much as
it hurts any innocent soul that would otherwise joy in a healthy family
atmosphere.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Utah state Sen. Scott McCoy talks during a domestic partner registry debate in February.
- Advocate charged with sex abuse 11:52 a.m.
- Sp. Fork city blamed for flooding 11:51 a.m.
- State to keep four-day work week 11:50 a.m.
- Bennett enlists campaign chairs 11:49 a.m.
- Miles is back, but others still out 11:48 a.m.
- Phoenix vote on temple Wednesday 11:02 a.m.
- Iran whistleblower poisoned 10:58 a.m.
- Stocks waver after jobs report 10:57 a.m.
- Robotic hand controlled by thoughts 10:51 a.m.
- Tribune Co. names new CEO 10:49 a.m.
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- BYU says Hall incident resolved
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore
- Find joy in life, Bishop Burton says
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
909 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology388
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal355
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved241
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game166
- Religion in politics is tiresome148
- BYU is champion of the state144
As the TV cameras Tuesday night scanned the West Point audience during...
LDS Church publisher Deseret Book has some specials for the holidays.
Latest comments
Finally a ranking Democrat who is making the case that it is important that...
Great article Amy. Thanks for helping to promote our great athletes. Go Bruins
10% savings may not be as large as hoped but it is a savings nonetheless. I...
actually, henderson was doing better than the board of directors
"However, you have failed to recoginzie that the government is responsible...
By their non-response I think BYU is sending a message. Is anybody listening?
Here's some of what I posted on "Protectoins for gays face tough fight"...
10:44 a.m What good does it do to JUST focus on green energy and totally...
I think both schools need to do something about the hate being shouted from...
Sand volleyball would actually bring in money unlike, softball, baseball,...
Advertisements
These "benefit dollars" you refer to are not a zero sum game. There is not a finite amount of "benefit dollars" out there, just as there is not a finite number of people receiving benefits at any one time. We don't take money from other programs to provide benefits every time a new couple marries and give them back when someone divorces. This is just not how these benefits work. If it did work this way then in order to feed hungry kids, we should discourage marriage and save "benefits dollars" ? Obviously this doesn't make sense.
I admit that I've never heard this argument before, but that's because not even the people who have thought long and hard about this are making it.