Reader comments
LDS Church officials urge California members to support marriage amendment
492 comments | Read story
captbilly | 12:55 a.m. June 24, 2008
Churches don't really have a right to free speach, people have a right to
free speach. On the other hand, government has an obligation not to listen to
arguments based on religious beliefs. If some religion wants to demostrate a
rational reason why same sex marriages should be outlawed then let's hear
it, but saying that it's against the bible or against the will of god, are
arguments that our government has an absolute obligation to ignore.
history lesson | 12:57 a.m. June 24, 2008
Dear Flattop SF,
Please check your history books. You will learn about the Utah Territories stance on slavery, which states gave women the right to vote first, and an LDS professor (me) who helped the Chocolate Manufacturer's Association renounce cocoa child slavery in Africa. Just because the LDS Church does not espouse your personally canonized set of social issues does not make it week on social issues.
Please check your history books. You will learn about the Utah Territories stance on slavery, which states gave women the right to vote first, and an LDS professor (me) who helped the Chocolate Manufacturer's Association renounce cocoa child slavery in Africa. Just because the LDS Church does not espouse your personally canonized set of social issues does not make it week on social issues.
Comments continue below
losing tax exempt? | 1:00 a.m. June 24, 2008
Did the church require members to vote against the movement? Was there a
punishment involved if members failed to do so?
Nope.
Doesn't look like the church has overstepped its bounds at all.
Nope.
Doesn't look like the church has overstepped its bounds at all.
The Prophet | 1:06 a.m. June 24, 2008
President Monson is a prophet of God. I believe that to be true. I don't
believe it because someone told me, I believe it because I've felt the
Spirit bear that witness to me in my heart.
That being said, I accept whatever he has to say with an open heart and mind. Because in declarations such as these, which are read over the pulpit, he is declaring the word of God to us.
Everyone here acts and writes as though President Monson and the brethren are trying to push through some personal agenda. But I believe they are pushing God's agenda.
Many people not of the church may object to this opinion because they don't believe in President Monson as a prophet and that's fine, it's their decision. But any member of the church who upholds and sustains President Monson as a prophet of God will accept his words and counsel.
Sometimes God asks us to walk in faith, even if we don't understand all of the rational reasons behind it.
That being said, I accept whatever he has to say with an open heart and mind. Because in declarations such as these, which are read over the pulpit, he is declaring the word of God to us.
Everyone here acts and writes as though President Monson and the brethren are trying to push through some personal agenda. But I believe they are pushing God's agenda.
Many people not of the church may object to this opinion because they don't believe in President Monson as a prophet and that's fine, it's their decision. But any member of the church who upholds and sustains President Monson as a prophet of God will accept his words and counsel.
Sometimes God asks us to walk in faith, even if we don't understand all of the rational reasons behind it.
ayceman | 1:06 a.m. June 24, 2008
the lds church has absolutely no business in this. Whether your christian or
mormon, you have no right to tell people, or to impose your views on others.
What marriage is to you christians or mormons does should not play a role in
marriage law.. This ruling in no way forces your churches to perform a gay
marriage. keep your views to yourself. You guys strive for so much of this
religous freedom. but god forbid anyone else think differently from your point
of views. This is why the supreme court overturned the law, because even the
majorities point of view can be misguided. For example in alabama the majority
of the population still believe interracial marriage is wrong. Not always is the
majority public opinion, necessarily the right opinion.
Buttman | 1:14 a.m. June 24, 2008
This is a loosing cause for the mormons. Marriage will eventually be available
for everybody; it's just a matter of time. The mormons are just wasting
time and money and at best will only delay the practice.
@ Reality Time | 1:22 a.m. June 24, 2008
Hear! Hear! Why even people serving time can marry while in prison. People who
don't pay child support to care for the family they already created can get
re-married (enough of that marriage makes a safe, secure environment for kids).
If "marriage" is to be for the creation of nurturing of children for a
brighter society tomorrow there needs to be a lot more regulation regarding
those who get to participate.
What is the big deal? | 1:22 a.m. June 24, 2008
Who cares if they call it a marriage or partnership. Most mainstream churches
will refuse to Marry them anyway. If it is a sin, it is their soul and their
choice to do with it as they please.
With all the issues going on in our country and the world I can't believe we get hung up on things like this. Sorry, I don't see what the big deal is. If gays want to get married then I see no problem with it. I don't really care. There are more important things to worry about.
With all the issues going on in our country and the world I can't believe we get hung up on things like this. Sorry, I don't see what the big deal is. If gays want to get married then I see no problem with it. I don't really care. There are more important things to worry about.
Lynn | 1:58 a.m. June 24, 2008
Now, isn't this interesting. People are now quoting the First
Presidency's pamphlet on SSA, as if to imply that because these attractions
involve "deep emotional, physical, and social feelings" then it's
OK.
My, what an upside down world this is getting to be!
My, what an upside down world this is getting to be!
John C. | 4:23 a.m. June 24, 2008
Heres a thought and I'll try to make it very symple. Many people including
myself suffer form depression. We know this to be an abnormal behavior because
it can lead to one distroying them self which is not natural. There are other
abnormalities such as this which we recognise as not right. We don't try
to just justifie them because we were born that way, we seek help from doctors
for these abnormalities.
Nature has a male and a female, why? To propergate the speacies. But in our inlightened world we have decided that same sex attraction is normal because and individual was born that way, when we know the opposit is true because it violates the laws of nature. But we justifie it because we symply want to satisfy our sex drives and we don't want anyone telling us what to do, even though we know it is not natural.
France is in big trouble right now because of its long libral stance on allowing same sex relationships. It no longer has the new population to replace the old population. This was in the news look it up.
Hay I didn't even mention God.
Nature has a male and a female, why? To propergate the speacies. But in our inlightened world we have decided that same sex attraction is normal because and individual was born that way, when we know the opposit is true because it violates the laws of nature. But we justifie it because we symply want to satisfy our sex drives and we don't want anyone telling us what to do, even though we know it is not natural.
France is in big trouble right now because of its long libral stance on allowing same sex relationships. It no longer has the new population to replace the old population. This was in the news look it up.
Hay I didn't even mention God.
Remembering our Roots | 5:00 a.m. June 24, 2008
Pledge as first written: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic
for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
America" 1923 - changed to "the flag of the United States" 1924 -
added "of America" and became official US pledge 1954 - "under
God" added.
"In God We Trust" First used on coins -1854. Legislated to be on all money, 1957.
At the founding of our nation, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson suggested in 1776 that our motto be "E Pluribus Unum" - "From Many, One" In my opinion, we would be better served to remember our strength has always come from finding common ground amidst diverse ideas.
"In God We Trust" First used on coins -1854. Legislated to be on all money, 1957.
At the founding of our nation, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson suggested in 1776 that our motto be "E Pluribus Unum" - "From Many, One" In my opinion, we would be better served to remember our strength has always come from finding common ground amidst diverse ideas.
Maybe, Just maybe | 5:01 a.m. June 24, 2008
this issue is already a fait accompli, and society is already rushing toward its
own demise through its willing acceptance of immorality of all forms. Note that
the letter urges members to do all they can. It does not make any promises that
these efforts will actually stem the tide, it merely urges members to
individually choose which side to stand with and do all they can do. To me that
sounds like we all have a choice, like Joshua, choose ye this day. All of you
"enlightened" members who criticize the church for being involved in
this moral issue have every right to choose which side you stand with. But keep
in mind that this battle over preserving marriage may very well be intended to
separate the wheat from the tares. The tares are allowed to grow and flourish
right along with the wheat because they share some similarities (church
membership), but when the harvest comes, the tares (those who think they know
more than the prophet) will not be bundled with the wheat. Which are you, a
tare or wheat? It is always your choice, no herd mentality. Following the
world's immoral culture is blind obedience.
source | 5:04 a.m. June 24, 2008
Due to many of the things god has purportedly asked believers to do by faith, I
question whether there are rational reasons motivating the requests.
Watch out for your pocketbook! | 6:27 a.m. June 24, 2008
For those of you who thing this won�t effect you unless your gay you are sadly mistaken. It may not affect your relationship with your spouse but it sure affects your pocketbook. Legal documents must now be changed to reflect proper verbiage. School books can no longer say mother and father or man and wife. Birth certificates will say spouse1 and spouse 2. So much for genealogy. There are many more changes that will cost tax payers millions of dollars. I personally would prefer my tax dollars to go to further education not confuse the minds of young children.
Irrational Beliefs | 7:26 a.m. June 24, 2008
Most of you are indulging in irrational beliefs; many of you are
superstitious.
Good luck with that.
Good luck with that.
ediddy | 7:52 a.m. June 24, 2008
to smoseph jith 8:20 on 6/23:
I just read a blatant lie from your post, and while I know that my retort will be lost in this never ending blog, I must post. Your words,"freedom of religion is a privilege in this country it is not a right.." This is a perfect example of how a constant barrage of prevarication eventually ends in outright untruth. Freedom of religion, association, speech etc. are, IN FACT, rights in this country. The right to express ones opinions is a right in this country. Unfortunately, freedom from ignorance is neither a right or a privilege.
The morality of the "gay rights", or should I say "privileges" ought not to be the crux of this issue. The potential legal standards which are being precedented in the California forum have huge import to future legal status and demand. The far sightedness of both the gay activists and the LDS church and other churches not as courageous or willing to enter the fray, obviously escapes the majority of you posters. Those of you who constantly cry for separation of church and state are ironically lining up on the wrong side of this one.
I just read a blatant lie from your post, and while I know that my retort will be lost in this never ending blog, I must post. Your words,"freedom of religion is a privilege in this country it is not a right.." This is a perfect example of how a constant barrage of prevarication eventually ends in outright untruth. Freedom of religion, association, speech etc. are, IN FACT, rights in this country. The right to express ones opinions is a right in this country. Unfortunately, freedom from ignorance is neither a right or a privilege.
The morality of the "gay rights", or should I say "privileges" ought not to be the crux of this issue. The potential legal standards which are being precedented in the California forum have huge import to future legal status and demand. The far sightedness of both the gay activists and the LDS church and other churches not as courageous or willing to enter the fray, obviously escapes the majority of you posters. Those of you who constantly cry for separation of church and state are ironically lining up on the wrong side of this one.
to maybe, just maybe | 8:05 a.m. June 24, 2008
Let him who has ears to hear, hear...
There will always be dissenters in the church (meaning LDS here, but it is the same in most churches). History tells us that the faithful will always be embattled hardest by the dissenters, who first dissent, then run to the enemy, then embrace the enemy and then become the enemy. Wish it were not so, but it is.
The seeds in this debate over legalization of homosexual marriage will one day bloom forth in an abolishment of basic societal rights to choose freely. What appears now as a fight for the rights of a minority will one day become a sword wielded by those who would, in actuality, force their will upon others by the flattering words of law.
Please spare us the embarrassing words, "as an active LDS..." before your dissenting comments. Those with ears to hear, are hearing.
There will always be dissenters in the church (meaning LDS here, but it is the same in most churches). History tells us that the faithful will always be embattled hardest by the dissenters, who first dissent, then run to the enemy, then embrace the enemy and then become the enemy. Wish it were not so, but it is.
The seeds in this debate over legalization of homosexual marriage will one day bloom forth in an abolishment of basic societal rights to choose freely. What appears now as a fight for the rights of a minority will one day become a sword wielded by those who would, in actuality, force their will upon others by the flattering words of law.
Please spare us the embarrassing words, "as an active LDS..." before your dissenting comments. Those with ears to hear, are hearing.
Ken's "Yeah, but" | 8:46 a.m. June 24, 2008
Everyone here is spouting "yeah buts" to everyone else's posts.
Here's mine: You might disagree with the gay marriage issue (I prefer "marriage equality"). BUT, if you, as a consenting adult human being, have the right to marry the person (another consenting adult human being of the opposite sex, who you presumably love) of your choice, why then would you want to DEPRIVE any other similar person of doing the same thing? The law in Utah is UNFAIR. At present, the law in California is FAIR. The California judges merely corrected a wrong by extending this right to marry to ALL citizens, and not just to a limited group, i.e., heterosexuals.
I, for one, hope that in November, the law in California will continue to be FAIR, and will vote accordingly.
Mormons, more than most, should recall that they were persecuted in the past UNFAIRLY for their beliefs.
How hypocritical they are that they would seek to deprive others from their rights as citizens of this country. They should be on the FRONT LINES in defending minorities' rights for MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Here's mine: You might disagree with the gay marriage issue (I prefer "marriage equality"). BUT, if you, as a consenting adult human being, have the right to marry the person (another consenting adult human being of the opposite sex, who you presumably love) of your choice, why then would you want to DEPRIVE any other similar person of doing the same thing? The law in Utah is UNFAIR. At present, the law in California is FAIR. The California judges merely corrected a wrong by extending this right to marry to ALL citizens, and not just to a limited group, i.e., heterosexuals.
I, for one, hope that in November, the law in California will continue to be FAIR, and will vote accordingly.
Mormons, more than most, should recall that they were persecuted in the past UNFAIRLY for their beliefs.
How hypocritical they are that they would seek to deprive others from their rights as citizens of this country. They should be on the FRONT LINES in defending minorities' rights for MARRIAGE EQUALITY.
Anonymous | 9:22 a.m. June 24, 2008
It's immoral, that's why. Simple.
Truth-be-known | 9:48 a.m. June 24, 2008
This debate is really about truth.
Throughout history, both in scripture and in secular writing, marriage has been referred to as good, wholesome, vital for society and ordained of God. In all of this, the term had meant only one thing - the recognized and legitimate union of a man and a woman.
To redefine marriage is to ascribe the historical meaning to situations for which is is not intended and does not apply. It is the same trick as played by the Bolsheviks, in calling what was the minority party the "big party". Words have meaning. To intentionally misuse a word is to intentionally deceive.
Will the California Supreme Court, also provide the funds to insert in to millions of books, records and quotations the new term that would be required: "marriage, between a man and a woman" to replace the existing term that should suffice: "marriage". I think not.
All Californians to whom Truth has any value should be totally disgusted with their, taxpayer paid, Supreme Court Justices, and should not only seek to solidify the institution of Marriage, by constitutional amendment, but should also seek to remove those "Justices" that have abandoned Truth and justice.
Throughout history, both in scripture and in secular writing, marriage has been referred to as good, wholesome, vital for society and ordained of God. In all of this, the term had meant only one thing - the recognized and legitimate union of a man and a woman.
To redefine marriage is to ascribe the historical meaning to situations for which is is not intended and does not apply. It is the same trick as played by the Bolsheviks, in calling what was the minority party the "big party". Words have meaning. To intentionally misuse a word is to intentionally deceive.
Will the California Supreme Court, also provide the funds to insert in to millions of books, records and quotations the new term that would be required: "marriage, between a man and a woman" to replace the existing term that should suffice: "marriage". I think not.
All Californians to whom Truth has any value should be totally disgusted with their, taxpayer paid, Supreme Court Justices, and should not only seek to solidify the institution of Marriage, by constitutional amendment, but should also seek to remove those "Justices" that have abandoned Truth and justice.
re John C | 9:54 a.m. June 24, 2008
You're wrong, France does not have legalized Same-Sex Marriage. Some other
European countried do, but France is not one of them.
Dear Anonymous 12:54 a.m. | 10:01 a.m. June 24, 2008
This nation was not founded as one nation under God. The phrase, "one
nation under God", came much later, in fact, after our founding fathers
died. This nation was founded as a secular nation with the separation of church
and state.
Your superstition with regard to Satan is scary; it's paranoid thinking. Please think rationally.
Your superstition with regard to Satan is scary; it's paranoid thinking. Please think rationally.
support for "higher" law | 10:25 a.m. June 24, 2008
A question for those who are arguing their viewpoint that marriage defined as
between one man and one woman: You keep repeating that this isn't
man's idea, but "God's law" which then in your eyes
justifies legislation reflecting your beliefs. So, the question is, why
don't you frame your position as "according to my God's
law?"
Surely you are not willing to have your lives legislated according to the law of the Muslim god or the law of any god other than your own.
When you clarify your position in full and honest terms, do you not then see the problem with what you are calling for?
Surely you are not willing to have your lives legislated according to the law of the Muslim god or the law of any god other than your own.
When you clarify your position in full and honest terms, do you not then see the problem with what you are calling for?
Charles | 10:39 a.m. June 24, 2008
to maybe, just maybe....Nice take on the situation. What's disappointing is
the defection of those who claim to be members of the Lord's church, yet
deny the teachings of the prophet's He has called.
We truly are in the last days. Isaiah called it correctly...evil will be called good and good called evil with church members being deceived as well as those who aren't church members.
to 10:25 am...your argument is mute. Every person who argues on either side is doing it based on their belief system; secular or religious.
There are higher laws but they are for those who will hear and obey; not the masses unfortunately.
to 10:01 am...your definition of rational is my definition of irrational. Is your definition better than mine? If so, why?
We truly are in the last days. Isaiah called it correctly...evil will be called good and good called evil with church members being deceived as well as those who aren't church members.
to 10:25 am...your argument is mute. Every person who argues on either side is doing it based on their belief system; secular or religious.
There are higher laws but they are for those who will hear and obey; not the masses unfortunately.
to 10:01 am...your definition of rational is my definition of irrational. Is your definition better than mine? If so, why?
To Anonymous at 12:54 | 11:01 a.m. June 24, 2008
Interesting. :)
Satan was pretty good in the pre-existence trying to take away free agency and make you do the right thing. Kinda sounds like what the mormon church is doing right now. Trying to take away homosexuals free agency to marry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what God fought for before we all came to this earth, people's freedom of choice? If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. It is not your place to tell me I can't, it is my free agency. Let God be my judge, not you!
Satan was pretty good in the pre-existence trying to take away free agency and make you do the right thing. Kinda sounds like what the mormon church is doing right now. Trying to take away homosexuals free agency to marry? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what God fought for before we all came to this earth, people's freedom of choice? If you don't want a gay marriage, don't get one. It is not your place to tell me I can't, it is my free agency. Let God be my judge, not you!
nonmemberfriend | 2:07 p.m. June 24, 2008
When I see statements "proclaimed" by Mormon leaders, I am SO glad I
resigned from the Mormon church and am not associated with them in any way.
from Michigan | 2:09 p.m. June 24, 2008
As The Lord God completlely incinerated Sodom and Gomorrah about 4000 years ago,
so will He do again to the perverts in America.
As it is written in The Bible and The Book of Mormon, so shall it be done.
God sent the angels to Lot long ago,
Leading him out of the city we know,
For God would not burn it til Lot went along,
Then down came the fire and the city was gone,
Then down came the fire and he city was gone.
As it is written in The Bible and The Book of Mormon, so shall it be done.
God sent the angels to Lot long ago,
Leading him out of the city we know,
For God would not burn it til Lot went along,
Then down came the fire and the city was gone,
Then down came the fire and he city was gone.
It makes me sad | 2:59 p.m. June 24, 2008
So much of this makes me sad. I did not choose my sexual orientation, no one
does. But I'm told I do have a choice on whether I act on my orientation.
To do so is immoral, I'm told.
Please explain why it is immoral for me to want to love another person, take care of someone, be responsible to someone, and share a life with someone. And that it is somehow moral in your minds that I live my whole life alone, ostracized by my faith, not sharing responsibility or mutual support with anyone.
When you really think about it in those terms, the answer honestly just comes down to "It's just wrong because the church says it's wrong."
Well, I'm sorry. That's just not enough for me. And if you were in our shoes, I doubt it would be enough for most of you either.
Please explain why it is immoral for me to want to love another person, take care of someone, be responsible to someone, and share a life with someone. And that it is somehow moral in your minds that I live my whole life alone, ostracized by my faith, not sharing responsibility or mutual support with anyone.
When you really think about it in those terms, the answer honestly just comes down to "It's just wrong because the church says it's wrong."
Well, I'm sorry. That's just not enough for me. And if you were in our shoes, I doubt it would be enough for most of you either.
Charles | 3:16 p.m. June 24, 2008
Sorry 11:01 am...no one is forcing you to change your homosexual behavior. What
is being fought is your attempt to hijack marriage and make a mockery of it.
Marriage is a man and a woman. Plain, simple, easy.
If you want to act on your homosexual urges you will do it. You still have your agency; which isn't free BTW. Ask Christ what He was doing in the Garden of Gethsemane if you think that there are no consequences to your choices. You can choose your actions but you don't get to choose the consequences.
You have no 'right' to marry. Sorry.
If you want to act on your homosexual urges you will do it. You still have your agency; which isn't free BTW. Ask Christ what He was doing in the Garden of Gethsemane if you think that there are no consequences to your choices. You can choose your actions but you don't get to choose the consequences.
You have no 'right' to marry. Sorry.
To: It makes me sad | 3:17 p.m. June 24, 2008
Who knows. You'll have to ask God that question...
The Bottom Line | 3:25 p.m. June 24, 2008
No matter what the mormons say all of their arguments don't mean a thing.
The bottom line is, it is not your place to say who can and can't get
married. Stop trying to control everyone. Let God be the judge. I am so sick
of this hypocritical non sense being thrown around. Give people the right to
make their own choices! A gay marriage in no way shape or form even comes close
to harming any marriage at all. Your children will learn that different
doesn't mean evil. Maybe instead of getting on the Deserete News to
complain and state your narrow minded views, you could teach your children to
love people for who they are. Let people make their decisions and try and
understand instead of change. Love thy neighbor as thyself! Now who can you
think of that tought that? The bottom line is, no matter what, Gay marriage
should and will exist because just because some people think it is wrong,
doesn't mean that it is! Please open your minds a little Utah, stop living
in the dark ages! Stop being arrogant and try to be like Jesus!
Sorry Charles 3:16 | 3:42 p.m. June 24, 2008
You still don't get it, do you. No one is forcing YOU to change YOUR
heterosexual marriage. What is being fought here is your attempt to limit the
opportunity of marriage to your own kind (heterosexuals), and make a mockery of
equal CIVIL rights. Marriage (in California and other places) can be between a
man and a woman, or between two men, or between two women. Get used to that.
It's a plain, simple, and easy concept to grasp.
If you want to act on your heterosexual urges, you can do it within marriage, or outside of it. That's NOT the issue here. The issue is whether we should extend the opportunity to marry, to same-sex couples, or not. It's a CIVIL issue, not a religious one. Plain, simple, easy.
*Sigh* - I'm guessing you still don't get it, but oh well. I hope you'll eventually figure it out. Good luck.
If you want to act on your heterosexual urges, you can do it within marriage, or outside of it. That's NOT the issue here. The issue is whether we should extend the opportunity to marry, to same-sex couples, or not. It's a CIVIL issue, not a religious one. Plain, simple, easy.
*Sigh* - I'm guessing you still don't get it, but oh well. I hope you'll eventually figure it out. Good luck.
Is this ok | 3:46 p.m. June 24, 2008
What if, there were two gay people who just happened to be black. Being a double
negative leads to a positive, mormons could reach out and love these souls. I
mean devils.
For "It Makes Me Sad" | 3:50 p.m. June 24, 2008
I too feel for you. It must be very difficult to understand these things. This
is one teaching of the Church that can be hard to understand, and I don't
think there is anything immoral about wanting companionship. But what of faith?
We are constantly taught to live the commandments out of faith, even if we
don't fully understand why. Life is to test us!
There is a much grander purpose in all of this...
There is a much grander purpose in all of this...
Charles | 3:55 p.m. June 24, 2008
Oh I get it loud and clear; you want to normalize and abnormal behavior.
It's not a civil rights issue even though you want to frame it that way. A
woman is a woman when she is born. A black is a black when they are born.
Homosexuality is a behavior; nothing more nothing less. You do know the difference don't you?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't have to accept your perversion as a normal behavior. Common sense tells you that a man is supposed to be with a woman, not another man. You know, the equipment thing?
To The Bottom Line: You need to separate the behavior of someone and loving them. I know it's hard for homosexuals to do that because you equate acceptance of your behavior as loving or not loving the person. They are completely different.
The Bottom Line is Christ said that a man and a woman should leave their parents and become one. He didn't say a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but a man and a woman. You wanna try to explain that one away?
HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS!
Homosexuality is a behavior; nothing more nothing less. You do know the difference don't you?
Marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't have to accept your perversion as a normal behavior. Common sense tells you that a man is supposed to be with a woman, not another man. You know, the equipment thing?
To The Bottom Line: You need to separate the behavior of someone and loving them. I know it's hard for homosexuals to do that because you equate acceptance of your behavior as loving or not loving the person. They are completely different.
The Bottom Line is Christ said that a man and a woman should leave their parents and become one. He didn't say a man and a man or a woman and a woman, but a man and a woman. You wanna try to explain that one away?
HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EQUAL CIVIL RIGHTS!
To Charles - 3:55 | 4:19 p.m. June 24, 2008
I was right. You don't get it. Maybe your children will. Meanwhile, the
fight is ON!
Posts make me sad | 4:31 p.m. June 24, 2008
To clarify, it is the tenor of some of these posts that makes me sad. I am
generally quite happy. I appreciate your response and I think you hit it right
on the head. I admit freely that I do not have enough faith, I guess, to live a
lonely and isolated life devoid of love and companionship, or to believe that
this is asked of me for some hidden grand purpose.
I tried for years, was misunderstood by and received very little support from church members who claim this is what I'm supposed to do. I was miserable. I now have a very supportive group of friends and a partner who loves me. I am happy and am able to share my happiness and serve others. Of course it's my free will and choice, but I have a hard time seeing my life now as sinful and that other hidden, lonely life as somehow glorifying God.
I tried for years, was misunderstood by and received very little support from church members who claim this is what I'm supposed to do. I was miserable. I now have a very supportive group of friends and a partner who loves me. I am happy and am able to share my happiness and serve others. Of course it's my free will and choice, but I have a hard time seeing my life now as sinful and that other hidden, lonely life as somehow glorifying God.
Charles Still Doesn't Get It | 4:36 p.m. June 24, 2008
Thank you for proving my point Charlie... you still don't get it, there is
no hope for you small narrow minded people. Your only argument (and I hesitate
to even call it an argument seeing how lame it is)is that marriage is between a
man and a woman. You say you don't have to accept your my perversion as a
normal behavior. Common sense tells me taht a man is to be with a woman, not
another man. Great, that is what you believe, that is what is normal for you,
wonderful, but just because that is what you think DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS WHAT IS
RIGHT FOR ME!!!!!!! Hello, no matter how much you think it is wrong, it does not
give you the right to tell me I can't. I can think that your house is an
ugly color, and 70% of the block can agree with me! Should that give us the
right to make you change the color of your house? NO! Mind your own business!
You can't hide behind your lame argument anymore! What is right for you is
not right for me! You can't take away my agency!
Charles | 4:49 p.m. June 24, 2008
Sorry, but my children don't get it. They are very perceptive even at young
ages and a couple in their teens. Don't count on my children jumping on
your bandwagon. They are being taught truth and knowledge, not some "feel
good" story about homosexual behavior being normal. Even they know the
difference between a penis and a vagina and the purpose of marriage.
Trust me, we who don't subscribe to your philosophy of man get it loud and clear. 60% of Californian's voted for the measure that was struck down by the court. I have faith that those some 60% will be out in force in November.
Homosexuals can't win in legislatures so they have to run to courts who legislate from their benches. Homosexuals don't have logic or common sense on their side. It's astounding the thought process that says homosexual behavior is natural and proper.
For a group of people who claim to be thinkers, you someone have lost your thought process on this one. I guess "feeling good" is better than abhorring an unnatural and immoral behavior.
You can bring it all you want, but your homosexual behavior is just that, A BEHAVIOR. Civil rights? NOT!
Trust me, we who don't subscribe to your philosophy of man get it loud and clear. 60% of Californian's voted for the measure that was struck down by the court. I have faith that those some 60% will be out in force in November.
Homosexuals can't win in legislatures so they have to run to courts who legislate from their benches. Homosexuals don't have logic or common sense on their side. It's astounding the thought process that says homosexual behavior is natural and proper.
For a group of people who claim to be thinkers, you someone have lost your thought process on this one. I guess "feeling good" is better than abhorring an unnatural and immoral behavior.
You can bring it all you want, but your homosexual behavior is just that, A BEHAVIOR. Civil rights? NOT!
Charles | 5:02 p.m. June 24, 2008
I like Charlie, thanks. It reminds me of my grandfather for whom I was named.
Anyway, I'm not taking away your agency to engage in a morally bankrupt behavior. You can continue to all you want to engage in homosexual behavior. However, I don't have to accept your behavior as normal and it certainly isn't marriage.
You want me to mind my own business? Then keep your perversion in your bedroom and not in my face. Homosexuals keep pushing and pushing and those of us who don't agree with your perversion will push back and knock down the behavior just as we do for thieves, cheaters, liars, drunks, druggies, etc.
If you can't figure out the purpose of man and woman, that's not my problem. However, it is pretty simple when you look at each other's anatomy. Heterosexual behavior produces children. Homosexual behavior produces HIV and a host of other diseases.
Why do I have to spend my tax dollars to find a cure for a disease that can be prevented if the perverted behavior was stopped?
You want to be a homosexual? Go for it. Just keep it in your bedroom and we will have no issue.
Anyway, I'm not taking away your agency to engage in a morally bankrupt behavior. You can continue to all you want to engage in homosexual behavior. However, I don't have to accept your behavior as normal and it certainly isn't marriage.
You want me to mind my own business? Then keep your perversion in your bedroom and not in my face. Homosexuals keep pushing and pushing and those of us who don't agree with your perversion will push back and knock down the behavior just as we do for thieves, cheaters, liars, drunks, druggies, etc.
If you can't figure out the purpose of man and woman, that's not my problem. However, it is pretty simple when you look at each other's anatomy. Heterosexual behavior produces children. Homosexual behavior produces HIV and a host of other diseases.
Why do I have to spend my tax dollars to find a cure for a disease that can be prevented if the perverted behavior was stopped?
You want to be a homosexual? Go for it. Just keep it in your bedroom and we will have no issue.
BYDC | 5:17 p.m. June 24, 2008
To Charles: You may freely continue to hold to your beliefs that homosexuality
is nothing more than an aberrant behavior. But the tide of public opinion,
increasingly supported by science, is toward recognition that sexual orientation
is innate and unchangeable. And increased societal acceptance of gay people is
the logical and just result of that, regardless of what you maintain. More and
more people simply see that gay people pose no threat to anyone else, are
contributing members of society like anyone else, and are entitled to the same
freedoms as anyone else. And increasingly those like you who condemn them,
marginalize them, or try to push them back into the closet will be seen as the
ones acting immorally.
To Charles | 5:24 p.m. June 24, 2008
As well, keep your heterosexual behaivor in your bedroom! That is what I am
trying to stay that you still don't get! You want to get married to who
you want to! It's not all about sex, it is love! Don't even start
with the HIV thing because it holds no argument at all! Married loveing gay
couples wouldn't spread HIV because they would be in a married monogomous
relationship! I am not waving my homosexual behaivor in anyones face by wanting
to get married and love my partner! I am not being rude by wanting to recieve
the same rights as you. Who are you to say my love is abnormal? So if you want
to take away gay marriage, then all marriage should be abolished! Because to
me, your heterosexual life is evil, along with your hate filled religion!
to Posts 4:31 | 5:35 p.m. June 24, 2008
We share many similar thoughts. I am a single, straight woman. I resigned
almost two years ago. This wasn't the tipping factor, but certainly
contributed. The double-standard of sexually acceptable behavior for themselves
and the masses is a sticking point.
Not happening | 5:37 p.m. June 24, 2008
Gays and Lesbians who are LDS could not marry in the temple. If they
entertained such feelings, they would be counseled in light of latter-day
scripture, to repent of their wrong thinking. If they persisted, they would be
excommunicated. It would not be a case of gay discrimination; it would be an
issue of two people with an apostate attitude trying to interpret scripture in a
way that is not consistent with Church teachings. Since they would no longer be
members of the LDS Church, the idea of getting married in the temple is null
because only faithful members of the Church have that privilege.
fear | 5:42 p.m. June 24, 2008
What is the fear here, people? That we will be forced to see people as people?
Period? Are we only comfortable with ourselves if in some way we can consider
ourselves as chosen, special, different? Would it be such a tragedy to be seen
simply as a fellow human?
Who knows, remove the stigma of GLTB today and tomorrow others may reciprocate by removing the stigma of "groups" you belong to. Meld, people, meld.
Humans' time on planet Earth is going to be a drop in the bucket by time the sun dies its starry death as all stars do, enjoy YOUR life and make it count for you and your family...NONE of this matters.
Who knows, remove the stigma of GLTB today and tomorrow others may reciprocate by removing the stigma of "groups" you belong to. Meld, people, meld.
Humans' time on planet Earth is going to be a drop in the bucket by time the sun dies its starry death as all stars do, enjoy YOUR life and make it count for you and your family...NONE of this matters.
To Charlie 5:02 | 5:49 p.m. June 24, 2008
Sayin' something's so don't make it so. The California court
overturned an unconstitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and they were right to
do it. Even if the voters of California pass this ban in November, it will
still be wrong. The fight will continue until people like you are
enlightened.
Lumping gay people with all the dregs of society does not scare me. It's just mindless babble, and also plain not true. I thought you were taught not to lie. I was. You must think it's ok to lie when it furthers your own agenda.
At least I respect your right to be a heterosexual, and to marry the person of your choice. You should respect my right to do the same.
Oh, and having the last word doesn't make you right, either.
Lumping gay people with all the dregs of society does not scare me. It's just mindless babble, and also plain not true. I thought you were taught not to lie. I was. You must think it's ok to lie when it furthers your own agenda.
At least I respect your right to be a heterosexual, and to marry the person of your choice. You should respect my right to do the same.
Oh, and having the last word doesn't make you right, either.
John Lambert | 6:03 p.m. June 24, 2008
Activist judge is not a code for liberal, it means what it is. The 1930s
court that struck down most early new deal legislation was not liberal but it
was clearly activist.
Anyway, just because a judge was apointed by a Republican governor does not make than conservative. Pete Wilson was no conservative. Anyway, if you look at the U.S. Supreme Court, Souter and Stevens, two of the most stauch liberals, were both apointed to the court by Republicans. On the other hand Byron White, one of the most eloquent defenders of the Right to Life to have served on the court, was apointed by a Democrat.
Anyway, just because a judge was apointed by a Republican governor does not make than conservative. Pete Wilson was no conservative. Anyway, if you look at the U.S. Supreme Court, Souter and Stevens, two of the most stauch liberals, were both apointed to the court by Republicans. On the other hand Byron White, one of the most eloquent defenders of the Right to Life to have served on the court, was apointed by a Democrat.
John Lambert | 6:04 p.m. June 24, 2008
I applaud the First Presidency's bold statement. Also, I urge every
member to prayerfully consider following those directives. I would hope that
everyone would be able to feel the spirit testify to them that the words of
Thomas S. Monson, Henry B. Eyring and Dieter F. Uchtdorf are true. However, if
you can not get such a testimony, I would say that it is time for you to remove
your name from the records of the church and go find a religion where your
rejection of the words of the Bible will be accepted.
John Lambert | 6:19 p.m. June 24, 2008
Some of you people fail to realize to inportant points. Compared to the
amount of electionaring that goes on in some churchs this is absolutely
nothing.
Secondly, churchs have a right to speak up on moral issues. This is even more right when it involves a potential change in public policy that is unfavorable to the church.
One last thought, for those of you who are old enough to have reacted, did you go out and claim the church should loose its tax exempt status in the 1960s when the first presidency issued a statement in favor of civil rights legislation?
Secondly, churchs have a right to speak up on moral issues. This is even more right when it involves a potential change in public policy that is unfavorable to the church.
One last thought, for those of you who are old enough to have reacted, did you go out and claim the church should loose its tax exempt status in the 1960s when the first presidency issued a statement in favor of civil rights legislation?
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.
- Mitchell's 'books' are coherent 4:35 p.m.
- Alta rejects canyon subdivision 3:33 p.m.
- Adult sports leagues offered 3:19 p.m.
- Oil prices spike 3:06 p.m.
- Stocks turn higher 3:03 p.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 3:02 p.m.
- Notre Dame fires Weis 2:52 p.m.
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet 2:51 p.m.
- Mansion tours begin Tuesday 2:48 p.m.
- Chaffetz: Leave Afghanistan 2:37 p.m.
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
893 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology360
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal270
- Hall reprimanded by MWC260
- Utes won't respond to Hall175
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside118
- Rivalry Week is highly profane91
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
Your incorrect on your facts. It is a well known fact that Clinton was to...
if marriage is nothing more then to give benifits to families, then on what...
So his family was assaulted a year ago--they were spit on and had beer thrown...
Kyle's wife should be assaulted | 12:57 p.m. What a class act YOU are!...
YES! the good stuff
The behavior with the pet shows exterme cruelty. My mother did not believe...
Thank you Tom Pollard and the Alta Town Council for denying this development....
@To "All Knowing | 12:48 p.m.": "Spilled beer justifies that HATE?"...
Mike - Who are these liberals who hate God? I know of people who don't have...
There is no evidence that Joseph used the seer stone or the Urim and Thummim...
Advertisements
Satan is pretty good. He has worked so long from removing God from "logical" thinking, that the arguments of the righteous have become "un-logical." This nation was founded as one nation under God and over the course of several hundred years satan has twisted our freedoms against us. Years of compromise and "logical" thinking have eroded our values. It has come to the point that if your not accepting of everything you become "intolerant". Nations always crumble internally first. So yes I feel that it is my business to talk about what is being sanctioned by this country. So there it is. Gay marriage is wrong. I might be "un-logical" but than again what is more logical than right and wrong. I don't know everything this world and I probably never will but I know that gay marriage is wrong. We have a fundamental disagreement. We fail to see eye to eye on what is right and wrong, and that is the hardest thing to reconcile. Thats division. Satan is pretty good at his job...