Deseret News | LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

Reader comments
LDS Church backs marriage measure on California ballot

699 comments | Read story

EW | 10:29 a.m. June 24, 2008

Michael Medved asked this question. what is the Purpose of Religion? Then his answer was The purpose of Religion is to provide a moral standard. Too many churches in America only try to give compassion instead of moral standards. Compassion without moral standards saves no one. God is love, but without standards of behavior there can be no justice. Without justice God ceases to be God. You cannot give Mother Tereasa the same reward as you give to a "Hitler" and be God. Mercy cannot rob justice. We have the freedom to choose our behavior but we do not have the freedom to choose the consiquence of that behavior. Our founding fathers debated whether or not the people were moral enough to handle the amount of freedom that the constitu-tion gave them. I am grateful for those churches that do have moral standards and are willing to fight for their right to have them.

Tom, USMC (ret) | 10:30 a.m. June 24, 2008

Glad to hear of this. Every law, federal, municipal, etc, every law has a moral code from which it evolved. Once upon a time marriage was a deeply social institution, it was recognized as something that affected the community. Moral constraints provide the framework in which any community exists, to include those with strict morals or loose morals.

Marriage is only one element of morality. We frown of slavery, but sexual slavery still thrives in numbers upwards in the multi-millions each year. Slavery is decried by most of us. Yet, as we continue to muddy the context of marriage and intimacy, organizations such as North American Man/boy Love Association and Butterfly Kisses continue to grow in a logical process of social acceptance. Marriage and intimacy between men and animals is another, though much of it is still in the form of jokes - so far.

Anti-slavery is not only a political statement, neither is marriage. Both are deeply moral (i.e. ethical) issues supported under the rule of law. Laws are framed with a moral context of what is right and what is wrong. Each nationï¿½s laws and religious themes holds to this in one degree or another.

re: East Bay | 10:36 a.m. June 24, 2008

Have you, with an open mind, read any of these posts regarding "why" the Church's position is what it is? It's not at all about limiting the freedoms of others. I suggest you go back and read the posts again. I fear you've placed limits on your testimony.

What's very clear to me in all these negative comments about the Church, is that Satan reigns in the minds and hearts of men in our day, just as he has in past generations. He doesn't skip a beat! What's sad and is so hard for me to believe, is the hold he has on some members of the Church.

Comments continue below

Enlightened One | 10:41 a.m. June 24, 2008

I always find it amazing how those who believe in God and desire to follow the teachings of those who are His mouthpieces on earth, I am relegated to the class of ï¿½pre-historic idiotï¿½ by people such as ï¿½Why are some still LDS?,ï¿½ ï¿½Boiseguyï¿½ and ï¿½Dan.ï¿½ Apparently, those who consider themselves as ï¿½open-mindedï¿½ are really just bigots of another flavor.
I think that the homosexual community ought to consider that as children of God, they are loved, but as humans they may need to examine their choices and consider whether those choicesï¿½ like those we are all required to make ï¿½ are in alignment with accumulated wisdom and with the counsel given us by a God who loves us all perfectly. The Church is not the enemy of those who are attracted to members of their same sex. The Church is there to remind us all that we do have a perfectly loving heavenly Father who wants us to have joy and happiness in the same way that God enjoys it.

Freddie | 10:41 a.m. June 24, 2008

***By the time I was a young teenager I understood (through the slightest amount of introspection) that no person chooses his or her sexual orientation.***

You could be right.

My orientation, as a heterosexual male is to have sex with any and all females that I meet... Anywhere, anytime. With or without their consent. But, due to the constraints of society together with the teachings of religion, I don't.

***Another article in today's paper states that a recent poll found that LDS church members, compared to other religions, are among the least open-minded to the idea that there are alternative paths to heaven. I find this sad.***

This marrow-mindedness may well come from the Christian Bible which says in part: "... straight is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Enter ye in at the strait gate for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction and many there be which go in thereat."

Rob | 10:56 a.m. June 24, 2008

Who are we to tell brothers & sisters who they should be in union with. Our church ruined the rules for marriage a long time ago and now we think we should tell people what to do? I don't know why people aren't laughing at a LDS positions of marriage. We should be the last ones to say whats right and whats wrong.

Yeah "Freddie" | 10:56 a.m. June 24, 2008

Good article! There needs to be more people like you!

SillyMongoose | 11:46 a.m. June 24, 2008

The directive from the Frist Presidency violates:
D&C 134: 4 (1-4).
4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul
Articles of Faith 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own cconscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may

Leave others beliefs alone!

Dave | 11:48 a.m. June 24, 2008

Well, I am certainly glad the Mormon church continues to provide ample justification for why I left. For a church that claims to be so pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-constitution it is pretty amazing how they consistently support positions that undermine all three. I simply don't understand why they would support this anti-marriage amendment which strips away the equal protection clause, one of the principle pillars of constitutional government. Weird.

SteveinCA | 11:56 a.m. June 24, 2008

Finally!!!, the LDS leadership is making it clear to it's followers where it stands on the issue of GLBT marriage. The Proclamation to the World was written back in 1995 (13 yrs. ago), and know we have a definitive statement to the people of CA by the Pres. of the LDS Church and his counselors. I really hope this wakes up the LDS faithfull in CA and around the nation as to the intent and actions of the GLBT activists. Redefining marriage is only the tip of the iceberg in their agenda to change the American moral standards. I support an amendment to the CA constitution 200%, and hope that Federal Government will follow suit. To all who feel its unfair, you've lost your way, and need to really take a look at the teachings of the Gospel. I hope that you come back someday.

to Rob | 12:02 p.m. June 24, 2008

The church you are referrring to is called The Church OF JESUS CHRIST. If you believe that the "rules" of marriage were ruined by its founder, then please feel free to pray to HIM about why you think HIS church ruined your ideals about relationships in the past, present or future. So many gay advocates on this site on religious "wannabes". Study and read the Bible (since most of you have denounced the Book of Mormon) all the way through. I might suggest that you use the King James version since it was extracted from Greek, Latin, and German texts that were the most accurate as deemed by the transcribers of King James time period. Please determine for yourselves about what the Lord of the Old Testament and New Testament has said about and condoned concerning marriage. Again, the Lord has said He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Steve - LDS & Free Agency | 12:11 p.m. June 24, 2008

Free Agency, the right to choose... it's at the very core of LDS teaching (I should know as I've attended the LDS Church all my life). If you're LDS you believe God grants everyone the right to choose in all things we do, He doesn't force anyone to obey.

So don't you see that laws such as this are taking away part of someone's right to choose?

You're right... God doesn't approve of many things such as same sex marriage, sex, abortion, etc. He sees them as sinful and/or corrupt... BUT He still allows us to engage in them if we choose. So if HE allows it, why are WE trying to prevent others from exercising their free agency? Isn't that going against God?

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman... that God only recognizes that specific union. But others who don't agree should be able to do what they want. God isn't about forcing us all to live as we should, He's about us making the choices ourselves individually.

Davey | 12:14 p.m. June 24, 2008

Well, I am certainly glad the LDS Chuch continues to provide ample justification for why I am an active member. For a church that claims to be so pro-family, pro-marriage and pro-constitution it is pretty amazing how they consistently support postions that uphold all three. I simply don't understand how people can expect them not to support something that strengthens our society. Weird

Oregon Ed | 12:22 p.m. June 24, 2008

Is it just me? After reading so many angry comments, it reminded me of the "Large as spacious building" Nephi described, with people laughing and deriding those who held to the "Rod." As for me...I choose to hold to the rod and choose to ignore those who would have me let go. For those others feel free to choose...use your agency and let me use mine!

To: Silly Mongoose | 12:22 p.m. June 24, 2008

I think you misinterpreted or misunderstood D&C 134:4 and Articles of Faith 11. D&C 134:4 essentially states that the government shouldn't impose its beliefs on religions. That's the argument of separation of church and state; the idea is to limit the imposing force of government on churches, but not necessarily the other way around. As religious individuals, we believe we have developed a moral conscience, and with that moral conscience, it is our duty to make sure we voice our opinions and vote in such a way that our nation reflects those same morals.

Regarding Articles of Faith 11, it essentially states that we allow men the same privilege of worshiping God according to their own conscience. The problem with homosexuals in general is that they AREN'T WORSHIPING GOD. Homosexuality is flamboyant and rarely ever practices the discipline, restraint, fidelity, trust, and partnership found in a heterosexual marriage. The only reason homosexuals want there to be a marriage clause in the constitution for gays is because people told them they couldn't get married. They're justing trying to make a point.

Robot | 12:23 p.m. June 24, 2008

And you wonder why so many people think that Mormons are pre-programmed robots unable to think for themselves. I see no problem with the church stating there position on political issues that they feel are moral topics, however I don't understand why the church has to tell it's member how to vote (however I do support their right to say what they want). Wake up and think for yourselves for once. If you decide that same sex marriage is wrong, then vote against it because you believe it in your heart, not because some old guy in a suit told you to. Quit being robots

concerned | 12:26 p.m. June 24, 2008

OK. I'm LDS and heterosexual (married)and I read fairly well so I am familiar with God's stand on homosexuality. I believe he called it an abomination. But my question on this matter concerns the seperation of church and state. I think we should all follow the dictates of our belief and know we will be accountable for how we acted. I also think the church is overstepping when advising it's members how they should act/vote politically. The choice should be clear...not mandated.

Anonymous | 12:27 p.m. June 24, 2008

What did Jesus ever say about homosexuality? What did He have to say about Pharisees? About loving your neighbor? About casting the first stone?

Who says compassion isn't a moral virtue?

Bert | 12:28 p.m. June 24, 2008

This is only the Mormon leadership's opinion.

Unless the letter says "Thus saith the Lord" at the end, I am under no obligation to treat it any differently than any other opinion in this paper.

Freedom vs. Tyranny | 12:30 p.m. June 24, 2008

To: Up Ogden Way | 9:55 a.m.

The gay definition of freedom is to force society to change the historic definition of marriage to match their lifestyle. That's not freedom, that's tyranny.

re: Freedom vs. Tyranny | 12:34 p.m. June 24, 2008

The gay definition of freedom is to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for ALL people regardless of their religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.

to 12:22 p.m. June 24, 2008 | 12:37 p.m. June 24, 2008

Really? Homosexuals are just trying to get married to make a point? It apparently has nothing to do with love, making a legally binding commitment to one another and reaping the rewards and responsibilities that such a legal contract brings with it. If you're a straight married couple, you don't have to worry about hospital visitation rights, custody rights (should one parent die) and a host of other things you take for granted.

Steve - Re: To SillyMongoose | 12:39 p.m. June 24, 2008

You're mistaken. You're also doing alot of assuming.

Gay and Bisexual people quite often DO worship God and are just as spiritual and religious as many straight people. Sure, the majority probably think church's are mistaken to call their attractions and acts a sin... but there are also some who agree that acting on their desires is a sin and so abstain from it. Remember, if you're LDS the church's official stance is that BEING gay or Bi isn't a sin, it's only when you ACT on it (have sex) that a sin has occured.

There are many gay and Bi people fully active in their respective churches and religions.

You're also greatly mistaken in your assumption that gay and Bi people are all about loose morals and having sex willy nilly with whomever they wish. Where do you get the notion that they cheat on the one they love more than straight people do?

And no, most who want to marry aren't doing so out of spite... but rather genuine love for their partner (just like straight people). They also just want, for example, the right to have say in their sick partner's care at a hospital.

The real tragedy | 12:41 p.m. June 24, 2008

I always have to wonder if my brother could have found happiness if only the Church had a more compassionate attitude. Unfortunately, I will never know--he killed himself several years ago.

The Mormon promotion of anti-gay laws has not decreased the rates of divorce and infidelity--but it has increased the rate of Mormon suicides.

I keep hoping for more love and compassion from my Church, yet I'm afraid I will always remain disappointed.

To Freedom vs. Tyranny | 12:41 p.m. June 24, 2008

"The gay definition of freedom is to force society to change the historic definition of marriage to match their lifestyle."

Historically, women were property. Historically, men could marry more than one woman. Historically, marriages were set up by the parents. Historically, most marriages were for convience and property distribution.

Marriage has always had two meanings in the LDS church. There is temple marriage and there is civil marriage. Now they just want to add another meaning to it.

Why is the defination of a word more important than treating everyone equally?

SVB | 12:45 p.m. June 24, 2008

Jesus said it best to paraphrase, "forbid them not, if they are not against me, they are for me."

Gays who want to marry are not against marriage but for it. We should support them. It is mainly the streights who disregard marriage and often treat it as some sort of freak show, like Brittany Spears recently did.

Why God? | 12:48 p.m. June 24, 2008

It should be accepted as a given that God gives laws that, by obedience to them, creates the maximum happiness and greatest blessing to mankind. Homosexuality is a manifestation of the natural man, which by definition is an enemy to God. God seeks to protect us, His children, and to promote His plan for our development and happiness. The damage that will be done by legalizing gay marriage is evident by looking at Europe's experience: higher out-of-wedlock births, higher abortion rates, lower marriage rates, fewer intact families, etc. The societal costs of stepping over this threshold are enormous.

Those LDS and others who advocate a live and let live approach are correct in asserting that God is allowing such an exercise of choice. They infer therefore, that it is somehow acceptable. What they forget is that moral consequences generally lag actions so the cause and effect relationship does not void the principle of agency.

There also seems to be a willful desire to forget that it is God, through His prophets (as sustained by faithful believers) that has mandated this position. It is not some organizational policy subject to a democratic referendum.

Regarding the Bible | 12:50 p.m. June 24, 2008

Let's be honest--religious leaders simply pick and choose passages from the scriptures to justify their beliefs. And there is so much mean-spirited garage in the Bible that it seems to have lost it's credibility.

Perhaps we should simply toss out the portions of the Bible suggesting that God doesn't like gays, and we could all get along. Wouldn't we be much happier?

With Love Comes Reproof | 12:50 p.m. June 24, 2008

Regardless of whether or not you want to admit it, homosexuality is wrong. I've heard a lot of "hate the sin, love the sinner" type comments in this forum, and I totally agree with that. But part of showing real love is helping others to understand what is best for them. I feel homosexuality is wrong, and you can call me intolerant or whatever other name you want, but the fact is it's wrong. I love others enough to vote in favor of the amendment to show them that legalizing homosexual marriage is not the best thing for them.

Divorce destroys marriage | 12:53 p.m. June 24, 2008

Divorce destroys marriage not gender! Perhaps the Church should simply work to make divorce illegal.

Old and Grey | 12:57 p.m. June 24, 2008

Twenty some years ago I had an impression that the day would come when this would be a devisive, defining and painful issue. I've now lived long enough to see that impression was right. The challenge will be to proceed with the utmost of charity towards all, but with firm determination to do what is best for children. I agree with the LDS stand on this issue; hope we can do our part; and always make it very clear that we love all God's children.

Where to draw the line | 12:58 p.m. June 24, 2008

on what is moral and what is the law?

Or is there a difference.

In a free society, laws are based on the moral standards of the society that enacts them.

Ultimate freedom is ensured by those laws, not restricted.

For example, no one living on the earth actually created it.

Therefore, I believe that no one has a right to possess anything. The land, the water, the sunlight, and every other resource should be shared equally. Therefore, land and property laws should not exist because they restrict my freedom.

What gives you the right to pass laws that prevent me from enjoying my fair share of earth's resources?

Carried to it's extreme, unrestricted freedom, means no freedom, and reduces humankind to being nothing more than animals.

to With Love | 1:05 p.m. June 24, 2008

True, showing someone real love can be helping them understand that something they are doing is hurting them. Disciplining a child when they try to cross the street without looking is a good example. Banning people from being in a legally recognized relationship just because your interpretation of the Bible says it's wrong is in an entirely different category -- that of your trying to subject others to what YOU believe is right. Gay marriage will do nothing to affect your marriage (and if it does, then there are much deeper issues there), and will do nothing to affect your daily life. I can respect the fact that you disagree with this issue; I disagree with a lot of the theology behind the LDS religion, but you don't see me going around decrying temple marriages because I don't believe in eternal sealings.

Steve - Re: Why God? | 1:10 p.m. June 24, 2008

No, just because I (or any other LDS person) advocates the freedom to choose doesn't mean we approve of all the choices people make... we fully realize many said choices are sins and God will dole out the appropriate punishment. But what we're saying is, let those people make up their own minds... don't force them to obey God.

And I believe God stands by this stance. As I've said, the LDS believe God is against forcing anyone to obey His rules. Yes, He creates guidlines/rules that will lead to the maximum happiness and greatest blessings as you said... but He allows us to do what we will anyhow.

RE: Steve - LDS & Free Agency | 1:12 p.m. June 24, 2008

To answer your post let me put it this way... God Makes laws.. right? (he had at least 10 :) ) So you are getting angry at us for emulating God? And Do I really think that laws take away someones right to chose?

No, no more then his laws take away our free agency.

You can choose to sin but in life just like eternally you have to face consequences. Currently that means in life.. you can't marry. Eternally you can't be sealed in sin, nor can you endure God's presence.

The LDS Church stand is not to remove free agency, but to keep the consequences the same.

its akin to saying that having a baby from having premarital sex removes free agency, when its just a consequence of your actions. You chose your sins... nowhere in the scriptures do you get to do that and choose your punishment.

- JT

Legislating Morality | 1:14 p.m. June 24, 2008

I hear the unsupportable argument that you can't legislate morality usually by the same people who adopt an entirely generalized definition of the word. I want someone to give me one piece of legislation that is outside the realm of general morality (defined as a belief in right and wrong).

Our tax system, city ordinances, criminal laws, State and US Constitutions are all based on a general sense of right an wrong. The debate isn't over whether morality can be legislated, but how we legislate it.

The members of the LDS church, therefore, have the right to vote for legislation that conforms with their understanding of morality the same way the homosexual lobby or any other citizen does. The LDS church has the right to state its belief on what the definition of morality should be and encourage its members to involve themselves in movements that it deems important.

The end result of New Laws, changed State Constitution or a new Supreme Court decision will impose morality on everyone through the enforcement of laws the same way it has since this Nation was created. Choosing which morality is imposed on you is called voting.

Why is this so urgent? | 1:15 p.m. June 24, 2008

Why do we have to keep wasting time and money on this issue? Why does the Church insist on using limited assets on this one concern? Can't they see that they are just stirring up a hornet's nest? And I'm afraid they're about to get stung.

Robert | 1:17 p.m. June 24, 2008

Can you blame the church for standing up for protecting a moral fabric of society which is being torn apart. I don't view homosexuality as an institution. Its against the laws of nature. I think it is confusion and a mental illness. If you judge me for believing this, then you take away the very right for me to believe that it is wrong, that you are expecting me to give you that you think it is right. Homosexuality is a confused sexual preference. Who is making a big deal about this? Homosexuals. I have never threatened them. I have never treated a gay bad. I have always been respectful. How I have I been treated in return? We have been blasted in the news and called bigots. I have heard hate speech after hate speech against my religion. So you know what...I have no sympathy. I don't claim to take away their right to have a lifestyle....just keep it to yourself.

Re: Robot | 1:18 p.m. June 24, 2008

NOT!!!...

"because some old guy in a suit told you to."

but because the Lord has asked us to.

People who lack faith often resort to this condescending attack that people who have faith...

are simply robots.

In reality, people who have faith have simply learned an important lesson, that people like you are still learning.

That there are two ways to learn life's lessons:

Through the school of hard knocks.

or

From the Master Teacher.

You've chosen the school of hard knocks.

I've chosen, though I still make plenty of mistakes, to learn from an omniscient Master Teacher.

This is so sad | 1:23 p.m. June 24, 2008

The Church is encouraging people to waste their time and money on something that will soon be as much of a non-issue as inter-racial marriage was in the past.

Ten Commandents | 1:25 p.m. June 24, 2008

Isn't it interesting that the Ten Commandments don't have a word to say about homosexuality. Why do we treat it as though it's the worst sin anyone can commit?

Hey BoiseGuy | 1:30 p.m. June 24, 2008

"Promoting an agenda from the pulpit is just wrong!"

What in the world do you think every church, every sunday, saturday or what ever does???

And what is a church??? It is a group of individuals with like beliefs. Why do you think it is so inappropriate for the leadership of the LDS church to voice an opinion on a subject but it's OK for a Hollywood seleb to get on their soap box in the many public airwave venues and express their views on any and every subject?

Support Marriage! | 1:33 p.m. June 24, 2008

I support traditional marriage!!! For everyone who chooses it! Women, why would you ever want gay men to be running around being promiscuous, when it is possible for them to be in a loving, committed relationship? IMO, the less men on the prowl, the better!

YBU | 1:37 p.m. June 24, 2008

I want all of you to vote however you want to. I do want to bring a few things to light, though. First, gays always had the right to marry, but it wasn't socially acceptable, and those who performed and recorded these acts would not allow gays to marry. There was no law that stated that it should be only a man and a woman (thus, writing the new laws.) It was simply one of the social mores.

Now, California wants to write an admendment to their constitution that would legally block all gays from marrying a person of their same sex. This actually is against the 14th amendment to the Constitution of the USA: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;.."

Do you really want to pass a law that states that some citizens are not equal? Really, think about it.

Wahrheit | 1:36 p.m. June 24, 2008

Above the emotional fog created by the soggy arguments and hot air of gay-marriage advocates rises a wisdom connected neither to fad, fashion, nor demagogic oversimplification and inflammation.

A word lesson: "discriminate" means "to distinguish by discerning differences..."

Discrimination, therefore, is not itself bad. It is ignorance to speak as if it is. Instead, address the reasons for the discrimination.

Gay couples are simply unnecessary to society. Committed heterosexual couples, however, are indispensable. That is why government got involved in the pre-existing institution of man/woman marriage: to create incentives for that upon which society uniquely (the reason for discrimination) relies.

To irrationally broaden this incentive will destroy it, as it has already done in Scandinavian countries.

I, a single man, could just as rationally as a homosexual couple claim all marriage benefits for myself since I benefit society as much as they do. It would be idiocy for me to yell that I'm being discriminated against in a bad way. I DON'T GET MARRIAGE BENEFITS BECAUSE I'M SINGLE. YOU DON'T GET THEM BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE THE SAME SEX, AND NEITHER OF US UNIQUELY BENEFITS IN A WAY THAT DESERVES MORE.

What's happening? | 1:40 p.m. June 24, 2008

What has happened to empathy and compassion? What has happened to freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Why does the Church feel the need to antagonize others? Why do it's members feel the need to say that anyone who disagrees with them is "reigned by Satan"?

Seems like a more Christ-like position would be in order. (If you really ARE Christians)

warning | 1:43 p.m. June 24, 2008

I love how prophets of the Lord said:

"...We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

I feel confident saying that if the family is disintegrated, then America will see WORSE things than we ever have by way of natural disasters and programed disasters. I feel confident predicting many hard times and future problems, and the people will scratch thier heads and ask why? Then there will be the group that will have another rationalization, then there will be the followers of Christ and prophets who will say, its too bad, but, they were warned.

7 generation mormon... | 1:43 p.m. June 24, 2008

...but not no more. My ancestors were mislead. Where is all the compassion nowadays for people who were not born hormonally correct. What a shame!

Too much pqwer | 1:43 p.m. June 24, 2008

I do not in any way support genderless marriage. Any educated individual can see that if we support genderless marriage we are opening up for the opportunity for our First Amendment rights to be taken away. Think about it, because it will happen if we redefine marriage in this way. But, the most troubling of all is the power that the Supreme Court has to over turn what the majority wants. Wasn't this the very thing that our fore Fathers feared? The government having too much power. It is a scary thing when just a few can enforce their opinions on millions.

Happy w/ the Lord, sad for man | 1:45 p.m. June 24, 2008

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Everyone, both male and female, are free to marry under that definition. But none of us have the right to redefine marriage, thereby destroying what marriage is.

It takes a man and a woman to create a child. Every child should have the right to be born into a family with a mother and a father.

How great the goodness of our God who set up familial units to have a mother and a father! How great His wisdom and His love that invites us to follow in ways of happiness! How disturbing the ways of man, who pervert and go against the perfect ways of their God! How disrespectful, conceited, and selfish! You don't claim to know what God speaks, and yet do you suppose you somehow know better than God? Does God who created both male and female not know what would bring His children the most happiness in their respective roles? Do I hate you for wanting more for you, or do you hate yourself by relegating yourself to less?

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.