Reader comments
Same-sex couple from Salt Lake plan to marry in California
244 comments | Read story
Alex | 3:41 p.m. July 1, 2008
Marriage IS between a man and a woman. Go ahead and foam at the mouth if you
want. I have stood and will continue to support traditional marriage. If I
were to say that I'm intolerant of gay people, I'd be a liar. I know
where I stand and I don't have to be for gay marriage to prove how I treat
homosexuals. I don't owe the gay lobby anything.
To Legal Beagle II | 5:16 p.m. July 1, 2008
Your second post is based on the fallacy that "the issue of gay marriage is
not a moral issue; it is a legal issue." That is a forced either/or, a
false dichotomy. In fact, the definition of marriage is both a legal and a
moral issue. These and similar types of fallacies are improperly used to try to
keep religious people and churches out of important public policy discussions.
The fact is that most laws have moral foundations, and religious people and
churches have a right and duty to speak on them.
Also, as noted in my prior post, there are legitimate bases to distinguish between marriage, the union of a man and a woman, and other types of human relationships. In the end, each person will take a position on this issue based on hisher view of what is moral and good. Simply decreeing, as you have done, that your view is the moral, thoughtful, and correct one while all contrary views are immoral, unthoughtful, and wrong does not make it so. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian morals that led to the founding of this nation and its laws, including the definition of marriage, contradict your views.
Also, as noted in my prior post, there are legitimate bases to distinguish between marriage, the union of a man and a woman, and other types of human relationships. In the end, each person will take a position on this issue based on hisher view of what is moral and good. Simply decreeing, as you have done, that your view is the moral, thoughtful, and correct one while all contrary views are immoral, unthoughtful, and wrong does not make it so. Indeed, the Judeo-Christian morals that led to the founding of this nation and its laws, including the definition of marriage, contradict your views.
If Marriage Is... | 5:26 p.m. July 1, 2008
between a man and a woman, as I hear being reiterated over and over and over,
then in addition to fighting against gay marriage, I would appreciate seeing
those opposed to gay marriage working equally hard to address the problems
running rampant in heterosexual marriages. I have watched multiple women I know
endure abusive spousal relationships, and no one seems that bent out of shape
about that issue, which to me is far more damaging to society than two people of
the same gender committing to each other in marriage. I'd just like to see
some consistency, and some action behind the "marriage is between a man and
a woman" argument, that's all. :)
Comments continue below
To Legal Beagle I | 8:30 p.m. July 1, 2008
Your first post is based on the faulty premise that the California constitution
has always guaranteed the purported right of homosexuals to "marry."
In reality, it was only the recent action by five legislator-judges on the
California Supreme Court who discerned a "right" to homosexual
"marriage" that never existed. I challenge anyone to find any
evidence that when the California constitution was adopted, marriage was defined
as anything other than the union of a man and a woman, and the right to marry as
the right to engage in such a union, consistent with the Judeo-Christian values
on which this nation and the State of California were founded. In effect, the
California Supreme Court has amended the constitution under the guise of
"interpreting" it and thereby usurped the power of the people. The
faulty premise of your post undermines all of your arguments.
Furthermore, there are legitimate, moral reasons to distinguish between marriage�the union of a man and a woman�and other human activities/relationships. Only the union of a man and a woman can create children, and social science and longstanding wisdom demonstrate that children do best when raised by a father and a mother in a traditional family.
Furthermore, there are legitimate, moral reasons to distinguish between marriage�the union of a man and a woman�and other human activities/relationships. Only the union of a man and a woman can create children, and social science and longstanding wisdom demonstrate that children do best when raised by a father and a mother in a traditional family.
Betsy | 11:16 p.m. July 1, 2008
For me it is simple. Do I believe that Gordon B Hinckley was a prophet of God
or don't I? If I do than I believe He was inspired when He with the other
leaders drafted The Family Proclaimation. Cherry Picking gospel principles is
what led to the Apostasty in the first place. Trying to equate interracial
couples marrying vs same-sex is a flawed arguement. A heterosexual interracial
marriage still have the ability to procreate and does not interfere with the
capability of fulfilling the commandment to multiply and replenish the Earth.
The main purpose I believe for marriage was for the purpose of children. As for
the the opposition the LDS church had for interracial at that time restrictions
were placed on the Priesthood hence making such marriages not eternal at that
time.
Jerry | 9:54 a.m. July 2, 2008
Some of you who are commenting are very inconsiderate. You should use a name so
that people can reference and respond to your comment. Simply calling yourself
"To -----" only creates confusion and makes it difficult to respond.
But I suppose you know that and that is why you do it: to make it difficult to
respond. I suppose that is the case because those of you doing this are making
comments that show you have no problem forcing YOUR version of morality down the
indifferent throats of others by ganging up and forcing Constitutional changes
by majority rule. I think you need to go back to school and learn about what the
Founding Fathers were trying to create here. They were NOT trying to create a
majority rules situation. They were trying to guarantee the blessings of liberty
to ourselves and our posterity. What YOU are proposing is for the law of the
land to force every knee to bow and every tongue confess that the Mormon Jesus
is the Christ, and for everyone to submit to YOUR prophet as KING (although I
believe your prophet is NOT Hinckley but Monson). That is tyranny and fascism
and dangerous.
Happy Apostate | 10:45 a.m. July 2, 2008
This homosexual hates your so called god and the LDS church. I do not pretend
to "love" either but reject your thoughts and actions.
@ Happy Apostate | 11:56 a.m. July 2, 2008
Like you, I am no longer LDS, but I AM gay. I can honestly say that I
DON'T hate the LDS church or their "so called God" and a lot of
gay people I know share the same views.
Please speak for yourself, not the rest of us. Your opinions will only encourage those on here who hate gays to use you as ammo against all the rest fo us.
Please speak for yourself, not the rest of us. Your opinions will only encourage those on here who hate gays to use you as ammo against all the rest fo us.
Contrarian | 12:23 p.m. July 2, 2008
It is a bizarre development of our time that one of an infinite variety of
sexual fantasies and behaviors apparently serves as the basis of a person's
identity and those who identify themselves in this manner now require social,
political, and moral recognition of this singular sexual diversion.
To Contrarian @12:23 | 12:30 p.m. July 2, 2008
Do you ever identify yourself as a married heterosexual? If yes, then yes, how
very odd indeed.
Morgan | 1:07 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry, your view of the Founding Fathers and what they were trying to create is
demonstrably wrong, as shown by the U.S. Constitution, which provides a
procedure for amending it on a majority basis. The Founding Fathers purposely
and wisely made it more difficult to amend the Constitution than to pass normal
legislation, but the fundamental amendment procedure is majoritarian.
Given the relentless efforts of the the homosexual lobby to use the courts to try to redefine, undermine, and eventually destroy the basic unit of society--the family, amending the Constitution may be the majority's only recourse to put activist social-engineering legislator-judges in their place. Already, majorities in a majority of states have amended their state constitutions to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The problem is that marriage cannot be redefined without effectively destroying marriage and family as an institution and damaging children. If you do not believe that there are any victims, especially children; if your view is "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" think again. The refreshingly honest 2001 USC (pro-homosexual) study published in American Sociological Review shows that children are the real victims.
Given the relentless efforts of the the homosexual lobby to use the courts to try to redefine, undermine, and eventually destroy the basic unit of society--the family, amending the Constitution may be the majority's only recourse to put activist social-engineering legislator-judges in their place. Already, majorities in a majority of states have amended their state constitutions to preserve marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
The problem is that marriage cannot be redefined without effectively destroying marriage and family as an institution and damaging children. If you do not believe that there are any victims, especially children; if your view is "Gay marriage won't hurt anyone. Live and let live, already!" think again. The refreshingly honest 2001 USC (pro-homosexual) study published in American Sociological Review shows that children are the real victims.
@@ Happy Apostate | 1:13 p.m. July 2, 2008
I do speak for myself, so get over it. I repeat, I hate both. Did I say I
represented you?
And you are very mistaken if you think those on here who hate gays need any more "ammo." They hate you anyway, but parrot the nonsense about Jesus loves you, only because that is politically correct.
And you are very mistaken if you think those on here who hate gays need any more "ammo." They hate you anyway, but parrot the nonsense about Jesus loves you, only because that is politically correct.
Contrarian | 1:44 p.m. July 2, 2008
Give me a break - until homosexuals began to assert that sexual behavior was the
basis for identity no one ever referred to themselves as heterosexual, much less
a "married heterosexual".
Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but it hasn't been so long ago that one's sexual fantasies and/or behavior were considered a personal matter.
We identified people as married or unmarried, but men were men and women were women, no matter what type of sexual fantasy or behavior they practiced in private.
Maybe you are not old enough to remember, but it hasn't been so long ago that one's sexual fantasies and/or behavior were considered a personal matter.
We identified people as married or unmarried, but men were men and women were women, no matter what type of sexual fantasy or behavior they practiced in private.
Contrarian | 2:49 p.m. July 2, 2008
A great many homosexuals seem to miss the point that dividing people into groups
on the basis of sexual fantasy/practice invites even our very young children to
try to make sense of sexual perversion by learning how to identify themselves as
belonging to one group or another long before they reach sexual maturity. What
a horrible invasion or children's minds and interference with normal
development!
Anti-Contrarian | 3:41 p.m. July 2, 2008
To Contrarian,
It is no different with religion. Religion divides people into groups based on fantasies (that are definitely related to sexuality), and labels people as "perverted" (as you so arrogantly did) or immoral at an early age. What a horrible invasion of children's minds to bias them so early in life, eh?
It is no different with religion. Religion divides people into groups based on fantasies (that are definitely related to sexuality), and labels people as "perverted" (as you so arrogantly did) or immoral at an early age. What a horrible invasion of children's minds to bias them so early in life, eh?
Jerry | 3:55 p.m. July 2, 2008
Morgan, you use a lot of loaded words in such a way that I
don�t believe you really know what they mean. Just
buzzwords you throw around to try to get a rise out of others.
�The homosexual lobby� is NOT trying
to destroy �the basic unit of society�
(which, by the way, is the Individual, not �the
family� � check your Constitution and
the writings of the Founding Fathers. You will find nowhere where
�the family� is considered the
fundamental unit of society!)
But spouting off your bigoted rhetoric will do no good. You must be able to convince some of us who support equal marital rights to change our views. Otherwise, I�m afraid the California Supreme Court ruling will become common among all State Supreme Courts, and then in the U.S. Supreme Court.
How will you convince me that 1) homosexuality is immoral; 2) even if immoral, should be grounds for depriving me of equal marital rights under the law, and 3) is so important that Constitutional Amendment is necessary? Appeals to your religion and God only make my point: You force your morality on others.
But spouting off your bigoted rhetoric will do no good. You must be able to convince some of us who support equal marital rights to change our views. Otherwise, I�m afraid the California Supreme Court ruling will become common among all State Supreme Courts, and then in the U.S. Supreme Court.
How will you convince me that 1) homosexuality is immoral; 2) even if immoral, should be grounds for depriving me of equal marital rights under the law, and 3) is so important that Constitutional Amendment is necessary? Appeals to your religion and God only make my point: You force your morality on others.
Contrarian | 4:35 p.m. July 2, 2008
Religion is not inborn. The promotion of homosexuality as a different
"breed" of man, exhibiting traits that are said to be inborn,
immutable, and deserving of special status is not the same as religious
indoctrination. To say that is not to argue that religious indoctrination is a
good thing, it is simply in a different category altogether.
I am not a religious person and did not raise my children to believe in any religious dogma, but I did not worry that they would be unduly influenced by the supernaturalism of others because they understood religion and philosophy were the products of thought, were not determined by genetics of chemical disruptions en utero.
I am not a religious person and did not raise my children to believe in any religious dogma, but I did not worry that they would be unduly influenced by the supernaturalism of others because they understood religion and philosophy were the products of thought, were not determined by genetics of chemical disruptions en utero.
Contrarian | 4:45 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry says, "The homosexual lobby� is NOT trying to
destroy �the basic unit of
society�.
This is true in the sense that the so-called "homosexual lobby" really doesn't know what it is doing or who is pulling their strings.
This is true in the sense that the so-called "homosexual lobby" really doesn't know what it is doing or who is pulling their strings.
Jerry | 5:11 p.m. July 2, 2008
Regardless whether religion is inborn or not, and regardless whether
homosexuality is inborn or not, the fundamental principles of liberty in this
Nation forbid us from discriminating against any individual on the basis of
religion or sexual orientation. That is right and proper. Forbidding gay people
from marrying is a direct violation of this fundamental principle. It
discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You could
even call it sexual PREFERENCE, and it wouldn't matter, just as it
doesn't matter if you have a PREFERENCE for one religion rather than
others. It is against the law (and it is unethical) to discriminate against
persons because of their religious or sexual PREFERENCES. Same-sex marriage is
right and good. If you believe otherwise, then you obviously do not believe in
the principles of individual liberty upon which this country was founded. That
makes you a bigot and a horrible human being. Period.
Charles | 5:30 p.m. July 2, 2008
wow, Jerry is really going off this afternoon. Jerry, can you please explain how
homosexual behavior is natural and normal? Can you explain why God created a man
and a woman? Can you explain why there are men and women today? Can you explain
how the homosexual population will, without outside assistance, perpetuate its
existence?
You calling other people bigots and a horrible human being because someone doesn't agree with the homosexual behavior perversions just shows how small you really are in your argument and lack of facts.
I'd suggest you take a class in Anatomy 101. It might help you understand nature a little better.
Homosexual marriage is just another downfall of society and no society that has embraced homosexual behavior as normal and natural has continued on for very long.
The family is the basic unit of society. That's why there is a mother and a father.
What's sad is this is all commonsense stuff and yet you fail to see it.
Jerry is so far out to see I don't see him making it back to shore....
You calling other people bigots and a horrible human being because someone doesn't agree with the homosexual behavior perversions just shows how small you really are in your argument and lack of facts.
I'd suggest you take a class in Anatomy 101. It might help you understand nature a little better.
Homosexual marriage is just another downfall of society and no society that has embraced homosexual behavior as normal and natural has continued on for very long.
The family is the basic unit of society. That's why there is a mother and a father.
What's sad is this is all commonsense stuff and yet you fail to see it.
Jerry is so far out to see I don't see him making it back to shore....
HappyLDSwoman | 5:33 p.m. July 2, 2008
Happy Apostate: this is an oxymoron. You are filled with hate and that is
poison to your system. Having hatred in your soul is like drinking poison and
waiting for the other person to die.
Get real with yourself. Repent and do what is necessary to get right with the Lord. Your eternal salvation is on the line. I expect you are without feeling at this point. I am very sad for you and hope the day will come that you will wake up and do what is necessary. Again, I repeat Happy Apostate--an oxymoron.
Get real with yourself. Repent and do what is necessary to get right with the Lord. Your eternal salvation is on the line. I expect you are without feeling at this point. I am very sad for you and hope the day will come that you will wake up and do what is necessary. Again, I repeat Happy Apostate--an oxymoron.
Morgan | 5:34 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry, your post contains mostly empty fallacies, including ad hominem,
attacking the person instead of addressing arguments, and the appeal to
ridicule, which is to belittle arguments using "loaded words" (e.g.
"bigoted rhetoric") instead of reason. Unfortunately, that approach
is frequently how the homosexual lobby addresses these issues.
What "loaded words" or "buzzwords" do you claim I do not understand? Please tell me, and I will provide my understanding of them.
I should have used the word "institution" instead of "unit." Your point is well taken that the fundamental unit of society is the individual. However, the fundamental, and most important, institution of society is the family. Whether or not the efforts of the homosexual lobby to destroy the family are intentional, that is the effect.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I don't think that's possible. I'm trying to galvanize the vast majority who support marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Finally, the California ruling will not become common among all state supreme courts because the majority of state constitutions define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Hopefully, the U.S. Constitution will soon say the same thing.
What "loaded words" or "buzzwords" do you claim I do not understand? Please tell me, and I will provide my understanding of them.
I should have used the word "institution" instead of "unit." Your point is well taken that the fundamental unit of society is the individual. However, the fundamental, and most important, institution of society is the family. Whether or not the efforts of the homosexual lobby to destroy the family are intentional, that is the effect.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, because I don't think that's possible. I'm trying to galvanize the vast majority who support marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
Finally, the California ruling will not become common among all state supreme courts because the majority of state constitutions define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Hopefully, the U.S. Constitution will soon say the same thing.
To HappyLDSwoman | 5:53 p.m. July 2, 2008
I don't see how "Happy Apostate" is anymore of an oxymoron than
"HappyLDSwoman."
Jerry | 5:55 p.m. July 2, 2008
Morgan,
I think you will be surprised to find the majority of Americans would be outraged if others� religions were used to deprive them of their basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (including the right to marry whomever they want). Because they would not want others (even a majority) forcing their version of morality onto them, they will wisely refrain from forcing their version of morality onto others. That is the ethical and decent thing to do.
A majority of Americans recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage does nothing to harm those of you who believe in heterosexual marriage. It does nothing to destroy the family -- indeed, it actually gives legitimacy to hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian families, thereby strengthening the family throughout the nation!
A majority of Americans do not agree with you, therefore your efforts to "galvanize" them into a mobocratic movement to force your religion down other people's throats will fail unless you convince some of us that 1) homosexuality is immoral; 2) even if immoral, should be grounds for depriving me of equal marital rights under the law, and 3) is so important that Constitutional Amendment is necessary.
I think you will be surprised to find the majority of Americans would be outraged if others� religions were used to deprive them of their basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (including the right to marry whomever they want). Because they would not want others (even a majority) forcing their version of morality onto them, they will wisely refrain from forcing their version of morality onto others. That is the ethical and decent thing to do.
A majority of Americans recognize that legalizing same-sex marriage does nothing to harm those of you who believe in heterosexual marriage. It does nothing to destroy the family -- indeed, it actually gives legitimacy to hundreds of thousands of gay and lesbian families, thereby strengthening the family throughout the nation!
A majority of Americans do not agree with you, therefore your efforts to "galvanize" them into a mobocratic movement to force your religion down other people's throats will fail unless you convince some of us that 1) homosexuality is immoral; 2) even if immoral, should be grounds for depriving me of equal marital rights under the law, and 3) is so important that Constitutional Amendment is necessary.
Morgan | 5:58 p.m. July 2, 2008
You use the loaded word "discrimination" when the best word to
describe laws that protect marriage-the union of a man and a woman-and family is
"distinction." Laws constantly distinguish (or, if your prefer,
discriminate) between people and classes of people. The list is nearly endless,
e.g., employed versus unemployed (unemployment benefits), retired versus
un-retired (social security benefits), disabled and non-disabled (a variety of
benefits), male versus female (e.g., health care benefits), just to name a few.
In fact, it could be argued that every law makes distinctions between people and
classes of people. The question is whether the distinction has a basis in fact
and sound policy. Would you say, for example, that the law against rape is
illegitimate because it discriminates against those whose sexual preference is
rape-oriented? Of course not. So, it comes down to this-does the distinction
between heterosexual couples, who can marry, and homosexuals, who in most
jurisdictions cannot, have any basis in fact and sound public policy? You will
strongly disagree, as will others, but most people would say "yes, there
are physiological, sociological, psychological, economic, and a host of other
factual and legitimate public policy bases for thay distinction. That's
not illegal discrimination.
Jerry | 5:59 p.m. July 2, 2008
Charles,
No homosexual person is under any obligation to try to justify their intimate life to you as "normal", just as you are under no obligation to try to justify your intimate life as "normal." Moreover, if all your relationships are about "nature" and "natural desires and urges" that result in reproduction, then clearly you must not have any regard for marriage at all. Sociobiologists have made excellent arguments for several decades that because the male can produce millions of sperm, whereas the female can only produce around 30 viable eggs in a lifetime, then the male is biologically conditioned (or "selected") to spread his genetic material as far and wide as possible. From the biological ("natural") argument, then, marriage makes no sense at all. Men should be having sex with as many females as possible without regard for any commitments that we might call "marriage" getting in the way.
Have YOU ever had Biology 102? Or did you skip that one?
No homosexual person is under any obligation to try to justify their intimate life to you as "normal", just as you are under no obligation to try to justify your intimate life as "normal." Moreover, if all your relationships are about "nature" and "natural desires and urges" that result in reproduction, then clearly you must not have any regard for marriage at all. Sociobiologists have made excellent arguments for several decades that because the male can produce millions of sperm, whereas the female can only produce around 30 viable eggs in a lifetime, then the male is biologically conditioned (or "selected") to spread his genetic material as far and wide as possible. From the biological ("natural") argument, then, marriage makes no sense at all. Men should be having sex with as many females as possible without regard for any commitments that we might call "marriage" getting in the way.
Have YOU ever had Biology 102? Or did you skip that one?
Abe1446 | 6:03 p.m. July 2, 2008
As an apostate myself (going on 7 years), I can assure you that "Happy
Apostate" is FAR from being an oxymoron!
I have NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY as I have been since I left that cult called Mormonsim (or the LDS Church -- you know, the "one and only true and living Church with which the Lord is well-pleased"!).
It is only one of the many many myths the LDS people tell each other that everyone outside the Church is unhappy and miserable. NOT TRUE! Not by a long shot!
I have NEVER BEEN SO HAPPY as I have been since I left that cult called Mormonsim (or the LDS Church -- you know, the "one and only true and living Church with which the Lord is well-pleased"!).
It is only one of the many many myths the LDS people tell each other that everyone outside the Church is unhappy and miserable. NOT TRUE! Not by a long shot!
Contrarian | 6:21 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry, The thing you ignore is that so-called �sexual
orientation� or �sexual
preference� are not states of being, but can only refer to
behavior or fantasy.
Our Bill of Rights was written without reference to sexual behavior, �sexual orientation�, or �sexual preference� even though sexual behavior of all kinds was a ubiquitous occupation at the end of the eighteenth century just as it is now.
The idea that homosexuality, which is nothing more than a divergent sexual fantasy or behavior, can form the basis of one�s identity, and therefore one�s rights, is a very silly, latter-day, �politically correct� corruption of our Constitution. It makes no more sense to make homosexuals a protected group than it does to protect the �rights� of enema enthusiasts or peeping toms.
Those who practice sexual diversions are merely men and women who practice sexual diversions; they are not different in essence from others of the same biological sex.
Our Bill of Rights was written without reference to sexual behavior, �sexual orientation�, or �sexual preference� even though sexual behavior of all kinds was a ubiquitous occupation at the end of the eighteenth century just as it is now.
The idea that homosexuality, which is nothing more than a divergent sexual fantasy or behavior, can form the basis of one�s identity, and therefore one�s rights, is a very silly, latter-day, �politically correct� corruption of our Constitution. It makes no more sense to make homosexuals a protected group than it does to protect the �rights� of enema enthusiasts or peeping toms.
Those who practice sexual diversions are merely men and women who practice sexual diversions; they are not different in essence from others of the same biological sex.
Charles | 6:44 p.m. July 2, 2008
abe1446...actually I don't know of anyone who says that everyone outside
the LDS church is unhappy and miserable. I think that's a myth that those
of you who have left the church tell each other to make yourselves feel
better.
I just had a wonderful conversation with my neighbors who were drinking and smoking and they are happy and wonderful people.
so please, get off you self-pity kick and grow up. You left the church, so leave the church alone. And yes, Christ did say that this was His church. So if you want to complain about it take it up with Him. I'm sure that will be a wonderful discussion you will have...
Jerry, you ask for answers, why can't we ask you for answers? No one is obligated to accept your homosexual behavior as normal and natural. Again, commonsense my friend. There is a reason why there are men and women on earth and it ain't so men can be with men and women with women. Again, Anatomy 101. It's amazing that all other creatures understand the concept but homosexuals can't. Justification is a sad and lonely place to be with homosexual behavior perversions.
I just had a wonderful conversation with my neighbors who were drinking and smoking and they are happy and wonderful people.
so please, get off you self-pity kick and grow up. You left the church, so leave the church alone. And yes, Christ did say that this was His church. So if you want to complain about it take it up with Him. I'm sure that will be a wonderful discussion you will have...
Jerry, you ask for answers, why can't we ask you for answers? No one is obligated to accept your homosexual behavior as normal and natural. Again, commonsense my friend. There is a reason why there are men and women on earth and it ain't so men can be with men and women with women. Again, Anatomy 101. It's amazing that all other creatures understand the concept but homosexuals can't. Justification is a sad and lonely place to be with homosexual behavior perversions.
Jerry | 6:49 p.m. July 2, 2008
Contrarian,
Neither is religion a "state of being."
Religion is merely a deviant fantasy. Nobody is born religious. Nobody is born believing in a God, or Gold Plates, or angels. They have to be indoctrinated with these fantasies. That changes nothing in regard to the law. It remains morally and ethically wrong to deny another person equal (marital) rights under the law based on their sexual preferences OR the religious preferences.
Do you get it yet?
Neither is religion a "state of being."
Religion is merely a deviant fantasy. Nobody is born religious. Nobody is born believing in a God, or Gold Plates, or angels. They have to be indoctrinated with these fantasies. That changes nothing in regard to the law. It remains morally and ethically wrong to deny another person equal (marital) rights under the law based on their sexual preferences OR the religious preferences.
Do you get it yet?
Jerry | 6:55 p.m. July 2, 2008
Morgan,
Your red herring is stinking up the place.
Yes, laws make "distinctions." But there is a HUGE difference between the kind of laws that make a rational distinction upon which everybody agrees, and laws that classify, discriminate, or impose differential treatment on the basis of a characteristic such as gender, race, or religion. If you cannot see that, then how about a law that classifies, discriminates, and imposes differential treatment of Mormons because their high rate of anti-depressant usage makes them a pool of genetic weakness that should be eliminated!? Are you up with that?
Your red herring is stinking up the place.
Yes, laws make "distinctions." But there is a HUGE difference between the kind of laws that make a rational distinction upon which everybody agrees, and laws that classify, discriminate, or impose differential treatment on the basis of a characteristic such as gender, race, or religion. If you cannot see that, then how about a law that classifies, discriminates, and imposes differential treatment of Mormons because their high rate of anti-depressant usage makes them a pool of genetic weakness that should be eliminated!? Are you up with that?
Jerry | 7:31 p.m. July 2, 2008
Charles,
Better zip up, your bigotry is showing. Since there is no way that the citizens of the United States could possibly agree on what is "normal" (I think your bigotry is about as perverted and twisted as a human being can get without becoming like an animal), then the LAW must be established without preference for YOUR perversions over mine!
Common sense, my "friend" (but with friends like you, who needs enemies?)
Homosexuals are not trying to obligate you to accept homosexual behavior as "normal and natural" (whatever you think that might mean), just as nobody is trying to obligate anyone to accept freakish Mormon myths and superstitions as normal and natural. Doesn't matter. We still give Mormons equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of how abnormal their magic underwearing and baptisms for the dead are! And Mormons should feel glad that those of us who think their religious beliefs are not normal or natural don't pass laws that discriminate against them! Don't you think? (oops, bad question... of course you don't, that much is obvious).
Better zip up, your bigotry is showing. Since there is no way that the citizens of the United States could possibly agree on what is "normal" (I think your bigotry is about as perverted and twisted as a human being can get without becoming like an animal), then the LAW must be established without preference for YOUR perversions over mine!
Common sense, my "friend" (but with friends like you, who needs enemies?)
Homosexuals are not trying to obligate you to accept homosexual behavior as "normal and natural" (whatever you think that might mean), just as nobody is trying to obligate anyone to accept freakish Mormon myths and superstitions as normal and natural. Doesn't matter. We still give Mormons equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of how abnormal their magic underwearing and baptisms for the dead are! And Mormons should feel glad that those of us who think their religious beliefs are not normal or natural don't pass laws that discriminate against them! Don't you think? (oops, bad question... of course you don't, that much is obvious).
to Happy LSDWoman | 8:41 p.m. July 2, 2008
I am a very happy formerly LDS woman. If we met, you would embrace me as a
wonderful friend who exemplifies all they hope LDS women would achieve. It
would then shock you to find out I resigned. All the cognitive dissonance
disappeared the day I realized the only paradigm that cleared up all the
discrepancies was that Joseph Smith was a genius fabricator and marketer of a
religion. The walls came tumbling down, I could now live with integrity and
without all the pretzel-making contortions it took to remain a true-blue
believer.
There was heartache with my family, but I have never been happier and would make the same choice today.
There was heartache with my family, but I have never been happier and would make the same choice today.
From HappyLDSwoman | 9:11 p.m. July 2, 2008
to the happy formerly LDS woman...then I imagine you must have never been
converted to begin with, to feel the way you do. I joined the Church at age 15
and am the only member in my extended family (one uhappy, messed up, mentally
ill inactive sister) of 6 siblings. I can tell you of all of them I am the only
one that is totally grounded and happy--they are so out of touch with reality
and do no good for anyone but themselves. I came to know the Gospel was true at
age 15, and had many hellish tough roads along the way including a very painful
divorce and a period of several years of inactivity. But I came back 24 years
ago because I knew if the Church was true at age 15, it is now. Joseph Smith is
a prophet of God as I have had the spirit testify to me over and over and over.
NO ONE can argue with the Spirit of God. I'm sure you're still a good
person, as many nonLDS are, and I hope someday you will truly become converted
for then you'll ahve even nore joy. Peace always.
Sarah | 9:57 p.m. July 2, 2008
I've seen this repeated throughout this and many other threads, and
I'd like to comment. The Bible does NOT say that the greatest commandment
is "love one another." It says that it is a NEW commandment, but not
necessarily the most important one. The Bible says explicitly that the greatest
commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and
strength, THEN to love thy neighbor as thyself. God always, always comes first,
before your friends, your brothers and sisters, your parents, your spouse,
everybody.
Yes, we should love each other, but we should also love the Lord more than we love ourselves or our neighbors, and that means, we stand up for His word, even when it goes against the popular trends.
Yes, we should love each other, but we should also love the Lord more than we love ourselves or our neighbors, and that means, we stand up for His word, even when it goes against the popular trends.
Curious | 10:03 p.m. July 2, 2008
Where is the homosexual lobby? Is that next to the front desk or the gym?
Sacramento Citizen | 10:12 p.m. July 2, 2008
For those of you complaining about the "homosexual lobby,"
"nature" and "God's plan," "true prophet"
etc. and nauseum, remember it is YOUR cult that is trying to assert itself on
the State of California and it's citizens.
We feel the same way about YOU!
We feel the same way about YOU!
To Sacramento Citizen | 10:16 p.m. July 2, 2008
The LDS Church didn't say anything at all to the state of California or its
citizens at large. It sent out a letter to its members. It doesn't concern
you at all.
to From Happy LDS Woman | 10:33 p.m. July 2, 2008
I am glad that you have found solace and an improved life through your
association with the church. I, too, am one of six siblings. I was thoroughly
converted. Born into a home where my parents were sealed though their example
was far from ideal, I received spiritual confirmations from a very young age.
While growing up and always faithfully studying LDS scripture, pondering,
praying I had questions which no one would ever answer. They were serious
questions, I thought I was brushed off because I was young. I decided to
"put them on the shelf" and follow the prophet, trusting, trusting,
trusting that my life would be best if I did. However, after four and a half
decades, I could no longer ignore the questions. I found my answers and know
from where my spiritual confirmations arise. I am happy. I can never foresee
participating in religion again.
I wish you all the best and that you will always find the support and reassurance you need in the way you have chosen. Hugs to you and your family.
I wish you all the best and that you will always find the support and reassurance you need in the way you have chosen. Hugs to you and your family.
Re: Sacramento Citizen | 10:42 p.m. July 2, 2008
I didn't see the letter being addressed to "The State of California
and its citizens", I saw it being addressed to the members of the LDS
Church. They aren't trying to force anything on you at all. The leaders of
said "cult" just sent a letter to its members reiterating its position
on a social issue that has potentially far-reaching consequences for our
country. Every church in the world tells its members what its policies are, why
so much animosity in this case?
Morgan | 11:06 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry,
You missed the whole point of my last post, which is that the majority who support the traditional view of marriage and the minority who want to redefine it disagree on whether the traditional view is based on rational distinctions. The rationality of the majority view is backed the facts and by centuries, indeed millennia, of history and experience. I understand that you disagree strongly, even vehemently, with the rationality of the traditional view. That's fine. That's what a democratic republic allows. Your ad hominem attacks on everyone that disagrees with you, however, only weakens your arguments.
As for the distinctions or classifications that you espouse, based on religion in general and LDS people in particular, the First Amendment specifically prohibits such illegitimate classifications. The reason that the First Amendment does so is that there was a general consensus on that amendment. There is no such consensus with respect to placing the imprimatur of government approval on homosexual relationships. If those who want such approval believe that their cause is just, they should seek to convince the majority to amend the U.S. and/or state constitutions to protect such relationships, rather than using illegitimate judicial edicts.
You missed the whole point of my last post, which is that the majority who support the traditional view of marriage and the minority who want to redefine it disagree on whether the traditional view is based on rational distinctions. The rationality of the majority view is backed the facts and by centuries, indeed millennia, of history and experience. I understand that you disagree strongly, even vehemently, with the rationality of the traditional view. That's fine. That's what a democratic republic allows. Your ad hominem attacks on everyone that disagrees with you, however, only weakens your arguments.
As for the distinctions or classifications that you espouse, based on religion in general and LDS people in particular, the First Amendment specifically prohibits such illegitimate classifications. The reason that the First Amendment does so is that there was a general consensus on that amendment. There is no such consensus with respect to placing the imprimatur of government approval on homosexual relationships. If those who want such approval believe that their cause is just, they should seek to convince the majority to amend the U.S. and/or state constitutions to protect such relationships, rather than using illegitimate judicial edicts.
Contrarian | 11:32 p.m. July 2, 2008
Jerry, Our Bill of Rights was written without reference to sexual behavior,
�sexual orientation�, or
�sexual preference� even though sexual
behavior of all kinds was a ubiquitous occupation at the end of the eighteenth
century just as it is now.
The idea that homosexuality, which is nothing more than a divergent sexual fantasy or behavior, can form the basis of one�s identity, and therefore one�s rights, is a very silly, latter-day, �politically correct� corruption of our Constitution. It makes no more sense to make homosexuals a protected group than it does to protect the �rights� of enema enthusiasts or peeping toms.
Those who practice sexual diversions are merely men and women who practice sexual diversions; they are not different in essence from others of the same biological sex.
The idea that homosexuality, which is nothing more than a divergent sexual fantasy or behavior, can form the basis of one�s identity, and therefore one�s rights, is a very silly, latter-day, �politically correct� corruption of our Constitution. It makes no more sense to make homosexuals a protected group than it does to protect the �rights� of enema enthusiasts or peeping toms.
Those who practice sexual diversions are merely men and women who practice sexual diversions; they are not different in essence from others of the same biological sex.
To LDS in SF | 12:19 a.m. July 3, 2008
Yes, it is time for you to move. Utah is lovely I hear, and California is
clearly not good enough for you.
Alex in Los Angeles
Alex in Los Angeles
Matt from Australia | 1:37 a.m. Sept. 12, 2008
Its funny isn't it that you don't see Ron and Todd railing angrily
against the church and the right to have one's own faith?
I certainly seems the 'love' in all these comments is coming predominantly from folks who wish Ron and Todd good fortune in their marriage.
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of 'love' coming from the very people who claim that love is the foundation of their ideology.
I wish you all the happiness in the world Ron and Todd, may you act as a positive role model to all those angry, bitter and zealous critics out there.
I certainly seems the 'love' in all these comments is coming predominantly from folks who wish Ron and Todd good fortune in their marriage.
There doesn't seem to be a great deal of 'love' coming from the very people who claim that love is the foundation of their ideology.
I wish you all the happiness in the world Ron and Todd, may you act as a positive role model to all those angry, bitter and zealous critics out there.
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.
Ron Hunt, left, and Todd Bennett, pose for wedding announcement photographs at Exchange Place in Salt Lake City on Thursday.
- Brazilian Bomber sets 3-point mark 9:00 p.m.
- NFL Football: Path 2 perfection? 8:58 p.m.
- NFL today 8:56 p.m.
- Guinea militia fuels fears of civil war 8:56 p.m.
- Man accused of child sex abuse 8:48 p.m.
- Son returns to Iraq after 21 years 8:38 p.m.
- 2 men die in barn fire 8:37 p.m.
- Service opportunities are plentiful 8:36 p.m.
- Church to sell window to pay bills 8:35 p.m.
- Folks felt at home in White House 8:35 p.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
303 - Letters: Liberal because LDS245
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry188
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing182
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage128
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan105
- George lost in rivalry hatefest102
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
This guy should have been tried and sentenced as the domestic terrorist that...
post at 8.41 is right, Deron does know the problem, how can he not when it is...
Wasn't it satan's plan to lay down all sorts of rules and not let anyone...
Why use Okur if he can't shoot 3s? He is pretty much useless against love and...
At least they can see Heaven better now.
Haha that more like it! Thats what we have in store for us for at least one...
I hope Kurt Bestor plays his "best" stuff. Get it? haha.
TCU would trash 'Bama - just as much as Utah did last year if you can...
I don't care which players are out IE AK47..You should never loose to a team...
This article is very misleading and wrong. Those who "actually" listen to...
Advertisements