Reader comments
Gay marriage criticized at Education Week address
136 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
Martha | 6:57 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
I am appalled that these anti-marriage people are using children to further
their agenda. Gay and lesbian people have children of their own and to deny
them married parents is unconscionable. It is more than obvious that "The
Best Way" is only thinking of their own selfish agenda and care nothing for
children. Shame on such un-Christian thinking.
Anonymous | 7:01 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Believer in facts, you have not stated a fact, just the opinion of one man from
one court case.
Shoe's on the Other Foot? | 7:29 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
It's interesting to read comments from largely a Mormon audience on how to
exclude, marginalize, denigrate, and kick-aside someone else for who they are.
Remembering your own history on how the good Christians treated you in Illinois,
Missouri and across the great plains. They would cry you're heretics and
accursed of God (Galatians 1:8,9), you're perverting our children,
you're going to hell... blah, blah, blah. Well, America is big enough for
all of us, right? Don't allow yourselves to be focused on things that
really don't matter by some very crafty politicians who use
divide-and-conquer tactics to get their guy elected. Focus, rather, on things
that are truly impactful: out-of-control government spending, broken families
(gay or straight), the environment, etc. Bottomline, folks: just be a good
mensch. Here's an idea: love others just the way you love yourselves. Novel
idea, isn't it?
Comments continue below
Kart | 7:56 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Lets See: You seem to miss the point. It not the federal constitution that is in
play here it the state constitutions, may of which have stricter equal
protection clauses.
States will simply walk away from the whole business of marriage. Nothing in the proposed federal marriage amendment would force a state to issue a marriage licences at all. How would marriage be protected if we have some states issuing marriage licenses and others not?
The legal and social issues that such a situation would create would be far more troubling than would permitting same gender marriages.
Don't kid yourself that it will not happen either, gay rights groups in Massachusetts and California have already said they will go to their state courts for just such an order if the federal constitution is so amended. There will is no appeal to the federal courts on this just as there is none for the current same sex marriage issue. This is a state matter not a federal one.
The only thing I am saying is that there are always unintended consequences to be considered. Amending the federal constitution is not the silver bullet as some would believe.
States will simply walk away from the whole business of marriage. Nothing in the proposed federal marriage amendment would force a state to issue a marriage licences at all. How would marriage be protected if we have some states issuing marriage licenses and others not?
The legal and social issues that such a situation would create would be far more troubling than would permitting same gender marriages.
Don't kid yourself that it will not happen either, gay rights groups in Massachusetts and California have already said they will go to their state courts for just such an order if the federal constitution is so amended. There will is no appeal to the federal courts on this just as there is none for the current same sex marriage issue. This is a state matter not a federal one.
The only thing I am saying is that there are always unintended consequences to be considered. Amending the federal constitution is not the silver bullet as some would believe.
Pickled Herring Sales | 8:09 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Fundamentalist "logic": Pickled herring sales in Norway have plummeted
since homosexuals were granted domestic partnerships and "Christians"
see a direct correlation. Yet another reason to stop gays from tying the knot!
Reality Check | 9:59 a.m. Aug. 24, 2008
The reality is, is that thousands of children live in foster care and your goal
of every child having a mother and a father is not reality. If my wife and I
were to pass away, I would want first of all a loving home for my kids. If the
best option was a homosexual couple who loved my children, then I would be
thrilled to know that my kids were being loved unconditionally. Loving
unconditionally is the answer to everything. The situation may not look
"so called normal" however when unconditional love is brought into any
situation, it turns that situation into something beautiful. People have a
tendency to Label and Judge every situation. If you accept the situation for
what it is without judgement, then it begins to become beautiful. I know that
Gay Marriage is a difficult subject for some of you, however if you love the
idea of two people (no matter what it looks like to you) receiving the same
rights and privledges that you have, a little part of your "Ego"
dissapears. Just something to "Be" with.
Brother of Mahonri | 1:02 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Is there a place that I can go to trade in my BYU diploma for one that does not
come from an institution that promotes such bigotry and hatred?
Oh well, at least my law degree isn't from BYU. I feel sad for all my friends who went to law school there.
Oh well, at least my law degree isn't from BYU. I feel sad for all my friends who went to law school there.
Aquinas | 1:40 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Quest writes,
The 'professor' fails to provide facts to support her 'opinion'.
FACT: The State (Massachusetts) that legalized SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... has the LOWEST Divorce Rate in the United States.
Things that make to go Hhhmmm.
Aquinas replies,
Perhaps before attempting to refute information the person doing so should know something about who they are talking about; Professor Lynn Wardle is a man.
Other factors come into play when examining statistics on such things as divorce. The fact is this: when "no fault" divorce was sold nearly a generation ago it was sold as the thing that would make both adults and their children happier. It has not. Now many of these same people have returned with an even more daring social experiment: to radically redefine marriage in way that has never been done in any major civilization...ever. And rather than implementing this radical act of social engineering thru elected representatives, they are attempting to force this thru judicial diktat.
Prof. Wardle is already correct about one thing; those that publicly oppose same-sex "marriage" are being made the object of such vitriol hatred that one would need to remember Bull Connor to fully understand this parallel.
The 'professor' fails to provide facts to support her 'opinion'.
FACT: The State (Massachusetts) that legalized SAME-SEX MARRIAGE... has the LOWEST Divorce Rate in the United States.
Things that make to go Hhhmmm.
Aquinas replies,
Perhaps before attempting to refute information the person doing so should know something about who they are talking about; Professor Lynn Wardle is a man.
Other factors come into play when examining statistics on such things as divorce. The fact is this: when "no fault" divorce was sold nearly a generation ago it was sold as the thing that would make both adults and their children happier. It has not. Now many of these same people have returned with an even more daring social experiment: to radically redefine marriage in way that has never been done in any major civilization...ever. And rather than implementing this radical act of social engineering thru elected representatives, they are attempting to force this thru judicial diktat.
Prof. Wardle is already correct about one thing; those that publicly oppose same-sex "marriage" are being made the object of such vitriol hatred that one would need to remember Bull Connor to fully understand this parallel.
Anonymous | 2:24 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
"Same gender marriage seperates (sic) child-bearing and marriage."
Since many people in same sex marriage have children of their own and adopted, this doesn't make much sense. On top of that, there has never been a requirement in any marriage law for procreation. People have been procreating without marriage since the beginning of time. Gay marriage won't change that. Please use some common sense otherwise you just look foolish.
Since many people in same sex marriage have children of their own and adopted, this doesn't make much sense. On top of that, there has never been a requirement in any marriage law for procreation. People have been procreating without marriage since the beginning of time. Gay marriage won't change that. Please use some common sense otherwise you just look foolish.
JZ | 2:52 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
To paraphrase a quote from my Mormon upbringing and heritage:'As you do
this unto the least of your brethren, you do it unto me.' Unfortunately,
most discrimination gays face is done in the name of "God," religion
and according to scriptural references. What I find appalling, having
experienced this discrimination in my lifetime while living a celebate life, is
the contempt & hatred my fellow saints manifest during these arguments when
they have no idea that a gay person is listening. The Lord is always listening.
When in doubt-I turn it over to our Saviour-and immediately request help to
overcome my anger & forgive my so-called "righteous" brothers
& sisters. JZ
Maxie | 3:31 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Elizabeth, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that this country is
a democracy. It isn't, it is a Republic and as such, we have three branches
of government, one of which is judicial, whose purpose is to prevent the
majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.
If the majority were allowed free reign in this country, I shudder to think where we would be now. Women would still not have the vote, Marriage between two different races would still be against the law (which means my brother and his wife's 35 year marriage would not have been allowed), Blacks, would still not have their civil rights, and more than likely, we, as a Mormon church, would be still being chased from stem to stern, being denied our basic right to even exist.
Oppose gay marriage if you must, but at least use valid arguments, and for that matter, so should Dr. Wardle. As for being called homophobic, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck-err - homophobic.
If the majority were allowed free reign in this country, I shudder to think where we would be now. Women would still not have the vote, Marriage between two different races would still be against the law (which means my brother and his wife's 35 year marriage would not have been allowed), Blacks, would still not have their civil rights, and more than likely, we, as a Mormon church, would be still being chased from stem to stern, being denied our basic right to even exist.
Oppose gay marriage if you must, but at least use valid arguments, and for that matter, so should Dr. Wardle. As for being called homophobic, If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck-err - homophobic.
Laura | 3:54 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Elisabeth - Supreme Court Justices in California are voted on. The governor
appoints them and then the people vote on them in the next general election to
keep them in office or throw them out. Every 12 years, they are voted on again.
zzman | 4:17 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Hmmmm...so polygamous marriage to a 14 year old will harm my family? Does he
excempt Joseph Smith in this example? A strange example to use given the history
of marriage in Mormonism.
Jason | 4:48 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
Early members of the church suffered terribly from outsiders trying to enforce
their definition of marriage onto church members. Now the church wants to
enforce its definition of marriage on non-members. So, how is the fight over
polygamy and the fight over same-sex marriage different, apart from the fact
that the church ended up on opposite sides of the issue?
RLC | 7:27 p.m. Aug. 24, 2008
It is interesting that the pro gay marriage community likes to talk about
tolerance and that the LDS view on gay marriage shows a lack of that virtue.
Yet, I have found repeatedly that once other high school students and teachers
who are pro gay marriage become aware of my childrens religous affiliation they
are attacked and ridiculed by this very same community. They like to talk as
though they are more tolerant than those in opposition but in reality the
experience of my children has repeatedly been that they are much less tolerant.
The attacks don't seem to stop when the issue moves beyond gay marriage.
The derision and venom spewed is at time very difficult and emotional for my
children to deal with.
DGRIFFIN | 12:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Civil rights are eroded when church leaders promote fear of disfellowship or
ex-communication for church members who voice their opposition to CA Proposition
8 and encourage the ban of same-sex marriage in the United States. The
gay/lesbian community is not the threat here. The fear should be continuation of
the false definition of what a healthy family is or should be. Is it healthy to
encourage gays/lesbians to marry believing their marriage relationship will cure
their attraction to those of the same-sex? Is it healthy to encourage children
to oppose their parents/siblings for following their own will to be people of
integrity and accept themselves as they were created by a loving god? The
suicide/murder rate for gay Latter-Day Saints is still unacceptable. Church
members should wake up and smell the stench of their own apathy and blind trust.
The spirit of truth is sacrificed when we sustain the false image of healthy
families and don't trust our personal answers to prayers.
SL Cabbie | 1:05 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I fail to see why LDS folks have any concern with gay marriage at all, since as
I understand their belief system, any marriage outside of an LDS Temple is
essentially irrelevant in the eternal scheme of things . . .
And I promise, the day the dadburned gubm'nt forces the church to perform gay marriages within its Temple walls, I shall park my taxi beside the Saints gathered at the gates of Temple Square and challenge any armed forces, be they tanks, infantry, or cruise missiles or what-have-you, who dares to try to enforce that edict . . .
In the meantime I suggest the faithful practice a little Christian tolerance and perhaps get to know some gay individuals. Honest, after waitresses, they're my favorite fares . . .
And I promise, the day the dadburned gubm'nt forces the church to perform gay marriages within its Temple walls, I shall park my taxi beside the Saints gathered at the gates of Temple Square and challenge any armed forces, be they tanks, infantry, or cruise missiles or what-have-you, who dares to try to enforce that edict . . .
In the meantime I suggest the faithful practice a little Christian tolerance and perhaps get to know some gay individuals. Honest, after waitresses, they're my favorite fares . . .
A general public consensus | 5:10 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
A general public consensus that you're wrong does not scapegoat you into
being right.
"People scoff at me and often break into laughter when I present my view that the world is flat. I'm tired of being silenced!"
The claim that opponents to Gay Marriage are not respected or silenced is a complete non sequitur if we're trying to address whether their position holds any logical or ethical water.
"People scoff at me and often break into laughter when I present my view that the world is flat. I'm tired of being silenced!"
The claim that opponents to Gay Marriage are not respected or silenced is a complete non sequitur if we're trying to address whether their position holds any logical or ethical water.
Quest | 9:46 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Aquinas: Trying to 'explain away' why the State with the LOWEST
divorce - recognizes Same-Sex Marriage... is conjecture on your part.
From wiki: "The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage."
Thanx for playing. Janice has some nice parting gifts for you.
Next.
From wiki: "The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage."
Thanx for playing. Janice has some nice parting gifts for you.
Next.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 10:37 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
People on the "progressive" end of the political spectrum like to talk
about the importance of preserving the natural environment, of not allowing any
impact on that environment until after detailed study and public deliberation.
California has its own California Environmental Quality Act that is even more
sweeping in its requirements than the National Environmental Policy Act.
Yet when it comes to making a fundamental change to the human social environment, many Progressives think it is just fine to let four judges make a decision that overrides the judgment of millions of adult voters and the accumulated judgment over time of human societies of many kinds for thousands of years. This is the social equivalent of dumping nuclear waste into every river, without any regard for the long term consequences, or the judgment of all of the people affected.
What is more, in making sexual behavior a kind of activity that cannot be legislated on by initiative or legislature, the California Supreme Court has denied the most fundamental constitutional right of citizens, namely the ability to make the laws that govern them. This is government of the people but not BY the people. It is tyranny.
Yet when it comes to making a fundamental change to the human social environment, many Progressives think it is just fine to let four judges make a decision that overrides the judgment of millions of adult voters and the accumulated judgment over time of human societies of many kinds for thousands of years. This is the social equivalent of dumping nuclear waste into every river, without any regard for the long term consequences, or the judgment of all of the people affected.
What is more, in making sexual behavior a kind of activity that cannot be legislated on by initiative or legislature, the California Supreme Court has denied the most fundamental constitutional right of citizens, namely the ability to make the laws that govern them. This is government of the people but not BY the people. It is tyranny.
Jeff | 11:11 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
This is a wonderful article and we need more people to speak out against same
sex amendment. Too many of us that are opposed to this sit by quietly while we
let the minor few destroy our country. It is time to take a stand against this
and every other thing that the misguided are trying to push on us. The gays,
the left are all for free speech unless you oppose them.
Joseph Claghorn | 11:29 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
The threat of sexually transmitted diseases has long been used as an argument to
encourage heterosexual monagamy, but here Professor Wardle uses it as an
argument against encouraging homosexual monagamy through the institution of
marriage. This is just one example of the fallacious logic employed to justify
a position that is at its core based on religious belief, not on a fair and
equitable interpretation of the law.
Anonymous | 12:02 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
In talking with my LDS relatives about the subject of gays/lesbians, I have
never understood their argument that "...being born gay is that
person's cross to bear. They must remain celebate and faithful to the
church." Why shouldn't that person have the right to pursue a life
with a marriage partner and family if they so desire? Why must they suffer and
be forced to live without just because of their sexual orientation? If God
allowed them to be created that way, then they should be allowed to live life
with the same rights everyone else has.
John Pack Lambert | 2:38 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To the 8:30 commentator,
If we are forced to provide services that violate our religion we are being denied our freedom of religion. How is the freedom of religion of the doctro who is being sued for not doing an artificial insemination for a lady in a lesbian couple not having his freedom of religion infringed?
If we are forced to provide services that violate our religion we are being denied our freedom of religion. How is the freedom of religion of the doctro who is being sued for not doing an artificial insemination for a lady in a lesbian couple not having his freedom of religion infringed?
John Pack Lambert | 2:46 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
It is easy to say that Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate, but what
does that mean?
With the level of people in this country who live together outside of wed-lock and raise children without marrying it is easy to have a low divorce rate. Also in some parts of the east coast with their number of Muslims who take a second or third wife, who needs divorce when you just abandon your first wife but got your second wife first.
Is the Massachusetts divorce rate as a percentage of the overall population or a percentage of the marriages performed in the state?
With the level of people in this country who live together outside of wed-lock and raise children without marrying it is easy to have a low divorce rate. Also in some parts of the east coast with their number of Muslims who take a second or third wife, who needs divorce when you just abandon your first wife but got your second wife first.
Is the Massachusetts divorce rate as a percentage of the overall population or a percentage of the marriages performed in the state?
John Pack Lambert | 2:51 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
TO Jason,
You analogy to the polygamy issue ignores some major differences.
The LDS Church never tried getting government recognition and helath benefits for plural wives. They were not trying to change the laws about marriage.
What they did not like was the fact that people were thrown in jail for having more than one wife and that they were denied the right to vote if they thought it was acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.
No one is being denied the right to vote, not one is being thrown in jail by this admendment. It is about proactive government endorsement of certain relationships.
You analogy to the polygamy issue ignores some major differences.
The LDS Church never tried getting government recognition and helath benefits for plural wives. They were not trying to change the laws about marriage.
What they did not like was the fact that people were thrown in jail for having more than one wife and that they were denied the right to vote if they thought it was acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.
No one is being denied the right to vote, not one is being thrown in jail by this admendment. It is about proactive government endorsement of certain relationships.
Confused | 2:58 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
People keep telling me that allowing gay unions will destroy the institution of
marriage and destroy the family. How, exactly, does allowing the marriage of two
people who love each destroy my marriage and my family? If I have the right and
privilege to marry who I want to marry, in a place of my choosing, then
everybody else should, too.
I am also amused that those who are being hateful, homophobic and bigoted are so upset at being called such.
And, call me crazy, but what I remember learning from the time I was a sunbeam, is that we are supposed to "love one another." I guess this specific commandment doesn't apply if the others think, live, or believe differently from us?
I am also amused that those who are being hateful, homophobic and bigoted are so upset at being called such.
And, call me crazy, but what I remember learning from the time I was a sunbeam, is that we are supposed to "love one another." I guess this specific commandment doesn't apply if the others think, live, or believe differently from us?
John Pack Lambert | 3:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
First off, the claim the church supports marriage as a method of treatment
for same gender attraction is not supportable. Jeffrey R. Holland definantly
does not support such in his October 2007 Ensign article on the issue. So just
because some people in the church say something does not make it church
doctrine.
However for those who oppose the church's stance that we need to do all we can to defend the institution of marriage between a man and a woman I have the following to say. The people who are being untrue to themselves are those who are pretending they can remain active and committed members of the church and yet go around denouncing the words of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
If you do not believe what they have said about marriage, what they have stated about the right form of marriage, and what forms of marriage are best than you are living a lie by pretending to be a church member who sustains the leaders of the church.
I would urge study to try and understand why only marriage between a man and a woman is compatible with the plan of salvation.
However for those who oppose the church's stance that we need to do all we can to defend the institution of marriage between a man and a woman I have the following to say. The people who are being untrue to themselves are those who are pretending they can remain active and committed members of the church and yet go around denouncing the words of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
If you do not believe what they have said about marriage, what they have stated about the right form of marriage, and what forms of marriage are best than you are living a lie by pretending to be a church member who sustains the leaders of the church.
I would urge study to try and understand why only marriage between a man and a woman is compatible with the plan of salvation.
John Pack Lambert | 3:17 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To continue on the discussion of marriage as therapy. I found a quote from
President Hinckley in the May 1987 Ensign "Marriage should not be viewed
as a theraeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or
practices, which first should clearly be overcome with a firm and fixed
determination never to slip to such practices again." (Teachings of Gordon
B. Hinckley, p. 8)
I am unaware of any official church statement in favor of marriage being used as therapy. There may have been therapists who were church members, even some employed by the church and there may have been bishops who recommended such therapy, I can not rule that out. On the issue of therapists, even those employed by LDS Family Services it should be remembered that they are employed for their knowledge in the field of psychiatry, and there are changing and varying theories in psychiatry, that have varying amounts of support.
That we can see that actions have had negative results should not lead us to denounce those who advised it as evil or wrong when they did so in good faith.
I am unaware of any official church statement in favor of marriage being used as therapy. There may have been therapists who were church members, even some employed by the church and there may have been bishops who recommended such therapy, I can not rule that out. On the issue of therapists, even those employed by LDS Family Services it should be remembered that they are employed for their knowledge in the field of psychiatry, and there are changing and varying theories in psychiatry, that have varying amounts of support.
That we can see that actions have had negative results should not lead us to denounce those who advised it as evil or wrong when they did so in good faith.
John Pack Lambert | 3:20 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Quest,
Other people have analized the results in Denmark. The fact is that the study looked at the wrong statistics. What they should have looked at was the rate of out-of wedlock births. Those have increased. While the number of marriages may have increased, it matters little in a country where marriage has been made virtually irrelevant.
The figure we need to look at to see real social trends is out of wedlock births.
Other people have analized the results in Denmark. The fact is that the study looked at the wrong statistics. What they should have looked at was the rate of out-of wedlock births. Those have increased. While the number of marriages may have increased, it matters little in a country where marriage has been made virtually irrelevant.
The figure we need to look at to see real social trends is out of wedlock births.
Pam | 5:00 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Please!!!! with the John Lambert junk! This guy drives me nuts. He contradicts
himself too much. i'm tired of him! Give him to the FLDS . He seems to know
all about womens feelings as well. BLAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Matthew Taylor | 9:59 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Simple test.
If gay marriage is as wholesome and natural as proponents claim, I would argue to let them live in peace, embracing tolerance for all, except BYU professors, and encourage them to practice their love with all the passion and open mindedness they can find. Because that's what marriage is about, right? Love and sex. Family is just a cumbersome responsibility that gets in the way. If it truly is natural, you know, like the children born into a real union of man and wife, nature will find a way to allow their society to grow. Let's see how long this "all natural", factually correct society lasts.
The truth will always be truth no matter when, or by whom it is spoken. Call it what you will, it's not marriage.
If gay marriage is as wholesome and natural as proponents claim, I would argue to let them live in peace, embracing tolerance for all, except BYU professors, and encourage them to practice their love with all the passion and open mindedness they can find. Because that's what marriage is about, right? Love and sex. Family is just a cumbersome responsibility that gets in the way. If it truly is natural, you know, like the children born into a real union of man and wife, nature will find a way to allow their society to grow. Let's see how long this "all natural", factually correct society lasts.
The truth will always be truth no matter when, or by whom it is spoken. Call it what you will, it's not marriage.
Mariah | 10:27 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
To Mr. Lambert,
Does my acceptance of gay marriage truly make me a bad member? I am shocked. I too consider it my duty to "defend the institution of marriage between a man and a woman." However, I do not see gay marriage as its greatest threat - if it could be called one at all. I marvel why we are not going door to door denouncing abuse, infidelity, pornography, and dishonesty. Truly these are the greatest threats to the institution of marriage.
Gay marriage does not, nor could not destroy the lovely relationship I have with my husband.
I know too many gays and lesbians who are upstanding individuals. How could I deny them something that could not harm me?
Does my acceptance of gay marriage truly make me a bad member? I am shocked. I too consider it my duty to "defend the institution of marriage between a man and a woman." However, I do not see gay marriage as its greatest threat - if it could be called one at all. I marvel why we are not going door to door denouncing abuse, infidelity, pornography, and dishonesty. Truly these are the greatest threats to the institution of marriage.
Gay marriage does not, nor could not destroy the lovely relationship I have with my husband.
I know too many gays and lesbians who are upstanding individuals. How could I deny them something that could not harm me?
Rebecca | 11:57 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
This can't really even be called an argument since it lists nothing to back
it up: it�s pure conjecture. I'm more than happy -
eager, even - to hear both sides of an issue, but so far I've heard nothing
at all to back up the claims that gay marriage is bad for society. No studies
cited, no statistics; nothing but opinion. I'm quite surprised at the lack
of any scientific evidence: at this point I'd even be happy to see a BIASED
study cited, because at least they'd be citing SOMETHING other than their
own opinions.
Also, this whole "gay divorce will cost us money" opinion (again - nothing to back it up) is ridiculous. I am single and have never been divorced - taking this man's opinion to its logical conclusion, I shouldn't have to pay for heterosexual divorces. If this article is to be taken seriously, then gay people, not being allowed to marry, CERTAINLY shouldn't have to pay for heterosexual divorces. It's a totally ridiculous stance. We can't let them marry because we'll have to pay for their divorces? They're paying for ours! What a sense of entitlement this man has.
Also, this whole "gay divorce will cost us money" opinion (again - nothing to back it up) is ridiculous. I am single and have never been divorced - taking this man's opinion to its logical conclusion, I shouldn't have to pay for heterosexual divorces. If this article is to be taken seriously, then gay people, not being allowed to marry, CERTAINLY shouldn't have to pay for heterosexual divorces. It's a totally ridiculous stance. We can't let them marry because we'll have to pay for their divorces? They're paying for ours! What a sense of entitlement this man has.
Totally Confused generation. | 12:52 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
What kind of role models are these people of the same sex going to be to any
children brought into the relationship. How will the little girl child learn to
be a good mother by a man that is acting as a female in a male body. Is this
not confusing and conterdicting the natural progress of adults and procreating?.
How are these children going to grow up and deal with these questions. Am I a
female that is suppose to have a companion of another female, or can I approach
the male? This is going to produce a generation of children that grow up
totally confused. There may be the few that are tought how things should be,
but the majority will not.
Mariah Stewart | 1:58 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Twisted random thoughtless comments.
Common Sense | 11:17 p.m. Aug. 26, 2008
People please, get off your selfish
�self� and look at the BIG PICTURE.
Grown-ups are responsible to DO what is best for the majority- the whole world
present and future. Grown-ups are accountable for the welfare of the world we
all live in.
Millions are concerned with the welfare and nurture of animals, more are overwrought for the care of trees, oceans and earth. We need to be just as vigilant for the environment, nurture and care of our children�the worlds� children.
Every living thing has its own specific assignment in the creation and perpetuation of its kind; just as we people do to perpetuate and nurture the human race. Man and women are created differently to fulfill that role�each has its own uniqueness, qualities, gifts and talents to give to this purpose. A child must be the beneficiary of ALL of these from both parents in order to become the human being they were created to be. Why would you want to offer less to any child??? �Marriage� IS just that and ONLY that.
Adults in their private lives may choose to do whatever they wish. They just can�t call it �Marriage� because it isn�t.
Millions are concerned with the welfare and nurture of animals, more are overwrought for the care of trees, oceans and earth. We need to be just as vigilant for the environment, nurture and care of our children�the worlds� children.
Every living thing has its own specific assignment in the creation and perpetuation of its kind; just as we people do to perpetuate and nurture the human race. Man and women are created differently to fulfill that role�each has its own uniqueness, qualities, gifts and talents to give to this purpose. A child must be the beneficiary of ALL of these from both parents in order to become the human being they were created to be. Why would you want to offer less to any child??? �Marriage� IS just that and ONLY that.
Adults in their private lives may choose to do whatever they wish. They just can�t call it �Marriage� because it isn�t.
JZ | 12:56 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part I **Sir, apparently you are not well schooled in Church History and have a
naive interpretation of agency. If all the brethren who disputed each other in
their "sacred" callings were dismissed or cast aside by the Lord, we
wouldn't even have The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in this
time or in yester-year.
The same can be said for the Founding Fathers- and all of those men who were bitterly at odds in the interpretation and assembly of the Constitution. If Joseph were alive today, he'd be the first one with his arm around any one of us with sincerity and loving persuasion. You are probably ignorant of his stance on women holding and exercising the Priesthood, as well. The Lord does not require us to live our lives in blind faith. We are exhorted to study, ponder & pray. Thanks our Saviour we have the capacity to engage in prayer and receive personal revelation.(cont)JZ
The same can be said for the Founding Fathers- and all of those men who were bitterly at odds in the interpretation and assembly of the Constitution. If Joseph were alive today, he'd be the first one with his arm around any one of us with sincerity and loving persuasion. You are probably ignorant of his stance on women holding and exercising the Priesthood, as well. The Lord does not require us to live our lives in blind faith. We are exhorted to study, ponder & pray. Thanks our Saviour we have the capacity to engage in prayer and receive personal revelation.(cont)JZ
JZ | 1:08 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part II** Might I ask by what authority you can interfere & relegate our
exercise of agency in ascertaining the best course of action regarding Prop.8 ?
Please do not throw your condemnations about so lightly in your answers, such as
you did in your previous statements: "...The people who are being untrue
to themselves are those who are pretending they can remain active and committed
members of the church and yet go around denouncing the words of the 1st
Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles..."---"...If you do not
believe what they have said...than you are living a lie by pretending to be a
church member who sustains the leaders of the church..." (cont)JZ
JZ | 1:07 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Cont. (Directed to Mr.Lambert's remarks: Part II-B**It is quite possible
to sustain leadership and yet disagree with them. Have you no idea of the many
"leaders" whose behaviors are less than exemplary? I remember the
days when the Blacks were not able to hold the Priesthood. And, there are many
embarrassments in our printed books that quote misc general authorities
regarding that particular subject. So- does the Lord permit his Priesthood
holders to exercise their agency and make mistakes? Absolutely! However, the
Lord also provides for each of us to follow our consciences.(cont)JZ
JZ | 1:09 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part III**It is possible to be a very committed and active member of the church,
and to also disagree with the church becoming engaged in politics over the
pulpit during sacrament meetings which exist to fulfill a sacred ordinance and
spiritually ministry. Polarizing church members around political issues is not
the purpose of sacrament meetings. It is a contentious practice and ill-suited
for Sabbath day activity. It is not the job of the church to coerce members to
support causes. It is fine to request that members get involved, and to consider
prayerfully how to act on those matters. But it is not the place of the church
to dictate and then scrutinize and punish those who have reached a different
conclusion.(cont)JZ
JZ | 1:11 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part III-B**And sir, there are coerce-ments and intimidation's going on
around Prop.8. There is palpable fear and silence growing in many segments of
righteous membership. If those of us speak up about our political
disagreements, or refuse to contribute to the canvassing of neighborhoods
because we feel it against our conscience- there is ostracization and there has
even been disfellowshipment of some. The Lord teaches by persuasion and setting
examples. He does not coerce, threaten and shun. I have every right to
politically disagree with the Prophet or any of the Quorum of the 12. That
neither makes me an apostate nor a bad saint. What a terrible argument and
statement you have laid out in your commentary here! Brother Lucifer wanted to
achieve his results through coercion. Christ had something very different in
mind, didn't he?(cont)JZ
JZ | 1:13 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part IV**Myself and others attend church, partake of the Sacrament and serve in
countless positions in the gospel. I go to church to receive the ministering of
my Elder Brother, Christ and of His Heavenly parents. I do not go to church to
worship any man who may be so privileged to lead his latter-day saint brothers
and sisters. I'd hate to be in the shoes of those who condemn and command
others with clenched fists while holding office and ordination in the Holy
Priesthood. I would just love to see the same energy, money, commitment against
Prop.8 applied to Home Teaching and outreach services in the gospel of Jesus
Christ. How many bellies could be filled! How many children and impoverished
saints could receive medical care with the same exorbitant funds that are being
spent on what is essentially a political campaign? How many trips to distant
temples could be funded for saints in lands thousands of miles away and with the
improbable circumstance of ever getting to one to be sealed to their families
and perform proxy work? Need I go on? (cont)JZ
JZ | 1:15 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part V**Mr.Lambert-We can agree to disagree(or should be able to) on our
politics. When someone such as yourself so easily judges people's hearts,
makes false accusations of us "pretending" and "lying"
because we don't see eye-to-eye, I must question who you think you are.
Thank goodness the Saviour will be our judge in the end of days, and not you.
Making accusations of saints is pretentious and contempt-able. If we were
perfected in love, any one of us could speak our piece in our congregations and
then have discussions and discourse to enhance understanding and dispel
hostility and ignorance. But that is not the face of our church in many of today's congregations.(cont)JZ
hostility and ignorance. But that is not the face of our church in many of today's congregations.(cont)JZ
JZ | 1:18 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Part VI**I am old enough to recall the effects of McCarthy-ism and the hysteria
that followed. This topic is being stirred by one side, the one with the
"power." And the rest of us are being told to blindly fall into line.
If we did that, we dishonor the intellect and spirit of revelation the Lord has
granted to us all. Sir- put your vicious verbal weapons away in the cupboard.
Lock it up! Go grab a box of Kleenex, and spend some time in the inner city
clinics and soup kitchens. Go hold a dying and trembling young man(like my
cousin) with AIDS in your arms, feel of his worth to his Saviour. Then, after a
few weeks of doing that- come back here and rave some more in
self-righteousness. Or- maybe not. Maybe the Lord will yet work a miracle in
your heart and help you stop condemning your bros & sisters. Try making eye
contact with your fellow humans. Maybe you'll learn what love looks
like.Seriously. (end)JZ
Evil is Good and Good is Evil | 8:56 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Evil is Good and Good is Evil. That is the first thing that comes to mind when
reading these comments. Too bad there seem to be so many comments from
"faithful" LDS church members that seem to accept homosexuality (which
includes THOUGHTS and actions) as not being evil. Everyone has tendencies to do
things that we know are wrong. Everyone makes a choice to do wrong or right.
Everyone needs to control their thoughts. We are all "born that way".
Nobody is compelled to be gay. In the end they have to choose. The church
teaches us to choose the right. I don't think it is that complicated of an
issue.
Majority rules? | 11:20 a.m. Aug. 27, 2008
The problem of referring to the prop 22 vote against gay marriage is that when
the vote swings the other way, the LDS people have no leg to stand.
Stick to your moral and religious arguments (although the religious arguments are meaningless in a secular debate). The majority rules idea will paint you into a real box when prop 8 loses.
Stick to your moral and religious arguments (although the religious arguments are meaningless in a secular debate). The majority rules idea will paint you into a real box when prop 8 loses.
Adams | 12:07 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
Professor Wardle has great courage for speaking the truth. I agree with his
assessment.
This is truly idiotic... | 1:15 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
How can those who side with the gay agenda think that it is the same as race,
color, gender, etc.? You've convinced yourselves that being gay is nothing
more than being black, white, male, female, and so on. Do you not see the idiocy
in this?
Being homosexual is a result of one thing, a CHOICE. True there are those with homosexual tendencies, but they CHOOSE whether or not to act on them. I cannot see the correlation between this and race, gender, color, etc. People don't choose to be white or black, male or female.
What of those who ACT on their murderous tendencies? Or pedophile tendencies? Or klepto tendencies? Or abusive tendencies? Is this not the same?
The other part of this that astounds me, in determining gay supporters stupidity, is that they're defending a form of sexual immorality. Why are you so adamant to defend an ACT that is base, vial, and is most definitely not good for society? To truly love someone, you must not condone those things they do wrong by supporting their lifestyle! Defending gay marriage is supporting and encouraging this lifestyle!
Defending societal immorality is simply idiotic in my view...
Being homosexual is a result of one thing, a CHOICE. True there are those with homosexual tendencies, but they CHOOSE whether or not to act on them. I cannot see the correlation between this and race, gender, color, etc. People don't choose to be white or black, male or female.
What of those who ACT on their murderous tendencies? Or pedophile tendencies? Or klepto tendencies? Or abusive tendencies? Is this not the same?
The other part of this that astounds me, in determining gay supporters stupidity, is that they're defending a form of sexual immorality. Why are you so adamant to defend an ACT that is base, vial, and is most definitely not good for society? To truly love someone, you must not condone those things they do wrong by supporting their lifestyle! Defending gay marriage is supporting and encouraging this lifestyle!
Defending societal immorality is simply idiotic in my view...
Courage | 1:25 p.m. Aug. 27, 2008
I'm not sure how much courage it takes for a BYU employee to speak against
gay marriage at at all Mormon function.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next >
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.
Related content
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today 11:35 p.m.
- Rolling along: TRAX turns 10 11:27 p.m.
- Utahn's pet python dies at age 43 11:19 p.m.
- Provo mayor-elect emptied coffers 11:15 p.m.
- Dolan raised $154K for campaign 11:14 p.m.
- Utah Jazz going green with unis 11:12 p.m.
- Oregon beats rival, on to Rose Bowl 11:11 p.m.
- Holidays subdued for Sanfords 11:04 p.m.
- Obama family lights National Tree 11:04 p.m.
- Some crew blame captain for attack 10:45 p.m.
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- Aggies shoot past Cougars
- Mitchell said to share LeBaron traits
- Phoenix signs off on LDS temple
- BYU prof a 'Top Global Thinker'
- Toddler dies trapped under mattress
- Aggie 'D' holds BYU to season low
- Miles is back, but others still out
- Doctor deems Mitchell competent
- Cougars beat Utes in overtime
483 - Hall reprimanded by MWC406
- Max Hall issues apology393
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal361
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?287
- Utes won't respond to Hall278
- BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS216
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game188
- Aggies shoot past Cougars175
If you want to learn what it's like to be an astronaut on the...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
I love this story! I was terrified as snakes as a child. Mainly, because I...
I have to admit. I am glad it died. The article makes light of the fact that...
are guilty of hate themselves.
I still have my green Jazz jacket that I will wear to the game when the Jazz...
just wait a day
@cl, I'm with you, it would be nice to see feztheb and miles play up to...
If you wanted a good fun rivalry game, you missed one on Wednesday. The...
We had the same opposition in Orlando,Florida, when the Temple site was...
It would be nice to see more games of this caliber. I remember when utah...
Her family is in my prayers!!
Advertisements