Reader comments
Foes of same-sex marriage mobilize
323 comments | Read story
It's easy | 5:41 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When you cannot defend same sex marriage, just say the other person is filled
with hate. That dismissive reductionist fall-back is the easiest way to put
others on the defense. Traditional marriage is a Judeo-Christian rite (..and
they two shall be one flesh [as in ova and sperm]), based on the bible. If same
sex folks want to commit themselves to one another, do so. But is it not
marriage. That option is already taken, thank you.
Belshazzar | 5:44 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To all you who support Proposition 8:
It is not very likely that you will succeed in passing this amendment for a couple of reasons:
1) too many people oppose your radical effort to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution should not be done for "light and transient reasons."
2) there are about 1.4 million gays and lesbians in the State of California. As a group, they are more politically active than religious people (only around 40% of "Christians", including Mormons, are politically active).
But even if you do get Prop. 8 to pass, what then?
You know it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You know the requirement that actions of one State must be recognized by the others. There is no way all 50 States will pass Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.
You know "civil unions" already exist. You know the California Supreme Court's decision was simply that civil unions are flawed by the same "separate but equal" idea that failed in the 60's civil rights movement.
There is no way a Federal initiative can possibly institutionalize discrimination against a group of people because of their sexual preference.
You know you don't stand a chance.
It is not very likely that you will succeed in passing this amendment for a couple of reasons:
1) too many people oppose your radical effort to amend the Constitution. Amending the Constitution should not be done for "light and transient reasons."
2) there are about 1.4 million gays and lesbians in the State of California. As a group, they are more politically active than religious people (only around 40% of "Christians", including Mormons, are politically active).
But even if you do get Prop. 8 to pass, what then?
You know it will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
You know the requirement that actions of one State must be recognized by the others. There is no way all 50 States will pass Constitutional amendments prohibiting gay marriage.
You know "civil unions" already exist. You know the California Supreme Court's decision was simply that civil unions are flawed by the same "separate but equal" idea that failed in the 60's civil rights movement.
There is no way a Federal initiative can possibly institutionalize discrimination against a group of people because of their sexual preference.
You know you don't stand a chance.
Comments continue below
CA Mormon | 5:46 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
As a California Mormon, I feel conflicted by our joining this coaltion of
churches to pass prop 8. Some of the churches we are partnering with are very
experienced at targeting others they think are 'wrong'. In the past,
we LDS have been one of their favorite targets. Those of you in Utah probably
are not exposed to the venomous attacks that often comes our way from these
churches. That the LDS church is joining them, learning from them, and imitating
their techniques of 'hate organizing' is deeply troubling. I always
thought we were above this this type of organized hating. It will be
interesting to see when they get done partnering with us-- will they go back to
Mormons as a favorite target?
JD in AZ | 5:48 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am an active member of the LDS church and have always strived to obey the
commandments and follow the council of the Prophet and Apostles, but if I lived
in California I would not support the fight for Prop 8. The Church has always
said that we should follow our conscience when we vote, and I could not in good
conscience vote for Prop 8. I beleive gay sex is immoral, but whatever gay
people do in their bedrooms is their business, and that should not preclude them
from seeking happiness and the same civil rights as heterosexuals. To me
it's irrelevant whether you call it a civil union or a marriage, it
doesn't change or affect my marriage. I'm not worried about what what
they will teach in school about homosexuals and marraige because I expect my
kids to learn about morality from me, my kids aren't going to turn gay just
because two gay people can file a joint tax return.
12 | 5:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
12
Jigyasa | 5:53 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I am puzzled. I hear Mormons trying to make the "reductio ad absurdum"
argument that if gay marriage passes, then what is to stop polygamy.
If this argument is valid, and gay marriage sets a precedent for polygamy, why would Mormons oppose that?
Didn't Mormons practice polygamy up until about 1910 when they were forced by "prejudice" to abandon it?
(Yes, I know they claim polygamy ended in 1890, but there is ample evidence that LDS Prophets and Apostles continued plural marriages as late as 1910).
I would think the LDS Church would welcome this legal opportunity to muddle the definition of marriage so they could get polygamy legalized again. That way they could restore "The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage/the Priesthood" and continue what Joseph Smith started!
Don't you think that is going to be necessary if the LDS Church ("kingdom of God on earth") has any chance at all of keeping up with Islam, which DOES allow polygamy?
Help me understand doctrinally why the LDS Church is opposing gay marriage!
If this argument is valid, and gay marriage sets a precedent for polygamy, why would Mormons oppose that?
Didn't Mormons practice polygamy up until about 1910 when they were forced by "prejudice" to abandon it?
(Yes, I know they claim polygamy ended in 1890, but there is ample evidence that LDS Prophets and Apostles continued plural marriages as late as 1910).
I would think the LDS Church would welcome this legal opportunity to muddle the definition of marriage so they could get polygamy legalized again. That way they could restore "The New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage/the Priesthood" and continue what Joseph Smith started!
Don't you think that is going to be necessary if the LDS Church ("kingdom of God on earth") has any chance at all of keeping up with Islam, which DOES allow polygamy?
Help me understand doctrinally why the LDS Church is opposing gay marriage!
jeannie54321 | 5:57 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Let's get a few things straight.
Marriage is a States Right. It is one of the things included in the package the constitution said it did not reserve to itself. Our nation kept Armies, minting money and a few other things to be what It alone controls. All else is reserved to the states individually.
I'm amused by the whoopee do about all the bad things that will happen if Prop 8 is defeated. Frankly, your crazy, Children reared in loving homes have the best chance of growing up into adequate adults. Male and female isn't the deciding factor. Two parents are wonderful; one can also do a fine job. The quality of parenting does not depend on Religious parents, poor atheists can also produce winners.
The studies I've read show Gay parents are just as adiquate and often superior to heterosexuals.
Your worrying in vain. Children decide their own fate.
Gay isn't a choice. Why discriminate against good parents because they love differently than you do.
Gay Marriage will come just like Black /white marriage did. All the horrors that you think will happen; won't!
Think how silly you'll feel when all your predictions come to nothing.
Marriage is a States Right. It is one of the things included in the package the constitution said it did not reserve to itself. Our nation kept Armies, minting money and a few other things to be what It alone controls. All else is reserved to the states individually.
I'm amused by the whoopee do about all the bad things that will happen if Prop 8 is defeated. Frankly, your crazy, Children reared in loving homes have the best chance of growing up into adequate adults. Male and female isn't the deciding factor. Two parents are wonderful; one can also do a fine job. The quality of parenting does not depend on Religious parents, poor atheists can also produce winners.
The studies I've read show Gay parents are just as adiquate and often superior to heterosexuals.
Your worrying in vain. Children decide their own fate.
Gay isn't a choice. Why discriminate against good parents because they love differently than you do.
Gay Marriage will come just like Black /white marriage did. All the horrors that you think will happen; won't!
Think how silly you'll feel when all your predictions come to nothing.
A Cause | 6:07 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Let us all now consider why the LDS Church is opposing gay marriage. We must set
aside all appeals to the idea that gay marriage "harms" families,
because that is just not possible to establish empirically or rationally.
Look at it from an institutional perspective. How would gay marriage harm the LDS Church as an institution?
Some have asserted that the Church may lose its tax-exempt status if they refuse to marry same-sex people. Specifically, LDS Bishops are legally recognized as having authority on behalf of the State to perform marriages. If they want to continue this authority, they MIGHT be required to perform same-sex marriages.
This is a bogus argument. U.S. legal precedent is extensive ensuring that professional licensure cannot require any person to violate their personal religions beliefs in order to maintain a license.
As such, legalization of same-sex marriage is NOT automatically tied to this supposed requirement that LDS Bishops will be required to marry gays or lose their licenses, and the Church its tax-exempt status. There is NO LEGAL BASIS for such a claim! Legalizing same-sex marriage WILL NOT harm the LDS Church!
Why oppose it? Having a "cause" to fight for increases donations and loyalty.
Look at it from an institutional perspective. How would gay marriage harm the LDS Church as an institution?
Some have asserted that the Church may lose its tax-exempt status if they refuse to marry same-sex people. Specifically, LDS Bishops are legally recognized as having authority on behalf of the State to perform marriages. If they want to continue this authority, they MIGHT be required to perform same-sex marriages.
This is a bogus argument. U.S. legal precedent is extensive ensuring that professional licensure cannot require any person to violate their personal religions beliefs in order to maintain a license.
As such, legalization of same-sex marriage is NOT automatically tied to this supposed requirement that LDS Bishops will be required to marry gays or lose their licenses, and the Church its tax-exempt status. There is NO LEGAL BASIS for such a claim! Legalizing same-sex marriage WILL NOT harm the LDS Church!
Why oppose it? Having a "cause" to fight for increases donations and loyalty.
Silly thinking! | 6:10 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Silly gays, wanting to be treated as equals under the law! What kind of crazy
thinking is that?
Great! | 6:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Love all the work people put into keeping the sacred marriage vows to man and
woman. That is how it should be. I command you for your hours of work and hope
this weirdness will stop.
What About the Children? | 6:25 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
We don't even experiment on animals these days, but the Same-Sex adoption
experiment is just fine? I can't imagine how psychologically damaging it
would be for the adopted child of a same-sex couple. The only form of
"love" he will see is the self-gratification of Adam and Steve. For
those who promote Same-Sex Marriage, you must also bear a share of the
responsibility for every kid whose life is nothing but confusion and frustration
as a result of your marriage experiment.
Sorry, but my karma is gonna run over your dogma.
Sorry, but my karma is gonna run over your dogma.
Just plain dumb | 6:41 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To me this is the dumbest waste of time by the Church since all that hoopla
about the Equal Rights Amendment and before that speaking out against the Civil
Rights Amendment. Just let people have the rights that they want. Quit trying
to force others to think like you.
KJB | 6:55 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I just love how the same right-wingers who bleat about "getting the
government out of your life" have no trouble trying to get laws passed when
something doesn't suit them. Go on all you like about the poor little
children and how it's-evil-because-I-said-God-says-so, but just remember
one thing: You may not be able to admit this to yourself, but when you rant
this way about same-sex marriage, you do it because you're afraid.
What are you afraid of, Utah?
What are you afraid of, Utah?
SammFan | 6:58 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Pharmacies and Pharmicists have been sued - and have lost - for being unwilling
to fill perscriptions for abortion ("morning-after") pills because of
their religious convictions. How can any reasonable person believe they (yes,
they, them, "those-people" - whoever they are) are not going after
anybody they can punish for not supporting their point of view? It's going
to happen. They're already setting the stage. You dare not disagree with
them at any level without facing retribution. Prepare yourself. Fight every
effort to undermine your rights.
The trolls on this site try desperately to make everything a Mormon/Anti-mormon thing. I'm out of state. This is not a "Mormon thing". 10's of Millions will rally and support the passage of Prop 8 - but Mormons have a patriotic duty to protect our country, religious freedom and way of life.
The trolls on this site try desperately to make everything a Mormon/Anti-mormon thing. I'm out of state. This is not a "Mormon thing". 10's of Millions will rally and support the passage of Prop 8 - but Mormons have a patriotic duty to protect our country, religious freedom and way of life.
John Pack Lambert | 7:20 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Keith,
This is a constitutional admendment. The only way to ovrturn it would be to find it in violation of the United States constitution.
This is a constitutional admendment. The only way to ovrturn it would be to find it in violation of the United States constitution.
John Pack Lambert | 7:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Lynn,
Your passive language is misleading. We do more than not actively practicing polygamy.
We excommunicate anyone who practices it. We excommunicate those who promote it. We have absolutely no tolerance for members of the church participating in polygamy at all.
Your passive language is misleading. We do more than not actively practicing polygamy.
We excommunicate anyone who practices it. We excommunicate those who promote it. We have absolutely no tolerance for members of the church participating in polygamy at all.
Miss Colorado | 7:23 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Stop this silly arguement.
Aren't we all just a little bit Gay ??
Aren't we all just a little bit Gay ??
John Pack Lambert | 7:32 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To Peter Taylor,
We do not need your hate filled viol rhetoric against immigrants on this issue. If you are a church member you should be ashamed of yourself for totally not seeing others as your brothers and sisters.
There is no national language. Should we deny the vote to Navajos if they don't speak English? What about Apaches?
Your narrow mindedness is offensive, and if I were your supervisor I would recall those names from you and give them to someone who understands that we need to reach out to our fellow human beings who are not fully fluent in English because these tend to be the people who have strong family values, value their families and will vote yes on Prop 8.
If Prop 8 passes it will be in large part because enough Latino voters come out and vote yes on it to counteract the precise, totally fluent speakers of English with their Ph.D.s from Berkeley who think that they know better than God does how families should be organized.
We do not need your hate filled viol rhetoric against immigrants on this issue. If you are a church member you should be ashamed of yourself for totally not seeing others as your brothers and sisters.
There is no national language. Should we deny the vote to Navajos if they don't speak English? What about Apaches?
Your narrow mindedness is offensive, and if I were your supervisor I would recall those names from you and give them to someone who understands that we need to reach out to our fellow human beings who are not fully fluent in English because these tend to be the people who have strong family values, value their families and will vote yes on Prop 8.
If Prop 8 passes it will be in large part because enough Latino voters come out and vote yes on it to counteract the precise, totally fluent speakers of English with their Ph.D.s from Berkeley who think that they know better than God does how families should be organized.
Questions | 7:41 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Why did the left call marriage a "silly, antiquated instituion"
(remember "I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I'm in
love?") until the gays got interested?
Why does someone's right to support gay marriage trump my right to oppose it?
If gayness is in-born 100% of the time, will someone please tell me why two of my good friends, both of whom were gay-raped as teenagers, are now not certain if they are gay, straight, or bi-sexual?
Where is all of the proof of gayness in the animal kingdom (and don't bother with the cases where the dominant male sodomizes weaker males for control)?
If you're against a religion's stance on gay marriage, homosexuality, etc., why not simply join another religion?
What of the 12 passages in the Bible that state that homosexuality is a sin?
Bottom line - is this really about wanting to get married, or about tax breaks, benefits, and trying to convince 90% of the population that homosexuality is "normal"?
Why does someone's right to support gay marriage trump my right to oppose it?
If gayness is in-born 100% of the time, will someone please tell me why two of my good friends, both of whom were gay-raped as teenagers, are now not certain if they are gay, straight, or bi-sexual?
Where is all of the proof of gayness in the animal kingdom (and don't bother with the cases where the dominant male sodomizes weaker males for control)?
If you're against a religion's stance on gay marriage, homosexuality, etc., why not simply join another religion?
What of the 12 passages in the Bible that state that homosexuality is a sin?
Bottom line - is this really about wanting to get married, or about tax breaks, benefits, and trying to convince 90% of the population that homosexuality is "normal"?
John Pack Lambert | 7:45 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 12:59,
Your analogies are all flawed.
The people who are mad about doctors being forced to treat have a very specific example. It involves articificial insemination. The only analogy that you use that might have some validity is the mixed race couple issue.
I would say if the doctor does hold religious beliefs against mixed race couples having children and is willing to refer them to another doctor why not let him. If I was part of the couple I would not want to work with such a doctor anyway.
Notice though I say this would have to be a religiously based objection. There are very few people who could muster such an objection.
The best analogy is to abortion issues. For in the issue of articificial insemination of a member of a lesbian couple we are getting involved in reproduction in a way that fundamentally cahnges the nature of the matter. Instead of just helping people who have trouble concieving, we are helping people who have no chance of concieving without this aid. Thus the mixed race analogy has little bearing because mixed race couples are no more likely to have infertility troubles than others.
Your analogies are all flawed.
The people who are mad about doctors being forced to treat have a very specific example. It involves articificial insemination. The only analogy that you use that might have some validity is the mixed race couple issue.
I would say if the doctor does hold religious beliefs against mixed race couples having children and is willing to refer them to another doctor why not let him. If I was part of the couple I would not want to work with such a doctor anyway.
Notice though I say this would have to be a religiously based objection. There are very few people who could muster such an objection.
The best analogy is to abortion issues. For in the issue of articificial insemination of a member of a lesbian couple we are getting involved in reproduction in a way that fundamentally cahnges the nature of the matter. Instead of just helping people who have trouble concieving, we are helping people who have no chance of concieving without this aid. Thus the mixed race analogy has little bearing because mixed race couples are no more likely to have infertility troubles than others.
JOEL | 7:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I thought Mitch's comment was hilarious:
"Why do people think its okay to crate and enforce laws based on their own religious ideals? Isn't that what's being done in the fundamentalist Arab countries? We look at Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan and we cringe at their extremist views, and how they allow their religious acumen to govern not only their churches but their country. Isn't that what's being done here?"
mitch is forgetting that the people who founded our wonderful country did so with God in mind. One nation under god, remember that? Our country with all its freedoms was founded through inspiration from God. We cringe at other countries because of the freedoms they SUPRESS. Not allowing gays to marry is not supression of freedom, they never had it in the first place. our founders knew that that would be detrimental.
"Why do people think its okay to crate and enforce laws based on their own religious ideals? Isn't that what's being done in the fundamentalist Arab countries? We look at Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan and we cringe at their extremist views, and how they allow their religious acumen to govern not only their churches but their country. Isn't that what's being done here?"
mitch is forgetting that the people who founded our wonderful country did so with God in mind. One nation under god, remember that? Our country with all its freedoms was founded through inspiration from God. We cringe at other countries because of the freedoms they SUPRESS. Not allowing gays to marry is not supression of freedom, they never had it in the first place. our founders knew that that would be detrimental.
John Pack Lambert | 8:00 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 4:44,
The way you make it sound we would think that for hundreds of years same-sex marriage was legal and then the Mormons came along and decided to try and make it illegal.
Well, that is not how it has occured. It is the pro-same-sex marriage lobby and not us that is in the process of trying to change the laws.
Try, in the case of California we are trying to change the law, but this is in response to the actions of four judges.
It should also be noted that there are many people not of our faith supporting the movement in California.
One more thing, since I read this article both in my local paper and in the Deseret News, I would have to say the article was written by people who are trying to malign the pro-8 campaign by making it look like it is just a bunch of Mormons.
Ture they admit Catholics and Evangelicals are involved, but forget to mention Jews, and only mention the religion of two people, both Mormons. If that is not a deliberate attempt to link the two, nothing is.
The way you make it sound we would think that for hundreds of years same-sex marriage was legal and then the Mormons came along and decided to try and make it illegal.
Well, that is not how it has occured. It is the pro-same-sex marriage lobby and not us that is in the process of trying to change the laws.
Try, in the case of California we are trying to change the law, but this is in response to the actions of four judges.
It should also be noted that there are many people not of our faith supporting the movement in California.
One more thing, since I read this article both in my local paper and in the Deseret News, I would have to say the article was written by people who are trying to malign the pro-8 campaign by making it look like it is just a bunch of Mormons.
Ture they admit Catholics and Evangelicals are involved, but forget to mention Jews, and only mention the religion of two people, both Mormons. If that is not a deliberate attempt to link the two, nothing is.
John Pack Lambert | 8:08 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To 6:41,
Well, the church did stop the Equal Rights Admendment, so I am not sure why it was a waste of time.
On the Civil Rights Admendment, A. I am not sure what you mean by taht. If you mean the Civil Rights Act, the First Presidency urged the members of the church to support it. If you mean what is general meanst by the Civil Rights Admendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th Admendments, the church never took a position on it.
Get your facts strait before you open your mouth.
Well, the church did stop the Equal Rights Admendment, so I am not sure why it was a waste of time.
On the Civil Rights Admendment, A. I am not sure what you mean by taht. If you mean the Civil Rights Act, the First Presidency urged the members of the church to support it. If you mean what is general meanst by the Civil Rights Admendments, the 13th, 14th and 15th Admendments, the church never took a position on it.
Get your facts strait before you open your mouth.
TO: Paul@5:22pm | 8:25 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
This is a total distortion of scripture. I would encourage you to read it with
an open heart, open mind and with faith rather than use it for arguments sake.
Scripture was not intended for this purpose, but to bring us closer to God. Is
that what it's done for you?
This has nothing to do with how Mormons treat the gay population, but living by what we have been taught as Christians. Christ, in speaking to the adulterous women, said 'go and sin no more'. She was a child of God just like we all are and he had compassion for her. But he did not condone the sin in the least.
We believe that marriage is sacred. We believe that homosexuality is wrong. We also have compassion for those who have this tendency. We do not hate them or have any desire to persecute them. We also do not condone homosexuality just as Christ did not or will ever condone adultery.
If we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly love Jesus Christ we will "keep his commandments". In keeping his commandments we must protect and defend the sanctity of marriage.
This has nothing to do with how Mormons treat the gay population, but living by what we have been taught as Christians. Christ, in speaking to the adulterous women, said 'go and sin no more'. She was a child of God just like we all are and he had compassion for her. But he did not condone the sin in the least.
We believe that marriage is sacred. We believe that homosexuality is wrong. We also have compassion for those who have this tendency. We do not hate them or have any desire to persecute them. We also do not condone homosexuality just as Christ did not or will ever condone adultery.
If we as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints truly love Jesus Christ we will "keep his commandments". In keeping his commandments we must protect and defend the sanctity of marriage.
Not so tough... | 8:36 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Really....Mormons feel like they should have a say in someone else's
marriage? With their background in rather, er, 'bizarre' marriages
themselves, they want to start telling someone else who they should be allowed
to love and care for?
'...with Liberty and Justice for ALL."
'...with Liberty and Justice for ALL."
re: Lambert | 8:44 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Keep posting, John. I can't write anything better that your comments like
"get your facts strait (sic) before you open your mouth." Of course,
I'm always against your position.
Onward Christian soldiers.
Onward Christian soldiers.
Stand | 9:16 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Defending the sanctity of marriage and fighting for it is good and correct. This
is a stand that must be taken by all Christians. And it must be an aggressive
stance, similar to the aggressive indoctrination that homosexual behavior is
acceptable. There really is no compromise. To the Gay and Lesbian community,
leave the family alone. Leave marriage alone, it is a sacred and holy
institution that deserves tolerance and respect for what is has been and will
continue to be. Practice what you preach. You want tolerance of your behavior do
the same for the heterosexual community and walk away. If it's money you
want, there are other ways to obtain that.
The Infalibles | 9:39 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I rejoice and congratulate Californians for the dedicated and valiant effort to
once again make their voices heard as they did previously when by a vast
majority they declared that marriage is between a man and a woman. Their voices
were ignored and repudiated by fiat of unelected, liberal judges. This pattern
of judicial fiat must be reversed and the voice of the people must be heard and
respected. Liberal judges have become a law unto themselves, not just
interpreting law, but making law, from the Supreme Court on down through the
lower courts. THIS MUST STOP! A giant step in that direction would be to elect
John McCain. The next president will probably appoint judges to replace at least
two of the very elderly, senile liberal judges currently on the Supreme Court
who are trying to hold on until they can be replaced by a liberal president.
Vote John McCain!
One good thing | 9:48 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
I've never had a gay person who could answer this question, "Name one
good thing that comes from a homosexual act."
But name the bad things and you can expound for days.
As far as the good that comes from the union of a man and a woman, the list is endless: children, families, societies, and on and on.
But name the bad things and you can expound for days.
As far as the good that comes from the union of a man and a woman, the list is endless: children, families, societies, and on and on.
Bones | 10:08 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
To JD in AZ,
I would encourage you to do some in-depth homework. The homosexual agenda is not benign. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and the people at Mass Resistance over in Massachusetts provide ample proof of the danger of this insidious movement. These people say they are born that way...whatever. But they aggressively seek to destroy religious freedoms by encroaching upon the First Amendment big time.
They have infiltrated the public school system and are confusing innocent young minds with their perverted doctrines. If you're a parent in Massachusetts who doesn't want your child participating in this filthy indoctrination in the classroom, you could end up in jail. Ask David Parker.
Still not convinced? Do some research on how homosexuality is blessing the lives of the citizens of San Francisco. Ever heard of the Folsom Street Fair? How about the other unmentionable fair in which public nudity and perverse sex acts are ignored by the police. Hmmmm......
C'mon JD, do some homework. Everyone else, do the same. The homosexual agenda has been proclaimed to be the #1 threat to religious liberty in this country today. Upon reading everything on the subject, I agree!
I would encourage you to do some in-depth homework. The homosexual agenda is not benign. Americans for Truth About Homosexuality and the people at Mass Resistance over in Massachusetts provide ample proof of the danger of this insidious movement. These people say they are born that way...whatever. But they aggressively seek to destroy religious freedoms by encroaching upon the First Amendment big time.
They have infiltrated the public school system and are confusing innocent young minds with their perverted doctrines. If you're a parent in Massachusetts who doesn't want your child participating in this filthy indoctrination in the classroom, you could end up in jail. Ask David Parker.
Still not convinced? Do some research on how homosexuality is blessing the lives of the citizens of San Francisco. Ever heard of the Folsom Street Fair? How about the other unmentionable fair in which public nudity and perverse sex acts are ignored by the police. Hmmmm......
C'mon JD, do some homework. Everyone else, do the same. The homosexual agenda has been proclaimed to be the #1 threat to religious liberty in this country today. Upon reading everything on the subject, I agree!
Joe | 10:34 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
May I draw an analogy with another constitutional right. The second amendment
states that the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A simple
reading of that amendment indicates that all laws dealing with the keeping and
bearing of arms are unconstitutional.
But then, we start agreeing that maybe some regulations are OK, that maybe people shouldn't own machine guns, and that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, and that convicted felons shouldn't have guns, and that maybe some guns hold too many bullets, and some guns are really scary looking, and the next thing you know, your right has been infringed by roughly 20,000 laws, some perhaps reasonable, some not.
Then you ask some of the anti-gun activists "What is your goal?" And they want to take all guns away from every law abiding citizen in the US (let alone the rest of the world).
It is exactly the same with gay marriage. They only want a sensible step here, followed by another step there, and next thing you know you will not be able to express an opinion concerning gay marriage or homosexuality. In the end, it will be your rights infringed!!!
But then, we start agreeing that maybe some regulations are OK, that maybe people shouldn't own machine guns, and that mentally ill people shouldn't have guns, and that convicted felons shouldn't have guns, and that maybe some guns hold too many bullets, and some guns are really scary looking, and the next thing you know, your right has been infringed by roughly 20,000 laws, some perhaps reasonable, some not.
Then you ask some of the anti-gun activists "What is your goal?" And they want to take all guns away from every law abiding citizen in the US (let alone the rest of the world).
It is exactly the same with gay marriage. They only want a sensible step here, followed by another step there, and next thing you know you will not be able to express an opinion concerning gay marriage or homosexuality. In the end, it will be your rights infringed!!!
Alex | 10:43 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
In my view, the damage to the institution of marriage inflicted by gay marriage
far outweighs the benefits of the legalization of polygamy as an outgrowth of
its legalization. I am not going to destroy the institution of marriage just so
that polygamy can be legalized. If the Lord wishes to reinstitute plural
marriage, it will be done. The Lord gets what he wants. However, if it were be
practiced in the LDS Church once again, I don't believe it would require
the saints to undermine the foundations of all marriage to do it.
Right now, we need to take our stand to preserve marriage as an institution. I stand with good people of all religions and philosophies in defense of this timeless institution.
Right now, we need to take our stand to preserve marriage as an institution. I stand with good people of all religions and philosophies in defense of this timeless institution.
Henry Drummond | 11:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
** sigh **
"People have to be Angry."
Doesn't preaching a message to make people angry fly in the face of what these religious groups stand for?
Is it really honest to suggest that Churches will be sued for not performing same sex marriages. Has the Mormon Church ever been sued for refusing people Temple Marriages?
Everyone knows these groups are doing this because of their religious beliefs. Why not just say so and quit putting out scare messages that just make you look foolish.
"People have to be Angry."
Doesn't preaching a message to make people angry fly in the face of what these religious groups stand for?
Is it really honest to suggest that Churches will be sued for not performing same sex marriages. Has the Mormon Church ever been sued for refusing people Temple Marriages?
Everyone knows these groups are doing this because of their religious beliefs. Why not just say so and quit putting out scare messages that just make you look foolish.
Nope. | 11:25 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"I wanna vote | 11:08 a.m. Aug. 25, 2008
When do I get to vote on YOUR temple marriage? I don't belive int he LDS faith, so do I get to vote on YOUR marriage according to MY beliefs??"
Nope.
Sorry, but the difference is that a male/female marriage, performed in an LDS temple or otherwise, will not inherently hurt the society in which it exists. Homosexual marriage, however, will hurt any / every society that fosters it.
When it comes to people, I'm not "anti-homosexual", but instead am, "pro-family".
Why would I say pro-family? Because lets face it, no homosexual union will EVER have the ability to perpetuate a family. Don't try to throw me the idea of "well gays can adopt children". Yes, they could do that but I mean that gay relationships, for obvious reasons, simply are incapable of producing children BY THEMSELVES, ergo, a homosexual marriage is therefore NOT "pro-family".
If you can't, or won't, see that then no one on this message board can help you.
Gays; love the sinner, hate the sin.
When do I get to vote on YOUR temple marriage? I don't belive int he LDS faith, so do I get to vote on YOUR marriage according to MY beliefs??"
Nope.
Sorry, but the difference is that a male/female marriage, performed in an LDS temple or otherwise, will not inherently hurt the society in which it exists. Homosexual marriage, however, will hurt any / every society that fosters it.
When it comes to people, I'm not "anti-homosexual", but instead am, "pro-family".
Why would I say pro-family? Because lets face it, no homosexual union will EVER have the ability to perpetuate a family. Don't try to throw me the idea of "well gays can adopt children". Yes, they could do that but I mean that gay relationships, for obvious reasons, simply are incapable of producing children BY THEMSELVES, ergo, a homosexual marriage is therefore NOT "pro-family".
If you can't, or won't, see that then no one on this message board can help you.
Gays; love the sinner, hate the sin.
Anonymous | 11:37 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"I feel this campaign against gay marriage should not be an LDS cause. I
see gay marriage as another form of alternative marriage, like polygamy. We LDS
have polyamy in our past, and it is still scripture to this day in our own
Doctrine of Covenants, even though we don't actively practice it at this
time. We have never actually repudiated polygamy-- our leaders have only said we
don't practice it. Attacking others who want to practice an alternative
form of marriage, when the LDS chuch has polygamy issues, reeks of
hypocracy."
Actually, LDS leaders did "repudiate" polygyamy over 100 years ago by saying that the Lord no longer commanded it. "Repudiate" means to refuse to accept, to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force or to refuse to acknowledge. Try practicing polygamy in the LDS church today (and I mean specifically "LDS" and not the "FLDS" religion) and see what happens to you. They will, to use your word, "repudiate" the practice and if you don't acknowledge PDQ they'll excommunicate you.
When GOD says to accept homosexual marriage (like that's going to happen...), I will, but for now, no.
Actually, LDS leaders did "repudiate" polygyamy over 100 years ago by saying that the Lord no longer commanded it. "Repudiate" means to refuse to accept, to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force or to refuse to acknowledge. Try practicing polygamy in the LDS church today (and I mean specifically "LDS" and not the "FLDS" religion) and see what happens to you. They will, to use your word, "repudiate" the practice and if you don't acknowledge PDQ they'll excommunicate you.
When GOD says to accept homosexual marriage (like that's going to happen...), I will, but for now, no.
RE: John Pack Lambert | 11:42 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
Do some homework, you'd be surprised how much gay marriage there was
throughout history. The Catholic church even had Masses to celebrate unions
between two men.
But consider this? Pass an amendment to ban same sex marriage on a simple majority vote.. what else is next? Can evangelicals pass an amendment saying the State should not not recognize temple marriages because they think they're creepy. I bet a lot of people would be up for that.
And please, educate yourself about the role of judges and how our government was designed to not only protect the majority from the tyranny of a minority, but the other way around too.
But consider this? Pass an amendment to ban same sex marriage on a simple majority vote.. what else is next? Can evangelicals pass an amendment saying the State should not not recognize temple marriages because they think they're creepy. I bet a lot of people would be up for that.
And please, educate yourself about the role of judges and how our government was designed to not only protect the majority from the tyranny of a minority, but the other way around too.
Looks Like Hate? 11:52 | 11:54 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"Like it or not, there are people, gay and straight, who are more
frightened of LDS people now than they were before."
Now THAT is comical. So the fact that someone is LDS actually "frightens" people?
You really believe that?
So we have "homophobia" and "Mormonphobia" as well? What's next? "Catholocismphobia?"
Now THAT is comical. So the fact that someone is LDS actually "frightens" people?
You really believe that?
So we have "homophobia" and "Mormonphobia" as well? What's next? "Catholocismphobia?"
Read The Old Testament | 11:59 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
"Anonymous | 12:03 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
M, so what is traditional marriage to you? One man and one woman? You are forgetting that the LDS did not practice traditional marriage at all with polygamy. How can we take that glaring fact out of this gay marriage issue? If Mormons felt justified in practicing plural marriage, why should gays not feel justified in practicing gay marriage?"
Because, at the time, God commanded one (go read the Bible and get familiar with Abraham, David, etc) but not the other.
That's why.
M, so what is traditional marriage to you? One man and one woman? You are forgetting that the LDS did not practice traditional marriage at all with polygamy. How can we take that glaring fact out of this gay marriage issue? If Mormons felt justified in practicing plural marriage, why should gays not feel justified in practicing gay marriage?"
Because, at the time, God commanded one (go read the Bible and get familiar with Abraham, David, etc) but not the other.
That's why.
For - Mark, 12:11PM | 12:03 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
"Mark | 12:11 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
As a proud gay man and US Army veteran, I am sick and tired of the heterosexual agenda which I have had to tolerate ALL my life. I thank God that I am gay. I was forced in my childhood to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance in school which ends with the words "with liberty and justice for ALL" Not!!!! I refuse to say it now. So if you are so against our getting married why are you not campaigning for us to be forbidden to pay taxes?"
Because your taxes can HELP everybody in your community. However, your homosexual actions, to include having it be made legal to marry another homosexual, will deeply HURT your community.
As a proud gay man and US Army veteran, I am sick and tired of the heterosexual agenda which I have had to tolerate ALL my life. I thank God that I am gay. I was forced in my childhood to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance in school which ends with the words "with liberty and justice for ALL" Not!!!! I refuse to say it now. So if you are so against our getting married why are you not campaigning for us to be forbidden to pay taxes?"
Because your taxes can HELP everybody in your community. However, your homosexual actions, to include having it be made legal to marry another homosexual, will deeply HURT your community.
Re: re: Linda Hamlton | 12:26 | 12:16 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Those that are pushing for Prop 8 to pass are fighting for homosexuals to be
"second class" citizens?
Uh, no, they're trying to preserve the family. Not even just the "traditional" family, just the human family. Gays can not produce children. Insert "A" into "B" and it just ain't gonna work.
It boggles my mind how homosexual activists absolutely refuse to see that their lifestyle, if pursued to the fullest, will end in nothing less than the cessation of mankind.
You'd think that with that understanding that gays would actually APPRECIATE heterosexuals for what WE do for them, ie, keep the species alive. I mean, without heterosexuals, eventually there wouldn't be ANY gays. And yet, what do heterosexuals get from gays?
Contempt. Disgust. Hatred. WE'RE called fear-mongerers.
I see far, far more "love the sinner, hate the sin" comments from heterosexuals to gays than I do from gays to heterosexuals.
Why is that, gays?
Bhueler? Bhueler? Anyone? Anyone?....
Uh, no, they're trying to preserve the family. Not even just the "traditional" family, just the human family. Gays can not produce children. Insert "A" into "B" and it just ain't gonna work.
It boggles my mind how homosexual activists absolutely refuse to see that their lifestyle, if pursued to the fullest, will end in nothing less than the cessation of mankind.
You'd think that with that understanding that gays would actually APPRECIATE heterosexuals for what WE do for them, ie, keep the species alive. I mean, without heterosexuals, eventually there wouldn't be ANY gays. And yet, what do heterosexuals get from gays?
Contempt. Disgust. Hatred. WE'RE called fear-mongerers.
I see far, far more "love the sinner, hate the sin" comments from heterosexuals to gays than I do from gays to heterosexuals.
Why is that, gays?
Bhueler? Bhueler? Anyone? Anyone?....
Wrong, Josh | 12:27 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
"Josh | 12:52 p.m. Aug. 25, 2008
God and marriage are both abstract figments of the imagination of man.
Neither is "real.""
You're opinion, Josh, is blatantly incorrect.
God IS real. I have felt His presence numerous, numerous times and it sure wasn't just "heartburn" or "goosebumps". I have heard God's voice, LITERALLY heard His voice, and have felt His love, a love that will amaze and humble us ALL to the depths of our souls when we stand before Him at the Judgement Day. Someday you will see.
Without that sure witness, Josh, I would wonder too.
But thankfully I know and I know that I know.
Best wishes.
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
God and marriage are both abstract figments of the imagination of man.
Neither is "real.""
You're opinion, Josh, is blatantly incorrect.
God IS real. I have felt His presence numerous, numerous times and it sure wasn't just "heartburn" or "goosebumps". I have heard God's voice, LITERALLY heard His voice, and have felt His love, a love that will amaze and humble us ALL to the depths of our souls when we stand before Him at the Judgement Day. Someday you will see.
Without that sure witness, Josh, I would wonder too.
But thankfully I know and I know that I know.
Best wishes.
Dan Maloy
Enid, OK
GoodGuyGary | 12:49 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
This country is better than others since we have freedom. If they want gay
marriage, give them gay marriage. Freedom is everything! Give people th ehuman
rights!!!
Aidan P B Stewart | 12:56 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Thank you for the chance to make a comment here. What is the purpose of a
same-sex marriage? There can be no children blessed to such an alliance! It
flies in the face of reason! I applaud the efforts of those brave men and women
who are going door to door to try to enlighten those they encounter to the
blessings and the potential for eternal joy which are to be found in the
wonderful union of a man and a woman in love. Marriage is ordained of God, as
part of His Plan of Salvation, and all the Laws of Man cannot erase in the least
degree the Holiness of the Marriage Covenant. Well done you Guys and Gals!
Mark | 1:32 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Oh Bones Get a life!!! Deal with all the divorce, sexual abuse, rape,
molestation,spouse abuse, incest, child abuse etc that are rampant amongst
hetersexuals....THEN you can say something about gays. For every seedy tidbit
you can get about gays, I can match with seedy stuff about heteros. You
certainly spend a lot of time looking into gay sex practices....hmmmm...you know
what they say about homophobes
John | 1:41 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I have done an in depth study of the Mormon agenda.......
Anonymous | 1:54 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
If you do not believe in gay marriage then do not marry a gay....but haha many
of you have. How many Mormon men are on the down low? You would be surprised!!!
How many sisters share more than recipes?
awesomeron | 4:08 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
I missed this Topic being busy else where. Same Sex marriage is part of the
Liberal Agenda that is going to be forced on all of us should the Obamanation
come to Fruitation. Obama is pro homosexual marriage, of either Gender. If you
establish laws against Homosexual Marriage (which I am all for establishing) you
are going to face massive and expensive court fights. It might be legalized buy
Presidential Proclamation, while your rights slowly erode. If you are going to
vote for Obama, you might want to think about it as many times are need to, in
order not to. This very noisy group of people Homosexual Marriage, Pro Abortion
so called rights, Open or at least not defended Borders, are so far out there in
their thought processes that their being in power is hard to wrap you mind
around.
The great commandment | 4:43 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
Love one another - The supposed 'Christian' love of 'Charity, the
Pure Love of Christ' has no caveats or 'excepts'...this love
'suffereth-long, is kind, seeketh not her own'...etc. and is supposed
to be directed to ALL.
The hate, murder, war and violence, done because some individual claimed to KNOW what God wanted adss up to more than any other type of violence done on the earth.
I imagine Christ standing in the middle of this group and saying - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
The hate, murder, war and violence, done because some individual claimed to KNOW what God wanted adss up to more than any other type of violence done on the earth.
I imagine Christ standing in the middle of this group and saying - Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
We're Amongst Major Hypocrites | 4:51 a.m. Aug. 26, 2008
When will the LDS church actually live the teachings of Christ as they have
preached it?
According to them, it was Christ that gave the choices to men, to live accordingly as a free people. And that Lucifer was rejected by the very nature that he wanted to make bondage out of men for the sake of salvation.
Apparently he failed, however, it appears that he still as active as ever in subjecting the people, under the guise and pretense of righteousness.
It's for this and many other reasons that I have finally taken the step to remove myself from the LDS church, far, far away, because, like most religion, it says one thing and does another.
I have deep regrets in having wasted my time in believing something that's no different then the other religions out there.
I am so sorry that I have wasted my 2 years of life serving as a missionary for the church, preaching the very thing that I now despise.
I have made this huge mistake of being a part of an organization that goes against the teachings of Christ, to give free agency to men.
According to them, it was Christ that gave the choices to men, to live accordingly as a free people. And that Lucifer was rejected by the very nature that he wanted to make bondage out of men for the sake of salvation.
Apparently he failed, however, it appears that he still as active as ever in subjecting the people, under the guise and pretense of righteousness.
It's for this and many other reasons that I have finally taken the step to remove myself from the LDS church, far, far away, because, like most religion, it says one thing and does another.
I have deep regrets in having wasted my time in believing something that's no different then the other religions out there.
I am so sorry that I have wasted my 2 years of life serving as a missionary for the church, preaching the very thing that I now despise.
I have made this huge mistake of being a part of an organization that goes against the teachings of Christ, to give free agency to men.
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.
- Messy Monday morning commute 3:07 p.m.
- Zoo offers prizes for 1Mth visitor 3:02 p.m.
- Texas' McCoy a winner like no other 3:00 p.m.
- Senate confronts abortion in debate 2:51 p.m.
- Early stock gains evaporate 2:49 p.m.
- Online channel Vevo signs EMI Music 2:49 p.m.
- Pearl Harbor attack remembered 2:45 p.m.
- Al Pacino set to play Shylock 2:44 p.m.
- Weezer cancels tour after bus crash 2:44 p.m.
- Transgender teen sues McDonald's 2:33 p.m.
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- BYU professor remembered
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil
- Bring the true spirit of Christmas
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- Answers for the BCS
- Dr.: Mitchell controlled FBI interview
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
271 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing250
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl195
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry190
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Cougars going back to Vegas137
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage135
- George lost in rivalry hatefest117
- Utah/BYU rivalry can be more civil107
- Letters: Global warming a lie100
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
I've read from the family accounts, that the fatality ocurred in a section...
Yeah, those powerful GOP politicians with their veto-proof majority sure do...
there is a pretty big difference in your mind but the consequences for the...
There was an attack I was sure people would start one. However, I guess...
LisaP | 2:25 p.m. You say , "Hateful Republican rhetoric is literally...
I just finished reading the BOM for the 40th time. I have read it in 6...
Hold on folks, society is in for a downward spiral. What happened to the...
Thank you Dad for serving your country in WWII as so many other men and women...
the negative comments are from people on the celebrity band wagon, they too...
it is ridiculous because?
Advertisements
Yes, and the LDS church (and others) should bill the Federal government for the hundreds of millions of dollars they save the U.S. in private charity, humanitarian relief, and other care of the poor and needy.