Quantcast

Comments about ‘LDS Church issues statement on same-sex marriage’

Return to article »

Document praised, criticized by group of gay members

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 10 2008 12:29 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Caren

This Melson guy is in complete DENIAL. The church will never condone same sex marriage or homosexuality in any form!!!

Debra

Hey maybe someday the church will think that adultery, stealing and fornication are okay too.... Wow I can't wait for that day...I mean why would they stop at same sex marriage.

Kent

I just can't believe that there are actually people out there that keep hounding the LDS church to change their doctorine.

And I think it is even funnier that they think the LDS church will change their doctorine.

But hey if they (the church) does change the doctorine do you think they could allow adultery as well? Then I wouldn't have to feel bad about my sin either...

R Biddulph

Marriage is the legal, social, economic and spiritual union of a man and a woman. One man and one woman are necessary for a valid marriage. If that definition is radically altered then anything is possible. There is no logical reason for not letting several people marry, or for eliminating other requirements, such as minimum age, blood relative status or even the limitation of the relationship to human beings. Those who are trying to radically redefine California's marriage laws for their own purposes are the ones who are trying to impose their values on the rest of the population. Those citizens opposed to any change in California's marriage statutes are merely defending the basic morality that has sustained the culture for everyone against a radical attack.
When same-sex couples seek California's approval and all the benefits that the state reserves for married couples, they impose the law on everyone. According non-marital relationships the same status as marriage would mean that millions of people would be disenfranchised by their own governments. The state would be telling them that their beliefs are no longer valid, and would turn the civil rights laws into a battering ram against them.

Matilda

Eliminating one entire sex from an institution defined as the union of the two sexes is a quantum leap from eliminating racial discrimination, which did not alter the fundamental character of marriage. Marriage reflects the natural moral and social law evidenced the world over. As the late British social anthropologist Joseph Daniel Unwin noted in his study of world civilizations, any society that devalued the nuclear family soon lost what he called "expansive energy," which might best be summarized as society's will to make things better for the next generation. In fact, no society that has loosened sexual morality outside of man-woman marriage has survived.
Analyzing studies of cultures spanning several thousands of years on several continents, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin found that virtually all political revolutions that brought about societal collapse were preceded by a sexual revolution in which marriage and family were devalued by the cultures acceptance of homosexuality.

Gertrude

When marriage loses its unique status, women and children most frequently are the direct victims. Giving same-sex relationships or out-of-wedlock heterosexual couples the same special status and benefits as the marital bond would not be the expansion of a right but the destruction of a principle. . If the one-man/one-woman definition of marriage is broken, there is no logical stopping point for continuing the assault on marriage.
If feelings are the key requirement, then why not let three people marry, or two adults and a child, or consenting blood relatives of any age? . Marriage-based kinship is essential to stability and continuity in our state. Child abuse is much more prevalent when a living arrangement is not based on kinship. Kinship imparts family names, heritage, and property, secures the identity and commitment of fathers for the sake of the children, and entails mutual obligations to the community.

California Anti-Family Decisions

Brides" and "grooms" are no longer allowed to marry in the State of California.

That privilege is only extended to individuals who allow themselves to be called "Party A" and "Party B" on marriage licenses.

The couple had written the words "bride" and "groom" next to "Party A" and "Party B" because they wanted to be legally recognized as husband and wife.

However, the Placer County marriage license was denied.

"I received back the license and a letter from the Placer County Clerk/Recorder stating that the license 'does not comply with California State registration laws,'" the couple said.

Oxymoron

The doctrine that Gays and Lesbians preach is always in the name of "Diversity." Why then are they so eager to practice a lifestyle that is HOMO-sexual. Their message is totally contradictory.

Children need a mother and a father who can add their unique perspectives and experiences as male and female. The Jazz would not have been more successful if John Stockten had been passing the ball off to another John Stockten! They needed Carl Malone!

Richard Nibbler

Thank you again for deleting my comments.
They were neither abusive, offensive, a misrepresentation or any of the above. Truth hurts sometimes. The Church is way too thin skinned on this subject.
Freedom of speech is not alive and well in the Church. Is it!

James

I have known many people who have become so much more "themselves" when in groups or gatherings of same-sex individuals. Some men in groups of others who are all men and some women in groups where all are women have behaved in such different ways than when they were in groups of mixed gender. I believe this is behavior located somewhere along the gradient of same-sex attraction. Numerous individuals only flourish or blossom when in same sex environments. Is it right or wrong? No, it is human behavior.

Now, why don't we judge all humans by their behavior? If a person's behavior is social, productive, moral and uplifting, let's support and sustain that behavior. If it is otherwise, let's not promote it but attempt to re-direct it. Nowhere in the gospel of Jesus Christ do we preach, practice or attempt to do otherwise. There have been some instances in history where God has invited His children "back home" because they have abandoned all opportunities to succeed but Fathers get to do that. Evidence throughout the history of the restored Church shows that in righteousness we have always condemned behavior but always accepted the person. Nothing has changed in this, either.

Look Who's Right

I don't understand how so many people think that the church doesn't hava a right to free speech. The all caring and ultra tolerant left wing crowd, sure wants to shut down the church's right to express it't beliefs. I know that we all know that these people are only tolerant until you disagree with them. They often claim to have a better understanding of Christianity then the rest of us. They preach about how the Savior said this and the Savior said that, and then they judge whether others are really following his example. The way I see it they just want to tell God how it is going to be. They can express thier Ideas just like everyone else, then go on with thier lives and make their own choices, according to the law.

No more affirmation

Why did this article reference Affirmation over and over and over. We are not reading the article to hear what they have to criticize or like. We want to know what the churches statement is and what it means. We don't care about how some fringe group with a few members reacts to it. You are giving this fringe group way too much coverage and press time. I don't really care about how they react to the speech. We don't want to read about their reactions to everything. Enough of the overblown press coverage of Affirmation.

GoodGuyGary

America is a free country!

Mike

Marriage in this country is a civil legal contract between two people, nothing more. To deny it to one group is un-American. The church can set any rules they like but they have NO business forcing their warped ideas on the rest of the country. I believe they were told that about 150 years ago. Why don't I see any protests about the government making the Mormon's change their rules then?

Curious

So why doesn't this Melson guy and his group go start their own Church that they can believe whatever they want?

Why do they think they can change a worldwide organization just because they it's teachings are contrary to what THEY believe to be right? Oh brother.

Sad

I was born and raised in the LDS Church and, to be frank, I am very disheartened to see the Church spend so much time, money, and energy on this issue. There are so many issues out there that are more pressing than how the State of California decides to divvy out rights. Imagine what we could accomplish if we steered this same energy into efforts to alleviate poverty in this country. No matter what California chooses to do, the reality is that the Church can still teach and practice its principles. I'm sad that the Church has decided to impose its principles through political will. I was baptized a member of a church, not a political PAC.

Ernest T. Bass

Caren: That's what several generations said about blacks recieving the priesthood.
I know with every fiber of my being that this isn't true.

Anonymous

"so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference,"
Churches certainly can and should be able to express their views, and their aderents can, within the law, behave accordingly. However, it's not a blank cheque. Polygamy sneaks in on this one. And, as many of us in Utah know, it would be nice if government could practise free of religious interference.

Mike Who?????

So you have the power to change the legal definition of marriage just like that????

rsb

I would like to know when did marriage become a legal issue. I may be wrong but I thought marriage was originally governed by religions. I have not given it much thought but what is the legal justification for the government controlling marriage?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments