Deseret News | Shame on LDS Church

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church

489 comments | Read story

Its all or nothing | 5:27 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Homosexuality got the door open to redefining marriage, now its open and waiting for pedophilia and bestiality. If "love" is the defining factor for marriage, and no one has the right to judge, then no one has the right to seclude those groups either.

@to all or nothing | 5:53 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

and goats will marry racks, trees will marry houses, cars will marry light bulbs.......really you want to try this tired old argument again? The slippery slop argument has been tried at nausea. Alright one more time for you, pedophilia and bestiality have no more to do with homosexuality then heterosexuality (go to the American psychological association website and look these two up you will see they are more common in the heterosexual community) so if they where going to have a claim then they already have a case. Secondly and more importantly children and animals are not able to provide consent where as two adults can, this is based on sound reasoning based on simple scientific evidence that they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand what they are agreeing too and harm to the child or animal as the case maybe. I cannot beleive I even entertained this stupid argument but there you go.

re Robert | 6:20 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

I am the one who wrote the please explain post and this is my 1st post in response to you.

I'll think about what you said, it doesn't quite resonate with me though.

One thing that does bother me is that gays are allowed to adopt children. I have always disagreed with this, yet I have never heard "the church" speak out against it.

For years, people in the church had church jobs that took them away from their families for many hours per week, this weakened the family, yet for years the church was blind to it.

In the end I would probably vote your way, this is why, gays already have access to all the rights they need or so I have heard, these rights can be had in ways other than marriage and although your argument doesn't resonate with me as something really serious, I'm not certain you are wrong either.

The fact that the church had for years weakened marriages by giving people too many church jobs and before that sending married men on missions sometimes for many years more than two, makes me wonder what is the sudden concern about marriage?

Comments continue below

re: @to all or nothing | 6:33 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Who are you do judge the capacity of any two parties? You cant use logic and cognitive reasoning do dismiss the merits or pedophilia or bestiality if the claim is of love. Love is the defining mark now, it is the definition and end all. Logic and reasoning were used against the redefining of marriage to include homosexuality but as many crying out here on the boards have posted, Love and fairness conquers logical reasoning. Moral reasoning is shot down alltogether.

Consent is a big question, your right on that, but I'm sure we can put just as much research into that 'belief' as in any other. If your DNA could do something as complex as inconsistently throw your sexual orientation who is to say consent is consistent with everyone as well. Who wants to bet on when the definition of consent will be redefined?

@re:robert | 6:44 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Please read the "@lost in DC" post at 8:48 a.m. if you go to the websites listed and read the research there (especially the Amercian pedatric society site) it may ease some of your concerns about gay couples adopting. Basically they found that children suffered no psycological harm due to be raised in a homosexual headed household. Just food for thought.

@6:33 | 6:52 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Children, animals, plants, and inanimate objects do not have legal standing to sign a marriage contract thus your slippery slope argument is laughable.
If you honestly cannot tell the difference between a loving gay couple and a pedophile, then you have bigger issues to worry about than two men or two women marrying.

@ re: @to all or nothing | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

I'm confused: We already allow marriage between two consenting adults. How does the gender of the adults involved affect the ability to hold the line there?

You know, speed limits on freeways are different than speed limits in school zones. By your reasoning, it should not be possible to maintain this distinction because "school zone" "freeway" and "speed limit" are all open to redefining.

You seem like a fairly intelligent person. You know your arguments are weak and far-reaching. Surely you can do better than that.

@robert | 7:07 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

What the heck are you talking about? I am sorry I have read your post a couple of times but I cannot understand your logic. I cannot speak for people stating that their support is based on "love." Ability to understand consequences and give consent are not "beliefsï¿½ it is science based on peer reviewed research. Again I would refer you back to the APA website. Based on your logic everyone would have to be tested individually before entering into any type of contract (which includes heterosexual marriages as they are civil contracts if you want them recognized by the state)

What this is about | 7:17 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

This isn't really about logic, it is about following "the word". If the church had come out in favor there wouldn't be one LDS member who would be opposed. When the church placed burdensome requirements on marriages and families by sending married men on missions for years, although this strained all marriages and broke up several.

Its not about marriages, it not about logic its about following.

@Robert | 7:21 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

You know I went back and read your post one more time something jumped out at me "Moral reasoning is shot down altogether." if your decision to appose gay marriage is based on your religious or "moral beliefs then just state that, I can respect that point of view even though I disagree with it. The problem I am having is you keep trying to use none religious reasoning to defend your position and the science and logic just donï¿½t follow from you train of thought. I cannot guarantee other will not jump on your for your ï¿½moralï¿½ I will respect your decision and leave you alone.

wrz | 7:48 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Next stop.... | 5:19 p.m.:

"Fine, if I love a 10 year old then by the writers perspective I should have equal rights to marriage!!"

If you love two women you should have equal rights to marriage... both of them...

And if they have sisters, them too. Maybe even their brothers. Let's make it one big happy wedded family.

Frustrated | 8:01 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

This is not an issue of equality. As the dissenting opinion from the Mass. Supreme Ct. decision explained, we create laws all the time that tell us who can and can't get married. Equal rights are just that, equal rights. There is no such thing as a right to marry. Heterosexual-first cousins have no such right. Neither do minors. Should every American have the right to create an contractual relationship? Yes. Everything else is statutory, which is what make this whole thing so frustrating. No Court should be able to create legislation. These decisions and laws should come from the people.

@wrz | 8:29 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

really WRZ you obviously either did not read the other post in this thread that already addressed this or you are just really thick headed.

@frustrated | 9:40 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

There is no need to be frustrated your point has already been addressed by several other post on this thread alone. Please reference the post "@wrz" and the numerous other posts addressing this argument then get a new argument. Thanks

Joseph Atwater | 9:44 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

What about the religious opportunity of the "right not to fight in wars" instead of sanctioning and glorifying wars as Patriotic?Or the right of a child to grow up and choose religious freedom to say "No to war", wars mandated by politicians and approved openly by church leaders. Where is the call against current actions? Why such a deafening sound of silence, when a shout for freedom of choice is suppressed. Let us turn our attention to the LDS Bible Dictionary under the heading of "Jonah". Quote "The writer is apposing a narrowmindedness that would confine the Love of God to a single nation. He shows that Jehovah reigns everywhere,over the sea and the land;even in the heathen world ..." I suspect we doubt that as a pepole. The role of the ancient prophets were to warn the pepole of impending disasters and calamities.Where are our spokensmen today? Are they silent on these issues?We seem to get the message after events have taken their toll on the people. Iraq,Katrina,the Depression etc. Bring back Paul,James and John, give us those who once taught in boldness and in truth not leaders who participated in wars with biased political views.

slippery slope | 10:09 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

just because children, animals, plants, and blocks of cheese don't currently have legal standing to sign contracts doesn't mean an effort can't be launched to have others sign for them.

But beyond that, if all you need is to be of legal age and to love and be committed to each other, what's to say 3 men and four women can't enter a marriage contract? from there it's not hard to see any type of bizzare arrangement you cook up.

It gets really old.... | 10:15 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

stop trotting out the LDS church's stand on gay marriage, and focusing only on that. The LDS faith is not the only one who is against this idea, yet it's the only one you mention in your article. You should investigate the beliefs of other faiths, then write back and let all of us know how many you come up with who support your gay marriage issues.

Anon | 10:28 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

Gay marriage is a stepping stone to criminalizing the public expression of Christianity by utilizing hate-crimes / hate-speech and anti-discrimination laws against people speaking their religious beliefs concerning homosexual behavior. That's what the gays have been pulling in Canada, and they have already been making motions towards that in the US. Also, since the U.S. Supreme Court has taken to citing foreign precedent with respect to homosexual issues (as opposed to the U.S. constitution), we have reason to be alarmed. That's what the issue is about; nothing else matters.

Gay marriage would hinder the spread of the gospel, through legal persecution, as it was in the 1800's.

@ it gets really old.... | 10:39 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

This letter was written in response to the editorial in the Sunday paper which made direct reference to the LDS church and supported their stance on proposition 8.

If someone uses religion as a reason for doing something, that religion is going to be in the public sphere and is open to questions - the same as any other reason presented.

missing the point | 10:42 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

The entire marraige debate misses the point. The question is not whether someone has the "right" to get married. The question is why do we have governmental regulation of marraige in the first place. Why should the government care about certain human relationships enough to place regulations on them?

The answer is that only a sexual union between man and woman can produce offspring without the intervention of a third party. Society has a vested interest in tracking and monitoring offspring in the community, as they will perpetuate the community. Hence, marraige is regulated in order to keep track of where the kids are coming from. Traditionally, this along with the societal taboos against pre- and extra-maraital relations has historically done a pretty good job in keeping the majority of children in society arriving in a somewhat orderly fashion.

Modern "sensebilities" have damaged this traditional method of "child tracking", and the consequences are obvious--single parent homes generally have a greater risk of poverty and disadvantage for the children.

Same-sex couples cannot produce children without the intervention of a third party, therefore there is no need for the government to regulate them.

con't next post

@its getting real...and anon | 10:52 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

you have to be kidding me, the LDS church sticks its nose into other people's life's then you are going to play the victim when criticized for going around bullying others? Childish but kind of funny I have to say.
Anon please tell me you are not turning to fear mongering to justify your position. The LDS church has the right to speak up but do not cry foul when someone challenges your point of view.

@ slippery slop | 10:56 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

so how many time are you going to post the same lame argument under different names and not address the numerous post that have already refuted it. Are you hoping that if you repeat the same lie often enought it will just be accepted as truth.

hmm | 11:03 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

If you're worried about hate crimes legislation, DON'T COMMIT A HATE CRIME! These laws in no way affect your ability to live your religion.

I find it ironic that the same people worried that their religious freedoms are at stake, are the same people attacking Jeremiah Wright for exercising HIS religious freedom.

I am not perfect | 11:19 p.m. Oct. 8, 2008

There are many gay people against gay marriage which I think goes unnoticed. If you think divorce is rampant, what until you see gay divorce start happening, the divorce attorneys will be lining up to make a lot of money! You can love anyone you wish to; nobody will stop you. You just can't call every relationship marriage. And if there comes a time down the road when the majority vote for marriage for all relationships, then the majority will rule. But just remember, if you don't say no to some things, you will never say no to anything ever again and that is a loss of freedom; it is slavery. I can not prove sin is real just like I can not prove there is spiritual light and spiritual darkness. I can't prove God exist. But when I see misery and pain and lives which are down and lost and I see hatred and meaness, then I know that humanity is weak and that there is a devil and if there is a devil then there has to be a God.

The Deuce | 12:13 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

As I have read through the many responses to this article there is one thing that jumps out at me. We seem to have no understanding of the definition of tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance as many would try to demand on this site. Tolerance is defined as "indulgence for beliefs or practices that differ from or conflicting with ones own beliefs." Those in favor of Gay/Lesbian marriage define tolerance as acceptance of their lifestyle choice. The real meaning is that society respects that there are diffences in what each side believes. For those who ask the question will gay/lesbian marriage impact my own marriage, you have not thought through the consequences of redefining marriage. There is a ripple effect through our society that can result in many of the religious freedoms and rights we now have could be at jeopardy.There are issues related to school curriculum. This is not a scare tactic but a real possibility if you take the time to look at the law on this. All I propose is that each of us remove our emotion from this issue and take a close look at what is at stake for society as a whole.

To Christina: | 12:16 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

You are so glad you left Utah. I know, CA is soooooo progressive and cool. My question to you is are you going to move out of California when this proposition passes?

sinner | 12:31 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

shame is a sinner, an iligle, unlawful, shame the difernation of marriage is known a man and women, lds church love gay people God love gay people because what he greated everything, but God perform the first marriage a man and women, shame if you pray and ask God is ligle for man and man or women and women to be marriage, let me tell you the answer is no is a sin, the equel of marriage to get
children that what God told, shame what about if your dad marriage with a man, a you born, what if your mom marriage with a women a you become a!!!!!
shame if you a gayman and you want to marraige with a women lds withyou 100% same with a women shame i fielt shame what you did if i am your dad, because
i know %101 if i marriage with a man you never be.

g

Good Riddance | 12:42 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I'm so glad you left Utah. Please do not come back. You are not missed. Go peddle your warped ideas and values somewhere else.

m in california | 12:51 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Nothing hypocritical about promoting marriage between a man and a woman based on beliefs. Why would those who believe so strongly in such a union not promote and try to protect it. Those offended by it will just have to be offended. Can't tip toe around on egg shells trying to please everyone, even those who are self righteous and intolerant of other's right to have different beliefs.

WyoMom | 12:55 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Marriage has ALWAYS BEEN a legal and spiritual contract between a MAN and a WOMAN. The fact is---you already have the right to marry someone of the OPPOSITE sex---just like I do, therefore, we are already equal. You don't want to be EQUAL. You want to be SPECIAL---and that is unacceptable. Love whomever you chose---you already have all of the perks of marriage that you ask for---but you CANNOT make a mockery of MARRIAGE!!!

OC Surfer | 2:47 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Perhaps my fellow neighbor from Laguna Beach forgot that civil unions granting essentially the same rights of marriage was already in place in California (before the court decision to grant gay marriages) and will not change if Prop 8 passes.

Why isn't a civil union enough?

Explain please | 4:24 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I'd like Christina Larsen to please explain how allowing homosexual marriages doesn't hurt the institution of marriage. I'd also like her to explain how legalizing these marriages won't have any impact on me or my children. Furthermore, I'd like her to explain in what way the LDS Church has given misleading information to its members and the public on the topic of homosexual marriage and proposition 8.

Flippant remarks about the above topics without further detail on your part, Christina, are "shoot-from-the-hip" cliches that make it sound like you understand all the issues. There is much more at stake here than equal rights. This isn't just an issue of equal tax treatment for homosexuals.

Please clarify what you've written...not for the sake of being contentious, but for the sake of truly debating the issues at hand.

U.S. Supreme Court's View | 4:27 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

The US Supreme Court declared in 1885 that states' marriage laws must be based on "the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization, the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement.''

Defending Basic Morality | 4:29 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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.

Law is a "Battering Ram" | 4:32 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

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.

Law is not a suggestion, as George Washington observed, "it is force". An official state sanction of same-sex relationships as "marriage" would bring the full apparatus of the state against those who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. The Protect Marriage Coalition views this as outlawing traditional morality.

Paul | 4:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and this should never be changed.

byudog | 5:38 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

A bright light like the LDS church will always draw little moths here and there and unwarranted criticism.

At least the church is willing to stand for truth and something noble.

I applaud the church for fighting for what's right.
There are many churches out there that will not stick their neck out on the issue.

Makes me wonder | 6:03 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

It is amazing to me to see the number of posts from people who hate Utah or the LDS church, and maybe have even moved out of state, yet they still look to get their news from a Utah publication and read all articles LDS.

Doesn't that make you wonder?

Opinions are so important | 6:40 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Good for you that you have an opinion. We all need them. Some are wrong, however. Just because people behave in a certain way doesn't make their behavior good, or right, or acceptable, or protect-able, or forcible on others to support.

This "8" is one thing that will have residual or collateral effects on the rest of us. Thank our creator that some clergy can see afar off and are willing to take a stand to help open our understanding. "The people" need to make their voices heard on this issue. Let's overturn the judges decision and vote YES on "8".

And may I say thank you to all religious leaders who are not afraid to rally the minds of the people for the good of AMERICA. Thank you.

Just so you know, many also thought Jesus was whacked, but oh how grateful we are, or will one day be, to Him for standing up to the ridicule and accomplishing the eternal atonement and inaugurating the universal resurrection. Though we do not all understand or see it, thank heavens He did. We will all one day see eye to eye.

Shame on the Church? | 6:48 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Shame should certainly be an issue here, bur not for those who are standing up for what is right.
There's a biological reason that homosexuals are incapable of reproducing as such.
Homosexuality is socially, biologically and morally wrong. That's why the people of California voted against same sex marriages the last time this came up. I hope they do it again and this time don't stand by as some corrupt politician changes their mind.

SA | 6:54 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

How wonderful it is to belong to a Church, as the LDS Church, who will take a stand regarding my beliefs. And now I must take a stand and say I agree! There are many wonderful homosexuals that I love, but I love God more, and I do not agree with altering God's laws, for I fear God more than man.

Legal Beagle | 6:58 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

No government or church is trying to tell you who you can "love." Both are trying to tell you you can't redefine what "marriage" means to an entire society. You go ahead and love whomever you want. No one is stopping you from doing that. Just don't expect everyone else to accept that your relationship should constitute marriage.

You are right, this is not fair! | 7:08 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Marriage is a religious institution adopted by government defined as a relationship between man and women. Government provides benefits to married individuals to promote this lifestyle as a benefit to society; it has the ability to perpetuate society. But remember, the benefits came after the institution. Allowing same-sex "marriage" does not just equalize benefits, which can be done in many other ways, it redefines the institution in such a way that it conflicts with the religious tenants upon which it is founded. Allowing same-sex "marriage" in reality is less about equity and more about allowing someone else redefine my religion, its institutions, and me. This is a very slippery slope and unacceptable to me. It is not hypocritical for me to love my fellow man, but to not allow others to redefine who I am. I do not have to agree with you to love you. To cloak the request in terms as "allowing love" or "equality" is disingenuous at best and more a kin to dismantling religion. So, don't pretend this is an issue of love or equity when you are looking to redefine the tenants and institutions of my religion and consequently me.

Why is article even published? | 7:13 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Just a simple rebuttle. Marriage was instituted by religion to "bless" a man and woman in their decision to create a family. When the government "adopted" marriage, they did so because ALL countries require a next generation in order to perpetuate the country's existance. The state has a vested interest in the fact that a man and a woman can and do produce offspring. Something two men or two woman cannot do without going "outside" the union. There are cases where one of the partners in a marriage is unable to bare children, but this is negligible when compared to the whole. So please don't try and use them as an example. What we are facing is not an equal rights arguement but a special rights arguement. BTW-any church that preaches that homosexuality is okay denies Christ's authority and His teachings. Christ said it is not okay. And He is the ultimate authority.

Anonymous | 7:33 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Amen, Christina!

Vote NO on Proposition 8

My right | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I want to preserve my right to teach my children that marriage in heaven will not include gay marriages. Who in their right mind can imagine that God embraces gay marriage in His eternal kingdom? The prophets were right when they said that in the last days, people would turn away from Him and call good bad and call bad good. I plead with all people to protect children from the notion that God's plan includes the principle that anyone can marry anyone or anything and God will embrace it. I respect the rights of others to sin, but I reserve my right to teach that it is still sin.

Think of the child! | 7:49 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Protect children... Gay marriage will hurt and confuse children. Because, (like in Mass.) public schools will start teaching that gay behavior is normal behavior. Many parents/guardians have the right to voice against gay marriage to protect their child from being taught that gay behavior is normal. Children do the best with influences from both genders... a Mom and a Dad.

Seattle | 7:51 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Don't call the union of two gay individuals marriage. Civil union is different. Believe what you will, but leave the traditional and true meaning of the word alone. It is simple, really.

I'm glad you left Utah too | 7:54 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Liberals paint anyone who opposes them as a bigot or a hater. But being opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds does not qualify one as a bigot. Homosexuality is a threat to our society because it threatens the normal marital and family structures. It is wrong to teach young people that homosexuality is just another lifestyle. Yes, the Bible does say in several places that homosexuality is wrong, but one does not need the Bible to intuitively know that such behavior is not normal.

This isn't about | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

equal rights it's about the fact that we are trying to protect the family unit. we wont sell out our beliefs for a few million dollars like all the rest of the country.

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.