Deseret News | Shame on LDS Church

Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church

489 comments | Read story

Quit it Deseret News | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

We already have one paper printing these silly letters. I thought this paper was a place that I could call home. For the rest of the morally weak who would destroy our nation starting with using gay marriage (then on to the next morally corrupt situation), the hate you spew towards this church is the worse hypocrisy. Just cause the Church cannot except this morally degrading attack on our nation does not show hate. Our brother's and sister's sin is what we can't condone. The war in heaven continues. Not every attack is using tanks, ak-47's, and jet liners.

Wrong! | 8:21 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Where she gets it wrong is on the issue. The issue is more than just love. I love many people. That doesn't mean I'm going to marry all or any of them. I want many of those people to enjoy my health care and numerous other benefits. That doesn't mean I'm going marry them. I find many people attractive. That doesn't mean I love them. The issue here is what is really right for society? What is right for families? What is right for children? If everyone's, not just a couple of people's, interest is taken to heart, what is the greater good. Evidence taken from civilizations since time began show that indulging homosexuality is destructive to society. Evidence further demonstrates that children raised in a home with a mother and a father produces the most favorable conditions for societal growth and productivity. I understand that this can't always be the case, but it is something society should strive to achieve.

Shame on you Christina | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

for not identifying the weightier matters and the long term consequences this will have. Also, congratulations for exiting Utah for Laguna. Good move.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 8:27 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I'm glad you left Utah too. Thanks.

Rob | 8:38 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am so glad that I belong to a church that does not sway in the wind. I am also glad that many, many other churches do not also. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah? Do you think we are quickly heading down that path. Thank you everyone for working to keep marriage between a man and a woman without putting people down.

noncompliant | 8:43 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am a gay man but I also realize that many gay activists are being disingeuous. Gays can partner already; yet there are relatively few and even fewer monogomous ones. The primary reason activists want marrriage is to legitimize homosexuality and use marriage as a legal tool to silence and punish anyone who disagrees (activists have already tried to remove tax exempt status of churchs who beg to differ)
As a homosexual: the original letter does not represent me.

Bob | 8:58 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

No homosexual relationship is the "equal" of a real marriage.

Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:

Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:

Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society. No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!

Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!

Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.

Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Jared | 9:04 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Christina, we are so glad you left Utah as well.

"Gay marriage will not hurt the institution of marriage" How wrong you are, Christina. Marriage between a man and a woman is a beautiful institution whereby a couple comes together to participate in the bringing forth of God's spirit children, something only a man and a woman can do. Marriage between two men or two women cannot accomplish that, so what would be the purpose? You try and sidestep that question by saying that this is really about "equal rights." You should know, Christina that by jumping on that bandwagon you have weakened your own argument. There are no rights without responsibilites, and since a gay couple cannot have the responsibility of having children, why do they need the right of marriage? Social status? Acceptance? Being married will not accomplish those things, only be good people and citizens will do that. And don't tell me that they can adopt children as a responsibility. A person doesn't need to be married to adopt children. I wish I had more room to write further, but know this: To allow marriage between two men or women cheapens the institution of marriage

billdalew | 9:12 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Classic example of somebody who just doesn't get it. This isn't mans church that's free to change whatever they want to change. It's God's Church and he says what goes. So I guess she's saying shame on you God, you who created me and gave me life?

Anonymous | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

ha ya blame the church and see how far that gets you...

To "Noncompliant" | 9:15 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

An honest response. I can appreciate that.

Dave | 9:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

That's right. Shame on any organization that sticks to the Word of God.

So long to you and the horse (or whatever) you rode in on.

NM Lobo | 9:21 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am looking for the "news" paper. This article in no way passes as news. Shame on the desnews for publishing it.

Anonymous | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am pleased that the LDS church is taking this to such a public level. The church has always taught that homosexual behavior is wrong. End of story. To not take a stand in this manner would be hypocritical. Those who don't agree can also take a stand. It takes courage for individuals and group to take a position and fight for it when it's not the popular or politically correct thing to do. I've been taught love and tolerance but those virtues do not mean I have to condone, or accept behavior which I find to be morally wrong.

poli sci 210 | 9:30 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

re: Joe Moe | 11:30 a.m. Oct. 8, 2008
Re:Tolerance 6:46

>>I'm amused at how many people say we are quasi-fascist in this country, while so many others say we are quasi-socialist.

Which is it? Or are all these folks delusional?<<

Socialism, Fascism, & Communism are all extreme versions of leftist/progressive populist philosophy. Read the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

Kindness | 9:32 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Perhaps all parties could benefit from listening to Elder Robert D. Hales's talk from last weeks General Conference. It is avalible on lds.org under the archives of conference. The transcript is not up yet but you can listen to the audio. His talk is centered on being loving and civil while defending the church, particularly when doing so on-line. (like right now.) The issue of gay marrige is one that the 2 side will never agree on. As such let's stop the cruel personal attacks on each other. I can't see any good in them. I seldom read the comments on the desnews website or any other for that matter because they seem to always be nothing more than cruel little jabs at others. I have more respect for someone who has a differing view than I do but can present it in a dignified and respectfull way than I do for soemone who agrees with me but spits venom in declaring our views. Of all the attribute Jesus has, in my eyes none is greater than kindness.

Kevin in the Terrace | 9:39 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Homosexuality is morally wrong. Marraige is the basic unit of families and of our society. The rights of marriage were instituted to benefit and protect the family unit and is a socially recognized union. Changing the definition of marriage to accommodate a minority undermines our society.

FollowUp | 9:39 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Notice there are gay men, and women who do NOT advocate Gay Marriage. Even they realize the facts of life, marriage is an institution for a 1 Man & a wife. It is the radical "Gays" who are pushing this so they can ram it down the throats of America as part of it's downfall. Gay Marriage is a huge mistake, just live together if it's "your thing", because that is exactly what it is, "A Thing". It is NOT NATURAL, and when a gay couple can have children through procreation, then it is a normal acceptable practice, and NOT until!

Side note, I am glad you don't live in Utah anymore either!

Utah Resident | 9:44 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Each time one of these comes up, it gets worse and worse. Utah has to be the most bitter, religiously divided, polarized state in the Nation, bar none. The Hate in this state is so palpable, it practically jumps off the pages here.

Chet | 9:48 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

There is not shame for an religious organization to speak out on a moral issues it embraces; this problem was placed on California who created this right on their own--it is not found in the State Constitution, and since the state legislature had already spoken in this issue, rejecting same sex relationships--they acted in appropriately in creating this protection. Proposition Eight is a public response to this decision, and everyone, churhes included had a right to speak under the First Amendment.

Get a grip | 10:08 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Christina:

This is not about the LDS Church. Most Christian denominations are on the same side as the LDS Church. Why? Find out. It is going to be BAD for America. check out the CBN web site for others who support "8".

Anonymous | 10:12 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

And so go the cries of the uninformed. Is it that hard to see why the Church (along with about 80 other denominations who joined the same coalition) has an interest in this?

..at BYU in the 80's... | 10:15 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I had a statistics course in which the professor told us she had been commissioned by the Church to do a study on children raised by single mothers (as measured by such indicators as high school graduation, brushes with the law, marriage, careers, and other indicators of "success" and "normality"). She said the church wanted some ammunition in the argument supporting two-parent, husband-wife households.

She said the study was glossed over after her findings showed that there were no differences in these indicators between children raised in two-parent households and single-parent households. This holds true in my personal experience as well.

Don't be fooled. | 10:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Gay marriage is not about equal rights it is about special rights for gay relationships. Preserve the definition of marriage. Send a message to children that both a mom and a dad are important. Homosexuals can get all the rights they want through contracts.

randy | 10:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

let's see

was it evolution ? dont/didnt see woman on woman producing a child to get here ... additionally dont/didnt see man on man producing a child

was it creation ?

god created adam and eve

NOT

adam and steve

Support traditional marriage | 10:18 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Post comments in California newspapers supporting Prop. 8. The vote is only a few short weeks away.

We're glad too | 10:19 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

We're glad you left Utah too. We live in a day that good is called evil and evil is called good. Isiah prophesied it would happen.
My nephew is struggling with same sex attraction. He is an active LDS, and wanting to stay clear of homosexuality. It is going to be tough, we know that. We love him...always will. If he stays true to his convictions he will have my overwhelming respect and admiration. He sees it as his challenge in this life. He may overcome, he may not. We will love him regardless of the standard instilled by God, not Church or State. This never has been an issue of love. I know you will never see it that way. Enjoy Southern California.

gw | 10:20 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Trying to explain to a person why SSA is not going to be supported by the church, is a non productive because, unless you have a testimony of the Prolamation on the Family, you do not get the big picture. It is like telling a person committing adultery it is wrong, when the person see nothing wrong with it. My worry is that, in California, is that the next thing you know, gay members will demand to get married in the Temple. Oh, I forgot, you have to have a recommend don't you.

MWMWMWMWMWMMWMWMWMWMWM | 10:28 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

This is not about "gay rights", which I support. This is about changing our society forever and infringing upon freedom of religion. If this doesn't pass then those who oppose gay marriage are liable to be sued for discrimination and hate speech. Children will be taught homosexuality and gay marriage as an appropriate behavior.

@ anonymous and clean up time | 10:29 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Just because the LDS church has values and teachings we follow doesn't mean you should call us hypocrites, and horable people. we believe what we want to, and THATS OUR RIGHT. Our teachings are guidelines we choose to follow, the prophet doesn't make us follow them. whatever we want to believe in is our freedom, you don't see us, saying bad things about other churches, or religions the teachings are for our members, Let us believe what we want to, for we know our religion is true. Don't judge us. we understand some people are attracted to the same sex, they are our brothers and sisters no matter what. you don't have to agree with us and our beliefs and teachings, but why do you people feel the need to degrade us for what we believe? I love utah, if you have a problem with the church, for all I care, leave, we came here because people like you ran us out of our homes and other states, just because we had different beliefs and had different teachings. LEAve US ALONe, ITS OUR RIGHT!!!!

All or Nothing | 10:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

re: @ re: @to all or nothing | 6:57 p.m.

Youve caught me in playing the devil's advocate here. I agree with you that my arguments arent sound or based on anything too concrete. My fear lies in that laws and law reform today doesnt have to be sound or based on anything too concrete either. The weak arguments of today could still be the law reform of the lawyer happy america of tommorow, all it takes is one loophole, some emotional backing, or some rebellion and a lot of $$$$.

I wouldnt have a worry in the world if everyone could shoot down iresonable arguments like you have. However I dont believe the amercian majority could tell a cat from a possum (its happened Ive seen it)

PS: Not Slippery Slope

Justin | 10:36 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

We have rules because they protect and reflect society. I don't hear anyone clammering to give legal protection to men who wants to have many wives, or men who love little children, or a sister and a brother who love each other and want to marry and have children. There are rules in society to protect us from ourselves, from our own evil thoughts. These unprotected relationships are wrong by societies standards and by the standards of most churches I know. One hundred years ago almost nobody advocated for Gay marriage. One hundred years from now will we be fighting those who want to allow a sister and her brother to marry and have children? There are those who will say, "This is different." It is different but that does not make it right.

John | 10:39 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

The church is right. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is the natural way and the only way to replenish the earth and be truly happy. In the beginning, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve or Ellen and Marie period. It's true that many have tendencies of being attracted to the same sex but that's when they need to get professional help because it's not the norm and absolutely unhealthy and unnatural. Same sex couples don't deserve benefits nor should they ever receive them. It's just wrong.

Bill | 10:41 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am curious as to what "needs" can not be met in a gay marriage, to wit:
1. Buy a house as "joint tenants". No problem.
2. Buy a automobile in two names. No problem.
3. Notify a health insurance company that I have a spouse whose name is ..... No problem. I didn't have to give my company a copy of my marriage certificate.
4. Have children. Now that may be a problem. I don't think parthenogenesis works for humans.
5. Adopt children. Go ahead. You don't need to be "married" to adopt.
Maybe I am naive, but I don't see what all the fuss is about. If a person wants to live outside of the 'norm', go ahead and enjoy life. We have a couple in our neighborhood that have "lived" together for years without marriage. True, they are heterosexual, but what is the difference if a couple is homosexual. No big deal to me.
Question: Is there a law that says that common law marriages can not be homosexual?

The LDS Church is right | 10:52 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I am glad that I belong to a church that is not afraid to stand up for what it right instead of some trendy man-made church. Gay marriage is evil and it is a threat to normal family life.

Bottom Line | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Take it up with the Lord...he makes the rules. The LDS Church just tries to obey them.

Mike from Phoenix | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

One of the reasons that the LDS chruch (and other churchs) is supporting Proposition 8 in California is that if gay marriage is legalized, then the church may be legally forced to perform those marriages in its own church. (note that I used the word may, as this outcome is not certain)

We are having a similar vote here in Arizona, and while the LDS church has not visibly been supporting that proposition here, many other churches have. One of the most notable is the ArchBishop of the Catholic Diocese in Phoenix who has publicly requested that all of its members vote in favor of Prop 102.

You may or may not agree with any church's position on this, but the members of those church's that do oppose gay marriage have a right to support their own beliefs, and not be forced to accept the state's definition of marriage in their own church's system.

I for one am glad that the LDS church is supporting this. Kudos for standing up for their own belief system.

Enlightening | 10:59 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Enlightening comments, my thanks. Marriage socially legitimized commited relationships and for many years and brought social condemnation on marital vow breakers, which provided stable long term situations for children.

Many benefits arise from marriage, population control since men are not running around trying to impregnate everything and in the majority of cases the benefits of stability outweighs the costs of strained situations for the children.

Imagine a world without marriage, who would raise the children? What would those children be like? What would society be like? Stable situations are crucial to socialize then next generation. Rights are granted to the institution best suited to raise children because of the necessary societal benefits.

Gay marriage is not about children - from their words it is about their individual rights and about love.

The same minds that have weakenen marriage(and thereby society) through the sexual revolution and acceptance of divorce and open marriages now want to change the definition of marriage.

The benefits of marriage are obvious.

What are the benefits of gay marriage? And why do homosexuals want marriage when civil unions exist? Perhaps the real goal is to legitimize homosexuality and create a legal tool to use against their enemies?

Common misconception | 10:59 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Church has right/obligation to speak out on any issue.

See section 501 para 3 sub c of IRS Tax Code.

Tax exempt status for charitable organizations such as a church is put in jeopardy ONLY IF THE CHURCH ENDORSES A SPECIFIC CANDIDATE.

Supporting a ballot measure (such as Prop 8, which the Catholic Church, and various other Christian churches support) is no cause for any church's tax exempt status to be revoked. This would only come into question if they endorsed a candidate running for a certain office.

Christina, sorry you don't agree. ANY LAW THAT IS PASSED IS IN SOME WAY "FORCING" SOMEONE ELSE'S MORALS ON THE REST OF SOCIETY.

In the Know | 11:02 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

God says "no," so it is no. In God we Trust. Its not any church saying this, it is directly from God. Hate the sin, love the sinner. Acting out unnatural gay desires is a sin, they need help, not marriage.

Re: Non-compliant | 11:04 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Thank you for your honest response.

Richard | 11:09 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

LDS people need to relax. No one is saying that they need to change the doctrine of the LDS church.
This debate is about equality, it has nothing to do with your right to worship and marry as you wish.
The LDS church is a Non-Profit Organization, and therefor cannot influence politics. It is against US law.

If the LDS church is against Gay Marriage that is fine, but they cannot use Money to try and influence law, this is clearly unpatriotic and illegal.

If the LDS people have a problem with a law that is passed in the Supreme Court then they can Protest all they would like, but using the LDS faith as mobilizing unit for the cause is both illegal and unpatriotic.

A true patriot values equality and the separation of Church and State.

Please use your mind when you vote this November, Vote for what YOU think is right and for who YOU think will do the best job.

Yes I am LDS.

Tolerance vs Acceptance | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I can't stand the word "Tolerance" What does that even mean? Does that mean if I don't believe in showering that you have to "tolerate" my smell? People confuse the word "tolerance" with the word "acceptance" They're NOT the same! Homosexuality is wrong, it's immoral and studies prove that it does a lot of harm to the family structure and society in general. I'll tolerate Homos and their choice to live that lifestyle, they have their rights and that's fine, but I don't have to ACCEPT it, and neither does the LDS church and that's why they're fighting this. Just like the state will tolerate smokers by not banning smoking but they won't accept smoking in public because of the problems it causes! Same thing! Good for the LDS church. Love the sinner, but not the sin and that's what this is all about.

Craig | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Let people whine. The Church will not cave. President Monson will not stop just because people complain. He answers to the Lord, not to any person or group of people.

I am extremely thankful that I can count on that without exception.

As for the person who left Utah, I'm glad they left too. Utah is crowded enough as it is.

LDS=Un-patriotic | 11:13 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

The Supreme Court is part of this great country because it is suppose to help minorities and all of us have the rights that we as HUMANS deserve.
It is not always "popular law" as people think it should be.
Without the Supreme Court then Black and White would not have desegregated, women would still be publicly discriminated upon, and religions like the LDS Church and others would not have the right to practice.

Please realize what a true democracy is and stop pushing religious views into politics.
Morality is not defined in Salt Lake City Utah.

Easy now... | 11:17 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Promoting gay sex? Think of it in actualities. There's a legal term for it. No one talks about that enough. It's not right. There are some things that, one day, you're not going to want to be wrong about. I know that you guys don't like the saying, but, hate the sin, love the sinner. I've never heard anyone really say how that isn't a perfect Christian approach.

Ron | 11:19 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

I think all of you are missing the point. It's very simple. Stand two males or two women nude in front of a mirror. You see two couples that were not intended by nature to ever reproduce. Therefore it clearly shows that this form of relationship is abnormal and against the law's of nature not just man.

The question is why, when in California gays have the same benefits as traditional couples do they still demand to use the word Marriage? Ten they will no longer were the stigma breaking the laws of nature.

Toleration | 11:19 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

"Toleration is not the opposite of intoleration, but it is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding liberty of conscience, and the other of granting it. The one is the pope, armed with fire and fagot, and the other is the pope selling or granting indulgences.
Thomas Paine

Never raising children here | 11:20 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Amen Christina.

Enlightening | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008

Enlightening comments, my thanks.

Gay marriage harms the institution of marriage by:

Extending benefits to partners(non-caregivers). This takes resources away from children. The majority of homosexuals do not have children meaning
the benefits are extended to their partners. These partners are adults. Extending benefits costs companies. Extension of more and more
benefits requires either spending more money or lessening the benefits. Which do you think will happen? At a minimum the company will
make less money, impacting salaries. I will concede giving benefits to partners who are care-givers.

It lumps heterosexual and homosexual unions under the same umbrella. Are the morays of heterosexuality and homosexuality the same? No!
Homosexuality is closely linked with the whatever you want to do is OK mindset. This is very dangerous to marriage. Losing
social condemnation for violating marriage vows is very costly to families and children.

Several posts have alluded that this is really a way to legitimize homosexuality and silence any critics. This has obvious impacts on marriage.

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.