Reader comments
Readers' forum: Shame on LDS Church
489 comments | Read story
Alex | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Marriage is fundamentally a religious distinction. Civil unions are
governmental. I could care less if two men or two women decide to get married in
the sense of civil unions. If you don't to have a gay relationship, do not
have one. But the term marriage is a fundamentally religious distinction and
that is what Prop 8 in California is defining.
With our present day litigious society, lawyers across the country have said they have valid cases to sue religious institutions for not upholding the "legal" definition of marriage. I fear that, and while people say it won't happen, we all know that court cases have changed the entire way of life in our country in the past.
Governments should govern civil unions. Churches should govern marriage. That is that.
With our present day litigious society, lawyers across the country have said they have valid cases to sue religious institutions for not upholding the "legal" definition of marriage. I fear that, and while people say it won't happen, we all know that court cases have changed the entire way of life in our country in the past.
Governments should govern civil unions. Churches should govern marriage. That is that.
Liberal Troll | 11:45 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why even bother posting one of the most uninformed, ignorant letters I have ever
seen?
That letter would be dismissed as trolling or flaming on any bush league internet forum. So why publish it here?
That letter would be dismissed as trolling or flaming on any bush league internet forum. So why publish it here?
Comments continue below
Everyone must agree with you? | 11:45 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Shame on anyone with a difference of opinion. Whenever I want to know what to
think, I will call this lady up.
Poor Logic | 11:47 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Not a very strong argument. A church does have the right to say what it
believes. It also has the right to encourage people to vote according to their
beliefs.
And I disagree with you. I think a democracy is a place where people should vote according to their beliefs. I may be Christian, you may be an atheist(or anything else) and I hope that you vote according to your beliefs. That is the beauty of a democracy, the voice of the people should win out. Not the restrained voice of the people, let's have people who vote according to their convictions, whatever they may be.
Really bad logic though. I think this hurt the argument, and did not help it.
And I disagree with you. I think a democracy is a place where people should vote according to their beliefs. I may be Christian, you may be an atheist(or anything else) and I hope that you vote according to your beliefs. That is the beauty of a democracy, the voice of the people should win out. Not the restrained voice of the people, let's have people who vote according to their convictions, whatever they may be.
Really bad logic though. I think this hurt the argument, and did not help it.
Anonymous | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Who ever wrote this column doesn't understand the definition of marriage.
No where will you find a man and man or a woman and a woman together. Calling
gay unions "Marriages" weakens "Marriage" because it changes
it to include something new. I could go on and on. Basically the institution of
marriage benefits society. The institution of gay marriage benefits Gays.
Todd C. | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You wonderfully missionary-minded Mormons are getting you wish: people are
leaving Utah and leaving your acquaintance and leaving you on your own, isolated
in your own little bubbles to congratulate yourselves on your moral superiority
over the rest of the evil and sinful world.
Hope you enjoy yourselves in there.
Hope you enjoy yourselves in there.
Society should decide | 11:57 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This is not a civil rights issue.
You can chose whether or not to act on your "feelings."
You can't choose skin color, if you have a disability, your gender. You choose whether or not you ACT on your perversions.
DLB | 11:59 a.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Church has a responsibility to voice concern about societal issues. The
Prophet is God�s representative and would be derelict in
his duty if he did not warn the nations. This is your responsibility, to find
out if God has Prophets to warn the people of the World from Adam down until the
present time. They scoffed at Noah who told the people to repent and join him on
the ark. Sodom and Gomorrah scoffed those who warned them of their sins. The
issue of immorality is not just Gay vs Straight, it is Gay and Straight. We are
commanded to not commit adultery. It is a commandment. I do not have God's
permission to commit adultery. I will reap the repercussions if I ever commit
such a sin. He is our Creator and our Father, He is the one who decides what is
right and what is wrong. It is up to us to believe and have faith in Him and
deny ourselves any lasciviousness. Lastly, He has your best interest at heart
�For behold, this is My work and glory to bring to pass the
immortality and eternal life of man.�
Underoath84 | 12:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Last time I read the Bible it was Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve. Amen!
just me | 12:08 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
This is not just about the LDS church; every major christian faith has expressed
views on this subject. The LDS faith just happens to fallow the teaching of
Jesus Christ which puts them in the same company as other like believers.
If you look at history, most major cultures had a period of sexual promiscuity("tolerance") just before they fell. Just because "anything goes" in California does that mean the rest of the country has to like it.
If you look at history, most major cultures had a period of sexual promiscuity("tolerance") just before they fell. Just because "anything goes" in California does that mean the rest of the country has to like it.
Fond Farewell | 12:09 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Wow, "I am so glad I left Utah. No church or government has a right to say
who someone should love." Who are you? I am glad you left Utah too. how
about the U.S.? We don't need freaks that want free love for everyone and
everything. There has to be morals or past civilizations have taught us they
crumble - because of people like you. How about beastiality? How about
pedophilia? Homosexuality is equivalant to these. Where does your reasoning
end? Leave the country please!
Anonymous | 12:10 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Last I checked, America was a nation that guaranteed equal protection under the
law and the blessings of liberty to ALL citizens, not just the ones who are
members of a Christian religion.
Or have we suddenly become a mirror reflection and Christian version of Iraq?
Or have we suddenly become a mirror reflection and Christian version of Iraq?
re:non-compliant | 12:12 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Thank you for your honesty. That takes courage.
Utah Resident:
Without a couple of exceptions on both sides, I have to totally agree with what you said. There is a lot of polarization going on in Utah and a lot of hate being spewed. We are moving into a time when the luke warm are being spewed out and people are becoming hot or cold. It is a day to chose right or wrong. Isaiah saw our day and prophesied about it. I am glad so many in Utah have the courage to stand for the right.
As for the hate, almost all of it is coming from those trying to take away our right to have an opinion and are calling us bigots and other ugly labels. It is very hateful. We say we love gay people but disagree with their lifestyle...you call us liars. Please help stop the aggressive hate from the radical side of the gay activists. Start with yourself.
Utah Resident:
Without a couple of exceptions on both sides, I have to totally agree with what you said. There is a lot of polarization going on in Utah and a lot of hate being spewed. We are moving into a time when the luke warm are being spewed out and people are becoming hot or cold. It is a day to chose right or wrong. Isaiah saw our day and prophesied about it. I am glad so many in Utah have the courage to stand for the right.
As for the hate, almost all of it is coming from those trying to take away our right to have an opinion and are calling us bigots and other ugly labels. It is very hateful. We say we love gay people but disagree with their lifestyle...you call us liars. Please help stop the aggressive hate from the radical side of the gay activists. Start with yourself.
Doodles | 12:14 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Think just a moment.
In all debates the burden of proof for change is not on the "status quo". The burden of proof for convincing the public that a new way, different from what we have been doing, is what we should adopt at this time, rests with the group advocationg change.
All those who wish to make homosexual relationships equal under the law to a marriage relationship are required to show how that change will benefit society as a whole, as well as individuals within the society.
So far, the homosexuals are losing, having no convincing arguments that society as a whole has anything to gain by adopting or supporting their minority point of view.
End of debate.
In all debates the burden of proof for change is not on the "status quo". The burden of proof for convincing the public that a new way, different from what we have been doing, is what we should adopt at this time, rests with the group advocationg change.
All those who wish to make homosexual relationships equal under the law to a marriage relationship are required to show how that change will benefit society as a whole, as well as individuals within the society.
So far, the homosexuals are losing, having no convincing arguments that society as a whole has anything to gain by adopting or supporting their minority point of view.
End of debate.
Aaron | 12:18 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Good for the lds church. The church doesn't care about insurance, hospital
visitations and those things. It's about the institution of marriage and
how that should be defined.
re:We're glad too | 12:24 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why so rude?
So someone is happy.
Live and let live.
Was your testimony strengthened today because of your kindness to a stranger?
So someone is happy.
Live and let live.
Was your testimony strengthened today because of your kindness to a stranger?
Rights | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Is it just strange to me, or do others notice, that those that are most offended
by the preservation of marriage so often quote and reference their rights. Does
anyone recall that the founding fathers recognized that the rights originated by
God and that government and man did not have the right to take them away or to
redefine them. Likewise sin is as simple as an unwillingness to be obediaent to
God's laws.
There is no right to marry or to the bonds of marriage guaranteed. If you want to choose a different lifestyle, do it - but don't expect society to accept and certainly don't expect God to treat sin as anything but sin.
There is no right to marry or to the bonds of marriage guaranteed. If you want to choose a different lifestyle, do it - but don't expect society to accept and certainly don't expect God to treat sin as anything but sin.
John Bingham | 12:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I moved from Utah to California as well. But I don't harbor any ill will
towards the LDS church. If they want to organize and spread their viewpoint,
that is fine.
To be blatantly honest however, this proposition will not pass in my opinon, and I fully intend to vote against it myself, as do millions of other straight Californians - we look at it in a bit different light than most folks back in Utah.
I've followed state polls on a lot of our props and I just don't see 8 passing. This proposition is merely attempting to delay the inevitable - that the ability to marry is a right of every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation.
To be blatantly honest however, this proposition will not pass in my opinon, and I fully intend to vote against it myself, as do millions of other straight Californians - we look at it in a bit different light than most folks back in Utah.
I've followed state polls on a lot of our props and I just don't see 8 passing. This proposition is merely attempting to delay the inevitable - that the ability to marry is a right of every citizen, regardless of sexual orientation.
SML-PDX | 12:28 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Ms. Larsen,
What is your feelings on plural marriage? I have a hunch you're against it. Shouldn't polygamists have "equal rights"?
What is your feelings on plural marriage? I have a hunch you're against it. Shouldn't polygamists have "equal rights"?
Bob | 12:28 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Christina,
I agree with you fully. Based on everything I have learned by trying to live as a Christian my entire life, I cannot imagine Jesus is happy with the actions of all these Churches that claim to be acting in his name. In fact, if he was still in there, he would be rolling over in his grave!
God bless you as you strive to stand up for what is right.
I agree with you fully. Based on everything I have learned by trying to live as a Christian my entire life, I cannot imagine Jesus is happy with the actions of all these Churches that claim to be acting in his name. In fact, if he was still in there, he would be rolling over in his grave!
God bless you as you strive to stand up for what is right.
Gay doesnt mean happy now either | 12:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
No one is attacking gay marriage, because there is no such thing as gay
marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what marriage is.
Nothing will change that true definition. Shame on you if you want to make
marriage something it is not. It is you who are on the attack. You are attacking
society, and its fundamentals, trying to redefine what is right, and therefore
attacking civil rights. You are in the wrong and your stance is the offensive
one. Shame on you! Why should we let you redefine us, who know how offensive and
damaging these, your actions, will be? You�who
don�t know how this affects
marriage�of all people, should not even think to ask for
such unequal actions to be defined as equal.
Even if you are under the delusion that you are somehow upholding civil rights, you are not. Everyone already has equal right to marriage and all that goes with it, under the true definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Now if you want a union of something like sodomy�defined as sexual intercourse with the same sex�... (Continued)
Even if you are under the delusion that you are somehow upholding civil rights, you are not. Everyone already has equal right to marriage and all that goes with it, under the true definition of marriage being between a man and a woman. Now if you want a union of something like sodomy�defined as sexual intercourse with the same sex�... (Continued)
Dean | 12:36 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
As a native Utahn, this thread is pretty depressing. The LDS Church continues to
fight against social progress, and as a former member that makes me feel quite
sad.
educated person | 12:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
this issue is so much more than just fighting against marriage.
Its the waive of lawsuits that will come down if passed. The church adoption agency could be sued for not allowing gay couples to adopt, schools will be forced to teach and talk about marriage as between two adults instead of a man and women, and that gay marriage is normal.
there is much more at stake then hurting the feelings of a couple of gay couples.
Its the waive of lawsuits that will come down if passed. The church adoption agency could be sued for not allowing gay couples to adopt, schools will be forced to teach and talk about marriage as between two adults instead of a man and women, and that gay marriage is normal.
there is much more at stake then hurting the feelings of a couple of gay couples.
tom_al | 12:38 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Well..............
How bout all those gays who think it's their "right" to get married wherever they want. If proposition 8 isn't passed the church will lost their rights for temples, taxes, etc. When a gay couple thinks how nice the San Diego temple looks and decides, hmmm... we should get married there. the church won't have the right to turn them down without getting thrown into a huge trial. This is ridiculous. Gay people are people sure. But they shouldn't be treated that...
After all, I don't get any extra rights because I'm red headed.
How bout all those gays who think it's their "right" to get married wherever they want. If proposition 8 isn't passed the church will lost their rights for temples, taxes, etc. When a gay couple thinks how nice the San Diego temple looks and decides, hmmm... we should get married there. the church won't have the right to turn them down without getting thrown into a huge trial. This is ridiculous. Gay people are people sure. But they shouldn't be treated that...
After all, I don't get any extra rights because I'm red headed.
Cal Mom of 6 | 12:49 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The fact of the matter is that in 2000, 61% of Ca. for Prop 22. The same
wording as Prop 8. Then, earlier this year(why did they wait until an election
year?) 4 liberal judges ruled that they knew better than the 4 million voters
who voted for Prop 22. If prop 8 doesn't pass, it just opens the door for
other liberal judges to overule anything they want!!!! I love the Lord and will
follow the Bibles teaching!
RE-Christina | 1:07 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I'M A SINNER TOO.
GOD IS OUR JUDGE...NOT ME, NOT THE CHURCH. HE'S THE ONE WHO SAYS MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
IF I REPENT I MAY FIND THE GRACE OF OUR SAVIOR AND BE SAVED...YOU TOO.
GOD IS OUR JUDGE...NOT ME, NOT THE CHURCH. HE'S THE ONE WHO SAYS MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN.
IF I REPENT I MAY FIND THE GRACE OF OUR SAVIOR AND BE SAVED...YOU TOO.
Now what? | 1:15 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Why do they preach love between a man and a women? Because we're supposed
to pro create and replenish the earth with children. How is being a homosexual
and being with a partner of the same sex helping that process? It isn't.
oldpuebloguy | 1:15 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Misguided author of the article. Obviously as an American, she is not familiar
with the First Amendment. Shame on her.
To be Gay is wrong | 1:21 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The one thing that people always overlook is, that originally the LDS Church is
not saying that homosexuality is wrong, but God says so and THAT is why the
Church says it. God said in the Bible: (Leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not
lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." and (1.
Corinthians 6:9-10)"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the
kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, ...nor effeminate, nor
abusers of themselves with mankind, ... shall inherit the kingdom of God."
So what is a church supposed to do when it comes to that subject?
SLC gal | 1:26 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
WOW!I can't belive this actually made it into the DNews. Wow..... That
said, can anyone explain to me what the issue is with civil unions... This would
allow those in homosexual relationships the legal protections of marriage
without mocking God by invoking marriages that he never intended.
Reason | 1:27 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I may be wrong, but to me this letter doesn�t pass the
�smell test.� My hunch is that
Christina never lived in Utah, but claims to have moved from here so that her
letter would be more likely to be printed in the LDS-owned paper.
perspective | 1:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Hasnt this whole proposition been voted on once and passed handily by the people
of California, and then overturned by judges who wish they were lawmakers
instead of judges? The majority already said no once, and now because of the
judges ruling, they have to play it again? This is like the Jazz winning a
tough opponent one night, and then the NBA saying the game didnt count, they
have to play it again..... with the new mental psyche that they got from the
first game being overruled....That this proposition is even an issue outrages
me, and the minority writer of the article, expecting to have majority rule
without the votes, is a much larger outrage to me.
loss of social morals | 1:34 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Just like when Hollywood is allowed to portray certain deviant behaivors as
mainstream it affects our society in a negative way by giving our youth and
other easily influenced individuals in society the perception that this deviant
behaivor is OK when in reality it hurts the society as a whole from a spiritual
standpoint; allowing our government to portray gay marriage as "ok"
will again create the wrong perception that it's "ok" based on
the beliefs of the church, to condone gay marriage. There are no
"gay" members of the church because that is an action that forfiets
the right to be a member. Just like an alcoholic who drinks heavily
doesn't enjoy the benefits of full membership, an individual who believes
he is gay and can do nothing to change it will also not benefit from the
blessings of being a member. If the alcoholic stops his drinking and repents he
will again have the opportunity to become a full member, just as will a person
who has tendencies attracting them to a person of the same sex.
pagan member | 1:37 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Being nice to everyone is just wonderful. I accept everyone and everything. There is no evil. We just need to be open minded. People should also be allowed to marry animals if they choose. Being judgemental is just awful. Murder should also be allowed. You need to be in the other persons shoes so that you can truly understand them.
awsomeron | 1:39 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The Government has a right to make and pass laws, and the people are obligated
to obey those laws. This is why we have to allow Abortion to continue and the
Genocide of Abortion to continue because the Laws Of The United States Allow it
to both happen and continue.
A Church or Faith Group can ask of it members or require of its members anything that faith groups leaders want. Moral Rules, Diet Rules, Financial Rules. Standards for both Adults and youth.
An elected official is supposed to carry out the will and desire of the Majority off the people. Taking into account their own standard, views, and moral belief system. This is in part why we have States and States Rights.
As soon as Roe v Wade is overturned there are States ready with the Laws and Penalties spelled out, that will Ban Abortion. If these States are in session at the time the bills will be passed and signed within a week. If Not in Session many will call a special session for that purpose.
If you do not like Utah then you have the right to leave. This is America go live where you want.
A Church or Faith Group can ask of it members or require of its members anything that faith groups leaders want. Moral Rules, Diet Rules, Financial Rules. Standards for both Adults and youth.
An elected official is supposed to carry out the will and desire of the Majority off the people. Taking into account their own standard, views, and moral belief system. This is in part why we have States and States Rights.
As soon as Roe v Wade is overturned there are States ready with the Laws and Penalties spelled out, that will Ban Abortion. If these States are in session at the time the bills will be passed and signed within a week. If Not in Session many will call a special session for that purpose.
If you do not like Utah then you have the right to leave. This is America go live where you want.
YBU | 1:40 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
We have not allowed any religion or dogma to set up our civil laws except for a
few times and those laws have been deemed unconstitutional or repealed. (ie,
slavery, prohibition, anti inter-racial marriage laws, sodomy, etc.)
No one is asking you to forgo your religious ceremonies of marriage between a man and a woman, but they are asking you to allow others who have different views than yours to CIVILLY marry. You will be able to believe exactly the same things you are believing right now, but, if Prop 8 passes, others will not be have the "free exercise" of their beliefs.
Will someone PLEASE let me know why you think this is good for America, other than it is what your God wants? Is there no cognitive dissodence with your position and what you have been taught that the constitution means?
No one is asking you to forgo your religious ceremonies of marriage between a man and a woman, but they are asking you to allow others who have different views than yours to CIVILLY marry. You will be able to believe exactly the same things you are believing right now, but, if Prop 8 passes, others will not be have the "free exercise" of their beliefs.
Will someone PLEASE let me know why you think this is good for America, other than it is what your God wants? Is there no cognitive dissodence with your position and what you have been taught that the constitution means?
let's be honest | 1:42 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Had to weigh in here. I'm an LDS church member, but I get frustrated when
the gay marriage thing comes up. So many of the arguments thrown out there are
weak, tired, and sometimes just ridiculous. Looking over this very thread you
can see that people claim they can't support gay marriage because it will
lead to adopted children in poor homes and blocks of cheese marrying horses.
Sheesh!
Let's be absolutely honest. There is no reliable, peer-reviewed evidence of any kind that suggests negative societal consequences if gays are allowed to marry. The truth is that those who oppose it do so on moral grounds, which is their right to do. But if that's your position you owe it to the discourse to be honest about it.
I'm too young to remember this, but I've read that the gay marriage issue in many ways resembles the issue of inter-racial marriage, which actually used to be illegal. Times change, and "morals" often change as society progresses.
We all have a right to our opinions, but I don't for one second think that my heterosexual marriage is in any way at risk if gays are allowed to marry as well.
Let's be absolutely honest. There is no reliable, peer-reviewed evidence of any kind that suggests negative societal consequences if gays are allowed to marry. The truth is that those who oppose it do so on moral grounds, which is their right to do. But if that's your position you owe it to the discourse to be honest about it.
I'm too young to remember this, but I've read that the gay marriage issue in many ways resembles the issue of inter-racial marriage, which actually used to be illegal. Times change, and "morals" often change as society progresses.
We all have a right to our opinions, but I don't for one second think that my heterosexual marriage is in any way at risk if gays are allowed to marry as well.
It's Not Equity | 1:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Equity does not always mean providing identical resources and opportuinities to
each person or population. Neither does it mean access to every program.
Sometimes identicalness and sameness are considered unfair. This holds true for
marriage: identicalness and sameness will not make things "equal." It
is biologically, virtually, and fundamentally impossible. This pursuit of
"equity" for one population in turn makes it "inequitable"
for another. If we are going to re-open the definition of marriage, make sure
it's comprehensive and inclusive of all forms of marriage. Otherwise, if
you're not going to let me marry three or four other consenting non-blood
relative adults, keep your mouth shut!
YBU | 1:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
tom_al
Canada has allowed gays to marry for years. How many times has the church been sued for not marrying any of them in the Alberta temple?
Great Britian has allowed gays to marry for years. How many times has the church been sued for not marrying any of them in the London temple?
This is an empty scare tactic and beneath you to use it.
Canada has allowed gays to marry for years. How many times has the church been sued for not marrying any of them in the Alberta temple?
Great Britian has allowed gays to marry for years. How many times has the church been sued for not marrying any of them in the London temple?
This is an empty scare tactic and beneath you to use it.
Dear Richard . . . | 1:46 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
You don't know the law you speak so well about. (You do write really well).
The separation of church and state does NOT, and never has, prohibit any church
from having political movements or forces. It prohibits the state from
sponsoring or favoring any specific church. I bet you can easily understand the
difference.
Guyaco | 1:47 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm glad you left Utah too.
It's Not Bigotry | 1:48 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Everyone, I'm in Arizona, where we're voting on Proposition 102,
similar to 8. This is the way I see it. I have gay friends, a cousin, and a good
friend who's bisexual. I care about every one of them.
THAT said, I'm voting YES on 102. My cousin, though SSA, is still a great guy, and his parents are some of the most wonderful people I know. They don't approve of his lifestyle choice--yes, choosing the lifestyle is a choice, though orientation's a murky issue--but they still see him as their son. Their door's always open for him.
I don't know what a world where there wasn't a mom-and-dad family for him to come home to would be like, but I don't want to find out. Neither does the LDS Church, which has every right in the world to make its position known. Its members have free agency. That's obvious from these comment boards.
We've done enough damage to the traditional family. Like an endangered species, it MUST be legally protected. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals won't want to live in a world where the traditional family has no place. Supporting the family isn't bigotry. It's common sense.
THAT said, I'm voting YES on 102. My cousin, though SSA, is still a great guy, and his parents are some of the most wonderful people I know. They don't approve of his lifestyle choice--yes, choosing the lifestyle is a choice, though orientation's a murky issue--but they still see him as their son. Their door's always open for him.
I don't know what a world where there wasn't a mom-and-dad family for him to come home to would be like, but I don't want to find out. Neither does the LDS Church, which has every right in the world to make its position known. Its members have free agency. That's obvious from these comment boards.
We've done enough damage to the traditional family. Like an endangered species, it MUST be legally protected. Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals won't want to live in a world where the traditional family has no place. Supporting the family isn't bigotry. It's common sense.
Ronald A. Young | 1:55 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
I see No Shame on, Utah, I love Utah and some of Utah�s
Laws, I might even live in Utah, except it is to cold and does not have an
Ocean, so I can Swim on Christmas and New Years Day.
The only Shame I would feel for Utah is if the Citizens of Utah did not Stand Their Ground, on Moral and Cultural Issues.
Utah is not like anyplace else and it was never meant to be like any place else. Utah is the way it is and if you do not like it leave, simple as that. States Rights, they are right you are wrong.
The same with America if you do not like it leave. You may not like a rule of a law but you just have to Cowboy Up and accept it. You have more freedom then vastly most places.
Go to Iran and tell them that they cannot keep Homosexuals from getting Married and see what happens to you.
The only Shame I would feel for Utah is if the Citizens of Utah did not Stand Their Ground, on Moral and Cultural Issues.
Utah is not like anyplace else and it was never meant to be like any place else. Utah is the way it is and if you do not like it leave, simple as that. States Rights, they are right you are wrong.
The same with America if you do not like it leave. You may not like a rule of a law but you just have to Cowboy Up and accept it. You have more freedom then vastly most places.
Go to Iran and tell them that they cannot keep Homosexuals from getting Married and see what happens to you.
Joe Moe | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The two camps on this issue are firmly entrenched on each side of the
battlefield, lobbing their bombs.
I stood up and walked down the middle of it a little while ago, trying to get a fresh perspective of all sides. I was truly undecided in my heart for a while. I could see both points of view, and they are both sincere.
In the end, I came to believe that the difference isn't one of love, sincerity, or intelligence (despite what so many keep saying). It is a difference of paradigm. Most of those who support same-sex marriage are very attuned to the moment, and their compassion is noteworthy. Most of those who oppose same-sex marriage have a more eternal, holistic perspective. This fundamental difference has a huge impact.
In the end, I decided that I will oppose same-sex marriage, based on an eternal perspective I choose to embrace.
I stood up and walked down the middle of it a little while ago, trying to get a fresh perspective of all sides. I was truly undecided in my heart for a while. I could see both points of view, and they are both sincere.
In the end, I came to believe that the difference isn't one of love, sincerity, or intelligence (despite what so many keep saying). It is a difference of paradigm. Most of those who support same-sex marriage are very attuned to the moment, and their compassion is noteworthy. Most of those who oppose same-sex marriage have a more eternal, holistic perspective. This fundamental difference has a huge impact.
In the end, I decided that I will oppose same-sex marriage, based on an eternal perspective I choose to embrace.
John Pack Lambert | 2:11 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
The debate is about what relationships will recieve government endorsement.
Anonymous | 2:17 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
"No one is attacking gay marriage, because there is no such thing as gay
marriage."
Maybe not in your mind, but it does exist in this world: Britian, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belguim, Massachusetts and California. That is a fact.
Maybe not in your mind, but it does exist in this world: Britian, Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Belguim, Massachusetts and California. That is a fact.
Justice | 2:18 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To SLC gal,
Please educate yourself. Anyone posting on here who has NOT read the California Supreme Court decision has no business making a comment.
According to the California Supreme Court, this issue is the same issue that blacks faced during the civil rights movement circa 1960's. Segregationists claimed that keeping blacks separate from whites, but providing "equal" facilities, was not a violation of the US Constitution "equal protection". After several decades of obvious and blatant discrimination carried out in the name of this "separate but equal" lie, the US Supreme Court ruled that separate is unavoidably UNequal.
Based on that precedent, the California Supreme Court did their job and ruled that Proposition 22, passed by Californians in 2000, violated the same principles by trying to create a "separate but equal" marriage status for gays. Just as it placed blacks in a second-class status as citizens, the "separate but equal" lie is now trying to do the same thing to gays.
Hope that helps.
Please educate yourself. Anyone posting on here who has NOT read the California Supreme Court decision has no business making a comment.
According to the California Supreme Court, this issue is the same issue that blacks faced during the civil rights movement circa 1960's. Segregationists claimed that keeping blacks separate from whites, but providing "equal" facilities, was not a violation of the US Constitution "equal protection". After several decades of obvious and blatant discrimination carried out in the name of this "separate but equal" lie, the US Supreme Court ruled that separate is unavoidably UNequal.
Based on that precedent, the California Supreme Court did their job and ruled that Proposition 22, passed by Californians in 2000, violated the same principles by trying to create a "separate but equal" marriage status for gays. Just as it placed blacks in a second-class status as citizens, the "separate but equal" lie is now trying to do the same thing to gays.
Hope that helps.
John Pack Lambert | 2:18 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
To Anonymous on peer reviewed research,
In moral issues I do not make my decision based on what has recieved peer review. The process used to de-classify same-gender attraction as a disorder involved political pressure which is the exact opposite of what should go on in a scholarly study.
There is ample evidence that the legalization of same-gender marriage will lead to the increase of out-of-wedlock births by the disconnecting of child-raising from marriage.
The proponants of same-gender marriage will not tolerate any reasoned discussion against it, always insisting on misrepresenting what their opponants say and as a last resort yelling "shame", "bigot", "facist" and a whole set of other things.
It is not facist to want to keep the government from recognizaing an entirely new set of relationships.
This debate has nothing to do with the use of police power, and everything to do with the course pursued by public policy.
If we accept the theory that any desire to increase the use of police power is facist, than those who oppose Proposition 8 are facists. This of course is a ludicrous conclusion, but so is calling its supporters facist.
In moral issues I do not make my decision based on what has recieved peer review. The process used to de-classify same-gender attraction as a disorder involved political pressure which is the exact opposite of what should go on in a scholarly study.
There is ample evidence that the legalization of same-gender marriage will lead to the increase of out-of-wedlock births by the disconnecting of child-raising from marriage.
The proponants of same-gender marriage will not tolerate any reasoned discussion against it, always insisting on misrepresenting what their opponants say and as a last resort yelling "shame", "bigot", "facist" and a whole set of other things.
It is not facist to want to keep the government from recognizaing an entirely new set of relationships.
This debate has nothing to do with the use of police power, and everything to do with the course pursued by public policy.
If we accept the theory that any desire to increase the use of police power is facist, than those who oppose Proposition 8 are facists. This of course is a ludicrous conclusion, but so is calling its supporters facist.
RR | 2:39 p.m. Oct. 9, 2008
Yet another example of how the influences opposite of good are entrenched in the
minds of the world.
What is evil is now good. California is world headquarters to people sucked into whatever society tells them.
Sorry Christina, the Church doesn't follow every bit of doctrine a few celebs want to share with the world.
What is evil is now good. California is world headquarters to people sucked into whatever society tells them.
Sorry Christina, the Church doesn't follow every bit of doctrine a few celebs want to share with the world.
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.
- Bingham validates No. 1 ranking 10:48 p.m.
- Suh forced way into Heisman race 10:43 p.m.
- Care for needy is ongoing charge 10:42 p.m.
- Student writers awarded 10:34 p.m.
- Birthdays for Saturday, Nov. 12 10:30 p.m.
- Jerry Weintraub feted at UNICEF 10:30 p.m.
- 3 plead not guilty in drug case 10:29 p.m.
- Utah Jazz gameday 10:29 p.m.
- The Number: 56% - Global warming? 10:28 p.m.
- 'Oz' hard to watch for singer Minnelli 10:27 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
277 - BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy107
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
Ask the Utah Food Bank what % of the donations and volunteers are from the...
The Jazz are a good team and will play some good games. Right now that is the...
It was incredible, the sound was phenomenal, and Natalie's story about...
Again, you're wrong. BYU was the only undefeated team left in 1984. At the...
Selective memory | 4:50 a.m. Speaking of "Selective Memory"!!!!...
Sounds impressive, there is a good chance I will show up there sometime with...
And the IRS will audit the tax funded cell phones to make sure they are only...
I forgot how great the royal blue looked until they wore them again in...
I applaud this concept, although it is hardly a new idea. There used to be a...
It was a great concert. Quit complaining.
Advertisements
We live in an organized society and we must live my the laws set forth. I for one would like to continue to live in such a society and feel we should not tear it down simply because there are some that want to destroy the insitution of marriage. Call it something else like civil unions if you like but we must defend the sanctity of marriage altogether. This is a fight worth fighting!