Reader comments
Hundreds take to S.L. streets to protest, support Prop. 8 ban on gay marriage
558 comments | Read story
practice what you preach | 8:50 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Millions of people other than mormons voted for Prop 8. The gay community is
targeting the LDS church with their hatred, just what they asked not to have
happen to them. Funny how you throw your "positions" away when it
doesn't benefit you.
America be Warned | 8:53 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Most of America doesn't support homosexual marriage. Most don't care
about the rallies happening across the country. Once it passes (it will
eventually pass), other issues will come up and our constitution will be hanging
on by a thread. Gay marriage is wrong. Hundreds of millions will start home
schooling our children before we allow teachers to teach that gay and lesbian
marriage is ok.
anonymous | 8:55 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
To Gay Mormon 2:24...I have gone to church every week for 39 years and not ONCE
have I EVER heard a joke about gay people, or any inappropriate joke. I wonder
if you are making that up. In fact, my husband and I were talking just today
about how even with all this "spewing" that is going on towards the
LDS church, it hasn't even been mentioned over the pulpit. We don't
bash anyone, not any person, group or religion. We focus on our beliefs only. I
have to say that I am really tired of hearing about how hateful and bigoted we
are. What the glbt community doesn't understand is this is OUR RELIGIOUS
BELIEF. Has someone let God know lately that He is a bigot?They are His rules,
we are just following them. We fear God more than man. You don't
understand, WE DON'T HATE YOU. You just can't understand how we could
vote against you, but not hate you and not be "bigoted". The bottom
line is we really do believe we will have to answer for what we do here, and we
have to stand for what we believe and have learned from the Bible.
Comments continue below
Darrell | 9:07 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
The so-called gays are proving to one and all who the real intolerant haters
really are!
Gay comments at Church....not | 9:12 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Hey look at me I can type multiple emails pretending to be different people
claiming that I hear gay jokes all the time at Church even by my Bishop and
Stake President... Get real. The Church itself does not condone actions like
this, and I guarantee that this does not happen with regularity, and if anyone
did and was heard, they would be disciplined. Sorry, but the idea that because
I said it in a post on the Deseret News means it is true is ridiculous. Rumor
and innuendo have no place in media, even if that media is a comment board.
LDS in California | 9:20 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I live in the Bay area and have never, ever heard a single derotagory comment
about gays at Church. We even had a gay man in our ward who was very much
beloved. Actually, he wasn't gay. He did struggle with same sex
attraction, but chose to follow God's laws concerning that type of
behavior. I was very sad when he moved away. He used to frequently perform at
ward and Stake functions because he was very talented. I suspect he would
support prop 8 because of what it stands for and I've heard him say out
loud that he eargerly awaits the day when all will be made right. He was good
friends with some of the single sisters in our ward, he wasn't any lonlier
than they were. There is room for everyone.
Mike | 9:31 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Could everybody please stop saying that gays seeking equalitable servitude of
the law is nothing more than gays seeking a justification of their lifestyle???
It is incredibly short-sighted and ultimately flawed reasoning. Besides it is
the religious community which felt the need to constitutionally define
marriage--does that not equally qualify as seeking justification or sanction for
their sense of piety?
Also the US is a republic not a democracy--meaning simply that the popular vote is not enough. If the vote of the majority seeks to deny the rights of the minority it is the role of the judicial to overturn the vote. As much as people would like to believe that a "majority" vote is the height of government, we have to realize that the very intent of our constitution is violated when a majority seeks to vote on the rights of the minority.
Marriage itself may not explicitly be a civil right, however, equitable servitude of the law is an unalienable right. If we still believe that all men are created equal, then marriage as a civically reconized institution must be for all. These amendments shouldn't stand. If we destroy our constitution in this way, everybody's rights are jeopardized.
Also the US is a republic not a democracy--meaning simply that the popular vote is not enough. If the vote of the majority seeks to deny the rights of the minority it is the role of the judicial to overturn the vote. As much as people would like to believe that a "majority" vote is the height of government, we have to realize that the very intent of our constitution is violated when a majority seeks to vote on the rights of the minority.
Marriage itself may not explicitly be a civil right, however, equitable servitude of the law is an unalienable right. If we still believe that all men are created equal, then marriage as a civically reconized institution must be for all. These amendments shouldn't stand. If we destroy our constitution in this way, everybody's rights are jeopardized.
Awesome | 9:38 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Thanks for all the free advertizing for our church. This is going to be a boost
to our missionary effort. People will know that we are for freedom of speech,
democracy, God given rights, morality, and traditional marriage.
They are going to look at the losers who oppose our church and decide they don't want to be like the pro same sex marriage side.
You have all the God given rights that I have. You can marry someone of the opposite sex. Your hateful lies about our church and homosexuality are easily exposed. Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, biology, and psychology. It is bad for children and society.
Your hateful attacks on our church are just bringing more people to our side against same sex marriage. You have stolen our property, vandalized our temple, beat up our supporters, and used profanity and vulgarity against us.
You won't accept democracy and the will of the people. You try to cut off all free speech against your perverted ways.
We will not crumble in our resolve against same sex marriage. You have woken up a sleeping giant that will continue to battle in this war.
They are going to look at the losers who oppose our church and decide they don't want to be like the pro same sex marriage side.
You have all the God given rights that I have. You can marry someone of the opposite sex. Your hateful lies about our church and homosexuality are easily exposed. Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, biology, and psychology. It is bad for children and society.
Your hateful attacks on our church are just bringing more people to our side against same sex marriage. You have stolen our property, vandalized our temple, beat up our supporters, and used profanity and vulgarity against us.
You won't accept democracy and the will of the people. You try to cut off all free speech against your perverted ways.
We will not crumble in our resolve against same sex marriage. You have woken up a sleeping giant that will continue to battle in this war.
Guy from California | 9:47 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
The only right that prop 8 removed was to call gay union 'marriage'.
Gay couples already have all the rights of married people in California!
But Prop 8 upheld the rights of parents and children to prevent the indoctrination of the gay lifestyles on children as young as kindergarten.
In the end, its this simple:
Protecting children should always trump the wants of a few!
But Prop 8 upheld the rights of parents and children to prevent the indoctrination of the gay lifestyles on children as young as kindergarten.
In the end, its this simple:
Protecting children should always trump the wants of a few!
Re: Erika | 10:34 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
When I read the article, I did not assume that it implied there was violence in
demonstrations. From the articles I've read, the DesNews emphasized that
the protests were exercising their right to "PEACEABLY assemble."
You clearly read this article just looking for something to criticize.
You clearly read this article just looking for something to criticize.
re: Disgusted | 10:40 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I agree, we would fight back. That's why Prop 8 was passed. Currently,
the homosexuals are attacking marriage by trying to say that they can be married
too. Don't agree? Civil unions have all the same rights as married people
in California. For all tenses and purposes, a civil union and a marriage are
the same thing in California legally. Why would anyone care then? Because they
want to attack marriage and religion. If you say that you believe homosexuality
is a sin, you're attacked for being a "hatemonger". Well it is,
just like any type of sexuality outside of marriage. By the way, if you
redefine marriage, I don't think God is going to agree, so he is still
going to consider it a sin regardless of what the courts decide. That said, it
won't stop the homosexuals from attacking the churches for being against
it!
re: Stenar | 10:45 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
How about the tyrany of a minority? The Mormon Church is being assaulted when
they hardly had anything to do with the outcome, but they are being attacked
because they are a minority. That's why the Catholic Church and the
Baptists, etc. aren't being attacked!
jared | 10:52 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
i love the separation of church and state signs.. shows how ignorant people are.
didnt they know that the country was FOUNDED on religious principles? the
separation of church and state means the government does not run the church, and
the church does not run the government. this vote was BY THE PEOPLE. there is
no church and state mixture. american ignorance. and you wonder why our best
candidates were obama and mccain?
What Jokes? | 10:55 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I echo the other posters here about gay jokes at Church. I have lived in over 15
different wards and never heard such things at Church. Every member I have met
would be embarrassed to be heard talking like that, especially at Church, and
especially on a Sunday.
And on any other days of the week the LDS people I know are incredibly tolerant. They don't swear and off-color jokes are rare if not non-existent. Most Mormons have a tough time even with blond jokes for fear of offending someone.
Anyone who suggests Mormons as a people use hate-speech or speak with intolerance about anyone is either confusing them with another group of people or are blatantly trying to deceive.
Mormons, like all true followers of Christ, are tolerant of all people. They love and forgive everyone. What they do not tolerate is sin. Like Christ, they strive to condemn the sin, but love and help the sinner.
If you want tolerance, you have it. But if what you seek is our acceptance of immoral behavior, you have come to the wrong state and nation.
And on any other days of the week the LDS people I know are incredibly tolerant. They don't swear and off-color jokes are rare if not non-existent. Most Mormons have a tough time even with blond jokes for fear of offending someone.
Anyone who suggests Mormons as a people use hate-speech or speak with intolerance about anyone is either confusing them with another group of people or are blatantly trying to deceive.
Mormons, like all true followers of Christ, are tolerant of all people. They love and forgive everyone. What they do not tolerate is sin. Like Christ, they strive to condemn the sin, but love and help the sinner.
If you want tolerance, you have it. But if what you seek is our acceptance of immoral behavior, you have come to the wrong state and nation.
Blondie | 11:04 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I'm thinkin gays should have the right to marry and also have the right to
participate in all of the possibilities that go along with it including domestic
violence, cheating spouses,financial problems, divorces, custody battles (maybe)
and property settlements just to name a few. Have at it people -- marriage is
not a bed of roses. It requires patience, responsibility, and hard work to make
it work. Whoever wants to appreciate the joys of marriage should also have to
suffer the sorrows.
The legal interpretation | 11:16 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
After all is said and done,
and whether sides will agree and disagree as to what the rulings...
it comes down to...
What can be done legally.
Yes, the passing of 8 shows that we, as a society, by a slim margin only, are still not there, in allowing others to live their/our lives as we would.
And sure it hurts.
That said --- we now have two contradictory legal interpretations --- and both of them will have to be done by the same Court.
Methinks my mind takes me back to Brown v. Board of Education, when, the Chief Justice sought an unanimous vote by all justices, to show union with the justices. Are we ready to go there? Or will we have a split decision? Or even worse, a decision that puts us back in Square One?
The judges' ruling will have to, in essence, state that Proposition 8 violates equal protection under the law. Does the amendment to the constitution violate that?
In a worse case scenario, will we, as the LGBT community, have to re-amend the Constitution the Constitution to, in essence, extend marriage to those of us who are now disenfranchised.
and whether sides will agree and disagree as to what the rulings...
it comes down to...
What can be done legally.
Yes, the passing of 8 shows that we, as a society, by a slim margin only, are still not there, in allowing others to live their/our lives as we would.
And sure it hurts.
That said --- we now have two contradictory legal interpretations --- and both of them will have to be done by the same Court.
Methinks my mind takes me back to Brown v. Board of Education, when, the Chief Justice sought an unanimous vote by all justices, to show union with the justices. Are we ready to go there? Or will we have a split decision? Or even worse, a decision that puts us back in Square One?
The judges' ruling will have to, in essence, state that Proposition 8 violates equal protection under the law. Does the amendment to the constitution violate that?
In a worse case scenario, will we, as the LGBT community, have to re-amend the Constitution the Constitution to, in essence, extend marriage to those of us who are now disenfranchised.
The legal interpretation | 11:25 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I believe that when voters went to the polls, they were thinking with their
religious minds, not their secular law minds.
By far, the overwhelming argument that I hear is that "I cannot pass marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman" because it is against my religion.
Right.
we get that.
I think the undertone, implied, and not written meaning behind Proposition 8 was "only a (religious) marriage is recognized or valid in the State of California."
I don't hear an argument from the side of the people who are not religious, hence my argument. Further, to imply that marriage is only religious is having a narrow-minded view about marriage. Would you in essence, based on your religious beliefs, invalidate the marriages of hetero couples married civilly?
Of course not.
Therefore, by the same logic, marriage is not religious in nature only.
If you say it goes against your religion, fine, we get "The Proclamation to the World."
How would you extend "Proclamation to the World" in the courtroom?
A moral issue? Methinks it is a legal one.
Courts may or may not define morality. It is up to people to do that.
By far, the overwhelming argument that I hear is that "I cannot pass marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman" because it is against my religion.
Right.
we get that.
I think the undertone, implied, and not written meaning behind Proposition 8 was "only a (religious) marriage is recognized or valid in the State of California."
I don't hear an argument from the side of the people who are not religious, hence my argument. Further, to imply that marriage is only religious is having a narrow-minded view about marriage. Would you in essence, based on your religious beliefs, invalidate the marriages of hetero couples married civilly?
Of course not.
Therefore, by the same logic, marriage is not religious in nature only.
If you say it goes against your religion, fine, we get "The Proclamation to the World."
How would you extend "Proclamation to the World" in the courtroom?
A moral issue? Methinks it is a legal one.
Courts may or may not define morality. It is up to people to do that.
a gay mormon exposed | 11:30 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
You've been caught lying again. Your fabricated story used to ignite others
against the Church won't work. Just you wait and see. So sad you
can't argue your case based on truth. You have to resort to lies because
you have nothing to stand on. Your rhetoric is pure drivel. I live near SF and
have read California family code 297.5. I've also read what Sir Elton John
has to say about gay marriage and guess what, he's on the side of truth!!!
He isn't resorting to lies. He's telling it like it is. Homosexuals
have civil partnerships and have the same rights of married spouses.
To 'What Jokes?" | 11:31 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
You would be surprised how many investigators are turned off by remarks showing
intolerance.
While I believe that most the ideal is to be embracing and respectful, there are those who are boisterous and say remarks --- oh shall we say --- of anything that is unlike them.
Perhaps you have been in good wards. I have visited plenty of wards myself too, and time and again, the intolerance was there. Church Members would be wise to show some tolerance towards people of all backgrounds and political persuasions as logn as everyone is respectful.
While I believe that most the ideal is to be embracing and respectful, there are those who are boisterous and say remarks --- oh shall we say --- of anything that is unlike them.
Perhaps you have been in good wards. I have visited plenty of wards myself too, and time and again, the intolerance was there. Church Members would be wise to show some tolerance towards people of all backgrounds and political persuasions as logn as everyone is respectful.
The legal interpretation | 11:42 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I will rest my case and say that not all things legal are moral.
In an ideal society, hopefully the two are one and the same. In a hybrid society, it's a mess, trying to put all the pieces together.
Now then, back to morality, do we allow 52% of the vote to allow to define morality --- by your own argument?
48% of the vote (or 47.whatever) said that morality should be the other way around.
You will have to agree, regardless on whether you agree or disagree, that it is a very slim margin.
And that as society changes, will we allow the 'morality' to be dictated by a simple majority?
What do we do with the 47%?
And granted, one side will not like the outcome, whatever the legal ramifications of interpretation might be.
In the meantime,
a slim win just made a lot of people unhappy.
While some may ridicule, and get this, here's where the bigotry jumps in --- based on the entries of these comments alone ---
"We don't need 'those people' here" --- referring to gays who want to boycott Utah, in a tone of condescencion. Are they/we not children of God?
In an ideal society, hopefully the two are one and the same. In a hybrid society, it's a mess, trying to put all the pieces together.
Now then, back to morality, do we allow 52% of the vote to allow to define morality --- by your own argument?
48% of the vote (or 47.whatever) said that morality should be the other way around.
You will have to agree, regardless on whether you agree or disagree, that it is a very slim margin.
And that as society changes, will we allow the 'morality' to be dictated by a simple majority?
What do we do with the 47%?
And granted, one side will not like the outcome, whatever the legal ramifications of interpretation might be.
In the meantime,
a slim win just made a lot of people unhappy.
While some may ridicule, and get this, here's where the bigotry jumps in --- based on the entries of these comments alone ---
"We don't need 'those people' here" --- referring to gays who want to boycott Utah, in a tone of condescencion. Are they/we not children of God?
Saren | 11:48 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
I am so sick of hearing about gay right. I have been appalled how they single
out the views of churches, and cry hatred but look at the work of many of them
destroying and hurting others property. Churches, whatever they come across. Our
nation is in moral decay. We no longer have any morals. You all say Churches
should stay out. Its a good thing some people still believe in Gods laws. I
think it still says in the Bible that being gay is NOT what God intended for us
to be.
to legal interpretation | 11:52 p.m. Nov. 16, 2008
Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, and biology or did you
not notice the physical differences between a man and a woman. Same sex couples
cannot consumate or procreate. The parts aren't compatible. Children
without a mother are more likely to get pregnant as a teen and without a father
children are more likely to commit crimes. Same sex marriage is bad for society
and our children. There are many nonreligious reasons that same sex marriage is
wrong. It was never intended to be a right by our founders.
To "legal interpretation" | 12:08 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
You better tell that to my brain, because "normal," as you define it,
does not compute.
I get it about the parts. I don't need a biology lesson and neither do I need to go there.
The wiring in my brain, and believe me, I have tried, as have many of my LGBT friends, have tried, to no avail, to go hetero.
You bring in the argument about children --- it seems like you're talking about single parents, and not gay marriage.
I get it about the parts. I don't need a biology lesson and neither do I need to go there.
The wiring in my brain, and believe me, I have tried, as have many of my LGBT friends, have tried, to no avail, to go hetero.
You bring in the argument about children --- it seems like you're talking about single parents, and not gay marriage.
Common sense | 12:09 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
challenge any of you who are demonstrating hate and bigotry towards the LDS
church, to provide substantial proof that the church has over stepped any
boundaries of civil law in their support of prop 8. Tell me of a law that says
church leaders can't urge their members to participate in their civic
duties of voting and encourage them to one side of a debate. Didn't obama
campaign from the pulpits of many black churches or other religeous groups?
Didn't Huckabee and many other candidates do the same? Did baptists
churches overstep the bounds when their members donated? The church itself
didn't donate anything it was its members along with thousands and
thousands of others. Three quarters of the black and hispanic communities of CA
voted for prop 8. Go protest them, oh wait yah you would be too scared because
they aren't an easy target like the mormons.
common sense | 12:10 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
You are like wolves preying on the weak. All of your intolerance and bigotry is
casting shame on your own message. There is no sleeping giant only the same
roaring mouse there always was. The sleeping giant voted twice even after you
all poured in 40 million, which is more than raised by prop 8 supporters. You
are showing your true agenda your way or we'll scare you all into not
voting agianst us next time. The real sleeping giant is the silent majority of
moral americans who have done the same in 40 other states. Yah or didn't
you know that? You had nothing taken away expect the ability to trample on
religion. You have civil unions which give ALL (yes ALL) of the same rights as
married couples. The results are showing how poor losers react when the public
does not support them. Next time we are going to double our efforts and
donations to protect ourselves from fanatics who openly attack religions.
Churches have rights too | 12:11 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Saren,
Your argument is poorly constructed. Richard John Neuhaus said "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being �religious� than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified �thing� that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious" and "As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them.�
There is little doubt that Churches and religious people have a right to participate in the public square but our beliefs and opinions "should be considered on their merits." (Elder Dallin H. Oaks)
Your argument is poorly constructed. Richard John Neuhaus said "In a democracy that is free and robust, an opinion is no more disqualified for being �religious� than for being atheistic, or psychoanalytic, or Marxist, or just plain dumb. There is no legal or constitutional question about the admission of religion to the public square; there is only a question about the free and equal participation of citizens in our public business. Religion is not a reified �thing� that threatens to intrude upon our common life. Religion in public is but the public opinion of those citizens who are religious" and "As with individual citizens, so also with the associations that citizens form to advance their opinions. Religious institutions may understand themselves to be brought into being by God, but for the purposes of this democratic polity they are free associations of citizens. As such, they are guaranteed the same access to the public square as are the citizens who comprise them.�
There is little doubt that Churches and religious people have a right to participate in the public square but our beliefs and opinions "should be considered on their merits." (Elder Dallin H. Oaks)
Legal interpretation | 12:15 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
If we go the way of what was "intended to be a right by our founders"
I think we're going the way of how a Constitution should be.
Shouldn't a Constitution be broad and general without minor clauses and interpretations all along the way? I believe the founders meant for the courts to do the defining and re-defining as time went along.
I will even go as far as saying that the Constitution was written by God-fearing men, with some Deism along the way.
Shouldn't a Constitution be broad and general without minor clauses and interpretations all along the way? I believe the founders meant for the courts to do the defining and re-defining as time went along.
I will even go as far as saying that the Constitution was written by God-fearing men, with some Deism along the way.
Religion has little bearing | 12:21 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Re: "to legal interpretation,"
"Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, and biology or did you not notice the physical differences between a man and a woman."
We don't know whether nature or nurture influences a person's sexual orientation or a combination of both but we know society doesn't have a legitimate interest in recognizing those relationships. Our society has no business in regulating love or any other intangible. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting "traditional marriage" as we refer to it because it promotes the nuclear family of a man, woman and their biological children.
We recognize that not all "traditional marriages" will result in procreation or a nuclear family but the potentiality of bearing children is sufficient for society to grant such marriages. Simply stated, a man and a woman may choose not to or be unable to have children but their union promotes the idea.
Society recognizes that other types of families exist but chooses not to promote those families including families where extended family raise children, adoptive parents, and families that consist of persons of the same sex.
But society has no business in promoting those families. Only recognizing their existence.
"Same sex marriage is not normal. It is against nature, and biology or did you not notice the physical differences between a man and a woman."
We don't know whether nature or nurture influences a person's sexual orientation or a combination of both but we know society doesn't have a legitimate interest in recognizing those relationships. Our society has no business in regulating love or any other intangible. Society has a legitimate interest in promoting "traditional marriage" as we refer to it because it promotes the nuclear family of a man, woman and their biological children.
We recognize that not all "traditional marriages" will result in procreation or a nuclear family but the potentiality of bearing children is sufficient for society to grant such marriages. Simply stated, a man and a woman may choose not to or be unable to have children but their union promotes the idea.
Society recognizes that other types of families exist but chooses not to promote those families including families where extended family raise children, adoptive parents, and families that consist of persons of the same sex.
But society has no business in promoting those families. Only recognizing their existence.
Michael | 12:31 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The difference with gay rights and women's right to vote and civil rights,
was that women couldn't vote, so they fought so they could vote, not so
that women could be considered men in the eyes of the law, and blacks had to
have everything separate, so they fought to be included, not so that blacks
could be considered white in the eyes of the law. Those fighting for gay rights
are not asking that a gay couple have the same privileges and benefits as a
married couple, they are fighting to be considered a married couple, even though
the definition of marriage has traditionally been a man and a woman. They have
already hijacked the words gay, lesbian, and pride. Please don't change
the definition of marriage, so that it no longer means what it used to.
Widespread divorce and Hollywood has already managed to tarnish the sanctity of
marriage, I am afraid gay marriage would dissolve the sacred nature of marriage
even more. You can have your rights, just let us keep our definition of
marriage.
Majority | 1:19 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Same sex marriage on the ballot is 0 for 30 or so? That is not close. If you
can't win in CA you can't win anywhere. Over a half million votes is
not close and that was the margin of victory for prop 8. Same sex marriage is
wrong and anybody with logic and knowledge understands that. Gays already have
equal rights. They can marry someone of the opposite sex like everybody else.
They also have civil unions.
About lifestyles | 1:21 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I am reading the entries about people objecting and using the logic of "I
object to the homosexual lifestyle."
Fine, call it a lifestyle if you want.
As a gay man, I suppose I could object to the heterosexual lifestyle.
Does that make any kind of sense?
Of course not.
My "lifestyle" is different than your "lifestyle."
My practices and "Your practices" are different.
I have never tried to push a heterosexual person to "accept my lifestyle."
That's ridiculous.
For a straight person to say that gay people are trying to push their lifestyles onto other people is ridiculous --- and no one has to accept anything.
You don't have to believe anything.
You don't have to accept it anymore than, oh, the lifestyle of Australian aborigines. There's a lifestyle that's different.
LGBT people are not asking any to accept their lifestyle. They are simply asking for people to let them live. So let them. They don't interfere with your lifestyle. Why should you interfere with theirs?
Fine, call it a lifestyle if you want.
As a gay man, I suppose I could object to the heterosexual lifestyle.
Does that make any kind of sense?
Of course not.
My "lifestyle" is different than your "lifestyle."
My practices and "Your practices" are different.
I have never tried to push a heterosexual person to "accept my lifestyle."
That's ridiculous.
For a straight person to say that gay people are trying to push their lifestyles onto other people is ridiculous --- and no one has to accept anything.
You don't have to believe anything.
You don't have to accept it anymore than, oh, the lifestyle of Australian aborigines. There's a lifestyle that's different.
LGBT people are not asking any to accept their lifestyle. They are simply asking for people to let them live. So let them. They don't interfere with your lifestyle. Why should you interfere with theirs?
To Nostradomis | 1:28 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I believe you meant to say "Nostradamus" --- but what's with the
French psychic?
And by the way, the quote you mention, from Lincoln, "the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" --- Gettysburgh Address
I believe Pres. Lincoln also had in mind the whole democratic process --- including courts, not just majority rule --- I believe that's what you were referring to when you said "Deal with it"
Good heavens ---
And by, the way, do you know President Lincoln's record on executive privilege, as long as you're quoting Lincoln?
Further, no, we will not deal with it.
Maybe you should deal with it when Prop 8 gets overturned. Then we'll come back and say to you, "Deal with that."
And by the way, the quote you mention, from Lincoln, "the government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" --- Gettysburgh Address
I believe Pres. Lincoln also had in mind the whole democratic process --- including courts, not just majority rule --- I believe that's what you were referring to when you said "Deal with it"
Good heavens ---
And by, the way, do you know President Lincoln's record on executive privilege, as long as you're quoting Lincoln?
Further, no, we will not deal with it.
Maybe you should deal with it when Prop 8 gets overturned. Then we'll come back and say to you, "Deal with that."
Domestic partnerships | 1:42 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
And about Elton John.
As a gay man, He does not speak for me.
So don't make Sir Elton John the posterboy for gay rights.
If he wants to call his union a domestic partnership, let him.
Other straight people also do not get married --- there are many variations. LGBT, like many communities, have their likes and dislikes about how they want to dedicate their unions.
As far as dictionary definition between "a man and a woman" --- reminder, people write dictionaries. Dictionaries do not write dictionaries.
Dictionaries are actualized, edited, socialized, and yes, I will say it, they have biases --- based on the writers' interpretation of the meaning of the word.
If dictionaries were not actualized, what would become of words that have become obsolete, updated, cliched, become offensive, or rather, the opposite?
As societies change, so do dictionaries. Dictionaries are, in large part, a reflection of the society in which we live. Thanks for the lesson in etymology.
As far as the argument of a long-standing "traditional" definition of marriage between one man and one woman, wrong again.
As a gay man, He does not speak for me.
So don't make Sir Elton John the posterboy for gay rights.
If he wants to call his union a domestic partnership, let him.
Other straight people also do not get married --- there are many variations. LGBT, like many communities, have their likes and dislikes about how they want to dedicate their unions.
As far as dictionary definition between "a man and a woman" --- reminder, people write dictionaries. Dictionaries do not write dictionaries.
Dictionaries are actualized, edited, socialized, and yes, I will say it, they have biases --- based on the writers' interpretation of the meaning of the word.
If dictionaries were not actualized, what would become of words that have become obsolete, updated, cliched, become offensive, or rather, the opposite?
As societies change, so do dictionaries. Dictionaries are, in large part, a reflection of the society in which we live. Thanks for the lesson in etymology.
As far as the argument of a long-standing "traditional" definition of marriage between one man and one woman, wrong again.
Diane | 4:28 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I've been following the terrible situation happening now to the LDS church
and my fellow brothers and sisters in the States very closely.
Here in Spain, same sex marraige and adoption is permitted by law, unfortunately, but the law was changed without all these demonstrations and shouting.
The main thing I can see out of all this is the hatred being shown towards those who voted for the law by the "no" voters. Their actions, words etc certainly do not make me think that they are stable, loving or capable enough of adopting and raising children in a loving home with respect for all and everybody.
Here in Spain, same sex marraige and adoption is permitted by law, unfortunately, but the law was changed without all these demonstrations and shouting.
The main thing I can see out of all this is the hatred being shown towards those who voted for the law by the "no" voters. Their actions, words etc certainly do not make me think that they are stable, loving or capable enough of adopting and raising children in a loving home with respect for all and everybody.
Thrawn | 5:25 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I have to say, as a result of the vandalism and threats against a church that
supported Prop 8, I now have less respect for those who equate "allowing
homosexual marriage" with "tolerance".
Of course, the fact that I belong to said church has an impact on that. But still - when demonstrations get violent, a protest has become a mob. And a mob is about as intolerant as anything I can imagine.
Of course, the fact that I belong to said church has an impact on that. But still - when demonstrations get violent, a protest has become a mob. And a mob is about as intolerant as anything I can imagine.
Starman | 5:28 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Homosexuality is a deviant behavior. The homosexuals will never see this. They
would rather everyone accept their evil as something good rather than turn to
Christ and repent.
Roger Carrier | 7:28 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The arguments of the opponents of gay marriage are easily turned into the stuff
of satire with a simple question. Will the marriage of Jim and Bob of Arbuckle
City, California, really lead to the destruction of the United States of
America? Answer: Of course, not.
The following countries have legalized same-sex marriage, and straight marriages have continued or increased and divorce rates have not changed: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), South Africa (2005), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), and Norway (2008).
I�m a straight male, age 62, married 40 years. I�m not a Mormon, but I believe that Mormons are Christians. I also believe that many Mormons now feel that the LDS Church�s involvement in California politics was ill-advised. It�s fine to oppose gay marriage, but don�t make a law against it. Don�t restrict a person�s �free agency.�
The percentage of people who favor gay marriage will continue to rise until gay marriage becomes the subject of a well-deserved yawn. The young straight people will be the yawners as the old fogies of my generations leave the stage.
The following countries have legalized same-sex marriage, and straight marriages have continued or increased and divorce rates have not changed: Netherlands (2001), Belgium (2003), South Africa (2005), Spain (2005), Canada (2005), and Norway (2008).
I�m a straight male, age 62, married 40 years. I�m not a Mormon, but I believe that Mormons are Christians. I also believe that many Mormons now feel that the LDS Church�s involvement in California politics was ill-advised. It�s fine to oppose gay marriage, but don�t make a law against it. Don�t restrict a person�s �free agency.�
The percentage of people who favor gay marriage will continue to rise until gay marriage becomes the subject of a well-deserved yawn. The young straight people will be the yawners as the old fogies of my generations leave the stage.
Jake | 7:34 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I suppose the Mormon church was right in denying African-American members the
priesthood until 1980 as well? Trust me, they were wrong on that issue and they
are wrong here.
This is unconstitutional and oppressive.
Forcing people to "make the right choice" was Satan's plan, was it not? We are supposed to allow all people to make their own choices. We're only suppose to focus on loving others and perfecting ourselves. LET HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS! They are not less of a person than anyone else. If in fact their marriage is "wrong" then let God judge that. Not us.
The church and it's members are COMPLETELY off-base here. HOWEVER, it is their right to vote how they see fit and it needs to be respected. They were not the only ones who contributed money or voted in favor of Prop 8. Leave the Mormon church alone. However, I hope they realize how wrong they are in this matter.
This is unconstitutional and oppressive.
Forcing people to "make the right choice" was Satan's plan, was it not? We are supposed to allow all people to make their own choices. We're only suppose to focus on loving others and perfecting ourselves. LET HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS! They are not less of a person than anyone else. If in fact their marriage is "wrong" then let God judge that. Not us.
The church and it's members are COMPLETELY off-base here. HOWEVER, it is their right to vote how they see fit and it needs to be respected. They were not the only ones who contributed money or voted in favor of Prop 8. Leave the Mormon church alone. However, I hope they realize how wrong they are in this matter.
Wow! | 7:35 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Hundreds, very soporific.
L8TR H8TZ | 7:52 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
I don't believe that they should put civil rights issues to a vote by the
people. If states allowed votes on other civil rights issues then inter-racial
marriages and even black people wouldn�t be able to marry
today. Things progress naturally and protests are one of the venues for those
types of changes.
? evil=good & good=evil? | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
"New Morality" in 60's said marriage unnecessary= forced by
religion- free love!
Then-what done in private was nobodies business- what you didn't know, didn't hurt you.
Then they "came out of the closet" -- we should accept them.
Then they demanded civil unions- and in Mass. they GOT civil unions- but it wasn't enough for them- they lied!
Then said it was HATE discrimination if they were not allowed to FORCE churches to marry gays in DEFIANCE to Bible teachings- and threatened to take down any church that refused! So much for tolerance!
ALSO said Gays had the RIGHT to adopt children (which ONLY come from the union of one man and one woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and they FORCED their views using the very legal system that had allowed their "distorted rights"!! They shut down the Catholic Adoption Agency in Mass. so even adoptions to straight couples were foiled!
NOW they continue to get/call it backwards- as they call those who want to protect the very MEANING of the word marriage, and their own marriages as the ones who HATE??? This is unreal!!
Then-what done in private was nobodies business- what you didn't know, didn't hurt you.
Then they "came out of the closet" -- we should accept them.
Then they demanded civil unions- and in Mass. they GOT civil unions- but it wasn't enough for them- they lied!
Then said it was HATE discrimination if they were not allowed to FORCE churches to marry gays in DEFIANCE to Bible teachings- and threatened to take down any church that refused! So much for tolerance!
ALSO said Gays had the RIGHT to adopt children (which ONLY come from the union of one man and one woman!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and they FORCED their views using the very legal system that had allowed their "distorted rights"!! They shut down the Catholic Adoption Agency in Mass. so even adoptions to straight couples were foiled!
NOW they continue to get/call it backwards- as they call those who want to protect the very MEANING of the word marriage, and their own marriages as the ones who HATE??? This is unreal!!
Here is the door | 8:12 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Here is the door to marriage.
It takes a lock and a key.
It takes a lock and a key.
John Pack Lambert | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Sandra Rodrigues has a very good understanding of Democracy.
What scares me is she was accused of being hate-filled for holding a sign that said "Support Democracy".
From June to the beganning of November we had to put up with the gloating comments from the anti-8 people about how we would speak against Democracy when Proposition 8 failed. Now it has passed, and the anti-8 people have shown there colors as true believers in mob action.
They have for months been trying to intimadate people into not participating in the democratic process. This is a very scary situation to me, when people are threatened for excercising their rigth to free speech.
What scares me is she was accused of being hate-filled for holding a sign that said "Support Democracy".
From June to the beganning of November we had to put up with the gloating comments from the anti-8 people about how we would speak against Democracy when Proposition 8 failed. Now it has passed, and the anti-8 people have shown there colors as true believers in mob action.
They have for months been trying to intimadate people into not participating in the democratic process. This is a very scary situation to me, when people are threatened for excercising their rigth to free speech.
Pointless | 11:32 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Folks, it's a hopeless debate we're engaged in here. Neither side is
willing to acknowledge--let alone, understand--the context of the other.
You're all just saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, so anything I do or say is okay and everything you do or say is evil." (...or unconsititutional, or hateful, etc.)
Give it up, folks! Quit playing "My tunnel vision is better than your tunnel vision."
You're all just saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, so anything I do or say is okay and everything you do or say is evil." (...or unconsititutional, or hateful, etc.)
Give it up, folks! Quit playing "My tunnel vision is better than your tunnel vision."
John Pack Lambert | 11:33 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To Kelly,
Women did win the right to vote by the normal Democratic process, not throw court fiat. I suggest you study history some more before telling us about it.
Women did win the right to vote by the normal Democratic process, not throw court fiat. I suggest you study history some more before telling us about it.
Lance | 11:41 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Me thinks thou dost protest too much.
John Pack Lambert | 11:54 a.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To Clark,
Since domestic abuse is way, way higher in same-gender relationships and lowest of women who are actually married to the man they live with, there is such a long history of distorting the story that there is no reason to hope that the distortion will end soon.
Since domestic abuse is way, way higher in same-gender relationships and lowest of women who are actually married to the man they live with, there is such a long history of distorting the story that there is no reason to hope that the distortion will end soon.
John Pack Lambert | 12:10 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
The 10:35 poster wants us to keep our religion in the closet.
John Pack Lambert | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
To the 2:24 poster,
I could count the jokes and demening references to people with same gender attraction and would generally come up with zero.
You will never find anything less than a respectful, if clearly stating such behavior is sinful, reference in church magazines and at general conference. To find the source of jokes and demeaning references about sexual orientation you have to look to popular culture not the LDS Church.
The problem is that sexually related jokes are so common in the media and we imbibe them. It has nothing to do with the actions of the church.
I could count the jokes and demening references to people with same gender attraction and would generally come up with zero.
You will never find anything less than a respectful, if clearly stating such behavior is sinful, reference in church magazines and at general conference. To find the source of jokes and demeaning references about sexual orientation you have to look to popular culture not the LDS Church.
The problem is that sexually related jokes are so common in the media and we imbibe them. It has nothing to do with the actions of the church.
This is the deal... | 12:19 p.m. Nov. 17, 2008
Far from showing that California�s Supreme Court was wrong
to extend the right of marriage to gay people, the passage of Proposition 8 is a
reminder of the crucial role that the courts play in protecting vulnerable
groups from unfair treatment. Mormons should remember this, since you yourselves
are vulnerable.
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.
Related content
- Messy Monday morning commute 8:22 a.m.
- U.N. climate conference opens 7:55 a.m.
- Stocks steady at open as dollar rises 7:53 a.m.
- Blast outside Iraqi school kills 8 7:53 a.m.
- Today on TV 12:49 a.m.
- Wanted: Bank robber with bad breath 12:40 a.m.
- Philippine police clash with clan 12:28 a.m.
- Officer responding to call killed 12:28 a.m.
- Editorial: Fine-tune state workweek 12:18 a.m.
- Let's keep energy money in the U.S. 12:18 a.m.
- BYU and Utah's bowl games
- BYU professor remembered
- Y., U. to learn bowl destinations
- The forgotten ship: USS Utah
- Cougars going back to Vegas
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl
- Branch president without a congregation
- Utahns want health care reform bills
- Kurt Bestor: Joy for the world
- Utes excited to go to San Diego
- Letters: Liberal because LDS
258 - Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing216
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry189
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage131
- TCU to play Boise in Fiesta Bowl130
- George lost in rivalry hatefest114
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony98
- Harpring's NBA career is over95
- Cougars going back to Vegas82
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
We pray for the family of the Police officer. God bless the family.
you Ute fans think you can sell your ticket allotment out>>>not....they don't...
All the hypocrits and marxists around the world have flown their private jets...
"Remember that TRAX recently showed off new cars, meaning that the...
"The good news TCU and Boise get to go to the Prom. The bad news is that they...
outside the state of Utah. TCU beating BYU and Utah is like beating up your...
Truly motivational. Thanks!
An overly skinny frosh QB isn't going to get it done vs. a good Pac 10 team....
Fremont will handle Bingham tonight.....in basketball
Byu and Utah playing in sub par bowl games! You guys are always with out fail...
Advertisements