Comments about ‘Institute goes to bat for marriage’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Feb. 6 2009 12:34 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
jw

Anonymous # 1. Why do you pick the hetero marriages that have failed. Dang you mean there are some..... I bet there are some homo unions that have failed too. Why not talk about the millions of heter marriages that have succeeded and actually produce offspring. Funny how everyone is saying that there is nothing to fear from gay "marriages". As soon as you redefine marriage, as someone stated there will be a whole can of woms opened. Don't go thinking, gay supporters that it won't. Once you change the definition all h*** will break loose. Allowing them to change the definition of marriage to suit themselves will be only the tip of the iceberg and it is the rest of the iceberg that those who are in tune are concerned about.

jw

From California. I am against gay "marriage". But I certainly don't agree with putting them in the same category as pedifiles and sex abusers.
If two people love each other and want to live together etc. it doesn't bother me. There are gays who are wonderful people. All I am against is calling their relationship a marriage. How do we keep a marraige sacred and teach our children what it is really about if they keep changing the rules on us every time a group wants things changed that have been this way for centuries. I agree with whoever said if it is so dang terrible being around lds people and by the way there are a heck of a lot more people who are against gay marriage than lds or more states would agree to it..... then leave. Quit going into predominantly lds populated areas and the b**** about the lds influence. Get a grip on reality.

A Concerned Utah Citizen

Thank you to the Sutherland Institute for clarifying these issues. Please keep informing us. The future of the family is at stake. Bravo for the work you are doing!

Hey Bert

Because you have choosen to follow the main stream FADE like everyone else who thinks this is the cool thing to do.

KC

Excellent Article. Defining marital terms, "husband" is associated with a man and "wife" a woman. Why try to redefine what God has put on the earth that is between and man and a woman? If you want to be gay, etc. that is your choice, but you don't need marriage to act. You can enter into a legal contract and receive all the "rights" you want.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

KC - Why try to redefine what God has put on the earth that is between and man and a woman?

LDS - Because our SECULAR laws shouldn't be based on religion. Read what Elder McConkie wrote in his DNTC regarding "rendering unto Caesar"

KC - If you want to be gay, etc. that is your choice, but you don't need marriage to act. You can enter into a legal contract and receive all the "rights" you want.

LDS - Hardly. The Federal DOMA prevents the Feds from giving gay couples benefits traditionally given to traditional couples. Even in Mass. where gay marriage is legal, married gay couples are still 2nd class citizens because of DOMA. Also, gays in Utah and elsewhere would have to spend thousands and thousands if dollars in legal fees just to get th fews rights that they can, while you and i got them by saying "I do" or "yes". That hardly sounds like "equal protection" to me.

wow

Let me get this straight, ahem. The world is at war, my nation has lost over 4000 of its finest soldiers, we have killed in collateral damages about 60,000 people in Iraq (Pentagon figures), people are losing their jobs in America and around the globe and we could be headed for a depression, global wamring is real and threatening, our children need more and better education in a variety of new and old fields of study, our prisons are full, and Utah turns its attention to whether two adults can... have rights like two other adults?

and they drag God into it........ a God who is weeping at our hypocrisy...... and blindness and unwillingnesss to fess up to what a mess we have made.
wow

It's about time...

that:

1. Somebody took a public stand for traditional marriage
2. The media printed a positive headline for pro-traditional marriage.

Thanks for the pro-marriage headline, desnews.

Gay Mormon

NOTE TO MORMONS: The Church-owned business called Deseret Book sells a book called, "In Quiet Desperation." Read it. It will change your life.

Prop 8 Result

Mormon has become synonymous with anti-gay. Forget the carefully crafted image of perfect families and clean living. Thanks to Prop 8 (and rejection of even basic legal protections for gay couples in Utah), Far Right Anti-Gay activism is what is now most associated with Mormons. Congratulations!

CHOICES

Sexual orientation is a choice, not a race. Anyone who claims this article is intollerant or racist doesn't understand what sexual preference is! Its a verb, not a noun. In the English language, we can choose our verbs, but are born with a lot of our nouns. Example, I can choose to walk to work, which is a verb. But, I have green eyes, and therefore, I cannot choose my eye color in the morning. My eye color is a noun.

Sexual preference is a verb, and its not discriminating to disagree with a persons choices. Good for this institute for standing up for what's right.

re CHOICES

Being an English Major, I'm pretty certain both Sexual Orientation and Sexual Preference are both Nouns.

Gay Mormon

Does anybody actually realize that the Church has not stated its position in the nature vs. nurture debate regarding homosexuality?

To treat GLBT people as if they have chosen to "be gay" is not Gospel Doctrine; neither is treating them as if they were "recruited/taught" to "be gay."

Until we know what exactly causes someone to have an affinity for the same sex (and it is probably a complex series of interactions), then we shouldn't treat them as if they are abominations.

We should treat them kindly as what they are: Sons and Daughters of their Heavenly Father.

Michaelitos

Re: LDS4gaymarriage
I disagree with you on so many points, it's difficult to just narrow it down to one point. You say that secular law should not be based on religion. Yet as a citizen and in our voting, I have every right to let my opinions be known (whether religiously based or otherwise).

Are we not to be the "salt of the earth"? Are we not to let our "light so shine"?

If you truly are LDS (active and believing), I suggest you reread the proclamation on the Family. I have no problem with all citizens being given equal rights, but marriage is not a right, it is a privileged.

Furthermore, if you truly do believe that my religious inclinations are invalid in public discourse, AND if you are LDS (as mentioned before), may I suggest that you read Elder Neal A Maxwell's speech given in 1978 entitled, "Meeting the Challenges of Today."

Michaelitos

Re: LDS4gaymarriage
Just wanted to give you something else to consider regarding the discounting of religious convictions from Neal Maxwell:

M.J. Sobran observed, "A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it" (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, p. 58). This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain of people's opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will soon be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.

What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds. They are trying to equate acting on religion with establishing religion. And-I repeat-the consequence of such logic is really to establish secularism. It is in fact, to force the religious to internalize the major premise of secularism: that religion has no proper bearing on public affairs. [Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 5152, 6061]

To LDS4

As you seem to have taken on the advocacy role for this community, let's hear your reasoning as to why I should not fight the advance of the LGBT agenda into Utah. How about some assurances that my religious liberties will not be denied as your friends in the LGBT community force us down the slippery slope toward declaration of gay marriage as a right?

Explain to me how I have nothing to worry about, notwithstanding the fact that well-funded LGBT activists have already gone after a Methodist organization in another state, forcing them to close down an area on their own property to Methodist marriages, or face fines for discrimination against LGBT who wanted to be married there. How is my ward or temple district different from the Methodist congregation?

Tell me how I would benefit from the advance of LGBT "rights" into Utah law. Not how you would benefit, but how would I benefit?

Don't just tell me what a bigoted lout I am, give me reasons why it's in MY interest to vote with you.

Alex

Thanks for providing us with that great quote, Michaelitos.

Alex

Gay Mormon:

"Does anybody actually realize that the Church has not stated its position in the nature vs. nurture debate regarding homosexuality?

To treat GLBT people as if they have chosen to "be gay" is not Gospel Doctrine; neither is treating them as if they were "recruited/taught" to "be gay.""

How important is it that they do? If you accept the doctrine of the scriptures and the living prophets regarding homosexual intercourse, knowing whether the temptations to commit are learned or not is not going to change the bottom line. The bottom line is this: homosexual sexual relations are considered sin by ancient and modern prophets and are not condoned. Now that IS church doctrine.

Now if homosexual acts are truly sin, then how can there not be a choice whether to act on homosexual temptations or not?

If you are homosexually inclined and do not engage in homosexual relations, but instead shun temptation with faith on the Savior, reliance on the Spirit, and faithfulness to your covenants, then you are just as faithful and worthy as one who keeps his covenants who does not share your tendency. We all have tendencies that we must be masters of.

Vince

For all the justifications, rest assure, your heterosexual marriages will not change.

I see page after page of protecting "families and children"

How so?

You are protecting families and children from what?

Allowing gays to marry will not destroy "the moral fiber" of your families. If it did, then your family is not that strong to begin with.

The technical definition of marriage will not change philosophically --- it will still be between two people who love and express their love, respect, and devotion to each other. It will just be extended to more people than just straight couples.

Before you argue that marriage should not be extended to gays because --- after all, cousins are not allowed to marry, teens, etc.

Gays are not asking to marry their cousin.

Gays just happen not to be attracted to the opposite sex like that.

Vince


to CHOICES | 10:39 a.m. Feb. 9, 2009

sorry --- You're way on that one.

check dictionary dotcom --- "choice" is a noun.

to "choose" is a verb.

And you can put it through the linguistic test to see whether it is a noun or a verb.

Nouns can take the word "the," "some," "an," or a number, such as "three"

Therefore, "the choices"
some choices
A choice
three choices

It passes all --- check any book on linguistics and you will see.

To choose, on the other hand, is a verb --- there is a test for verbs as well, they take the suffixes "-s,"-ed," and "ing"

Now then, coming back to your argument, is sexual orientation a choice?

Many gays have tried to change --- don't you think if we could have done it, we would have foregone a lifetime of harrassment and being taken for less than equal?

I sure tried --- to no avail.

But enough of the self-loathing --- it does not do anyone any good.

to comment

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