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
Vince

To Prop 8 Result | 6:08 a.m. Feb. 9, 2009

Sadly, I have to agree with that --- that is the perception.

Regardless of how outreach programs may seem to be there for gay rights and that the legislation is not intended to deprive gays of any rights --- the PR perception is clearly there ---

* Why would a Church spend so much money on a proposition that neither took away its constitutional rights as a church not encroached on its doctrine?

Prop. 8, if overturned, will not change one iota of Church doctrine --- if it did, how so?

To a fuller extent, it will not deprive any "traditional values" from the majority--- if so, which ones?

Vince

Prop 8 is not "inspired"

I keep seeing comments that people who stalwartly hold on defending Proposition 8 on the basis that it is inspired.

I submit that it is not.

It is a political move --- simple as that.

The logic ---

This is what constitutes inspiration --- based on Amos 3:7 --- Also found in The Missionary Discussions ---

God reveals his will to his prophet
The prophet reveals his will to the people.

Granted --- I have nothing against "A Proclamation to the World" --- that is LDS doctrine.

Proposition 8, on the other hand, trace it through its inception.

This time, Archbishop Niederauer invites leaders of the LDS Church to take part in a coalition of Churches to defend Prop 8.

Inspiration?

From its inception to now --- nothing of the sort.

C'mon Vince

"Prop. 8, if overturned, will not change one iota of Church doctrine --- if it did, how so? To a fuller extent, it will not deprive any "traditional values" from the majority--- if so, which ones?"

It is the stated position of some of your friends in the LGBT community to do exactly that -- to enforce government-ordered changes to Church doctrine and use the courts to deprive us of traditional values.

Now, you're the proponent here, Vince. Convince me that there is no LGBT agenda to take away rights or encroach on doctrine.

You should address the case of the LGBT activists shutting down access for weddings of a piece of property belonging to a Methodist group because some well-funded LGBT activists brought a discrimination action when they were not allowed to be married there.

You should also address the manner in which abortion opponents are now being required to fund abortions, assist in abortions, and provide abortion services. The analogue is clear -- if there is a "right" to gay marriage, like a "right" to abortion, then any organization objecting to those marriages would be denying that "right."

Your nickel, Vince.

Gay Mormon

Well, Alex, it IS important. Societal rhetoric has moved beyond talking about gay marriage to gay-bashing.

I've heard political comments and gay-bashing in EQ/Sunday School.

Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate.

I used to think that knowing the "cause(s)" of homosexuality wasn't important. But it truly is. The position one takes (nature or nurture) regarding homosexuality sets the stage as to how that person will address all gay people and the political/social issues relating.

It isn't known what "causes" homosexuality; even President Hinckley admitted that; for a supposedly active/obedient Church member to say that it is a choice and address it in such a manner is false doctrine. They can't have it both ways; the same people who espouse this reference Church statements when stating why they oppose gay rights.

And to "be gay" doesn't mean you are acting on your feelings. "To be" is a "state of being;" you are in the state of having these feelings of attraction towards the same sex, not necessarily acting on them.

Gay Mormon

Well, Alex, it is important. Societal rhetoric has moved beyond talking about gay marriage to gay-bashing.

I've heard political comments and gay-bashing in EQ/Sunday School.

Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate.

I used to think that knowing the "cause(s)" of homosexuality wasn't important. But it truly is. The position one takes (nature or nurture) regarding homosexuality sets the stage as to how that person will address all gay people and the political/social issues relating.

It isn't known what "causes" homosexuality; even President Hinckley admitted that; for a supposedly active/obedient Church member to say that it is a choice and address it in such a manner is false doctrine. They can't have it both ways; the same people who espouse this reference Church statements when stating why they oppose gay rights.

And to "be gay" doesn't mean you are acting on your feelings. "To be" is a "state of being;" you are in the state of having these feelings of attraction towards the same sex, not necessarily acting on them.

Anonymous

Furthermore, it is important because people like me who are gay but have decided to try and live the Gospel are STILL VILIFIED, whether or not I have acted on my feelings.

That's not the way that Christ would treat me.

And in regards to those who do act on it: just because someone behaves in a way that you don't like doesn't give you the right to vilify them.

For example, one of the bills in the Common Ground Initiative would make it illegal for my employer to fire me (or any straight person) on the basis of my (or his/her) sexual orientation. That has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage, yet that is the Sacred Ground's argument against the bills and that is all that anyone is talking about.

How is this particular bill wrong on moral or spiritual grounds? I would argue that it isn't.

Everybody makes this

so hard, but it should be simple. If you are a person that believes that marriage should be "protected" then protect your own families! If you don't like the gay lifestyle then don't participate, but know that they have their rights. They don't make your families unsafte....in fact the ones that want to committ are reinforcing the good things about committment! It has been the heterosexual affairs and such in the past that has been the problem, not the gays.

Vince

Re: C'mon Vince | 5:17 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

I believe the point at question is whether the pavillion could be used for public accomodations, not religious functions ---

That in essence marked why it lost ---

As to the question whether religious buildings --- not pavillions, not cultural halls, not centers, but churches, chapels, mosques, temples --- that is a different question --- those buildings are strictly for the use of religious weddings.

I believe if such a phobia would exist, as many think it would, that in essence, LBGT couples, people, were to take on churches and take them to court against the discriminatory use of religious edifices --- it would have happened already. It has not.

Point in fact: Religious organizations deserve the right to marry whom they will where they will --- does not the LDS Church, for one, have a process whereby if a couple wants to marry in the chapel, they need to go through the proper channels? --- i.e. the bishop, the Stake, etc? At any level, any of those authorities can deny or approve those marriages based on any number of criteria.

Likewise, Jewish rabbi can refuse to marry whom they will ---

Not gay

Not gay but after listening to the hysteria, falsehoods, and out right illogical premises, I think I want marriage to be for all humans. Period.

If we are worrying about rights of kids to grow up in a home with a mommy and daddy, then let's ban divorce. Or Polygamy, with its extras of mommies.

Hypocrits.

Vince

C'mon Vince | 5:17 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

For example, Jewish rabbi can refuse to marry others because they are outside their faith.

Catholic priests can refuse to marry people who have been divorced.

Do those people sue the Churches because they do not meet the criteria for marrying inside their religious edifices?

If they do, I have yet to hear about one.

To that extent, religious organizations deserve the right to marry people of LGBT affiliation.

Those churches that do marry LGBT people is because they extend those rights out of their own will to LGBT couples, not because they are forced, but because they hold the extension of those ceremonies as part of their tenets.

That said, overturning Prop 8 will not change how religious organizations marry or not marry.

The case in point which you used in your example, incidentally, did not happen in any of the states that currently allow same-sex marriage, but the case is used to promote mis-information and phobia.

As to the point about abortions, different topic altogether. I, for one, condone abortion, and I do not want my money to go toward abortion "rights."

Vince


To Gay Mormon | 5:28 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009

Thank you. I second the sentiment ---

"Gays are vilified by Mormons, even within a Church setting. Despite the fact that the Gospel is true - that behavior is unbecoming and inappropriate."

for as much as different people say in this blog repeat the catch phrase "It's over. Move on, etc." it seems they find a common forum in EQ and Sunday School.

It isn't particularly easy to be gay, anti Prop 8, and LDS right now --- because Sunday after Sunday people keep with their remarks ---

* About Prop 8
* And Tom Hanks
* Is Samuel L. Jackson the new person to villify at EQ? I don't know --- I stopped listening.

If the same people that say "It's over, get over it" would stop finding a forum at church we could talk about, oh, I don't know --- doctrine for a change.

An Honest Assessment

Article quote: "Eric Ethington and Elaine Ball, two gay rights activists who were in attendance, said they were bothered by statements that homosexuality was a choice and an "addiction." "I just feel so bad", said Ball."

Dude, I don't doubt it. What you're doing is sinful. What did you expect to feel? Happy?

Methodist Wedding?

What Methodist wedding are you talking about? The only one I could find was in California:

"In a letter to bishops, 363 United Methodist clergy and laity urged the church to end its ban on celebrating gay and lesbian marriages."

LA Times October 12, 1998

A story

One cold night, as an man sat in his tent, a camel thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the man, as he turned over and went to sleep.

A little later the man awoke to find that the camel had not only put his nose in the tent but his head and neck also. The camel, who had been turning his head from side to side, said, "I will take but little more room if I place my forelegs within the tent. It is difficult standing out here." "Yes, you may put your forelegs within," said the Man, moving a little to make room, for the tent was small.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

In 2004, a study, conducted by Ellison Research (which has done several Clergy Studies) among a representative sample of 695 Protestant church ministers nationwide, asked pastors of several denominations to identify the three strongest threats to families in their own community.
The three most commonly named threats were divorce (listed as one of the top three by 43% of all ministers), negative influences from the media (38%), and materialism (36%). These were followed by absentee fathers (24%) and families that lack a stay-at-home parent (22%). The rest of the list included:
Co-habitation before marriage (18%)
Pornography (17%)
Morality not being taught in schools (14%)
Poverty, unemployment, and/or a poor economy (13%)
Parental alcohol use/abuse (12%)
Parental drug use/abuse (11%)
Drug use/abuse among teens or children (8%)
Teen sexual involvement/activity (8%)
Alcohol use/abuse among teens or children (6%)
Adultery (5%)
Poor schools or quality of education (4%)
Teen pregnancy (2%)
Sexual predators or sexual abuse (1%)
The expense of child care (1%)
Other issues (12%)
Note that neither homosexuals, nor gay marriage, even made it into the top 20 threats to families per the clergy.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

A story | 7:30 p.m. Feb. 9, 2009 -
One cold night, as an man sat in his tent, a camel thrust his nose under the flap and looked in. "Master," he said, "let me put my nose in your tent. It's cold and stormy out here." "By all means," said the man, as he turned over and went to sleep....

LDS - This story can't be applied to Equal Rights for others. In the story, the man eventually gets shoved out since there is no room in the tent for him. How is giving others equal rights diminish your own rights? Were the voting rights of white males harmed when Blacks and women were allowed to vote?

FUTURE

The common ground initiative is nothing more than a step to achieve what they tried to do in California, plain and simple. Marriage is between a man and a women, period. These people won't stop until that is changed.

Michaelitos

@ LDS4gaymarriage
You still have not responded to my comments earlier. I ask you. How do you reconcile being LDS (active and faithful, which includes accepting Thomas S. Monson as a living prophet) AND pushing for same-gender marriage? Unless your pen name is meant to intentionally misguide (which I think is unethical, by the way), I do not understand how it is possible. You want everything proven in secular terms, but that is not required. One of the great things about America is that a religious belief, any one as long as it does not violate the law, is just as good as any other belief (religious or not). Whether my opinion (and by extension, vote) comes from a religious base or not, as an American citizen I am entitled to it.

I would like to present one more quote for your consideration, from Elder Oaks this time. It does not directly apply to same-gender marriage, but I think the principle holds true.

Michaelitos

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters God's servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law on this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

From Elder Oaks' "Weightier Matters of the Law". Can LDS faithful not apply this same reasoning to same-gender marriage?

True Doctrine

The Lord instructed us that homosexual activities are a sin (See Romans chapter 1). It is written in the book of Corinthians that we will "not be tempted above which ye are able to bare". Therefore, those who say they are gay and cannot change it are going against what Jesus taught, remembering that Jesus speaks through his apostles and prophets.

Luckily, the atonement of Jesus Christ is still available for all men. Everyone can repent from their sins, including homosexual activity. If you don't believe you can change if you are gay, you do not believe in the atonement of Jesus Christ or have sufficient faith in Jesus Christ.

to comment

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