Quantcast

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
realitycheck

Sutherland group tries to pass itself off as a think-tank, but it is in fact a religious organization. It's too bad they feel the need to deceive rather than just be themselves. Tricky little religious zealots, trying to push their beliefs onto others and act like it's based on "research".

it's too bad all organized religion seems to have forgotten the Golden Rule. So busy pushing their agenda they forgot the basics.

realitycheck

re True Doctrine 9:59am

WHAT? You have no clue what God wants - all you've done is read some books written by old men in robes.

stop thinking you have a better understanding of what God wants than the rest of us. That's the biggest problem with mormons and the like. You think you know it all, and push that agenda on everyone else.

God is more likely to admit a kind homosexual into heaven than a bigot that thinks he knows everything and tries to get the world to conform to his way of thinking... and quit quoting books written by old men in robes - try to think for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. That's why God gave you free will.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

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?

LDS - I've answered you, but let me address the above - The prophets have stated that if their words violate scripture, that we are to ignore their own words and hold to scripture. This is the case here. If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. See 1 Cor 10:29 as well.

President Monson is NOT the Lord's ventriloquist dummy whose mouth only opens when the Lord pulls the strings and only speaks words the Lord puts in his mouth.

Show me where D&C 134:4 allows what it condemns.

re Michaelitos 9:34am

you need to go back to the basics and apply the Golden Rule. That's the only one that matters. Everything else is simply out of some book you read.

and you can talk about pro-choice vs anti-abortion, but you obviously don't know the difference between a chicken and an egg. Remind me not to order a chicken sandwich at your house unless I want breakfast.

Alex

"If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. "

Nobody is losing their rights. You can't lose a right you never had.

To LDS4 | 10:31

What a specious argument!

By your assessment, if I claim a "right" to marry my gerbil, or to burglarize your home, D&C 134:4 would prohibit you speaking against it.

The LGBT community wants to frame the argument in terms of rights and liberties. But that's a completely bogus and discredited idea. It neglects the FACT that there is currently no "right" to homosexual marriage to be infringed.

You have no more right to gay "marriage" than the FLDS do to polygamy or the burglar has to steal your property.

Here's the appropriate argument -- Gay marriage is currently illegal. You want to make it legal. OK, that's your right. But it is not your right to re-write the laws of the land without benefit of the political process, as was done in CA.

If you, or the FLDS, or the burglar believe you've got the public support for a change to the law -- go for it. We'll see how it comes out.

But don't cheat the system using threats, coercion, violence, and corrupt judges.

And don't sell your integrity by arguing nonexistent "rights."

C'mon Vince

That's the best you can do?

Those LGBT activists in NJ had no intention of trying to influence Methodist doctrine? LGBT activists have no interest in changing Church doctrine or practice?

C'mon.

Bottom line -- you're the proponents here. It's your job to convice us that we have nothing to fear by a change to our laws.

Calling us bigots and telling us we're stupid to worry isn't cutting it.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Elder Oaks - 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?

LDS - The obvious answer would be those laws that cause no objective harm. All of his examples are OBJECTIVELY harmful. Examples of SUBJECTIVE laws that could/should be changed would be Sabbath Closing laws, laws that outlaw the sale of sex toys, etc.. (things that are SUBJECTIVELY harmful should not be crimes. They may be considered as vices as is overeating, nail-biting, etc...) Vices are not crimes.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Alex - "If you can show me how D&C 134:4 allows "letting our religious opinions prompt us to infrnige upon the rights and liberties of others" when it specifically condemns it. "

Nobody is losing their rights. You can't lose a right you never had.

LDS - Sorry, but gays in CA had a LEGAL RIGHT to marry. Even if you can claim it isn't a right, but it is still a legal liberty as the verse mentions. Our attempts to take away rights and liberties that others have is a violation of scripture.

Anonymous

To LDS4 - What a specious argument!

By your assessment, if I claim a "right" to marry my gerbil, or to burglarize your home, D&C 134:4 would prohibit you speaking against it.

LDS - Since your gerbil has no right to enter into a legal contract, it can't accept your marriage proposal Mr. Gere

TL - The LGBT community wants to frame the argument in terms of rights and liberties. But that's a completely bogus and discredited idea. It neglects the FACT that there is currently no "right" to homosexual marriage to be infringed.

LDS - Sorry, but there WAS a legal right to marry in CA. Prop. 8 took that right away. If there was no legal right to marry, then there would be no need for Prop. 8.

TL - You have no more right to gay "marriage" than the FLDS do to polygamy or the burglar has to steal your property.

LDS - Since polygamy is not objectively harmful when practiced by consenting adults, polygamy should be legal. Theft is objectively harmful and therefore is justly outlawed.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

TL - Here's the appropriate argument -- Gay marriage is currently illegal. You want to make it legal. OK, that's your right. But it is not your right to re-write the laws of the land without benefit of the political process, as was done in CA.

LDS - Huh? Our divinely inspired constitution and the CA one allow their courts to overturn laws that violate the federal/state constitutions. You may disagree with any specific ruling, but their rulings are legally binding.

TL - If you, or the FLDS, or the burglar believe you've got the public support for a change to the law -- go for it. We'll see how it comes out. But don't cheat the system using threats, coercion, violence, and corrupt judges.

LDS - Threats, coercion, and violence were done by both sides, but admittedly the most by the gays due to the fact that it was THEIR rights being taken from them, not ours. Regarding corrupt judges, there is a method to remove them. Since you think the CA ruling is so bad, go ahead and try to get them removed. Their rulings are law.

And don't sell your integrity by arguing nonexistent "rights."

Alex

"LDS - Sorry, but gays in CA had a LEGAL RIGHT to marry. Even if you can claim it isn't a right, but it is still a legal liberty as the verse mentions. Our attempts to take away rights and liberties that others have is a violation of scripture."

By that reasoning, the state of California has the right to interpret scripture for the LDS Church.

To LDS4, Alex

You have got a really tough row to hoe! Convincing me and others like me that we are better off supporting gay "rights" legislation, than we would be with the status quo. You've got a long way to go, my friends, and you don't seem to be headed in the right direction. We refuse to be cowed by false accusations of bigotry or buffaloed by dissembling dismissals of my concerns.

I didn't sign on to your website (that you dishonestly advertise here in violation of the comment rules, BTW), but, I think I've saved myself the time and effort by reading your posts here.

It appears you have nothing to peddle that would convince me, or any reasonable voter, that we are better off supporting you.

It's sad that all I can see is a future of continual fighting for what is right, against a well-funded, radical activism that sees me as an enemy to be overcome, not as a friend or ally to be won.

Too bad -- there may have been some middle ground that protected both of us.

Alex

To LDS4, Alex | 1:37 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009 :

"You have got a really tough row to hoe! Convincing me and others like me that we are better off supporting gay "rights" legislation, than we would be with the status quo. You've got a long way to go, my friends, and you don't seem to be headed in the right direction. "

You must have me mistaken for someone else. If you read my posts, I am not supporting these special gay "rights" by any stretch of the imagination. Very often I will quote someone who is arguing for it and then respond to their statements. I use quotes to indicate that they are not my statements.

You are mistaken

LDS4gaymarriage.org:

How does the act of wanting to keep the definition of marriage to mean between a man and women have anything to do with taking away rights because of religious opinions? There are no religious reasons mentioned in Prop8 as to the reason for keeping marriage between a man and women, so your reference to section 134 is not valid.

People when they vote will vote their consciences and many times it will be influenced by religious beliefs but we cannot read minds so we really do not know that is why they voted. By your standards then, any Latter-day Saint that ever votes for anything basing their decision on their religions beliefs would be in violation of D&C 134:4. What should the Church do then, tell the members to never vote if it would conflict with Section 134?

There is another scripture you are probably aware of, 2 Pet 1:20-21

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Michaelitos

@ realitycheck
You are an angry person. You do not listen to any real argument, you simply tout the "Golden Rule" and then cast stones.

I'm sorry, but you have no credibility.

@ LDS4
It seems to me that you are trying to have it both ways. You cannot claim that Pres. Monson is a prophet and then disregard his prophetic counsel as words from a man, not when they are given in his full role as prophet and echoed by the rest of the 1st presidency.

I refer you to a talk entitled "Fouteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet" given by Ezra Taft Benson in 1980. A few nuggets from that talk include:
-The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
-The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
-The prophet will never lead the Church astray.
-The prophet is not limited by men's reasoning.
-The prophet may be involved in civic matters.

And lastly, "The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know." I'm sorry this issue contradicts your personal views, but I wish you success in this trial of faith

Why I Support Prop. 8

My brother and law and one of my best friends growing up are both gay. They are both wonderful people and have many good qualities I admire. I support civil unions, hate crime legislation and anti discrimination laws. So why do I support Prop. 8?

If gay marriage is legal any group that will not perform this type of marriage will be breaking the law and subject to prosecution. The supreme court held in a ruling against an Indian Tribe in Florida that smoking peyote was against the law and therefore their religon was not protected by the first ammendment to the constitution.

Prop. 8 is about a lot more than gay marriage it is ultimately about freedom of religion. It also makes you wonder why anti-Prop. 8 activists are not satisfied with civil unions when they afford all of the legal benefits that marriage would. What is the real motive I wonder?

Michaelitos

@LDS4
With your objective vs. subjective interpretation of Elder Oaks statement, I actually agree with you to a point. However, Elder Oaks has also said:

Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and theres no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.

Given that he supports a constitutional amendment barring same-gender marriage, how can you think that he would support laws (or interpretation of laws) that redefine an honored institution that is over a millennia old?

"Protect Marriage"

By all means by protecing YOUR marriage and YOUR family and leave OTHERS alone to do the same. Any religion doesn't have to believe in certain types of marriages (Mormons, Catholics etc perform marriages which they recognize as the only true or best form of marriage). However, the government (civil courts) also perform marriages and they do so by the laws of the lans which are supposed to be non-discriminatory towards TWO people (not polygamists for obvious reasons of chld support and inequality of women in this type of relationship). So they will decide this issue and religion can decide their issues, but the two shouldn't combine. (Separation of church and state).

Sign me up

I want to join this institute. How do I sign up?

to comment

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