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
LDS4gaymarriage.org

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."

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

LDS - Huh? Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. They had the right and we allowed our religious opinions to prompt us to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (gays). it can't be any clearer.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

To LDS/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.

LDS - Hmmm...we LDS were a small and unpopular minority in OH, MO, IL, etc...We pleaded with others to respect our rights and we were laughed at because the majority thought we were a non-Christian cult. Many still do. The same goes for the gays today. You'd think we'd be sympathetic to an oppressed group in obtaining their legal/civil rights. I mistakenly thought that avoiding hypocrisy and obeying the clear words of scripture might elicit sympathy. The oppressed have become the oppressors.
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.

Anonymous

To LDS4, Alex - 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.

LDS - It sure is sad that the gays were hoping to have the Church as an ally based on our experience with persecution, but the Church didn't care about avoiding hypocrisy regarding persecution, obedience to scripture, and showing Christ-like love. It wasn't the gays that withdrew their hand of friendship.

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

LDS - The gay coalition has offered some middle ground about employment and housing rights. I bet that there will be no room in the inn for moderation either.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Mistaken - 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?

LDS - OK...REAL slow...we LDS may keep our definition of a proper marriage as being between a man and a woman. In Calif, gays had a legal right to marry. many did. We LDS were offended by that because of our RELIGIOUS OPINIONS. Those opinions prompted us to infringe on the rights and liberties of gays by contributing to the effort to infringe upon those rights. We gave almost half of the money and 90+% of the foot soldiers in that effort.

Mistaken - 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.

LDS - There doesn't need to be. prop8 was ONLY about taking marriage rights from the gays. Taking away the rights of others is forbidden in scripture.

Finally

Finally a little push back to the in your face sexual deviants who have been harranging the world to prove they know better how to engineer the family.

Same sex marriage is a myth. Marriage is a contract to bear and raise children. Same sexers can't make that contract. Its a biological impossible contract, rendering the whole thing mute. Just call it was it is. Two sexual deviants getting their thrills and wanting the rest of us to dress it in the traditional trappings of home, family, and community. Marriage is about the conception and rearing of children. You can call same sex hanging out what you want, but it will never be marriage. It just isn't

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Mistaken - 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?

LDS - If the proposition being voted upon takes away established legal rights of others, the Church should encourage the members to vote against it or at least don't vote and don't contribute or campaign for it. Removing rights is in league with Satan's Plan.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Mistaken - 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.

LDS - OK, I've been asking for an official interpretation of this verse. I've been asking for 8 years. I've met with bishops and stake presidencies to see how God is pleased with men, "unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" in reality means "Feel free to let your religious opinions prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others".

It would have to be an interpretation that "depends on what the definition of `is' is". Peter also condemned twisting the scriptures. I'd love to see the Chinese contortionist moves necessary to neutralize it's effect.

Re: Protect Marriage

Unfortunately once the Supreme Court set a precedent that a religon's practices can not be seperated from the law (see 2:57) your final point is invalid.

Alex

LDS4gaymarriage.org:

"Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. "

No. The California Court, in violation of the laws of the state of California regarding same-sex marriage, invented a new definition of marriage and declared it as a legal right. The people of California corrected the court.

Marriage

A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. This law doesn't discriminat based on race or sexual preference. A gay man can marry a straight or gay woman and a gay woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no discrimination about it.

GK

If you are going to rely on scripture to justify your support of same-sex marriage, that is a losing option because the Prophet of God has said that it is wrong and what he says is scripture.

Some of these posts

are very limited in their thinking. A significant number of heterosexuals either can't have children or have already had children. These people sometimes adopt children. Sometimes parents die or are not fit parents and family members (male or female) adopt their children. It doesn't matter if two Aunts, Uncles or grandparents are raising the kids (this is not the issue). It is that fit adults raise the children. Gay people currently do this either from assignment from family members or from foster parents or adoption. The people that feel that parents must be able to have children to be married are very limited in their thinking, indeed! Also, people get married out of love for one another and to make a commitment. Children may or may not come of the union and this is a poor argument. In ancient times propagation of the species may have been an issue, but in a world of six billion (and counting) people it is not.

Re: Marriage 7:02 PM

That's the best argument I have seen on this whole message board! Thank you for summing it up. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite gender, no matter if they are gay or straight!

Well said, because that's the law, and its already been passed & approved in California and in Utah.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Michaelitos - Given that (Elder Oaks) 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?

LDS - Considering that gays historically make up 2-3% of a population and that the rights of unpopular minorities have only been protected in the last 40 years, it's easy to see why the traditional definition of marriage is as it is.

A constitutional amendment would eliminate the fight and allow us to abide by scripture. Would he want one that ALLOWS states to have same-sex marriage if enacted by the voice of the people?

As with his "teaching function of the law", he is playing with a double edged sword. We LDS sure whooped and hollered when others used the law to teach us about marriage. Ben Franklin said that democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep deciding on what to eat for lunch. 125 years ago, we were the sheep (a small/unpopular minority) but on this issue, we are a wolf. The next time LDS are treated like sheep, how would his logic NOT be hypocritical?

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Alex - LDS4gaymarriage.org:
"Gays had a legal right. many got legally married. many came from out of state to marry. They had that right secured by the CA Constitution as interpreted by those who their constitution says may interpret the laws. "

A - No. The California Court, in violation of the laws of the state of California regarding same-sex marriage, invented a new definition of marriage and declared it as a legal right. The people of California corrected the court.

LDS - No, the CA constitution has a "equal Protection" clause requiring all to be treated equally. Prop 22 (a statute) passed with Prop 8's wording. Gays sued saying 22 violated that clause. The Supremes agreed. Prop8 is simply prop.22 but instead of being a statute (subject to the Constitution) it is a constitutional amendment which means that there is no conflict and thereby nullified the court's ruling.

Gays claim that since 22 drastically alters rights, that the requirements to put it on the ballot should have been those requirements, per CA law, that such drastic changes require. The Supremes could overturn 8 on this and force supporters to start over gathering signatures and meeting the tougher requirements.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

Marriage - A man can marry a woman and a woman can marry a man. This law doesn't discriminat based on race or sexual preference. A gay man can marry a straight or gay woman and a gay woman can marry a gay or straight man. There is no discrimination about it.

LDS - That's what the Whites in the South said defending their law banning Blacks and Whites from intermarrying. A White man can marry any White woman of his choice, etc.. The Supreme Court (in the Loving Case) threw out the idea that such subjective requirements were a violation of Equal protection. Gay marriage is also banned based on subjective requirements and logic. It should be overturned by the Supremes using the same logic they used in Loving.

See the essay entitled, "Mixed-Race Marriage vs. Civil Same-Sex Marriage" on our website for more details and quotes.

LDS4gaymarriage.org

GK | 7:05 p.m. Feb. 10, 2009 -
If you are going to rely on scripture to justify your support of same-sex marriage, that is a losing option because the Prophet of God has said that it is wrong and what he says is scripture.

LDS - Consider these 2 quotes -

The "lay" members of the Church are under obligation to accept the teachings of the authorities, unless they can discover in them some conflict with the revelations and commandments the Lord has given. There are times when the leading brethren have expressed their own opinions on various subjects.
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 112.)

If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it."
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3 vols., edited by Bruce R. McConkie [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1956], 3: 203.)

The scriptures trump the prophets unless/until their words BECOME scripture via Common Consent. read, "What Do The Prophets Say About Their Words vs. Scripture?" on our site for more quotes.

Michaelitos

@LDS4
I thought you had integrity. I didn't realize that all you do is pick out arguments you think you can win and ignore others. With D&C 134, Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. you harp on the same topic of being able to pick and choose which revelation you happen to like.

At the same time, you ignore my quoted reference of President Ezra Taft Benson's comments on following the prophet even when it does cut across your personal social and/or political opinions.

As the dialogue has continued and the evidence has mounted against you, you have gotten more and more entrenched in the same arguments, rather than engaging in more thoughtful consideration.

That, my friend, is why you have lost your ethos (and unfortunately your faith in the living prophet, apparently). If I would have realized that I was arguing with an organization, not a sincere person, I would have never engaged you.

I invite all of you at your organization to come back into the believing fold and encircling arms of Christ, His church, and His prophets. May you find your way through this trial of faith.

Dave

What a stupid headline. They are not going to bat "for marriage" they are going to bat for perpetrating discrimination and hate.

GK

Those are fine quotes you provide, but where do the scriptures say that homosexuality is ok.

to comment

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