Quantcast

Comments about ‘Utah gay-marriage advocates disappointed’

Return to article »

But LDS officials say the California court's ruling is 'welcome'

Published: Wednesday, May 27 2009 12:56 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
To "Really?" @ 1:53pm

You said:

"Maybe when something you believe in is in jeopardy, you will understand and hope for others to respect you and your opinions."

Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman. I feel just as passionately about my side of the argument as you do yours. I do "hope for others to respect [my] opinons." I'm hoping you will respect mine right now. I respect your opinion. Let's be clear: "respect" does not equal "agreement" or "endorsement". And in the USA, when parties disagree about law, we hold elections to determine the law of the land. This issue will come up on the ballot again, and we'll see what the majority votes for. What I can assure you is that if Prop 8 would have failed, you wouldn't have seen the behavior from Prop 8 supporters that we have all witnessed from the LGBT community.

Roger

re: - Roger | 1:49 p.m | 3:21 p.m. May 27, 2009

Yes, I know how bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a bigot - I get it!

to - Roger | 1:51 p.m

["Yes, I know how bigoted I sound. Merely disagreeing with you makes me a bigot - I get it!"]

it's not that you disagree. it's that you are a paranoid scitzophrenic and are throwing out bizarre conspiracy theories against a minority.

or do you actually believe the crazy things you say?

Anonymous

"Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman."

Do you mean that when we have gay marriage, all marriages between opposite sexes will cease? I stand all amazed! I did not know that was happening in Massachusetts where they have had gay marriage for 5 years now.

Ask you fellow members in Boston if their lives have changed or if they now have different beliefs. I think you might be surprised by the answer. The sky did not fall and temple marriages in the Boston temple are continuing.

re - To "Really?" @ 1:53pm 12:37

["Something I believe in IS in jeopardy: marriage between one man and one woman."]

the funniest part of your statement is that you can HAVE the word "marriage". What's going to happen is the gov't will simply change it to "civil union" and that's what everyone will get. If you want to get "married" then first you have to have a civil union, after which if you want to go to your church and have a little marriage ceremony, which won't have any legal standing, then go right ahead.

and those people that have civil unions (everyone) will still be able to say "yes, we're married". So while you have your little religious ceremony, after all that, and you say "we're married" then the two women right next to you will be able to say the same thing...

can't wait to see the look on your face...

so sure - keep the word "marriage". It's just a word anyway. soon it won't even matter.

the not Vince gay

......very very very much

~lily allens

Gay divorce

What is often overlooked is that gay divorces are highly discouraged by this decision.
Maureen O'Connor, head of the Gay and Lesbian Liberation Front, stated: "Sadly, the 18,000 married gay and lesbian couples will not have the chance to remarry if divorced. But the bright news is that these couples will have to work harder to make their relationships work, and future studies will show that gay and lesbian marriage works even better than heterosexual marriage. We also are encouraged by a ruling that adultery cannot be punished by the state, so gay and lesbian couples can have open relationships with no fear of state retribution."

Re: Gay divorce

If past studies of homosexual families are any indication, it seems that future studies will show whatever their biased authors want them to. Unfortunately, it seems that very few objective comparisons of homosexual and heterosexual families have been made; objectivity is made even more difficult by the selective participation of gay families.

Anonymous

@gay divorce

What the would lead you to believe prop 8 had ANYTHING to do with adultry?....which in case you haven't noticed isn't illegal and hasn't been an issue since before the 1960's.

Anonymous

@Re: Gay divorce
PAST studies of homosexual families

First by your chosing to call gays/lesbians homosexuals, I know what your bias is. Not even willing to respect enough to call us what we call OURSELVES.

Secod I'm all pins and needles to see these "STUDIES" of LGBT families you CLAIM exist, cuz unless they are from Europe there aren't American studies of OUR families...yet.
So show me your studies, and give links to your sources.....which you folks who just make up garbage can NEVER provide.
put up or shut up

RockOn

What's the big deal?
Simply this. No proof, just supposition and conjecture, exists to prove Gay is genetic. If not genetic, then it is behavioral. If behavioral it can be learned or unlearned. If it can be learned, gay pedophile scout masters can influence. So can gay parents.

However, if proof ever comes that Gay is genetic and never behavioral, then the argument changes.

Until then gay does not equal skin color. Gay should receive no special protection under the law. Physically harming someone regardless of the justification except immediate self preservation should be prosecuted.

Gays should have all civil rights as any other American citizen... they now have the right to marry the woman of their choice just like any other man. And if not marriage they should have the right to make contracts of endowment.

By the way... welcome to the slippery slope. If there is found a 'GAY GENE" then what are you going to say about a bestiality gene, or a pedophile gene?

In the meantime, gays, you CAN decide who you're attracted to and not attracted to. You aren't turned on by your father... that is a choice.

Unpersuaded

Let me see if I can adequately capture some of the principles behind the pro-homosexual marriage movement:

1. "We are desperate for others to validate our lifestyle choice, and calling our relationship 'marriage' seems like a good way to achieve that."

2. "Defining a 'family' as a unit designed to provide for raising and nurturing children--and providing a community with the populace necessary to survive--is too restrictive. The definition needs to be expanded to validate hedonism as well."

3. "We realize that our rationale for and the justifications of our behavior are shaky, so don't take it personally when we accuse _everyone_ who disagrees with us as being hateful."

3b. "We expect that everyone will give into our demands if we sound angry and victimized enough, independent of our shaky principles or lack of principles altogether."

4. "We realize that a large number of homosexuals in the liberal country The Netherlands commit suicide, but since we're in Utah, we'll blame the LDS Church. It helps enhance our public perception as victims."

Lack of space prevents me from continuing, but I think I've captured the fundamental principles.

Vince


The Rock | 1:27 p.m. May 26, 2009

Yes, Rock

we know your line, is that everything you can add to the issue?

Fine.

Abraham Lincoln said a tail is a tail not a leg, etc.

Ahem, He said that in the 1860s, when polygamy was allowed in a certain territory.

Question for you, Rock, what was that called exactly?

Not marriage?

When we look at the history of polygamy, is that marriage or not - or is it something else?

Now that Proposition 8 has been upheld as being defined as between "one man and one woman."

Can we therefore, revisit history and call polygamous marriages something other marriages?

Please, I wait your reply.

Vince

People don't lose when they fail to win one race.

People lose when they fail to keep on.

Vince

Some of you don't know your own arguments. Either that or you fail to accept them?

You keep saying, "being gay is a choice"

You are so eager to quote the Proclamation to the World, Romans, Levititus, take your pick, you love those quotes.

And yet.... The Church has said,

"ELDER OAKS: Thats where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions whether nature or nurture those are things the Church doesnt have a position on."

When we turn to the professionals, they quote the same. I have quoted numerous articles, quotes, statements by the APA, for example, all stating in fact, that "there is no conclusive data as to why gays are gay"

Are we saying that in the course of making a decision we are going against,

1. What the Church says it does not have a position on --- specifically, gay being a choice
2. The professionals --- with some studies going back as much as thirty years, and growing

Vince

Being Gay is not a choice

To some of you who fail to grasp the meaning of what it means to be gay.

Some of you have gay sons and daughters, gay neighbors, gay friends, etc.

Many of them are good, honest people, you know them because they know they are your friends and relatives.

Some of them have never lied to you about important issues.

Why do you think they would lie to you about this one issue, particularly about one that affects the way they identify themselves?

There is nothing for gay people to gain from saying "I am gay" to their friends and family except a sense of self-realization once they finally come out of the closet and affirm who they are.

Quite the contrary, many of them have much to lose.

Why would they risk saying that they are gay and inevitably face a life that is altogether different from what the "normal" is?

You seriously think that they would think, "well, I know it is a choice. I woke up one morning, and I decided to be gay" and that they would risk alienating friends and family?

Vince

Unpersuaded | 8:31 a.m. May 30, 2009

Sorry, on every point your voice, tone, and content does not represent the sentiment of LGBT.

#1 It is not "lifestyle." It is inherent rights to the rights that heterosexuals have.

If people that live together "in sin" do so, yet, they are allowed to do so under the law.

The one legislation in question targets the LGBT community as a community which, acording to the majority view, cannot live committed loving relationships just as heterosexuals can.

#2 Family, in any sociology textbook, is not defined as a mother and a father who never get divorced, and have children. Yet, this is the very market which "preservation of traditional marriage" is trying to sell.

#3 The actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is loving?

#4 I have seen people on both sides express anger and victimization on both sides. Yet, after all is over, only one side had their rights to marry taken away. The other wide still has the right to marry.


Unpersuaded

Let me cut to the chase: Yeah, I have an opinion about the whole LGBT agenda. It wasn't forged in a Sunday School class, either.

It was derived from first-hand experiences with homosexuals. In short, for every homosexual in my personal circle of acquaintances (family, friends, roommates, etc.), pornography, grooming, and--in a few cases--public exposure/indecency--have been a part of their life story. Thus, my personal experiences persuade me to believe that LGBT isn't about love and family. Instead, it appears to be more about sex and hedonism.

I understand if anyone wants to assume I'm just making it up, blowing things out of proportion, making a broad generalization, etc. I understand if someone's reaction is, "We/they aren't all like that." That's okay...I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion.

Like everyone else, my personal observations and experiences mean more to me than the rhetoric of others. Maybe my opinions will change when I start seeing more evidence that LGBT is based on more than indulgence.

Fine: it's not a "choice". Birth defects aren't a choice, but that doesn't make them good. Right?

Unpersuaded

"You keep saying, 'being gay is a choice'."

You're right. We do keep saying that. And yes, some of us have opinions that aren't dictated by the leadership of the LDS Church.

Personally, I'll quit mentioning it--not because I'm giving up the opinion, but because it doesn't matter. Whether or not it's a choice has no bearing on whether or not it's in the best interest of society.

We can either agree it's good (not likely to happen) or bad (not likely to happen) or indifferent (not likely to happen), or we can just continue waging battles at the polls, in the courts, in the press, in online forums :-), etc. I'm okay with that. I'm not going to throw any parties or lose any sleep over it, one way or the other.

Unpersuaded

"#3 The actions to take rights from people who do not personally affect you is loving?"

My actions are not driven by love any moreso than they are motivated by hate. I disagree with the premise of LGBT / hedonism / indulgence / addiction / whatever.

Are you suggesting that "Well, gee...what can it hurt?" is a compelling argument?

From a historical perspective, are successful, long-lasting societies built on a foundation of homosexuality? I say "no". Hence, my attitudes and actions. No hate required. Please do continue accusing me of hate, though, if it helps you feel like more of a victim.

to comment

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