Reader comments
Gay-rights activist calls for D.C. march
340 comments | Read story
Big Fella | 9:56 p.m | 11:10 a.m. June 9, 2009
But what if they are born that way? You can't say they aren't, as
there are a number of studies that show some people are genetically pre-disposed
to acts of violence. Are you accepting of them?
to - re Anonymous 10:46 a.m | 11:20 a.m. June 9, 2009
["I have never seen God but the spirit has wispered and I know that he also
is real and that his truths and commandments are real and eternal"]
so has this whispering being told you being gay is bad? has this soft-spoken spirit told you to be against gay marriage?
no one cares that you believe in ghosts. What we care about is that you think this whispering spirit wrote a book a couple thousand years ago - do you really think so? And now that book has been translated a hundred times over, in multiple languages, by people that probably have it in their mind what they want the book to say. And you still believe it is translated right?
and you pick and choose which portions you believe and follow. You don't really go by EVERYTHING in the bible, do you? aren't there some really creepy things in there that you think are just wrong?
Does this whispering spirit tell you which ones to ignore and which to follow?
and do you REALLY believe the people running your church have actual conversations with this spirit? Do you really think thay know more than you?
so has this whispering being told you being gay is bad? has this soft-spoken spirit told you to be against gay marriage?
no one cares that you believe in ghosts. What we care about is that you think this whispering spirit wrote a book a couple thousand years ago - do you really think so? And now that book has been translated a hundred times over, in multiple languages, by people that probably have it in their mind what they want the book to say. And you still believe it is translated right?
and you pick and choose which portions you believe and follow. You don't really go by EVERYTHING in the bible, do you? aren't there some really creepy things in there that you think are just wrong?
Does this whispering spirit tell you which ones to ignore and which to follow?
and do you REALLY believe the people running your church have actual conversations with this spirit? Do you really think thay know more than you?
STEVE-O | 11:21 a.m. June 9, 2009
Vince you just get on here and say the same tiresome things every time an
article about Gay people comes out. Find some new material because we've
heard these exact posts 100 tims.
Comments continue below
re: re: re: re: re: Jason | 11:24 a.m. June 9, 2009
"Ok, then I go back to the other part of my statement, if you really
believe that homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed because it can't
produce children, then there needs to be a fertility test for every heterosexual
couple who plans to get married. Any heterosexual couple that can't produce
children will be denied marriage. Since according to you its so important for
people to procreate then you should have no problem with this since infertile
heterosexual couples can't procreate either."
Permitting homosexual marriage isn't a question of fertility- most people who practice homosexuality could probably procreate in a heterosexual relationship, so permitting heterosexual marriage shouldn't be a question of fertility either. It's a question of preserving, protecting, encouraging, incentivizing, etc., the only monogamous union that is capable of procreation.
That being said, two adults that practice homosexuality should be able to live together, enjoy life together, etc. They don't need marriage to do that.
Also, no heterosexual couple should be forced to procreate. They should be incentivized through taxes, benefits, etc. Since any two eligible men and women can already do this, there is no discrimination toward anyone.
Permitting homosexual marriage isn't a question of fertility- most people who practice homosexuality could probably procreate in a heterosexual relationship, so permitting heterosexual marriage shouldn't be a question of fertility either. It's a question of preserving, protecting, encouraging, incentivizing, etc., the only monogamous union that is capable of procreation.
That being said, two adults that practice homosexuality should be able to live together, enjoy life together, etc. They don't need marriage to do that.
Also, no heterosexual couple should be forced to procreate. They should be incentivized through taxes, benefits, etc. Since any two eligible men and women can already do this, there is no discrimination toward anyone.
The Defender | 12:00 p.m. June 9, 2009
Declaration of Independence:
"..Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Generations have been accustomed to marriage between a man and a woman. I also believe that our government, state and federal, should not be changed for a "light, and transient cause" as the LGBT community is propositioning. Yes, I do believe your cause is "light, and transient". I do not want to abolish the "forms to which" I am accustomed.
You can keep fighting to absolish the forms we are accustomed. But when it incringes on my "unalienable rights", I will fight back to preserve my rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
Whose Happiness will win, yours or mine? That is made by the consent of the governed. So far, my happiness has won. If my happiness loses, be it a warning to all, that a new revolution will occur, and this revolution will not be pretty. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.
"..Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed..."
Generations have been accustomed to marriage between a man and a woman. I also believe that our government, state and federal, should not be changed for a "light, and transient cause" as the LGBT community is propositioning. Yes, I do believe your cause is "light, and transient". I do not want to abolish the "forms to which" I am accustomed.
You can keep fighting to absolish the forms we are accustomed. But when it incringes on my "unalienable rights", I will fight back to preserve my rights to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness".
Whose Happiness will win, yours or mine? That is made by the consent of the governed. So far, my happiness has won. If my happiness loses, be it a warning to all, that a new revolution will occur, and this revolution will not be pretty. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah.
Steven | 12:19 p.m. June 9, 2009
I start to have an issue with those people who try to argue the fact that gays
should be allowed to marry by saying the divorce rates are lower in gay
marriages. Or by saying: "If you heteros believed one word that you utter
about religion and God, you'd be looking to the Gay and Lesbian community
to show you how to conduct a loving relationship."
You are saying that the homosexual lifestyle is superior to any other. If you want "equality" stop trying to put yourself above everybody else!
You are saying that the homosexual lifestyle is superior to any other. If you want "equality" stop trying to put yourself above everybody else!
re - The Defender | 12:00 p.m. | 12:33 p.m. June 9, 2009
["Whose Happiness will win, yours or mine?"]
I think everyone knows who will win. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within a decade. Sorry to put a damper on your "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", since it seems to rest on traditional marriage.
and no - we don't "Remember Sodom and Gomorrah". It was way before our times. You don't remember it either - you simply have some old stories that you follow. That isn't "remembering" - that's simply reading about a (probably fictional) event.
remember the civil rights movement? I do. And I guarentee you will remember the gay movement...
I think everyone knows who will win. Gay marriage will be legal in all 50 states within a decade. Sorry to put a damper on your "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", since it seems to rest on traditional marriage.
and no - we don't "Remember Sodom and Gomorrah". It was way before our times. You don't remember it either - you simply have some old stories that you follow. That isn't "remembering" - that's simply reading about a (probably fictional) event.
remember the civil rights movement? I do. And I guarentee you will remember the gay movement...
re many times: Jason | 12:35 p.m. June 9, 2009
"Permitting homosexual marriage isn't a question of fertility- most
people who practice homosexuality could probably procreate in a heterosexual
relationship, so permitting heterosexual marriage shouldn't be a question
of fertility either. It's a question of preserving, protecting,
encouraging, incentivizing, etc., the only monogamous union that is capable of
procreation.
That being said, two adults that practice homosexuality should be able to live together, enjoy life together, etc. They don't need marriage to do that.
Also, no heterosexual couple should be forced to procreate. They should be incentivized through taxes, benefits, etc. Since any two eligible men and women can already do this, there is no discrimination toward anyone."
You say its not about fertility but about the only monogamous union that is capable of procreation. Well guess what, there is no procreation without fertility. An infertile heterosexual couple is not capable of procreation, so under your reasoning their union should not be incentivized as there will be no procreation. So no marriage benefits for infertile couples since there won't be any procreation between them.
That being said, two adults that practice homosexuality should be able to live together, enjoy life together, etc. They don't need marriage to do that.
Also, no heterosexual couple should be forced to procreate. They should be incentivized through taxes, benefits, etc. Since any two eligible men and women can already do this, there is no discrimination toward anyone."
You say its not about fertility but about the only monogamous union that is capable of procreation. Well guess what, there is no procreation without fertility. An infertile heterosexual couple is not capable of procreation, so under your reasoning their union should not be incentivized as there will be no procreation. So no marriage benefits for infertile couples since there won't be any procreation between them.
Disturbed... | 12:36 p.m. June 9, 2009
As an active member of the Church, I am somewhat disturbed by some of the posts
made by others of my faith. It is not up to us to decide who goes where in the
next life. Let's remember to espouse a little charity and compassion
despite our differences.
Nate | 12:45 p.m. June 9, 2009
I wrote to RE:Jason x4. But there have been so many RE:Jasons that my comment
may be lost, so I want to make it again, because I think it important. The
population is the United States is primarily being replaced by minorities who
have more children than the general population. Some countries in Europe will
change very differently in the next twenty years because they are not replacing
their populations. It takes 2.1 children to replace a couple. The .1 is because
of deaths in babies etc. If you want to see where I am getting my information,
go to demographicwinter.com
THE GREAT WONDERER | 12:58 p.m. June 9, 2009
If being Gay is completely biological like many claim. Why is there a higher
percentage of Gay people over the years? Do you beleive that every case of
homosexuality is completely genetic? Are there some people who actually DO
choose to be gay?
Re: The Great Wonderer | 1:12 p.m. June 9, 2009
"If being Gay is completely biological like many claim. Why is there a
higher percentage of Gay people over the years? Do you beleive that every case
of homosexuality is completely genetic? Are there some people who actually DO
choose to be gay?"
Who says there is a higher percentage of gay people over the years? There's certainly a higher percentage of people who are out of the closet, people who have felt free to explore this aspect of themselves instead of being taught to deny their feelings. The farther back you go the less accepted homosexuality was. Put enough pressure on someone and they will deny their true feelings, although often with disastrous results.
Who says there is a higher percentage of gay people over the years? There's certainly a higher percentage of people who are out of the closet, people who have felt free to explore this aspect of themselves instead of being taught to deny their feelings. The farther back you go the less accepted homosexuality was. Put enough pressure on someone and they will deny their true feelings, although often with disastrous results.
Re: The Great Wonderer | 1:16 p.m. June 9, 2009
"Are there some people who actually DO choose to be gay?"
Why would anyone choose to be gay? Ask any gay person, it doesn't make your life any easier (just the opposite), especially with so many people out there like the ones commenting here.
Why would anyone choose to be gay? Ask any gay person, it doesn't make your life any easier (just the opposite), especially with so many people out there like the ones commenting here.
Winkie | 1:42 p.m. June 9, 2009
I haven't left Utah yet, but I plan to. I wanted to challenge some straight
people to do something. That is, come march with us in a "pride
parade" and afterwards tell me how you feel. I will bet right now that you
would say, "Hey, these people aren't so different. They are just
trying to pursue life, liberty and happiness , just like anyone else." If
you are up to the challenge, post here and someone will get in touch with you.
THE GREAT WONDERER | 2:26 p.m. June 9, 2009
So I'm hearing that EVERY gay person was genetically born that way. Even
those who got married and had 4 kids, only to leave their spouse for another
person of the same sex. EVERY gay person is completely bound by these genetics?
I wonder why a lot of people make the choices they do. Why does a person smoke when they KNOW all the damage it will do to their body?
I am of the opinion that SOME people may be born with these tendencies, others simply experiment and claim "Oh I've been gay this whole time."
I wonder why a lot of people make the choices they do. Why does a person smoke when they KNOW all the damage it will do to their body?
I am of the opinion that SOME people may be born with these tendencies, others simply experiment and claim "Oh I've been gay this whole time."
Anonymous | 2:48 p.m. June 9, 2009
As a fellow board member, I am worried about you. I think your anger is becoming
toxic. It is definitely changing the way you used to post on these boards. Is
the problem us, or the motorized chair that you spoke so freely about in your
book.
Just care, thats all.
Just care, thats all.
Question for the gays | 3:27 p.m. June 9, 2009
What argument to you gays have against legalizing polygamy? Don't they
deserve the rights of marriage also? What if I am in love with two women and
they love me? Why shouldn't I be able to marry them both if that is what
they want as well?
Gay vs. Polygamy | 3:54 p.m. June 9, 2009
I'm not Gay... but I do support their right to marry... And I have no
problem with Polygamy being legalized either. But with polygamy there will have
to be stuff worked out like, for example, Inheritance rights... If someone dies
how will the money be split up in this situation? What if one wife wants a
divorce... will she be entitled to half of the income?? What about the other
wives??? Will that be fair to them... so you can see, there will be issues.
re - question 3:27pm | 4:00 p.m. June 9, 2009
probably because one of them would only be 14 yrs old...
and what if you get divorced? does the one woman leaving get 1/3 of the assets? what if you don't marry them at the same time? how do you pro-rate the settlement? what if the remaining spouse doen't think that's equitable?
so the problem with polygamy is - divorce is too difficult to determine asset allocation, and you polygamists tend to like young girls...
and what if you get divorced? does the one woman leaving get 1/3 of the assets? what if you don't marry them at the same time? how do you pro-rate the settlement? what if the remaining spouse doen't think that's equitable?
so the problem with polygamy is - divorce is too difficult to determine asset allocation, and you polygamists tend to like young girls...
Vince | 4:02 p.m. June 9, 2009
Re: The Great Wonderer | 1:12 p.m. June 9, 2009
If we look at the coercion that Nazis put on gays during WWII, who would want to come out of the closet?
Further, the way Castro ostracized the gays in Cuba.
In the Middle East, while many countries deny deny that they have no gays in their country, when they become immigrants to America, boom, they're gay. It's the gay closet factor.
Same goes for oppressive countries like Russia which undermines people's identities.
If we look at the coercion that Nazis put on gays during WWII, who would want to come out of the closet?
Further, the way Castro ostracized the gays in Cuba.
In the Middle East, while many countries deny deny that they have no gays in their country, when they become immigrants to America, boom, they're gay. It's the gay closet factor.
Same goes for oppressive countries like Russia which undermines people's identities.
Anonymous | 4:02 p.m. June 9, 2009
re - THE GREAT WONDERER | 2:26 p.m
["So I'm hearing that EVERY gay person was genetically born that way. Even those who got married and had 4 kids, only to leave their spouse for another person of the same sex. EVERY gay person is completely bound by these genetics?"]
does it really matter?
["I am of the opinion that SOME people may be born with these tendencies, others simply experiment and claim "Oh I've been gay this whole time.""]
again - does it really matter if they are born gay or if they are "experimenting"? why would you even care?
["So I'm hearing that EVERY gay person was genetically born that way. Even those who got married and had 4 kids, only to leave their spouse for another person of the same sex. EVERY gay person is completely bound by these genetics?"]
does it really matter?
["I am of the opinion that SOME people may be born with these tendencies, others simply experiment and claim "Oh I've been gay this whole time.""]
again - does it really matter if they are born gay or if they are "experimenting"? why would you even care?
Vince | 4:19 p.m. June 9, 2009
STEVE-O | 11:21 a.m. June 9, 2009
Interesting feedback Steve,
I just went back on the last two pages of my posts. 7 of the posts were brand new.
But your comment begs the question, some people read and they do not counter with another argument. Usually people might dismiss any of the data as,
* "that's just an opinion"
* or they will wonder about the number of my posts.
* or they will have a religious argument
They will never validate or express a question as to... hmmm, I wonder what's with these scientific findings ---
As one commentator put it "if gays are biologically wired that way, as some of you claim"
Study after study that I post.
Do any of you bother to look this stuff up or do you dismiss it as "it couldn't possibly be true because it's a gay person talking."
I do more than that, I look up the arguments from the people that profess to cure gays and I post their findings also.
Interesting feedback Steve,
I just went back on the last two pages of my posts. 7 of the posts were brand new.
But your comment begs the question, some people read and they do not counter with another argument. Usually people might dismiss any of the data as,
* "that's just an opinion"
* or they will wonder about the number of my posts.
* or they will have a religious argument
They will never validate or express a question as to... hmmm, I wonder what's with these scientific findings ---
As one commentator put it "if gays are biologically wired that way, as some of you claim"
Study after study that I post.
Do any of you bother to look this stuff up or do you dismiss it as "it couldn't possibly be true because it's a gay person talking."
I do more than that, I look up the arguments from the people that profess to cure gays and I post their findings also.
Anonymous | 4:26 p.m. June 9, 2009
Question for the gays
"What argument to you gays have against legalizing polygamy? Don't they deserve the rights of marriage also? What if I am in love with two women and they love me? Why shouldn't I be able to marry them both if that is what they want as well?"
I am gay and I say, "go for it!" If you want to work out the details of who gets what when you die, what happens in a divorce, etc, you go for it, buddy! Wouldn't all the Mormons love it if polygamy were legalized again!
"What argument to you gays have against legalizing polygamy? Don't they deserve the rights of marriage also? What if I am in love with two women and they love me? Why shouldn't I be able to marry them both if that is what they want as well?"
I am gay and I say, "go for it!" If you want to work out the details of who gets what when you die, what happens in a divorce, etc, you go for it, buddy! Wouldn't all the Mormons love it if polygamy were legalized again!
Vince | 4:26 p.m. June 9, 2009
Steve O
If people are so against gays, do they take the time to find out why the very agencies that speak in the name of Christianity are failing the Christian gays, the atheist gays, and any other kinds of gays out there?
Because none of them work.
It is a lie.
Yet, people hold on the notion, well, no, it can't possibly be true because it just can't. Because it can't. It just can't. Devoid of all scientific arguments.
If people are so against gays, do they take the time to find out why the very agencies that speak in the name of Christianity are failing the Christian gays, the atheist gays, and any other kinds of gays out there?
Because none of them work.
It is a lie.
Yet, people hold on the notion, well, no, it can't possibly be true because it just can't. Because it can't. It just can't. Devoid of all scientific arguments.
Vince | 4:56 p.m. June 9, 2009
JanSan | 9:54 a.m. June 9, 2009
Many gays are in the Church, JanSan.
While many have become disenchanted with the Church, yes, some stay in the Church.
Who left who, though?
Do you have an idea as to how many teens, for example, go homeless because of who they are?
The gay teen homelessness rate is higher than the national average. The national homelessness rate is 42% for LGBT. In Utah, it is 47%.
How can this be when we say, "hate the sin, love the sinner?"
Many gays are in the Church, JanSan.
While many have become disenchanted with the Church, yes, some stay in the Church.
Who left who, though?
Do you have an idea as to how many teens, for example, go homeless because of who they are?
The gay teen homelessness rate is higher than the national average. The national homelessness rate is 42% for LGBT. In Utah, it is 47%.
How can this be when we say, "hate the sin, love the sinner?"
Behavior | 12:18 a.m. June 10, 2009
I believe gay behavior is morally wrong. I will vote against anything that
attempts to say homosexuality is good and on an equal footing with heterosexual
marriage.
If I was born with a desire to hurt people, that doesn't mean I should be proud of who I am and the laws should be changed so I can enjoy my "natural" desires. Hurting people is still wrong and in my opinion, so is homosexuality.
If I was born with a desire to hurt people, that doesn't mean I should be proud of who I am and the laws should be changed so I can enjoy my "natural" desires. Hurting people is still wrong and in my opinion, so is homosexuality.
@ Behavior | 7:59 a.m. June 10, 2009
"If I was born with a desire to hurt people, that doesn't mean I
should be proud of who I am and the laws should be changed so I can enjoy my
"natural" desires. Hurting people is still wrong and in my opinion, so
is homosexuality."
Who does homosexuality hurt?
Who does homosexuality hurt?
Who does it hurt? | 8:36 a.m. June 10, 2009
Who does homosexuality hurt?
That is a valid question which runs along the lines of "Who does it hurt?" when a brother and sister want to marry. Yet we make it illegal to do so.
That is a valid question which runs along the lines of "Who does it hurt?" when a brother and sister want to marry. Yet we make it illegal to do so.
C'mon Vince | 8:39 a.m. June 10, 2009
You're not seriously suggesting that the LGBT homeless rate (and I've
love to see a citation to your "facts") is due solely to an LDS
failure to love the the sinner?
I lived through the death from AIDS of a relative. He'd left home against his family's wishes a few years before, making it clear, in needlessly hateful ways, that he wanted no contact with us. In the waning days of his life, he was abandoned by his gay friends and left literally on the doorstep of a deeply saddened but still loving family.
Aided by church friends we were able to provide some small physical comfort to him in the last days of his life, but his spirit remained closed to us. In his spirit-impaired and diseased mental state, he railed mercilessly against us, accsuing us, in the vilest possible language, of hypocrisy for caring for him, though we could not accept his life choices.
Experience shows LGBT homelessness is often the result of bad choices and false friends. How does that figure into your stats?
I lived through the death from AIDS of a relative. He'd left home against his family's wishes a few years before, making it clear, in needlessly hateful ways, that he wanted no contact with us. In the waning days of his life, he was abandoned by his gay friends and left literally on the doorstep of a deeply saddened but still loving family.
Aided by church friends we were able to provide some small physical comfort to him in the last days of his life, but his spirit remained closed to us. In his spirit-impaired and diseased mental state, he railed mercilessly against us, accsuing us, in the vilest possible language, of hypocrisy for caring for him, though we could not accept his life choices.
Experience shows LGBT homelessness is often the result of bad choices and false friends. How does that figure into your stats?
To the great wonderer | 8:58 a.m. June 10, 2009
Homosexuality being biological and a rise in homosexuality due to its biological
nature makes no sense. Autosomal recessive at 25% remains 25%. Let me guess,
you never studied real science instead preferring sunday school learning about
the tooth fairy, santa clause, and the easter bunny.
Anonymous | 9:02 a.m. June 10, 2009
"That is a valid question which runs along the lines of "Who does it
hurt?" when a brother and sister want to marry. Yet we make it illegal to
do so."
Oh, please. That is too easy. It hurts their potential children by greatly increasing the chance of genetic abnormalities. Same for first cousins.
Now, tell me, who does homosexuality harm?
Oh, please. That is too easy. It hurts their potential children by greatly increasing the chance of genetic abnormalities. Same for first cousins.
Now, tell me, who does homosexuality harm?
Faulty Stats? | 9:14 a.m. June 10, 2009
I question how they got the 47% figure. I lived in Utah for a few years. I
knew a lot of homosexuals and some of them were friends of mine. None of them
were homeless.
Nothing like deriving assumptions based on faulty intelligence. That's how wars get started.
Nothing like deriving assumptions based on faulty intelligence. That's how wars get started.
re: Vince | 9:30 a.m. June 10, 2009
For every study that claims a biological connection there is one just as
reputable, just as scientific, just as credible that says the opposite. So
frankly, you can cite all the studies you want it still doesn't make them
valid.
re - Who does it hurt? 8:36 a.m | 9:33 a.m. June 10, 2009
[""That is a valid question which runs along the lines of "Who
does it hurt?" when a brother and sister want to marry. Yet we make it
illegal to do so."]
it hurts the children born with deformities. Guess you don't talk to your bretheren the FLDS?
it hurts the children born with deformities. Guess you don't talk to your bretheren the FLDS?
Response to Anonymous | 9:39 a.m. June 10, 2009
I hate to split hairs here but we were talking about marriage and marriage
between siblings does not cause abnormalities....it is only when you have
children. But I am sure you knew that.
Again, MARRIAGE between siblings is illegal despite the fact it does not hurt me personally.
Again, MARRIAGE between siblings is illegal despite the fact it does not hurt me personally.
James | 9:45 a.m. June 10, 2009
I TOTALLY agree go march in DC. Anything to get you out of UTah.
LALALAND WRITES.... | 9:47 a.m. June 10, 2009
"We already know that the majority of Utahns support each of the issues
we're trying to push"
Yeah and President Monsen is going to win the next American Idol!!
Its statements like these that make the gay movement almost ridiculous....
I would bet that less than 25% of Utahns would support anything GAY! And more anti-gay people are more galvanized now than they were prior to GAYS terrorising Grandma GARFF.......Gay Anything IN UTAH is A LOSING PROPOSITION, including GAY HATE!
Yeah and President Monsen is going to win the next American Idol!!
Its statements like these that make the gay movement almost ridiculous....
I would bet that less than 25% of Utahns would support anything GAY! And more anti-gay people are more galvanized now than they were prior to GAYS terrorising Grandma GARFF.......Gay Anything IN UTAH is A LOSING PROPOSITION, including GAY HATE!
Talking to your Brethren | 9:54 a.m. June 10, 2009
What Brethren are you talking about? I don't live in Utah.
Morals | 9:57 a.m. June 10, 2009
Marriage: one man and one woman.
Go Prop 8!
Go Prop 8!
Anonymous | 10:04 a.m. June 10, 2009
re: @ Behavior | 7:59 a.m. June 10, 2009
"If I was born with a desire to hurt people, that doesn't mean I should be proud of who I am and the laws should be changed so I can enjoy my "natural" desires. Hurting people is still wrong and in my opinion, so is homosexuality."
Who does homosexuality hurt?
The above is not a valid response to the argument raised. The original statement was an analogy expressing the idea that just because you have a desire, that does not mean that you should act on it. I didn't see an implication that homosexuality hurt anyone. In fact, the last sentence specifically states that they think homosexuality is wrong (where do they state homosexuality 'hurts' anyone?).
You twisted the original argument so it could fit the response you wanted to give.
"If I was born with a desire to hurt people, that doesn't mean I should be proud of who I am and the laws should be changed so I can enjoy my "natural" desires. Hurting people is still wrong and in my opinion, so is homosexuality."
Who does homosexuality hurt?
The above is not a valid response to the argument raised. The original statement was an analogy expressing the idea that just because you have a desire, that does not mean that you should act on it. I didn't see an implication that homosexuality hurt anyone. In fact, the last sentence specifically states that they think homosexuality is wrong (where do they state homosexuality 'hurts' anyone?).
You twisted the original argument so it could fit the response you wanted to give.
Genetic Abnormalities?? | 10:37 a.m. June 10, 2009
"Oh, please. That is too easy. It hurts their potential children by greatly
increasing the chance of genetic abnormalities. Same for first cousins."
Gee how did we get from marriage to genetic abnormalties? Your spurious arguement has nothing to with the fact that siblings are restricted from marrying each other. I think you are referring to the fact that in most states it is illegal for siblings to have intercourse. That is entirely a different issue altogether.
But it is interesting how in Utah that consensual adult sex between family members is illegal even though it has no bearing on the rest of the general population.
Can someone explain how this arguement is different from someone saying that two people of the same gender cannot marry even though it has no bearing on how other people live their lives?
Something to think about.
Gee how did we get from marriage to genetic abnormalties? Your spurious arguement has nothing to with the fact that siblings are restricted from marrying each other. I think you are referring to the fact that in most states it is illegal for siblings to have intercourse. That is entirely a different issue altogether.
But it is interesting how in Utah that consensual adult sex between family members is illegal even though it has no bearing on the rest of the general population.
Can someone explain how this arguement is different from someone saying that two people of the same gender cannot marry even though it has no bearing on how other people live their lives?
Something to think about.
Still Angry... | 10:39 a.m. June 10, 2009
"I don't understand why Mormons still don't understand why the
gay community was angry about the passage of proposition 8"
Ummm....I think they do. Is this a trick question?
Ummm....I think they do. Is this a trick question?
Anonymous | 11:07 a.m. June 10, 2009
"The above is not a valid response to the argument raised. The original
statement was an analogy expressing the idea that just because you have a
desire, that does not mean that you should act on it."
The reason that you shouldn't act on it is because it will harm someone.
Why shouldn't people act on their homosexuality if it does not harm anyone?
The reason that you shouldn't act on it is because it will harm someone.
Why shouldn't people act on their homosexuality if it does not harm anyone?
@Still Angry...10:39 | 11:41 a.m. June 10, 2009
I do not think that is a trick question at all. The Mormons voted their
conscience, you lost. Can you not lose an election and not be angry. If you
wanted John McCain for president and since he didn't win, are you angry?
It is alright to have feelings, but why be angry at Mormons for voting their
consciences?
To Anonymous | 11:46 a.m. June 10, 2009
"Why shouldn't people act on their homosexuality if it does not harm
anyone?"
In some cases, homosexuality should not be acted upon when it involves minors.
In some cases, homosexuality should not be acted upon when it involves minors.
Anonymous | 12:08 p.m. June 10, 2009
"Response to Anonymous | 9:39 a.m. June 10, 2009
I hate to split hairs here but we were talking about marriage and marriage between siblings does not cause abnormalities....it is only when you have children. But I am sure you knew that.
Again, MARRIAGE between siblings is illegal despite the fact it does not hurt me personally. "
Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. There is the difference.
I hate to split hairs here but we were talking about marriage and marriage between siblings does not cause abnormalities....it is only when you have children. But I am sure you knew that.
Again, MARRIAGE between siblings is illegal despite the fact it does not hurt me personally. "
Incest is illegal. Homosexuality is not. There is the difference.
Anonymous | 12:10 p.m. June 10, 2009
"In some cases, homosexuality should not be acted upon when it involves
minors."
That is called being a pedophile and is illegal as it should be.
Heterosexuality should not be acted upon when it involves minors either.
Why shouldn't people act upon their homosexuality if it does not harm anyone?
That is called being a pedophile and is illegal as it should be.
Heterosexuality should not be acted upon when it involves minors either.
Why shouldn't people act upon their homosexuality if it does not harm anyone?
re: anonymous at 9:02 | 12:34 p.m. June 10, 2009
Homosexuality hurts society because it decreases population growth. Bush was
and Obama is counting on future population growth and expansion to pay off their
insane amounts of national debt.
Without significant population increase, we are all in serious trouble.
That's the first reason legalizing homosexual marriage shouldn't even be considered.
Without significant population increase, we are all in serious trouble.
That's the first reason legalizing homosexual marriage shouldn't even be considered.
Wow | 12:37 p.m. June 10, 2009
Some serious venom in here from the anti-gays. Presumably most of you are
Latter-day Saints. I don't expect you to agree with Gay rights, but would
it hurt to be a little more....you know...Christian?
Disparaging rebuttals coming in 3, 2, 1...
Disparaging rebuttals coming in 3, 2, 1...
Vince | 12:47 p.m. June 10, 2009
Fine,
Give me one study and please don't make it a religious website. I am sure that religious people can rise above the religious preferences and present something valid and scientific.
For as long as I have been writing, NO ONE has come up and given a study. Will you be the first or are you just throwing out ideas?
Give me one study and please don't make it a religious website. I am sure that religious people can rise above the religious preferences and present something valid and scientific.
For as long as I have been writing, NO ONE has come up and given a study. Will you be the first or are you just throwing out ideas?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Pittsburgh letters are art project 3:07 p.m.
- Still believes in mammograms at 40 3:03 p.m.
- GE, Vivendi deal paves way for sale 3:02 p.m.
- Sundance unveils 2010 lineup 2:59 p.m.
- Mom objects to teen spending frenzy 2:56 p.m.
- Holiday gift lists shrink 2:48 p.m.
- Cat adoptions increase in '09 2:47 p.m.
- New health science facility in Ogden 2:47 p.m.
- My big, fat Pakistani Thanksgiving 2:44 p.m.
- Blog: Bowled over by bowling 2:43 p.m.
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan
- Witness: Mitchell wanted attention
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game
- Utahns growing tired of Bennett
- BCS just keeps dirty laundry on spin
- Orem pair getting a rep for crime
- Find joy in life, Bishop Burton says
- Teen girl killed in Kaysville crash
- Simple candies for the holidays
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
909 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime483
- Hall reprimanded by MWC404
- Max Hall issues apology388
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal356
- Utes won't respond to Hall276
- BYU says Hall incident resolved241
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game167
- Religion in politics is tiresome149
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?147
As the TV cameras Tuesday night scanned the West Point audience during...
LDS Church publisher Deseret Book has some specials for the holidays.
Latest comments
the abortion restriction is already in the bill and has been from the...
The Federal Reserve was the supplier for this party. They continued to bring...
I don't feel that BYU needs to punish Max Hall any more for his classless...
really? Religious freedom? Give me a break. Religious freedom is...
It's obvious that "More to the story" is one who believes the ugly rumors...
Ice Cores, You are right. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, the most...
'1. Overworked/underpaid healthcare workers 2. Waiting lists for care 3....
Hi, I so want to try this program but am scared because I am "mobidly obese"...
I think Jason is looking at things from a more Constitutional point of view....
H1N1 vaccinations unrestricted for 6 months through 99 years at West Jordan...
Advertisements