Just so long as I get every bit as much right to defend mine. And to sell them
beer while I'm at it. I love freedom.
I read the talk and I thought Elder Oakes definitely landed some of his
punches.We as a Americans enjoy a number of rights enumerated in the
Constitution and Bill of Rights.But what happens in a pluralistic
society when one constitutional right is pitted against another?His
point, as I understood it, is that freedom of religion is losing too many of
those fights.I get that there's a pecking order. But I don't
understand why freedom of religion seems to be moving ever further down that
Of course members of the LDS Church can defend their faith. It would be
ridiculous to suggest otherwise.However, the LDS Church and it's
members need to own their own behavior and accept criticism for their poor
behavior. Descriminating against a group of Americans is horrible behavior and
deserves criticism. It is ridiculous to claim persecution for being criticized
for persecuting others. In America, all men are created equal.
Working to prevent that is un-American.
So why are the persecuted now using religious freedom to discriminate and
You are absolutely entitled to defend your religion and beliefs. But, when the
church enters the political fray, you need to deal with criticism more
effectively than simply playing the persecution card all the time.If
the church can't deal with criticism of its stance on Prop 8, then perhaps they
shouldn't have weighed in to begin with.
Mr Cannon, in this case it's very apparent that Mr Oaks and the Mormon church
feel that they're being denied the religious freedom to discriminate against
homosexuals. Period. A history lesson on Mormon persecution does nothing to
extend the discussion. Just where were you really planning to go with this
Well said, Joe.
The right to believe that marriage is an act of spirituality and faith, is the
right to believe of every christian church and not only a part of the believes
of the LDS Church. To speak up against forces to regulate believes by inforcing
a law for that, is the right and duty of any leader of a church. Living in an
country witch has a long history of religios depression, Germany, I am happy
that under the controll of the US Goverment at the end of WWII Germany West got
the rights of freedom including religion freedom. It would be sad, if the US
would lose this rights just by putting up some so called modern rights. By the
way Germany has put out a law for legal Partnerships to guarantee the legal
rights for persons witch are not ablee to meet the criteria of a legal marrige.
This law regulates the rights of inheritance and support of same sex couples. We
have given legal rights to them and have respeced the religios rights of the
churches. too. By a good exemple of the old USA.
I support the message from Mr. Oaks - he is correct. I do not beleive at all
that the LDS Church is discriminating gays, or anyone else for that matter.
Mormons have a right to vote how they feel, just like anyone else does.
I am sure we are all aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the gay
marriage issue. I would dare say it affects most of our lives directly, or with
someone we know. This discussion has unfortunately turned a little too heated
at times, and accusations tossed a little too freely. The above references
accusing the LDS church as discriminative or exercising "poor behavior" are
simply not true. The LDS church has never discriminated against anyone who is
homosexual. These comments are unfounded. Since when does standing up for
"traditional" marriage warrant "poor behavior?" The Church stepped into this
discussion to defend marriage between a man and a woman. They have never come
out as discriminating against homosexuals. In fact, the opposite is true-we as
a human family should love one another and treat our differences with respect
and kindness. It is interesting how the LDS Church's stance has been reframed
as "discrimination" or in other discussions, "hate" by those who disagree with
their stance. Please help me find a talk given or article written by an LDS
church leader promoting such behavior that is not taken out of context.
If you study Elder oaks discourse - the whole thing - you will understand that
it's more than just a comment about proposition 8. I have been in situations
where I have been ridiculed and threatened because I don't "drink or smoke" like
everyone else. Is that religious freedom? Look deeper into what the
constitution is, and you will find that there is a rising trend to attack people
for their religious beleifs if they don't do like "everyone else."
This has nothing to do with discrimination at all. Same-sex marriage is a moral
issue and has nothing to do with civil rights. Unfortunately, the opposition
deems it otherwise which it is not. We believe that marriage of a man and woman
is ordained of God and nothing that man does will change that.Some
say that the Church will someday allow this but that is probably thinking that
the Church is just like any other Christian religion and will break under
pressure. That just isn't true. The act of homosexuality is a grievious sin in
the sight of God and that has not changed. Regardless of the numerous comments
to the contrary, Jesus Christ would love the sinner but would hate the sin
itself. No unclean thing can enter into the presence of God. The great thing
is that Jesus Christ died for each one of us, giving us the power of repentance
for our sins. Every individual that has walked or will walk on the Earth will
sin except the Son of God, Jesus Christ. His is the perfect atonement.
Prophets of God have stated that the act of homosexuality is a choice.
Those of you who view marriage by homosexuals as a "right." Many people cannot
marry:Siblings cannot marry.A parent cannot marry their
child.First cousins cannot marry in most states.An aunt or uncle
cannot marry their nephew or niece
Defend all you want. Think people are going to stop laughing at your 'religion'?
Mr. Cannon, you forgot to mention that it was a Mormon girls that also ended the
practice of prayers at school before football games and other activities.We often hear that religion is under attack because prayer is not
allowed in school, but it was an LDS girl and a catholic student that brought
the practice to an end.After being denied the right to say the
prayer at their Texas high school football game because they were not of the
prevailing religion, the mormon and catholic kids sued and won all the way to
the supreme court.Now I hear that people from these same religions
are using their religion to deny rights to other individuals.Does
that strike anyone as Ironic?How about commenting on that Mr.
Cannon, that minority religions attacked the religious freedom of the baptists
to paray at their football games?
After watching Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration at Legacy Theatre this
past week, I saw past persecutions of the LDS in a different light than I used
to. While I don't condone what was done to those early members, I now wonder
what they had done which may have contributed to provoking attacks. I repeat, I
DON'T condone the violent actions done to the LDS pioneers. But I no longer
think it occurred in a vacuum. I've now seen firsthand how the LDS push their
morals on others. Choose carefully what you do unto others; indeed it will be
returned to you.
The entire homosexual argument is based on spurious research that has low
validity. There is very little honest DNA evidence to support their claims, and
I've yet to meet a homosexual who has undergone DNA testing. Therefore, all
arguments that spawn from such a broken foundation are questionable at best,
including proclamations of "rights." When people allow themselves to be suckered
by a relativistic argument their vision becomes clouded. The "gay marriage"
argument is not about equality, it is about foisting justification for
maladaptive coping choices. Thus it has been a slippery slope designed to
depathologize that will sweep with it opposition to other maladaptive behaviors.
At this foundational level true liberty, which depends on self-discipline, is
under attack. Oaks was absolutely correct.
I totally agree with Elder Oaks. And members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints have every right to defend our religion. Back in the 1800's
the government didn't allow the earlier members that right, why do you think the
Mormon Pioneers came to Utah?? So they can have those precious rights without
anyone infringing on them. And now when we defend them here in Utah (a state
which the LDS settled) from those who once again want to take them away..but we
will continue to stand for what we KNOW is right.
Comment to "Of Course":I agree that if we are going to take action
against a society seeking to add to their "rights" - whatever that means ...
then we (the Mormons) need to realize the society we oppose will fight back!
But the issue of the talk was using violent or illegal tactics to
fight back, and how that endangers freedom of religion for all. I
think Elder Oaks was very clearly saying that the illegal "tactics" -
destruction of property, slander, etc... are the issue, so he was encouraging
members not to be swayed from the defense of their "right to marriage" by this
kind of violence.The talk also pointed out that anyone saying there
is a "religious test" (e.g., Mormons can't be Republican candidates because they
are not Christians) is equally in violation of the constitution and a danger to
religious freedom. Why isn't anyone jumping on THAT comment? Why
has this whole conversation gone to the "gay marriage" issue?Narrow
minds always find narrow arguments. Some of you narrow minds need to get a
hobby other than writing to the DN blogs and criticizing the Mormons.
People seem to forget that with Prop 8 it was not just the Mormon church that
was involved, there were other religion, Catholics,Baptist Church and other
religions were also part of it, but it seem like the Mormon Church were not
affraid to stand up for there religious freedom and the other religions were
hiding behind them,and for me as an American we are discriminating the Mormon
Church for there religious freedom. If we do our homework about the history of
this church we will know that this is one church that is not affraid to DEAL
WITH CRITICISM AND THEY WILL GIVE UP THERE LIFE FOR WHAT THEY STAND FOR AND
BELIEVE IN THERE HEART THAT IT IS TRUE.
It is not "discrimination" to speak out against sin. Homosexuality is not a
lifestyle but rather disobedience to the natural order of creation and rebellion
against God's will. To equate sin to things such as race, gender, nationality,
etc. is simply to buy into the subtle lies of the adversary. You might as well
begin saying they should not discriminate against fornicators, adulterers, and
Then why are the mormons infringing on my religious beliefs? My God created
homosexuals on purpose and has no issue with love and marriage of homosexuals to
Great article. This why I love reading the Deseret News. My son and I will
continue fighting for freedom in the United States Army.
I don't know what my thoughts on Joe's column are. I never got past the split
infinitive in the last paragraph on page 1: "Without meaning to merely dredge
Churches were drawn into the political arena when homosexuals successfully
politicized their moral issues and sought to bring the state's power to bear in
order to force acceptance of their behavior.The LDS church and every
other church that is standing up for the institution of marriage and traditional
societal mores did not start this fight. That was the work of homosexual
activists and their social engineer enablers.
Mormons aren't opposing a people, they are fighting against a behavior! They
aren't vandalizing the gay and lesbian headquarters or mailing death threats to
gay people. They are fighting for families and trying to protect marriage as a
religious practice, a practice that should be determined by religious standards
not social. The gay and lesbian movement doesn't want to be married,
they want to destroy religion.
Um...the Church has never and to my knowledge will never persecute the LGBT
community. Of course, they may think they are being persecuted because the
Church supports marriage as between a man and a woman. But, the whole point is
that the Church should not be knocked into submission by the media or the
government because of its religious positions. And it is silly that the ones who
are calling for free thinking wish to silence the Church on important issues,
especially when the Church uses the same democratic and representative process
that everyone else uses.
Involving in politics to defend marriage and morals is the right thing to do.
In Mormons' eyes, voting 'yes' on a proposition is not persecution of
individuals, but a defense of a moral tradition and a granted exercise of
democracy. If anyone disagrees, then they are stating that the right to
exercise democracy can be discriminatory, in which case it's up to the state or
federal governments to prevent such exercise. You can't say Mormons are
discriminatory of gays because of their vote to define marriage in a traditional
way. Marriage is not an indiscriminate right. Critics should respect that
exercise of democracy. Mormons only made up 2-3% of the Proposition 8 vote.
Where is the criticism for the other 49-50% of California who voted the same
way? Where is the state and federal prohibition of such an exercise of
democracy because it's somehow discriminatory?
Well said, Mr. Cannon.The talk by Elder Oaks was well thought out
and articulated. He succinctly identified the core issues that have caused
conflict and the forces that are attacking religious freedom in general.
You can defend your religion but please quit the persecution whining. Freedom
of religion doesn't mean freedom from criticism.
The Mormons of the 19th century never asked the government to recognize
polygamy. Huge difference.
When has the LDS Church said that we're fighting the political rights of gays
and lesbians? When have we stepped in and said that it should be illegal to
practice that lifestyle? As I remember, the only thing the church stepped in on
is the definition of marriage. Since when was marriage itself a political issue?
The LDS Church has not stepped in to oppose civil rights for all people or to
criminalize the practice itself. Yet, those who are for it constantly chime in
with harsh and insensitive comments towards those who are religious because of
their weaknesses and flaws. Go ahead and ask any member of the LDS Church if
they think they are perfect and I guarantee the answer will be, "No." You see,
those who practice religion, for the most part, do not think of themselves as
better or more holy, but in need "of a physician" just as everyone else.
However, some battles are worth fighting and when the 15 men who we feel are
called of God to be prophets ask us to defend the definition of marriage we have
the right to believe and follow, despite the hatred and criticism received.
Using false logic is not a justifiable way to win an argument. While the LDS
Church and members thereof need to be aware and thoughtful in the ways they
enter into the political realm, it is in no way discrimination to uphold public
policies that they believe support that which is right. That is in fact their
responsibility as people of conscience. Choosing to believe or state that anyone
who disagrees with you is discriminating against you is simply a ploy to
demonize and marginalize that person instead of entering into civil discussion
where enlightenment and solutions might be found.Those who support
Prop.8 generally believe that historically and theologically, marriage is to be
between man and woman. They may or may not have bigotry against homosexuals.
Most I know do not. Those against think they are being denied something. Civil
unions grant the same rights but don't change the meaning of the word marriage.
To change that meaning requires a reason and a view by the majority that it is a
positive move. That has not happened. Using lies about the opposition is not a
morally sound way to win the argument. Find another way.
Just as Mormon are entitled to defend their faith they are entitled to critism.
It's a double edged sword.
I have noticed that critics of the LDS Church are usually so convinced of their
moral superiority that they seldom see their own paradigm and just how mush they
behave in the ways they claim to abhorr. It is ironic that many feel they have
the right to perpetrate because they are victims.I am homosexual and I am
often disappointed at how mypoic and hypocritical those who claim to speak for
me behave. I expect to be treated fairly, but I also see the dysfunction in the
gay community and the lack of tolerance for other viewpoints (and therefore
short change the quest for truth) Now there will be multiple posts
that say I can not really be homosexual because I dont follow the dogma of gay
fundamentalism. I have no right to exist. Which is exactly why I fear gay
zealots more than I do religous ones.
Elder Oaks was not complaining about criticism (i.e., words) against the church.
The persecution he warns about is when LDS people are targeted and lose a job
because of their religious beliefs, are threatened with bodily harm and property
damage, etc. The church has thrived in spite of 150 years of verbal assault.
It's going beyond verbal assault that is problem.
Mike,Anonymous and jzdig: God's commandments, whether promulgated via the Ten
Commandments, in the Bible or in the Book of Mormon are His Gospel. We love
everyone but retain the right to speak out in support of the sanctity of
marriage between a man and a woman. This is a fundamental religious value. If
you want to obfuscate the matter, you're attempts will resound as hollow and
transparent to those who love the Lord and follow His Prophet and Apostles.
1) The Church did not make homesexuallity political. We, and God, have always
taught that is not in line with His guidelines. This has been a moral issuse
since Gen.1:1 and even before then. You are the ones that made it political so
we have to use political ways to defend God's doctrine.2) A wise man said
once said "a society that allows anything soon will lose everything". There has
to be a stop somewhere. When it comes to follow God's doctrine, I will fight to
keep the laws in line to the last. I don't hate, I fear God more than I fear
man. Persecuting me and terrible it will soon get, HIs doctrine will prevail at
the end.3) Have any of you looked at what Elder Oaks said about Gay's?
We may be the only Church that preaches, if you remain celibate and keep the
commandments, you will be with Him again. Other's say you are dammed. We
Why do homosexuals get to redefine marriage for everyone? Why does their
"right" to redefine marriage trump religious freedom? Lawsuits have been filed
and won across the country against religious people who did not want to support
homosexual actions - and the religious defendants lost. In spite of their
religious rights being in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and
homosexual rights being nowhere in that document. We have freedom of
association (which includes the right NOT to associate), freedom of religion,
freedom of speech, etc. - and these rights are all being trampled on by
homosexuals and activist judges. From a photographer who didn't want to do a
gay wedding, to a church who didn't want to rent their facility, to infertility
doctors, to adoption agencies in Massachusetts and California (google When Gay
Rights and Religious Liberties Clash - NPR article). It's not like there aren't
plenty of other providers - religious objectors are in the MINORITY. But that's
not good enough for homosexuals, we must all march in lockstep and affirm the
rightness of their position, or we are religious bigots. Well, morality isn't
up for debate in my house.
Oh ye of so little faith and knowledge. It is redundant of me to
try to teach you that Prop 8 is not about persecuting anyone. It is about
standing up for God, truth and righteousness. Most of the letters above mine
reek with self pity by a group of individuals who do NOT desire to keep God's
commandments and want everyone else in the world to justify them and say it
really doesn't matter. Well, it does matter. We are told that we must defend
truth and righteousness. Those to whom I speak do not understand that very
vital principle. Prop 8 was not about butting into the political world, but
just that, defending God and HIS statutes. It is not me you dislike, it is God
and that dislike extends to me when I stand up for God, truth and righteousness.
Way to go Joe Cannon. This is another great letter written by
someone willing to take the punches he knew would come by a group who want God
to follow them instead of humbling themselves and following God and His Son,
Jesus Christ. I make no apologies.
While I agree with Mr. Oaks that no voter should ever feel intimidated, I think
he is missing the greater point. The LDS leaders asked their members to vote to
limit the rights of another group, therefore limiting the religious freedom of
others. My brother is gay and I strongly believe he should be able
to get married to his partner. That is my religious belief. No one was asking
the LDS church to accept gay marriage during the Prop 8 discussion. How would
marriage equality affect the Mormon church in California? Answer: It wouldn't.
Does anyone else see the irony?
Dear Editor Cannon,Let's be honest. What you and Oaks are really
defending is the "freedom" to discriminate. If this is an attack on "religious
freedom" (as you call it), I can't say I sympathize.
The constitution also allows freedom FROM religion, but I don't see Mr. Oaks
encouraging the LDS church to stop forcing their beliefs on me.
Wow, a bunch of ignoramuses here. The LDS Church has every right to declare
their beliefs on political agendas. We have to live in this world and therefore
it's only reasonable that we take part in what happens.The LDS
Church is NOT discriminating against homosexuals. Are you kidding me?! The
Church has stated time and again that they are fully accepting of homosexuals,
though they do not want them to be practicing ones. What the LDS Church is
discriminating against is the behavior. It's a judgment against that which they
believe to be a sin. Everyone has to judge in the same way, according to their
beliefs. And that's their God-given right to do so. The Church does
not subject homosexuals to any form of hostility of ill-treatment. Their stance
was made against the proponents of those who would change the definition of
marriage. But everyone who bashes the Church for this IS persecuting it. We ain't whining. Elder Oaks simply stated that religion is being pushed
aside for increasingly popular worldly agendas. We live in a godless, amoral
country though so it's not surprise.
The gay and lesbian supporters who claim that the LDS church was seeking to
limit civil liberties , with their support of prop 8 never read the churches
official statement about the proposition. The LDS church was seeking to defend
marriage. Read the official statement. Just because I think that being a doctor
is my right - and a school won't give me a diploma because I don't want to
enroll - is not a violation of my rights. Marriage is religious institution -
Doctors are a medical institution.
As a Californian, I was very dismayed to see that the media gave all the
attention to the homosexuals and none to those of us that want to protect the
family. They showed all the demonstrations and hatred towards the Mormons. But
I think it back-fired: people saw that the LDS church didn't demonstrate poor
behavior or poor sportsmanship and if the vote were to happen again today, Prop
8 would win by an even larger margin. We have voted TWICE on this measure and
the losers will not give up. Again, the will of the people has a hard time
getting recognized in our state. THAT is what it is all about. So those of you
whining about Elder Oaks' talk need to back off.
... we have the right to defend what's just and reasonable, despite what people
in authority try to pass off as such. Sometimes political entities try to pass
themselves off something other, but their words and actions speak louder than
Very well said.I agree fully with MR.Cannon and you.
To Anonymous at 3:16:You remind me of a scripture that says, "Fools
mock but they shall mourn." Laugh all you want. Less informed people have
laughed at the truth for centuries. Ridicule has never changed the truth nor
will it for as long as the world stands. Your time would be better spent if you
aimed your venom elsewhere.
You can laugh at our religion all you want to. That won't change anything. We
will stand up for what's right. We live in a world now where morality means
nothing. To us, it means everything though. You can yell and scream and insult
all you want. We know what is true and what our responsibility is. Elder Oaks
made a beautiful stand. Like President Monson once said, Shot Ducks Flutter. So
keep on fluttering. It will never change what is right to something that is
wrong, or what is wrong, to something that is right.
I respect both Joe Cannon and especially Dallin Oaks. I did read the speech in
its entirety. Certainly violence and job discrimination against people because
of their religious affiliations should be condemned by all. They are valid
complaints. Much of the speech however was directed toward the waning influence
of religion and the disappearance of the deference that used to be accorded
religious leaders. I think equating popularity with persecution is not valid.
Keep in mind that Mormons for decades have gone door to door telling
people that their baptisms are not valid and that their church is not "true."
Have you ever thought of this as a form of religious persecution? More likely
than not you feel you are just expressing your beliefs. Maybe those who
criticize you are doing the same.While I am not Mormon, I think the
Church has a great deal to offer. Maybe its time to respond to criticism by
using it as an opportunity to express your beliefs clearly rather than doing
what Joe has done here which is to equate what is happening today with the mobs
of 150 years ago.
Re: "the Mormon church feel that they're being denied the religious freedom to
discriminate against homosexuals. Period."Yeah, and . . . ? That is certainly one freedom you would apparently deny Mormons.Why?If our God requires that we discriminate against
homosexuals -- at least to the extent of preaching against the vice by which
they choose to identify themselves -- why is that any more hateful to you than,
say Catholics preaching against abortion, or Muslims preaching against
forgetting to pray 5 times a day?The Church has been clear in
advocating that civil rights be extended to all.But that's not good
enough for you. You want the power to try and change God's doctrine
and to order us to preach that homosexuality is OK by God.That's the
concern Elder Oaks and almost all of us share. Too bad it seems to
have been lost on you.
Of course we have a right, and I would add a responsibility, to actively
participate in defending our freedoms. But, to a group already imbued with a
persecuted mentality, steeped in a political environment of tea parties and
discrimination, maybe this could have been said at a different time and in a
Good comments Todd! ? The LDS church has really come under attack and I wonder
why so many feel sooooo threatened? Is it because they have the TRUTH? Good
will prevail over evil in case some of you anti's haven't read the Hold
Not sure why my first comment wasn't publish because it didn't violate any of
the monitoring rules. So that's life.Anyway to BUT: My question
to you is who is your God? My God is the God of the Old/New Testament, Book of
Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price. Nowhere, in any of these scriptures,
does it say it is okay for Homosexuals to marry, nowhere. It does say it is
God's will to have a man and a women to marry in multiple scriptures.Now about God creating the Homosexauls. Each of us are born with something
that doesn't fit with God's plan. We all have something inside us that we need
to either control or overcome. Elder Oaks addressed this in the PBS interview
about just having to be celibat if you are gay. One last question I want
you to ponder having to do with God creating Homosexuals. Would you agree that
God created everything? Think about it.
Oaks' talk, whether intentionally or ignorantly, mistakenly equated the decline
in approval ratings of religion, for a decline in religious freedom. By all
means, defend your Constitutional rights to practice your religion, but that
doesn't include being a victim when people want nothing to do with your
I think he and others tend to see an attack on religion when there is little or
none. There is more freedom of religion in America now than in any time in its
history. I think white, male, Christianity is occupying a smaller and smaller
slice of that pie... and this is sometimes seen as an attack by those who are
I think the LDS church is handling the critics very well.They aren't
apologizing for their stance. They haven't backed down from their actions.As long as marriage remains to be defined within the political arena
then religions and/or other groups have a right to speak out for what they
believe. When the legality of and union of "marriage" is finally
revoked from the government and we are all civilly united then married outside
of government then you can define it however you want.It seems as if
within the Christian religions there are multiple Jesus' (so say the anti-LDS
street preachers). So I guess there can be differing opinions on marriage as
long as that's taken out of government and remains a religious debate.My point. Remove marriage from the government and all is fixed. We can just
move on an bicker within religions.
Nothing brings up more straw man arguments and intentional exaggerations of what
other people have said than religion and politics. We could actually have a
decent discussion here if most of us could calm down and actually LISTEN to what
the other side is saying. The problem is, many of you guys are far beyond
listening. Change for the better is not going to happen ANY time soon until
people can humble themselves a bit, open your ears, and address the arguments
that are ACTUALLY being made - not the ones you'd like to think are being made
so that you can raise a fuss about it.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
To: Homosexual "rights"Another question: Why does it bother you how
marriage is defined? Does it make yours any less special? It is very
presumptuous to say that morality is only taught in your house. If morality to
you only means that gays can't marry and that they are a conspiratory bunch,
than it seems your kind of morality is simply a synonym for bigotry.You deny homosexuals not a "right", but a right!
You are right Mr. Canon,You are free to try to protect your religion. And
we are free to point out how silly and hypocritical you are. You should really
go back and look at what past Prophets have said.So protect your beliefs
and act like your rights are being taken for being looked down on for taking
others rights away. You're still wrong! Wrote he said was stupid. If he is
really talking to God, God sure dropped the ball on that one. Or maybe
it’s all part of God’s plan to trick everyone.
I am a strong supporter of all that Elder Oaks treated on this subject. I have
this to say to those who desire to detract - "The dogs will bark, but the
caravan moves on".
Every religion ever created on earth has one thing in common with each other.
They are all based on theory. Period, the end of story. In order for judgements
made against anyone, or group of people based on scripture (any, and of any
religion) you would have to prove that it was the word of God, and not the word
of some human claiming to understand Gods thinking. There is no proof of
any religion being true and never has been. Its all faith based.Taking
rights, or limiting the rights of any American based on faith is a tragic way to
run a religion in this day and age. It was bad enough back when we burned
witch's and stoned women to death.
Mormons *ARE* entitled to defend their lifestyle, they just don’t
understand that Gay’s are entitled to defend their lifestyle as well.
Mormons tend to want the cake and to eat it too. They want to be able to preach
their religious intolerance... but also want the Gays to sit down and shut up
about it when they do. Mormons can’t have it both ways….
Mr Cannon and the Deseret News: This subject was so clearly debated on your
boards this past week both sides clearly stated their positions. I understand
your need to bring readers to your paper. However, bringing out this response to
open the debate again with all the contention and hard feelings on the Lords day
It sounds to me as though those LDS and Catholic kids were sueing for the right
to participate in, and occasionally offer, those prayers, not that they were
sueing to end those prayers altogether. Unfortunately, sometimes actions have
unintended consequences, but that doesn't mean that the original action was
In defense of all that's holyWhich has been fought for so noblyWe
speak up at this seasonFor our right to religious freedomLet
all the churches now standAnd unify with faith at handHonorably with
brotherhoodTo promote God's laws and all that's good
The Bible makes it clear what Jesus would do. He would comfort and love your
brother, and He would tell him to go and sin no more. Loving
somebody is not the same thing as actively supporting them in every single thing
they do. Christ loved sinners just as much as He loved those who tried
desperately to do His will. But He never, ever condoned sin. He never said that
it was okay that they sinned. He never said that they didn't have to change
their ways. He always, always said the opposite. He told them that if they loved
Him in return for the love He gave them, they would give up their sinful
behavior and try to keep His commandments.
"Of course we have a right, and I would add a responsibility, to actively
participate in defending our freedoms. But, to a group already imbued with a
persecuted mentality, steeped in a political environment of tea parties and
discrimination, maybe this could have been said at a different time and in a
different way."Why? Whats the problem with tea parties and what
discrimiantion are you talking about?
I find it amazing that the LDS Church and many of it's members practice
descrimination against gay Americans and then deny it. It's like the kid who
gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar- "Mom, I didn't do it! It's unfair
that you are yelling at me!". All the while he has a big, fat chocolate chip
cookie in his hand.All men are created equal.
"Dr of Psychology" you say "The entire homosexual argument is based on spurious
research that has low validity."OK, did you read the twin study in
"The British Journal of Psychiatry 148: 421-425 (1986)" which states as a
conclusion "this suggests that male homosexuality may be associated with a
complex interaction, in which genes play some part."How about "Am J
Psychiatry. 2000 Nov;157(11):1843-6", which stated "Biometrical twin modeling
suggested that sexual orientation was substantially influenced by genetic
factors."If you think twin studies have "low validity" for mapping
geneitc traits then it is uncertain how you could have earned a doctorate
degree.Please do some more reading before using your advanced degree
to argue against something you disagree with on a religious basis.
The LDS church is powerful economically and politically speaking. Who is after
us? and do they, institutions or group of people, have the same power like the
LDS church? I bellieve the LDS church and some part of our members are too
political specially with conservative extremist points of view. Remember Mr
Cannon about the separation of churhc and state? It is in our constitution. I do
not think like you and so you have the same right. Most of the LDS church
members bellieve on what our savior Jesus said "Love your neigbor as your self"
so stop judging people for their believes and behaviors. You do not represent
most of the the LDS church members believes. So stop talking like you are and
stop spreding fear like we are being persecuted.
Dr. Laura predicted that if, the homosexual community were allowed to marry then
that would open the door to others, i.e. pedophiles, to push for their rights.
Don't think it is happening? Just look at those who are defending Polanski
The LDS church's defense of traditional marriage as defined by Judeo-Christian
civilizations for thousands of years cannot reasonable construed as being
discriminatory against homosexuals. If so, then it is also discriminatory of
anyone engaging in other forms of sexual behavior (polyamory, bestiality, to
name a few). This is a debate about a legal definition, and those who resort to
name calling are avoiding a grown-up conversation about the matter. Those who
oppose the traditional definition of marriage need to answer two questions:1) How would you define marriage?2) Why should the state regulate
and grant special privileges to those who enter into a marriage thus defined?Proponents of traditional marriage have answers to both questions. The
answer to the first question is well known. The answer to the second: Because
governments cannot produce good, moral people on their own. Yet government, and
society depends on such people to function. Two parent families have been shown
to be more likely to produce such people. The family is founded on marriage.
Therefore, government has an interest in supporting traditional marriage.Can any proponents of gay marriage answer these two questions??
@Mike | 12:36 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009I agree with Mike. I was left
scratching my head at the end.Joe,Insomuch that Mr. Oaks
was referring to Prop. 8, notwithstanding the rest of his talk, the Mormons need
to realize ganging up on homosexuals at the ballot box has zero to do with
religious freedom. Letting gays marry, or do anything for that matter, is
separable. It may make it harder for you to preach to people and your children
that homosexuality is immoral. That's just too bad. But that's not infringing on
religious liberty.Think how the Mormon lobbying for Prop. 8
infringed on the religion of my ancestry, the Quakers. Many Quaker meetings
marry gays. Those religious marriages are discriminated against. And the Mormons
are the ones trampling on religious liberty.
The mormon church has alienated or offended nearly every other faith that no one
will stand with you. The mythical mormon god will stand on his own. Now if you
are talking Christians we will unite, but you will not be invited to that party.
Historically, the Mormons have often been on the wrong side of certain issues,
always claiming moral superiority, then crying persecution! when called to the
mat. Utah will be the last state to hold out against gay marriage,
but that's ok. With Mormons of the opinion that being gay is a choice, and that
legalizing gay marriage is equal to making it legal to marry your pet or your
sister, what gay person would want to live there?
In defense of all that is decent and nobleWhich has been fought for womens
rights and BlacksWe speak up at this seasonFor everyones right to
full constitutional rightsLet all humans now standAnd unify
with logic, reason and kindnessHonorably with simple human brotherhoodTo promote equality and decency, and all thats good
Mike: being a homosexual has nothing to do with religion or freedom for that
in defining discrimination, as I read these comments. The establishment clause
in the Constitution will allow LDS temple marriages to be limited to man and
woman. So, sorry gays, not much luck here, because then the govt would, in
effect, be establishing a new LDS church. As I recall from Prop 8, that was one
of the intended outcomes, that a church would be violating discrimination laws
IF, for example, LDS or other churches said, "Man and Woman ONLY." Gays can't go
to the mat with legal arguments that are against the constitution on basic
freedoms. Access to a behavior or a legal group (school, business, community) is
open, and unencumbered, free of discrimination. Membership in a religious
group, unfettered by such rules is determined by the group, not the govt. That's
why the priesthood issue was not a civil rights issue.
Why is it that Mormons are only for their own civil rights? Isn't that
S.L. Tribune quoted people who were taking Oak's words completely out of context
apparently to stir up hatred. Freedom of religious is not a popular right at
this time. National media and politicians has oppressed it in the name of other
more popular, "trendy" causes.Mormons do not hate gays. Mormons should be
allowed to freely express their opinion on their views of sexual intimacy
outside of marriage and the roles of men and women in society without fearing
intimidation and violence.
First, Gay marriage, then a legal battle to be sealed in the LDS temples as
husband and husband or wife and wife. The Church will be accused of
discriminating against them again. Not only is there a threat to the covenant of
marrige but to the sacredness of the belief of eternal marriage and eternal
families based around a man and a woman. No matter how hard they try to find
consolation in their proposed gay rights to marry, it will never fill the void
of a real family ordained of God, whether LDS or not....Never.Then
there will something else
Mormons are entitled to defend their freedom of religion and make fools of
themselves as well. There is no prejudgeces when fools stand up for there
freedom. Please mormons give everyone else the same right which you truly run
into the gorund and to not fully appreciate.
Freedom of religion in Utah is like freedom of religion in Afghanistan. I
have watched as my wife is ridiculed at work because she is not of the LDS
faith. She is harassed because she drinks coffee. She is harassed because we'll
do things on Sunday even though we attend church regularly, just not the Mormon
church. She is the least paid even though she works harder (she has to to keep
her job) and others less experienced and hired after her are paid more. She has
been denied time off to attend our kids functions when others have been given
time off to attend church meetings. She regrets accepting this job. She's been
on interview that have been cut short after accepting a cup of coffee during the
interview.Our son, who started as a QB on a championship team in a very
competitive league in Texas sits on the sideline because the kid that goes to
the same ward of the coach.Is this the Christianity you guys are fighting
for?I have explained to them that this is a small example of what was like
to be black in the 60's.
The caravan, as always, moves on to an ever dissipating mirage. Oaks stated that
religious speech and actions deserves more constitutional protection than other
speech and actions. The brethren are in my opinion making a desperate move to
inoculate the faithful to a coming storm from the California investigative
authorities. Just my humble opinion of course but food for thought regardless.
Let's start a petition forbidding obese people from eating out at fast food
restaurants? They claim that their weight issues aren't their fault. They have
a genetic condition that makes them susceptible to obesity. It doesn't matter,
they shouldn't have the privilege to eat where the healthier neighbors eat. It's not that we hate obese people--we love them. We just hate obesity.
Does this sound familiar?
to Re: GWB, you said "It sounds to me as though those LDS and Catholic kids were
sueing for the right to participate."Sounds just like what gays are
doing, trying to participate.
It's all about hypocracy ... we all have it, and yet we only see it in others.
Three points ...1. It should be noted that the majority of pro-gay
posters are willing to defend their comments with their anonymity.2.
It is also worth noting that those who suggest that gay marriage is a right,
continue to believe that the exercise of their right to disagree are somehow
oppressing them. Really? Is it that, or is it simply that you are frustrated
that more don't share your views? We live in a republic where each of us have a
right to express our feelings. The religious will say that you are duped by
your lifestyle, and you suggest they are duped by their leaders. In the end,
the choices of the majority will rule in our society.3. One last
thought for those supporting gay marriage, maybe you could take a queue from the
LDS church ... the church recognizes the law of the land regarding plural
marriage, and respects it. In fact, anyone caught practicing plural marriage is
excommunicated. The discussion is over, the law is written, let's turn down the
rhetoric, and follow the law.
Marriage is NOT a right. It is a privilege. That is why one has to get a
license in order to marry. One must meet certain qualifications. One must not
marry a sibling. One must not marry a child. One must not marry an animal.
One must not marry a parent, etc., etc. Marriage is between a man
and a woman who are of legal age. A homosexual relationship will NEVER be a
marriage no matter how many laws are passed definining it otherwise. A horse
will never be a cat. Even if we pass a law saying otherwise a horse will always
be a horse and a cat will always be a cat. A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP WILL NEVER
BE A MARRIAGE. Elder Oaks and Joe Cannon are right. Religious
liberty is in serious danger in this country.
Mormons have the same right to defend their religion as Scientology does.
He specifically said that religion speech must have be accorded GREATER freedom
than speech of the non-religious. And he said that random people
who were denied equal protection under California's laws and who engaged in acts
of retribution (painting walls, protesting and identifying people who denied
their civil rights) were equivalent to people who bombed Black churches,
murdered Black children, turned fire hoses and vicious dogs on people working
for civil rights for Black people. And he attempted to create
animus and suspicion of those outside the LDS who hold a mirror up to the
church's political activities. He was intellectually dishonest and,
as a moral leader, irresponsible. As for Prop H8, there will continue to be
fallout. I guess the year of discord the Authorities set into motion with their
letter rallying organized oppositiont to Prop H8 hasn't been enough for him and
he's looking forward to losing more members and more regard for the church.
Curious how you ignored the rest of my comment, showing exactly how redefining
marriage affects religious people. I don't want my children taught in school
that homosexual marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage. I don't want
religious adoption agencies to be forced to place adoptive children with gay
parents, depriving them of either a mother or a father contrary to their
beliefs. I don't want people to be forced to approve by their actions of
homosexuality, whether they provide services or products for weddings,
infertility treatment, or any other item related to the creation of families.Gay marriage is unnecessary to society. Marriage exists from the
beginning to protect the rights of women and children. No society cares about
feelings - only actions. There is no inherent inequality in a gay relationship,
where one partner bears children and the other does not. No children can come
of such a relationship at all, unless they are raising the children of others.
In which case, however messed up the situation, the children are or should be
protected by our laws with access to their birth parents. Morality
in my house - virtue, chastity, honesty, integrity - all that "old-fashioned"
new phrase, please don't be naughty, it takes a joyful sound to make the world
go round, protected by society, protected by my dignity, i search for reality,
...hiding from reality in your words of hipocrasy...above you ...above..you!!
when you are 7 million out of 300 million in the USA and 14 million out of 7
billion worldwide, I can see how the LDS would have a chip on their shoulder
since they are virtually unknown/nonexistent/unheard to most everyone especially
outside the USA except in UT
Quoting Kelly::::::Let all the churches now standAnd unify
with faith at handHonorably with brotherhoodTo promote God's laws
and all that's good:::::So... all churches have the same
interpretation of "God's laws," do they?Does it occur to you that
your "in defense of all that's holy" ditty could just as easily be spoken by
fundamentalist Muslims?The whole point of this controversy is that
bigotry against gays is motivated by irrational religious beliefs, and that the
world's religions themselves can't even agree on what constitutes "God's
laws."How very convenient to insist that _your_ religion possesses
the "one true" view of what a deity would want, and of course all those _other_
religions have got it wrong - right?The dangerous consequences of
such a belief is why we keep religion out of politics and civil law in this
nation, and that's why civil-minded citizens take strong exception to a
religion's active intrusion into what should be a purely civil matter.You're welcome to your particular religious beliefs, but please don't demand
that I make them my own.
As I recall a few decades ago, a bunch of Deity hating, moral trashing people
were trying to make marriage obsolete. They said that they did not need a "piece
of paper" to prove their love. They tried to make marriage into something cheap.
Now this same type of people are fighting to be allowed to be married. Ironic? I
don't think so. They failed to cheapen marriage and so are now trying to degrade
I will really be glad when these weekend censors go home and the fair and
rational ones come on duty and allow comments besides "I know the church is
true"or "I hope all Mormons burn"..Maybe it is just me but the comments seem to
be much more stimulating on weekdays:and with that comes sharp-witted, rousing
debate...All we seem to have today are church apologists or people who dislike
the church...I certainly would like some comment on this weekend censor
thing..Maybe it is just me, but some of my friends have noticed the same thing..
Pleased to see officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
stand up for their civil rights in this fashion. In doing so they defend not
only their own rights, but the rights of all people of all faiths. That is
something that is very important to remember. My favorite part of
the speech is where Elder Oaks points out that in declaring a “violation
of their civil rights” so violently and destructively, proponents of Prop
8 violated those same civil rights of the people the aimed their protests
towards. Americans will always disagree, but we must do so civilly. Freedom is
only free if it applies equally to all. We learned that the hard way through
the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement — it’s in the
Declaration of Independence for crying out loud!
This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be
more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen
unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what
is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted
and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and
thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different
view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like
“homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists
have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with
prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given
these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand
on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue – ultimately
it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our
Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
You didn't explain just what it was that you saw in the movie to show how LDS
push their morals on others.If it was something you saw in the film
then you should certainly acknowledge that you watched it in the church's
theater on church property to which you were not forced in any way to enter.It would be nice to know what that pushing is, just as it would be nice
to know what all the fuss is over keeping rights away from the group others are
mentioning here.Since when does one get to decide they want others
to grant them a special right and then pound them until it is done except by
unkind dominion? Ancient Saying: It is easier to catch a fly with
honey unless you are a mad rhino.
Well, so much for being a "news" organization. This is a PR Company for the
church and nothing more. Of the 15 or 20 comments I made not one made the grade.
Really impressive. But then, anyone who pays attention knows that honest debate
has never been a strong point of those connectected with Mormonism.
Poor Mormons, just remember your religion is a choice. So if you cannot handle
the fact that the world hates you and finds that your religious behavior is just
wrong and immoral. You can always find a new religion after all I don’t
know of one religion (business) that wouldn’t take your money.
Re Todd"The gay and lesbian movement doesn't want to be married, they want
to destroy religion." That comment is about the stupidest comment I
think I have ever read on line. It’s time you pull your head out of your
butt. And remember your Mormon religion is a choice.
There is a difference in defending the faith and spreading hatred and lies. I
believe the LDS faith has so much disdain for those all things not mormon that
they cannot even tell the difference. We pray for you all.
Can anyone tell me why the religious freedom of Mormons matters more than the
religious freedom of gay people? Why do same-sex marriages consecrated by other
religions not deserve the same legal recognition as marriages consecrated by the
be rewarded in the end for the stances we take. Thank you Elder Oaks for the
warning. May we all be more vigilent.
Can dish it, but can't take it: I don'tsee Utah ever legalization gay marriage.
So those gays who are married won;t be legally married if they live in utah
because you have to follow Utahs laws
Isn't it? Funny that we all discriminate in one way or another. Its just that
its not "kosher" to discriminate against a "protected" class. Just like its
impossible to not communicate its just as impossible to not discriminate. Prove
it you ask? OK... Take a person from Sandy and tell him to walk down the Watts
Section of LA at midnight by himself. He will discriminate. Take 5 "whites"
and put them in a room of all blacks and watch them congregate by them selves.
Reverse the roles and it works the same way. There are many other examples of
ways that we discriminate. We do it the way we buy our food, our cars and our
homes. We discriminate in everything for our own safety and well being. Why
should any church be any different?
@ jackhp,Let's look at Amendment 1 of the Constitution:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances.""Religious" freedom means
that there is a "religion". If the gay community makes the effort to organize a
religion, and acknowledges before God and man that they represent God, then
perhaps you might have a point, but remember there are eternal consequences for
taking the name of God in vain. Until then, you're trying to say that a
"belief" is the same as a "religion". Sorry, but that doesn't work.
"Pleased to see officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
stand up for their civil rights in this fashion. In doing so they defend not
only their own rights, but the rights of all people of all faiths."This is absolutely untrue. If Elder Oaks was so concerned about religious
freedom he would support equal legal recognition for same-sex marriages
performed by religions other than his own. Otherwise, he's nothing but a
The DNEWS needs an overhall. The articles and comments are embarrassing.
Oaks is not enormously qualified to address religious liberties issues.He is enormously qualified to win cases.That is what lawyers do.
In Utah atheist ARE not entitled to defend their rights.
FYI Canada has laws against hate SPEECH. The U.S. does not, as it would be a
violation of the Constitution. The main people who undermined
religion are those who brought religion into politics and who sought to use
religion to gain power. I'd like Elder Oaks to speak about that.
Mormons are all about taking the rights away from non-members. How does it feel
when the show is on the other foot? Mormons are hyprocrites.
"when you are 7 million out of 300 million in the USA and 14 million out of 7
billion worldwide, I can see how the LDS would have a chip on their shoulder
since they are virtually unknown/nonexistent/unheard to most everyone especially
outside the USA except in UT"The majority of members of the LDS
church live outside of the United States, and most definitely outside of Utah.
We have large groups of members in South America, Africa, the Phillippines, and
Australia/New Zealand. We're making strong headway in the former Soviet Union,
in Asia, and we still have continual - though not large - gains in Europe. So
what, exactly, is your point?
I agree that all hate crimes against nonmembers and people who have left the
church needs to STOP! Quit pinning names and calling others names continuously
who do not agree with you. I believe this is a public newspaper? I don't see any
place written or said where nonmembers, less active members cannot post a
comment. There is a broadminded world out there outside your 4 walls-believe it
Thomas Jefferson said "And the day will come when the mystical generation of
Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But
may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United
States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the
primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human
errors." --Hopefully we will in fact see the day when century old
fables do not influence our decision making.
There's a big difference between those who live promiscuous lives and those who
live monogamous lives. Promiscuity exists among heterosexuals and
homosexuals. Promiscuity results in abortions, unplanned pregnancies, single
parent families and disease. I don't get why we fear people who
want to form a family and live monogamous lives.
"I don't want my children taught in school that homosexual marriage is equal to
heterosexual marriage."I don't recall either my childre or myself
being taught "in school" about what defined marriage at all. This is what an
educated person would call a Strawman Argument -- you have set up a non-issue so
you can knock it down and call it a victory.
Mike Richards,Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to your comment.
I've submitted three responses now and none have been posted. Let me try . . .
again. Mike,You are ignorant if you don't realize that there
are many, many religions already consecrating same-sex marriages in the name of
"God". So, Mike, rather than avoiding the question, maybe you could answer this
one: Do you support religious freedom AND equality under the law? Or are you
just another hypocrite who thinks religious freedom is only for himself?
Mormons can defend anything they want but that won't change the fact that the
rest of the country has seen that the church entered the political arena to deny
equal civil rights to gay Americans. This also brings up discussions and they
are learning that the church did the same thing to try to repress Blacks and
women. So defend to your hearts content. But when you speak
falsehoods like that the reaction to the church's funding the passage of Prop H8
is equal to the civil and physical violence of the 60s Civil Rights Era you only
erode your own credibility. And, don't look now, but it's eroding among Mormons
as well as non-Mormons.
It's a moral issue. The church has a right and a charge to speak out on moral
issues and encourage their members to do the same. To ignore the moral decay
going on in America is to concede to narrow minded individuals that there is no
such thing as morals or values, and that whatever a man does is no crime.
America is on a slippery slope it is choosing to ignore, and the values of those
that made this country great - belief in God, or higher power, adherence to laws
- both secular and religous - are being replaced by complacency, sin, and
self-justification, and is just contributing to this eventual eroding of our
"The majority of members of the LDS church live outside of the United States,
and most definitely outside of Utah. We have large groups of members in South
America, Africa, the Phillippines, and Australia/New Zealand. We're making
strong headway in the former Soviet Union, in Asia, and we still have continual
- though not large - gains in Europe. So what, exactly, is your point?"I take it you're not following the retention rates in those countries or
the fact that one temple has already closed.
Cannon is dead wrong throughout his article.Mormons weren't kicked
out of New York; Joseph moved the headquarters to Ohio voluntarily because of
the larger Mormon community there. Mormons weren't kicked out of Ohio; Joseph
and Sidney fled to escape their creditors after the Kirtland Bank failed. The
Mormons were kicked out of Missouri only after they burned down the town of
Gallatin, stole the farmers' livestock and household items, and opened fire on a
state militia.Plus, the Army never "occupied" Utah. As a U.S.
Territory, U.S. troops had every right to be there. No one claims the Navy is
"occupying" Florida just because they have a base in Pensacola.Not
only that, but George Q. Cannon's thoughts on religious freedom are a joke. If
free excercise were allowed, then we'd have to allow certain immigrant African
tribesmen to practice human sacrifice here in America. Is that what he, and
Oaks, want?Last of all, why is he crying "persecution" over plural
marriage being shut down, when the Mormon church itself shut down gay marriage?
I am LDS but before being LDS I am a christian. I fallow Jesus and Jesus never
asked me to judge and hate my neighbor. I am a member but that does not mean
that I fallow everything with out my personal judgment. I don't fallow not man
neither institutions I fallow Jesus. Religion should teach us love and
acceptance for every human being no matter what believes they have neither their
behavior. Jesus is love and every human being is a child of good. Stop spreading
hate that is not Jesus. I am a child of god and so is every one.
The persecuted became the persecutors. So now we're supposed to feel bad for
them because they consider the "right" to discriminate against others and harm
them part of their "religious freedom"? I think not. Mormons are free to
practice their religion as they see fit. Eradicating the civil rights of others
has nothing to do with the practice of their religion. Two people getting
married to one another has absolutely nothing to do with the religious practices
of Mormons or any other group, and people need to stop pretending it does.
As one who lives far from Utah and many members of the church of Jesus Christ of
latter day saints, it is interesting to note how so many people on this site are
ridiculing the author of the article or Elder Oaks. What they fail to realize
is that religous liberty is being eroded away from ALL faiths. I live in the
Bible Belt and many Baptists and other religions in the area are constantly
discussing openly how their rights are being violated and that when they open
their mouths at the pulpit and their parishers abide their precepts that they
are becoming targets for ridicule and derision. They feel that their rights to
speak openly about such matters as abortion, gay rights, death penalty,
marriage, and hate crimes against them are being muzzled. Elder Oaks address is
in support of all religions and their basic rights to exist and expound the
doctrine that they believe is right under God and the doctrine that they preach.
Sad that so many here do not realize that they are shuting their own mouths by
ridiculing the very people who are trying to keep their freedoms alive.
@Rebeckah - Umm, curriculum for public schools in both Massachusetts and
California mandates homosexual content down to kindergarten, with no opportunity
to opt out or be informed in advance. No, when I was a child there was no such
thing. And most states don't YET have such curriculum, but it's coming if
people don't stand up for their rights.Freedom of religion, speech
and association are all civil rights. Marriage is NOT a civil right. Many
posters have pointed this out, including me. You have to get a license, you
have to meet the requirements, many combinations of people are forbidden to
marry. The only reason the state gets involved at all is to protect the rights
of women (who bear children) and their children, and ensure that fathers have
rights/responsiblity to their children. No government gives a hoot who loves
who, or about affirming somebody's feelings. "But homosexuals have
children too!" Yes, children who have at least one parent outside that
relationship, whose rights to their children, and their childrens' rights to
them, ought to be protected. Otherwise you are denying that child the right to
a mother or father.
Oh how I hope I'm still alive the day Gay Marriage is legalized in Utah. You
can't stop the beat.
"However, the LDS Church and it's members need to own their own behavior
and accept criticism for their poor behavior." AND gay
fundamentalists who vandalize, bully, get people fired, lie, distort, stage
manage martydom and vilify anyone who disagrees also need to accept criticism
for their poor behaviour (it is hard to convince people you are a civil rights
group while behaving anything but civil)
"Freedom of religion, speech and association are all civil rights. Marriage is
NOT a civil right. Many posters have pointed this out, including me. You have to
get a license, you have to meet the requirements, "This is a faulty
argument. You have to have a license and meet requirements to have a religion.
You have to register to vote. You have to meet requirements to own a gun. You
have to meet certain requirements for free speech. Just because something has
requirements doesn't mean something isn't a right. If you believe otherwise,
you may as well just tear up the Constitution you believe to be so divinely
YOU ARE WRONG.I don't know where you get your information from but
it is absolutely WRONG.Here in CA there is NO mandate for homosexual
content. Absolutely not. As in most school districts, health classes have a
unit on sex education. It is an opt out program. Homosexuality was not
discussed in any way, shape or form. It was essentially they same program my
older children received in schools on the East Coast.
Anonymous: AGAIN the church did not fund anything to do with Prop. Church
members did but the church itself did not. oh and btw no temple has been closed
Gay marriage is WRONG! but fighting with each other is also WRONG! Picking on
and condemning people who are GAY OR NOT GAY, NOR MORMON, OR FIGHTING WITH THE
NO LONGER ACTIVE LDS is also WRONG! To continue this chaos, fighting and putting
others down who don't believe the same is WRONG!!! It's WRONG for people on
EVERY SIDE to keep this idiotic dog fight going day after day on Deseret News.
Refusing to buy, support, or stock a book in your local library is not
censorship.Refusing to embrace ideas and practices that go against
your values is not discrimination.Working and voting for or against
passage of legislation is not a violation of civil rights.But when
your actions attempt to silence those who disagree with you (through threats,
violence, retribution), it is all three.
The gay marriage issue is not just a religious issue. In France, a very secular
society with almost no Southern Baptists or Mormon political influence, the
French parliament denied gay marriage because it would be destructive to the
family and the welfare of children. The fact is that if Gays can marry, they
will be able to legally adopt children. And, many, many statistical studies
show clearly that the healthiest situation for raising children is in a home
where there is a father and a mother married to each other. Other arrangements
fall far short of this ideal. Shouldn't our children's right to be raised in
the best possible situation trump someone's imagined civil right?
Gays can already petition to adopt children in most states in the U.S. Yes, ideally children are best raised by two loving and involved parents of
opposite sex. However, the sad fact is, as of 2006, 40% of babies in the U.S.
were born to single parents. The problem this country faces with
families isn't due to same-sex couples. It is a problem with heterosexuals.
For some children, a homosexual couple is their only and best option available
to become part of a family. We should be focusing on preventing
unplanned pregnancies, decreasing the acceptance of promiscuous sex, and loving
one another instead of demonizing groups of people different than ourselves.
Gays aren't being discriminated against. Marriage for them is irrelevant. Gays
can't produce offspring. That's the major purpose for marriage--the production
and protection of offspring. It provides children kin and order and all that
goes with it. Just because so many heterosexual marriages are failures these
days doesn't change this biological, anthropological, and sociological fact.So, gays, get your civil unions and all your legal rights. Mormons
aren't standing in your way. But marriage for you is pointless. It
won't make your lives any more romantic or committed. I guarantee it. Those of
you who deny this are fooling yourselves.
@SandySame sex marriage is perfectly legal in MA, ME, VT, CT, and
IA. NY recognises other states SSM as does DC.Those same sex couples
married in CA remain legally married.Nothing you or LDS believe changes
that.Now that so many states are recognising SSM, as soon as Defense of
Marriage Act is recinded, court cases will percolate up to the Supreme Court
which will rule the same way they did when some states recognised inter racial
marriages, if you are married in one state, you are STILL married in another
state. Utah will be dragged whining all the way into THIS Century.
@ SaraI don't hate dieties I like most of them, of course I have some
favorites.Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Neptune
The whackos are out in force.Is it something in the air? What
gives?Did we pass another resolution again that I missed?Give someone an article about a savory issue and everyone is all over it.
Down people, down.
isn't about whether members of the Mormon church or wrong or right in voting for
Prop 8. The issue raised by Elder Oaks is that the religious members
of the population should not be coerced, intimidated, threatened or silenced
because their belief disagrees with that of the gay community on the issue of
same-sex marriage.We have not ever said that we do not expect to
undergo criticism. We are standing up for what we believe. So are you.We are not threatening your property, boycotting your businesses, taking
away your livelihoods, or using violence or other undemocratic means to sway the
vote in our favor. We are exercising our rights under the rule of democratic
law to campaign, speak in public forums and organize ourselves regarding an
issue that we feel strongly about.For you to continue to whisper
your subtle threats about being careful what we vote for because Mormons deserve
the persecutions they received in the past and can receive more if they don't
stop participating in this debate is UNAMERICAN!This is our position
and we will stand firm in our right to speak and vote our conscience!
No, I'm not wrong. It's not in the sex ed stuff - it's in the Safe Schools
curriculum, as if kindergartners were beating up on gay kids. And, there is NO
opt out provision.I lived in CA up until 8 years ago, still have a
lot of family there. I follow it and stay aware of it - thankful that we moved
our kids out of it.
Studies have shown that,Gay couples as committed as straight
couplesNEW YORK (Reuters Life!) - Gay and lesbian couples are just
as committed in their relationships as heterosexuals and the legal status of
their union doesn't impact their happiness, according to new research.In
two new studies that compared same-sex and heterosexual couples using different
factors and methods to assess their happiness, scientists found few
differences."Source: Reuters, January 22, 2008
"What hypocracy" compared being non-Mormon in Utah to being black in the South
in the 1960s. He or she makes it sound as if the LDS church not only condones
but teaches discrimination against non-LDS Utahns. This is simply
not true, and even a casual study of our teachings and doctrines can prove this
point. We are taught to love all of God's children equally. Nevertheless, there are no members of the LDS faith who are perfect, just as
there are no perfect Jews, Catholics, Baptists, etc. We are all humans.
Judging the Church by the behavior of its worst members is hardly fair.I am a business owner. My partner is not LDS. We have a mix of LDS and
non-LDS employees. Pay is fair for both groups. Hiring is based on merit, as
are promotions. We have employees of various sexual orientations and marital
status. We have open dialogue back and forth about all of our belief systems.
If all your experiences are true, I apologize on behalf of those who
have made you feel this way. Please know that not all LDS are the same as those
LDS people who are doing their best to follow the teachings of the Savior and
his living prophet on the earth would not participate in or condone behavior
such as you describe. I have lived the majority of my life outside of Utah and
know what it is like to be in the minority. I hope that you can
overcome your obvious bitterness toward a few Church members and not judge us
all by the behavior of those who have offended you. Many LDS people are kind,
generous, hard-working, good and honest people who are trying to be the best
people they can be in all their roles in life: neighbor, family member,
employee, friend, coworker, etc. Give the rest of us a chance. If
you want to know more about us, study the lives of the best examples of Church
members to gain a more accurate understanding of the ideals we strive to uphold
and the example we try to share with all around us.
@the debateEXACTLY how do you think you have ANY power what business I buy
from?That is delusional that you busy bodies think you can control someone
outside your faith. YOU CAN'T.You honestly can't control those within your
faith, most of my Mormon relatives smoked and drank alcohol and coffee.
With the right to speak out, comes the consequence some folks will detest what
you say, and become angered by what you say.There is NO GUARANTEE what you
say has no consequences.Some speech such as calling for insurrection or
treason or assisgnation isn't covered by free speech and is illegal. Endangering
public safety of yelling fire in a crowded theater also isn't perotested.
protected...typo in previous post
One thing Mormons may not know about gays and lesbians.After we (LGBTs)
win full equality in America, we will neither forget nor forgive the assault you
made on our families.This isn't going to end in any of our lifetimes.
You are not being persecuted by our right to defend marriage. If you want to
see what persecution is go back and read what happened to the LDS people in
Ohio, Missouri and Nauvoo, then you will understand what that word really means.
Gay rights activists are used to screaming and yelling and intimidating until
they get there way. I think it's now obvious. Mormons will no longer stay
quiet. We will defend our rights as vigorously as you do; and you don't like
oh my i am so confused thousand of innocent little children dying of hungry in
the world n u all worried about prop 8.
You are absolutely correct. If they wanted religion and a church of their own,
they would found one. No, they want only to subvert and force acceptance by the
one moral standard that exists to come to or welcome and sanction them. For some reason, as much as they try to dull their consciences, they
can't shut it out completely; so, they try to weaken its voice by getting the
churches to tell them it's ok.S2
"using different factors and methods to assess their happiness, scientists found
few differences." - What! lol... What other scientist uses one method and set
of factors for one variable, and a different method and set for another
variable, then declares no difference between them. What a crock!
I would expect Elder Oaks to defend the Church. Of course he has a right to do
so. My concern lies in where he seems to want government out of Church
business, yet wants the government to defend Church doctrines. How can he have
it both ways. I've read the BYU-Idaho speech, and I agree with 90% of it, but
his subtle conclusions are troubling.
Let me get this straight. We have to defend our religion, because we believe,
and know this to be true, that marriage is between a man and women, and no
other. If only that were true. That is just one tool the opposition uses. I
have never seen, nor heard church leaders, or members in general urge members to
terrorize gays, refuse to do business, vandalize their property, nor cause harm
in any way. Unfortunately, those who oppose us, cannot say that. Being
immoral, isn't a right, and it covers more then just being gay. The church
teaches tolerance of people, not actions or decisions made. Hate the sin, not
Mr. Cannon,As a member of the LDS Church I can certainly appreciate
the need for religious freedom. However, I do not think you articulated one
instance where that freedom has been restricted recently. Criticism of the
Church does not equate to restriction of religious freedom.I will
take Elder Oak's advice and speak out. I believe Elder Oaks inaccurately
compared the bad PR the Church has recently experienced with the persecution
received by blacks during the civil rights movement of the 60s. I believe the
Church is on the wrong side of the gay rights fight.
Do you know why Roman Empire went down? Or Pompei?Because they practiced
against God Will.American will go down if people in the land do not
obey the law of God.We are all right to defend our religions!Go Mormons!
@What? | 9:10 a.m. Oct. 18, 2009 The gay and lesbian supporters who claim
that the LDS church was seeking to limit civil liberties , with their support of
prop 8 never read the churches official statement about the proposition. The LDS
church was seeking to defend marriage. Read the official statement. Just because
I think that being a doctor is my right - and a school won't give me a diploma
because I don't want to enroll - is not a violation of my rights. Marriage is
religious institution - Doctors are a medical institution.--------------------------------Religion is also a secular civil
right. In order to be married legally, you must have a license issued from the
state.LGBT families deserve the same as your families. Marriage is
already legal for gays in some states and it has not changed heterosexual
marriages one bit. The sky isn't falling.
It takes 20-30 years for the consequences of societal change to manifest
themselves on a population. It's impossible to say right now that there are no
consequences for gay marriage, because no society has had the institution
implemented for that long. We need, at the MINIMUM, another 20 years to see what
the repercussions of all these homosexual lawsuits are going to be.
'Mormons are entitled to defend their freedom of religion'...no
matter how many other people pay for it.
I get so tired of mormons playing the victim card! How about we live in the
present (yes, I'm an active member of the LDS church) and look forward to the
future. This whining victim stuff really gets old, particularly given the power
that the LDS church has nowadays.
Boy, do I ever hear you my friend. A BIG HUGE Ditto on what you said. I, too, am
@8:42 & 8:55So using examples of religious liberty violations in an
article about the importance of religious liberty is "playing the victim card?"
Man and woman=continued survival of our species. Stable, traditional families
give kids the best chance at becoming future assets to society. Homosexual relationships cannot continue the existence of our species. As
such there is no need to extend the same recognition and/or benefits to those
I believe that those who think the Mormon church is discriminating against
homosexuals need to study things out. People that choose to violate one of the
greatest institutions given man by God, the marriage of a man and a woman, are
going against God, not the Mormons or the constitution. It is not discrimination
to defend God's law of marriage. The Mormons are not haters of homosexuals, on
the contrary. Everyone is considered a child of God, therefore equal. It is
man's choice, or "agency" as they put it, to engage in whatever behavior they
desire. Just don't violate the God-given institution of marriage so that one
can receive a tax benefit!!
This editorial seems to misunderstand what religious freedom entails. It is a
freedom of belief and association, identical in form to the freedom to form a
book club or to unionize. Freedom of religion does not entail the freedom to
break the law, and so the history of the conflict between the Church and the
government during the polygamy period had nothing to do with religious
freedom.Regarding the alleged threat to religious freedom, it is
largely fantasy. Very few people were fired because of Proposition 8, and BYU
has in the past fired people for public statements on related issues. A handful
of chapels were subjected to graffiti, which was wrong. And public records
related to political contributions were, ahem, made public. There is no larger
["Do you know why Roman Empire went down? Or Pompei?Because they practiced
against God Will.American will go down if people in the land do not
obey the law of God"]wow. do you even realize how taliban that
sounds? next you're going to want to cut off the hands of shoplifters...
This is such a joke, everyone knows non-mormons are the ones who are
discriminated against in Utah.
"Freedom of religion does not entail the freedom to break the law, and so the
history of the conflict between the Church and the government during the
polygamy period had nothing to do with religious freedom."You do
realize that at the time, there were NO laws against polygamy in the United
States, right? They actually wrote and passed those laws as a way to keep Utah
(at that time the state of Deseret) from entering the union. There were no laws
defining marriage at that time at all in the US. And the laws that were put in
place defining marriage stated that marriage was between one man and one woman.
Those laws are still on the books, and they are still valid.
The internet has brought many to the table of public discussion for the first
time. If your not accustomed to having your opinions publicly ridiculed, this
first exposure can be a rude awakening. On the net your logic is belittled and
your spelling is enthusiastically bemoaned. Public debate has never been a
pretty thing. Rude, forceful behavior has always been present in public forums.
Its unfortunate that the anonymity of the web enboldens some to throw tomatoes.
Can the quiet opinions of sincere religious people really be heard on the web?
I think so, but these quiet religious people will have to accept a certian
amount of abuse, and will have to learn that debate is more than the bearing of
BYU is a private organization, not funded through government funds, and
anti-discrimination laws do not apply. One of the rules for BYU faculty is that
those staff members don't actively speak out against the LDS church or its
policies or doctrines. They don't have to believe it, they don't have to be
members of the religion, but they don't get to go around bad-mouthing it,
either. If people break that rule, they're fired.There was
widespread vandalism - not just against the LDS church, but against private
citizens of all religions - and harassment after Prop 8. People from all over
the state were reporting incidents of violence and property damage. Those public
records were posted, not just to be made public, but so that the public would
harass them day and night, go to their property and cause trouble, and run
background checks on them in order to blackmail the donors into giving to the
Anti-8 side, or rescinding their support for Prop 8. People were intimidated
outside polling offices. A parent was arrested for asking that his child be
taken out of OPTIONAL studies on homosexual families. This is not fantasy.
"Marriage is NOT a civil right. Many posters have pointed this out, including
me."Well, you and the others are absolutely WRONG. Marriage IS a
civil right as established by the US Supreme Court, most, if not all, state
constitutions and many state supreme courts.
"This is such a joke, everyone knows non-mormons are the ones who are
discriminated against in Utah."Um. You voluntarily live in a state
where there is a large population of people who share the same values and
beliefs, and who vote and pass laws according to those beliefs, and because you
don't share those beliefs, you feel you're being discriminated against? You have
the right to vote according to YOUR beliefs and values, so do we. If you don't
like the laws being passed, do something about it.I get so tired of
people whining about the LDS influence in Utah. People who have the same values
tend to have similar voting habits. That's just the way it goes, anywhere you
live in this country.And when I was growing up, it was the non-LDS
kids who picked on the LDS ones. They used to make fun of us, shoot us with
rubber bands, spit on us, beat us up, stab us with pins, and refused to let us
hang out with them until we stopped acting like Mormons. Then their parents
would get mad 'cause we weren't including them.
"So, gays, get your civil unions and all your legal rights. Mormons aren't
standing in your way."This is such nonsense. Who do think stood in
the way of civil unions by passing Amendment 3 in Utah?
The principle of Freedom and Agency is not license to do anything we want, it is
the right to Choose the Right or die spiritually. It is the spiritual welfare of
the latter group many religions are interested in and the freedom from the
militant influences of that same latter group on the nation's culture.
"People that choose to violate one of the greatest institutions given man by
God, the marriage of a man and a woman, are going against God, not the Mormons
or the constitution. It is not discrimination to defend God's law of
marriage."Well, yes, yes it is. Your "God" isn't everyone's "God"
and your "God" doesn't rule our country. Our country is a respecter of no man's
"God". Get it? I doubt it.
The LDS record on respect and civil rights for others:1. All other
religions are wrong and an abomination before God.- Joseph Smith2. And the
skins of the Lamanites were dark according to the mark..., which was a curse
upon them... Alma 3:5.3. "Slavery is an institution ordained of God"
Brigham Young.4. "We do not encourage the intermingling of the
races."Spencer W. Kimball5. The LDS church officially opposes the Equal
Rights Amendment.6. The LDS church officially opposes Gay Marriage.
But wait, we'll be your friend at work or school until we figure out that
we can't convert you.If LDS people were really sincere about wanting
promote harmony-they'd show a little more respect for others and little less
arrogance. If you don't like Gay Marriage- fine. Fight against it but have the
guts to the stick up for rights of gay partners to visit each other in the
hospital and have a civil union. That's not likely though, because around here
it's always "live how the LDS church wants you to live." Not live and let
Ok, California has civil unions. According to California law, it is spelled out
that every right and privilege accorded to marriage is also granted to civil
unions - except the name "marriage". But that's not good enough for gays - they
have to call it marriage and anything less is unacceptable. Civil unions are on
that slippery slope all right - and near the bottom. And then people wonder why
Utah didn't want to go there.Nothing less than full societal
approval of gay relationships, enforced by law on every citizen, will ever be
good enough for gays.
I find it VERY ironic that the early Mormons had to LEAVE the United States
(which was founded to provide religious freedom to religious refugees from
England)... in order to find a place where they could have religious freedom.They actually had to LEAVE the United States to get the freedom to
worship and practice their faith without suffering death threats not only from
rogue groups but also from elected Governors and threats of prison time from
Federal leaders of the time, IF they practiced some of their beliefs.
to -- ex-catholic Californian | 9:29 a.m["People that choose to
violate one of the greatest institutions given man by God, the marriage of a man
and a woman, are going against God, not the Mormons or the constitution. It is
not discrimination to defend God's law of marriage"]there is no such
thing as "God's law of marriage". the word "marriage" does not appear in any
old religious books. It only shows up in the BOM, written by a guy in the
1800s... get your facts straight. marriage was invented by man.
it has changed considerably since its first conception. we no longer sell our
daughters for land and power. come join us in the 21st century, where any two
unrelated consenting adults can join together to make a family...
"Marriage IS a civil right as established by the US Supreme Court, most, if not
all, state constitutions and many state supreme courts."Regarding
the Supreme Court, gay marriage is not a civil right.Your "most, if
not all" clause demonstrates you have no idea what you're talking about. Only
CT, IA, MA, and VT allow gay marriage. Twenty eight states have constitutional
amendments prohibiting gay marriage. How is that "most," let alone "if not all?"
Care to point to any SC decisions that specifically outline Marriage as a Civil
right ? I don't believe you can....
A lot of people here are stating that the Church "forces their beliefs on
society".. What, are they putting you under hot lights tied to a chair and
trying to brain wash you? No. On the other hand, gays are picketing around
Church property, pretty much non stop, to force THEIR beliefs on the general
public. But then they like to play the victim and act so misunderstood. If there
is any persecution going on here, it's definately not the Mormons doing it.
Amendment 3 passed with 65.8% of the vote, nearly double the percentage of the
opposition. According to the SL Trib, Utah is 62.4% LDS, with only
about 41.6% of those members actually being active. Unless you're
saying that the non-LDS population can't or won't vote, it's pretty obvious that
it wasn't just the Mormons who voted in favor of Amendment 3. The
only "right" being lost with Amendment 3 was the right to have the government
recognize your relationship. It didn't prevent you from having those
relationships, or from living your life exactly the way you wanted to. It didn't
prevent you from anything except getting tax breaks, since all of the rights
that come with a legal union are accessible through other means. You can get a
legally binding power of attorney, as well as other legal documents, for around
$40 a pop if you shop around. You can find some for as little as $10. The only thing the Mormons did in relation to Amendment 3 and Prop 8 was vote
according to our consciences, the exact same way you did.
Naruto:: When i vote religion isn't even a factor
"Nothing less than full societal approval of gay relationships, enforced by law
on every citizen, will ever be good enough for gays."Why should gay
people (and supporters of marriage equality) accept anything "less" than equal?
Genesis Chapter 2, Verse 24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his
mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. I'd say that pre-dates Joseph Smith - but what's a few thousand years here and
there in an argument.
Re: "Re: jackhp" 10:52 a.m.Your ability to comprehend plain English
leaves much to be desired. The person I responded to said "marriage is NOT a
civil right". I responded that, yes, indeed, it is. Did I say anything about
"gay marriage"? No, I did not. The "marriage is not a civil right" argument is
nonsense and so is your rebuttal to me.
Marriage is a civil right, within the established guidlines. Without
some minimal standards and rules, our country would be caos. There must always
be a balance between freedom of action and decency/civility. Otherwise we will
become like animals, without any self discipline, only caring about our own
feelings and desire to gratify our physical passions.The people have
always determined what is right and wrong within their society. There are many
practices that we do not tolerate because we have deemed them immoral (murder,
rape, pedophilia, etc.). This practice of regulating our society is a good
thing.Also, how did we ever get to the point where we are considered
bad if we do not accept homosexuality? 40 years ago, homosexuality was so
repugnant that most homosexuals stayed in the closet. Religious people are not
the ones that changed.
to -- Marital Rights and benefits. | 9:28 a.m["Man and
woman=continued survival of our species. Stable, traditional families give kids
the best chance at becoming future assets to society."]and you think
that if 1%-2% of the population marries individuals of the same sex, then the
species will not survive? you think that 1%-2% of the population will ruin
society? ["Homosexual relationships cannot continue the existence
of our species. As such there is no need to extend the same recognition and/or
benefits to those relationships"]marriage is not about sustaining
the human race. it has NEVER been about that. so why do you insist on trying
to make it something it never was? (since you ask this question, so can I)
re: 10:55 a.m.Sure, glad you asked.Loving v.
VirginiaI quote:"The freedom to marry has long been
recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit
of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of
man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
The actual Brigham Young quote was this: "Ham will continue to be servant of
servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the
decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they
are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They
cannot do that."And that was in a Millenial Star article with quotes
from Joseph Smith saying much the same thing. But what you're missing is the
context. What these two men were saying was that nobody in this country could
free the slaves until God decreed it was time. Everything happens on the Lord's
time, not on our time, is what they were saying. There are also many quotes in
the article that suggest that they weren't talking about physical slavery, but
the curse of Ham in the Bible.However, since you misquoted this
statement, and since Alma 3:6 clearly states that the darker skin was a physical
manifestation of the mark, which was the curse, not that the dark skin was the
curse, we obviously need to take your words with a very large grain of salt.
to -- Civil unions in CA | 10:45 a.m["Ok, California has civil
unions. According to California law, it is spelled out that every right and
privilege accorded to marriage is also granted to civil unions - except the name
"marriage". But that's not good enough for gays - they have to call it marriage
and anything less is unacceptable"]"civil union" is not on federal
tax forms - "married" is."civil union" is not recognized by other
states (especially Utah) so it restricts the couple to the one state they had
their "civil union" in.I could go on but the result is clear. if
LGBT couples want all the rights that others have, they MUST be able to MARRY.
what about that do you not understand?
Dear But,God did not "Create" homosexuals. He created man and woman as
heterosexuals, and gave them the free agency to make their own choices in life
with consequences for making wrong choices. He gave them rules to live by, and
if they violate those rules they must suffer the consequences. But, through the
atomement of Christ, we are able to repent and have bad choices forgiven.As for defending their beliefs, Mormons have just as much right to do so
as any other religion. They have as much right also to explain their beliefs to
others without being accused of discrimination against any given group.
Why should a church be forced to rent its facility for a gay wedding (NJ)? Why
should an infertility doctor be forced to provide services for a lesbian (CA)?
Why should a photographer be forced to do a gay wedding (NM)? Why should a
Catholic adoption agency be forced to place kids with gay parents (MA)? And
dozens more cases across the country, where gays have sued and won for
discrimination, even though to do these things went against the conscience of
the religious people involved, and even though there were MANY other willing
providers of services. I suppose you also think every doctor can
and should be forced to perform abortions against their conscience?
Re: Amendment 3Amendment 3 specifically outlawed civil unions as an
alternative to same-sex marriage. If the LDS Church is so in favor of gay
rights (just not marriage) as everyone likes to say they are, then why didn't
they come out against Amendment 3? Regarding the vote, I never said
no one but Mormons voted for Amendment 3. You are being deliberately obtuse by
taking this line of argument. It is clear that whichever way the Church goes on
statewide issues is the way the vote will go. If the Church had came out
against Amendment 3 it would have been voted down.
re: jackhp | 11:05 a.m. Oct. 19, 2009 "Why should gay people (and
supporters of marriage equality) accept anything "less" than equal?"hmmmmm because two men are not the same thing as a man and a woman (or a man
and five women)different things are by definition not the
same/equal.fair does not always mean same (which is why we have
separate mens and womens sports leagues even though they are equally importnt)
"... since Alma 3:6 clearly states that the darker skin was a physical
manifestation of the mark, which was the curse, not that the dark skin was the
curse, we obviously need to take your words with a very large grain of salt."In other words, "Your dark skin isn't a curse, it's just how we know you
ARE cursed."Wow, that makes it so much better!
With permission Greenut, I enjoyed you post, I'm going to post it again. As for
others claiming the LDS church endorces equal rights, one has to ask why blacks
were not allowed the priesthood till 1978.The LDS record on respect
and civil rights for others:1. All other religions are wrong and an
abomination before God.- Joseph Smith2. And the skins of the Lamanites
were dark according to the mark..., which was a curse upon them... Alma 3:5.3. "Slavery is an institution ordained of God" Brigham Young.4. "We do
not encourage the intermingling of the races."Spencer W. Kimball5. The LDS
church officially opposes the Equal Rights Amendment.6. The LDS church
officially opposes Gay Marriage.
"A parent was arrested for asking that his child be taken out of OPTIONAL
studies on homosexual families. This is not fantasy. "It is also not
the truth. The parent was arrested because he would not leave the school. He
talked to the principal about the book that was sent home (he did not read it to
his child, as was his choice), and decided to become disruptive when he did not
get his way. It had nothing to do with the studies.Don't
exaggerate. It shows our side to be despirate instead of in the right.
And what state marriage law is going to overturn federal law? You want federal
tax benefits, then you're going to have to pass a federal marriage law, because
as it stands the federal government only recognizes marriage between one man and
one woman.State recognition - then overturn the rest of the federal
DOMA law too.Thank you for pointing out for me exactly how pointless
the gay campaign against Prop 8 was.And for where this conflict is
going next, so that we can continue to defend traditional marriage in the right
does it have to evolve right back to a prop 8 battle. If I could be assured that
I would never be sued for not wanting to photograph a gay wedding, if I could be
assured that the pastor of the local schurch would never be sued for not wanting
to perform a gay marriage etc. I would have no problem. It's the ones who take
thing to the extreme as to why I can't support gay marriage.
re: 11:26 a.m.If you get government funding or subsidies (for
example, reduced property taxes) then you cannot discriminate. It's as simple
Since Elder Oaks's discourse read like a legal brief, I'd like to see someone as
well versed in legal and moral issues as Elder Oaks write a dissenting legal
brief that is just as compelling as what he wrote. Is there anyone out there
competent enough to do so? Or are we just going to be stuck with the
nonsensical diatribe that gets posted on venues such as this? I'd certainly be
interested in reading something intelligent and thought-provoking that counters
what Elder Oaks had to say.
Actually, what federal tax benefits??? You do realize that married people
actually have a tax penalty? That filing as singles actually gets you more
money back? To the point that many people over the years have either decided
not to get married, or divorced even thought they still lived together, just to
pay less in taxes? Recent laws have sort of fixed it in lower tax brackets -
but in 2011 it will be back, unless Congress reauthorizes current law
(Democrats? give up tax revenue? not likely!)As for getting any
other rights that married people have, what for? There's nothing that they
can't get with $10-40 in other legal documents, that a previous poster
mentioned. You'll pay just as much for a marriage license.If gays
are so discriminated against because of not being married, then why aren't
hetero single people agitating because of second class citizen status? Gee,
maybe because it's a non-existent problem?
RE -- @Anonymous | 10:48 a.m. | 11:09 a.m["Genesis Chapter 2, Verse
24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."]I fail to see the word
"marriage" in there. pls explain how that discusses marriage.
#1 Why should a church be forced to rent its facility for a gay wedding (NJ)?
Because they took advantage of a particular state tax exemption as a
public place and rented out the pavilion to various different groups
(non-religious and religious) for a variety of events and discriminated against
a same-sex couple who wanted to use it (note, same-sex marriage is not permitted
in NJ). The Church lost their tax exemption for the Pavilion ONLY. Why should an infertility doctor be forced to provide services for a lesbian
(CA)? Same-sex marriage WAS ILLEGAL in CA at the time. Why should a
Catholic adoption agency be forced to place kids with gay parents (MA)? The Catholic adoption services was ALREADY placing children with gay couples.
It came to light when it was reported in the Boston Globe newspaper and Catholic
leaders told them to stop. Catholic adoption services had essentially been
functioning as a state agency, getting public funds. Gays have
brought lawsuits on a variety of issues and won in states where same-sex
marriage is/was illegal. Prohibitions against same-sex marriage isn't going to
stop discrimination lawsuits.
["What these two men were saying was that nobody in this country could free the
slaves until God decreed it was time. Everything happens on the Lord's time, not
on our time, is what they were saying"]and you think your leaders
talk to God and therefore God will tell them when it is time.... so in fact,
your leaders control everything, since God determines the timing for
everything... so you are in fact saying thet your leaders make all the
decisions and we should follow them because it is the same as God's
decisions.and if we, for whatever bizarre, uncomprehensible reason,
think that maybe perhaps there's a chance that your leaders don't talk to God...
(bear with me - I know it makes no sense for us to not believe them - they are
after all THE prophets of God) but just on that crazy slim chance that they
DON'T really talk to God, then why would we want to wait for them to change
their minds? why would you expect people that are not mormon to "follow your
["God did not "Create" homosexuals. He created man and woman as heterosexuals,
and gave them the free agency to make their own choices in life with
consequences for making wrong choices"]and you KNOW this how? did
you sit down with God, maybe over coffee, and have this discussion? or are you
just reading old book, old guy?["He gave them rules to live by, and
if they violate those rules they must suffer the consequences"]your
leaders and the authors of your old books gave you rules, which seem to
constantly change. and you are free to follow your rules. no one is stopping
you.... oh - wait - you want EVERYONE to follow your rules... well, I have
some rules - do you really think you want to follow my rules? I don't think
you'll like them...["As for defending their beliefs, Mormons have
just as much right to do so as any other religion. They have as much right also
to explain their beliefs to others without being accused of discrimination
against any given group."]that's right. you can call blacks "of the
devil", you can tell women to stay in the home. feel better now?
["Why should a church be forced to rent its facility for a gay wedding
(NJ)?"]same reason they are forced to rent to a black or interracial
couple. it is illegal to discriminate. If the church puts its facility open to
the public for rent, they have to rent to anyone.same answer to the
rest of your post. just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can
discriminate. imagine what the south would be like if anyone that wanted to
could refuse services to blacks? it's still bad down there but at least
progress has been made... and so it will be for LGBTs.
"They have as much right also to explain their beliefs to others without being
accused of discrimination against any given group. "There is no
right to not be accused of discrimination. This is the same thing that the
church was accused of with blacks: discrimination. It was. It was right that
we were called on it, don't you think?
"hmmmmm because two men are not the same thing as a man and a woman (or a man
and five women"When it comes to a legal contract called marriage two
men most certainly are the same as a man and a woman.
"@Rebeckah - Umm, curriculum for public schools in both Massachusetts and
California mandates homosexual content down to kindergarten, with no opportunity
to opt out or be informed in advance."Please prove this. And that
would be through a neutral and credible source, not through some Mormon funded
excuse for "research". Also, I'd like to know exactly WHAT the material is. If
it is simply pointing out that some people of the same gender care for each
other and form family units, then I'm all for it. Maybe then some of the
homosexual youths who are being beaten and killed will have a chance to survive
-- or don't they have a "right" to live?
Only the church had a tax break - as do all churches. So you are saying you
want to eliminate tax breaks for all churches if they don't do gay weddings?
I'm sure the Unitarians will love you for that...As for the rest of
the examples listed, not one of them had any tax break or other public benefit -
they were simply carrying out their normal business, while their rights to
freedom of religion and association were being hijacked.
"If gays are so discriminated against because of not being married, then why
aren't hetero single people agitating because of second class citizen status?
Gee, maybe because it's a non-existent problem?"This is the absolute
dumbest argument yet. Why aren't hetero single people agitating? Becuase they
CAN get married . . . DUH!
You are definitely entitled to your own religious belief's but not entitled to
change thew meaning of the word "Marriage". If you don't like the term domestic
partnership then pick another one. Marriage is taken and defined
That's almost too dumb to respond to. What part of "man" and "wife" do you not
understand? How about looking through the rest of the first five books of the
Old Testament, where many references to husbands, wives and commandments/rules
for them are found?
[Why should a church be forced to rent its facility for a gay wedding (NJ)?]If they take government money (NJ), they cannot discriminate against
some citizens that pay that money. [Why should an infertility
doctor be forced to provide services for a lesbian (CA)?]He had
joined a HMO that they belonged to. He was suppose to serve them... Would it
have been ok if he would not provided services for a black couple because he had
a prejudice against them?[ Why should a photographer be forced to do
a gay wedding (NM)?]State law. Again, could that photographer have
denied photographing a black wedding? [Why should a Catholic
adoption agency be forced to place kids with gay parents (MA)?]They were supported by state funds - again taxes collected from some gay
citizens too - and by law could not discriminate against gays. If they had kept
their adoption agency private (like the LDS church does), they could
discriminate to their hearts content. They decided rather than run it without
state monies, they would close their doors. Their decision. No one forced them
to close.OK? Not quite what you were trying for, is it?
"Anonymous: AGAIN the church did not fund anything to do with Prop. Church
members did but the church itself did not."Church officials told
members to contribute time and money and church officials are using their
membership lists even now to send e-mails to people telling them to butt into
Maine's current vote on homosexual rights. This is pretty much like politicking
in my book and I really hope the Federal Government is paying attention."oh and btw no temple has been closed"Yes, one was closed
indefinitely in Africa (I believe) the reason given being "violence" but no
plans for reopening it mentioned. (Apparently your God doesn't care about people
in violent areas.) And I believe the Japanese Mission Training Center has been
closed too. Hardly signs of a robust and growing membership.
"Gays aren't being discriminated against. Marriage for them is irrelevant. Gays
can't produce offspring."So sterile heterosexual couples or old
hetersexual couples who won't be having children should be forbidden to marry
since they won't be reproducing and it won't make their marriages any more
committed or romantic? Got it. Folks, let's all start lobbying to repeal the
marriages of anyone who doesn't reproduce!
"The issue raised by Elder Oaks is that the religious members of the population
should not be coerced, intimidated, threatened or silenced because their belief
disagrees with that of the gay community on the issue of same-sex marriage."Neither should homosexuals. How many are beaten up, killed, fired,
electroshock "therapied" and other atrocities at the hands of Mormons?
Apparently neither you, nor Elder Oaks, want to admit to the persecution of
homosexuals and the hands of faithful LDS members. Hypocrite!"We are
not threatening your property, boycotting your businesses, taking away your
livelihoods, or using violence or other undemocratic means to sway the vote in
our favor."Hmmm, I remember a man losing his job in Utah because he
wrote a book that the principal of his school thought was "anti-Mormon". There
was plenty of evidence as to why he lost his job and the school system was
censured by the equal employment people. Utah simply ignored it. Discrimination
and "undemocratic" means to influence people is alive and well in Utah, it
the problem remains that religious people think marriage is a religious
contract, and us regular folks think marriage is a civil contract. the two will
never be the same.
Anonymous | 11:59 a.m. You are being intelectually dishonest or
intentionaly ignorant if you actually claim to belive that Genesis Chapter 2,
Verse 24 has nothing to do with Marriage.["Genesis Chapter 2, Verse
24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave
unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."]What do you think the
term "Wife" means if this has nothing to do with Marriage? What do
YOU think the term "Wife" means (OUTSIDE of marriage)? NOTHING to do with
marriage?You're trying SOOO hard to twist this to mean what you
want... but it's not working today.I feel sorry for you having to
stretch so hard to twist the scriptures to seem to back you up.
"If you don't like the term domestic partnership then pick another one. Marriage
is taken and defined."Yes, it is . . . by our government! If your
particular religious institution doesn't want to be indirectly associated with
non-discriminatory legal marriages then it is YOU who needs to pick another
RE -- @Anonymous | 12:59 a.m. | 12:34 p.m["That's almost too dumb
to respond to. What part of "man" and "wife" do you not understand? How about
looking through the rest of the first five books of the Old Testament, where
many references to husbands, wives and commandments/rules for them are
found?"]oh - you want to go by the old testament? I thought Jesus
threw that out? or don't you believe that?if you want to go by the
old testemant, lets do it. I haven't seen any child sacrifice in a long time.
what else is in there?you SURE you want to go back to the old
Lets see the case you cite, Loving v. Virginia.. Was that a case of a man trying
to marry a man or a woman trying to marry a woman? No it wasn't. At the time that the decision was rendered marriage was understood to be
defined as taking place between a man and a woman. Try again.
This court case does nothing to support your supposition.
Why is it that gay behavior keeps getting equated with race? It isn't the same,
and you offend most black people every time you say it. By the way, you do
realize that far more blacks voted FOR Prop. 8 than Mormons did.No,
I don't want people discriminating on the basis of race. It's immoral behavior,
and forced support for it, that is the issue here. It's the Constitutional
rights of freedom of association (which includes the right NOT to associate),
freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, that are at issue here. Any law
that violates the Constitution needs to be struck down, and I hope these will
"God did not "Create" homosexuals."Then why do we find them in
nature? As in, animals form homosexual pairs too.
Bill F. | 12:32 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009Words change as people in their
societies change.In the English language, you can go as short as a
generation and take a look at how words have changed.Sometimes some
words change from one year to the next, almost unperceived.The word
"marriage" itself may not in your mind have changed in terms of the hetero
normative paradigm.However, to say that marriage is defined as "one
man and one woman" is contrary to history.Plurality of wives has
been practiced throughout much of history. At that, tn the United States, it
has not been singular to Mormon culture and history. At that, I am not
advocating it, just stating a historical fact.Socially, the rights
of women have not taken precedence up until decades ago in terms of marriage.Moreover, to say the term is taken and defined ignores the entries of
some dictionaries which extend the definition of marriage as not limited to man
and woman, but also...."the union of two same-sex partners"dictionary dotcom
Who's talking about going back to the Old Testament? Having trouble following
an argument and staying on topic? The original poster said that marriage wasn't
in any old religious books, I showed it was in Genesis, which he/she couldn't
see because they couldn't make the connection between the word "marriage" and
man and wife. And Jesus didn't "throw out" the Old Testament - he
quoted it all the time to expound on doctrine. He did introduce a higher law -
such as don't just not commit adultery - don't lust. Don't just not commit
murder - control your anger. etc. The law of Moses (animal sacrifice, many
nitpicky rules) was done away, and replaced with a law that still included the
10 commandments and all of the principles.By the way, the only
children sacrificed in the Old Testament were those of the pagans worshiping
Further,Merriam-Websters defines, "the state of being
united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and
contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a
person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"And MSN dictionary defines marriage without regard to gender,"legal relationship between spouses: a legally recognized relationship,
established by a civil or religious ceremony, between two people who intend to
live together as sexual and domestic partners"That said, however,
the definition still limits marriage to two people, not three, four, or seven,
and it does not extend marriage to close blood relatives, etc.
'This court case (Loving v. Virginia) does nothing to support your supposition.'
I disagree. Interacial marriage and gay marriage have
many similarities. Both were viewed as 'sins' when presented.
Both have had 'genetic impurities' or children used. (one the furthering of the
species, the other children with birth 'defects') Also, Loving vs
Virginia was 42years ago. If your looking for more recent definition
of marriage, Massachusetts allowed gay marriage for 5yrs now. The
only thing that changed is the divorce rate. It got lower.
"You are definitely entitled to your own religious belief's but not entitled to
change thew meaning of the word "Marriage"."Why not? Definitions of
words are changed all the time. Why can't any group of people choose to redefine
this one? I think it's just sour grapes, myself. The American public wouldn't
let the LDS church redifine marriage into polygamy so not the have to take out
their frustration on a more marginalized group.
When you take the religious connotation of marriage people ignore the obvious
fact that states issue marriage licenses.People can and do marry
civilly and no one calls those 'not marriages.'Religious marriage is
a subset of the the general concept of marriage.
"the problem remains that religious people think marriage is a religious
contract, and us regular folks think marriage is a civil contract. the two will
never be the same."I think that's a really valid point. Personally,
I think the government should just call all legal unions "Civil Union" or
"Domestic Contract" and let the individuals decide whether or not to call
themselves married. They can handle the legal contract between the two without
ever using the word "married" again. (Just my two cents worth, but somehow I
think the Mormons and fundy Christians would scream even louder if they
government changed the legal term "marriage" to civil union. LOL!)
To Rebeckah: So there is homosexuality among animals? And? What does
Darwinishm say about this? Survivalibility of the species means breeding -
actually producing offspring.
"It's the Constitutional rights of freedom of association (which includes the
right NOT to associate), freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, that are at
issue here."You forgot the right of "pursuit of happiness". If
getting married makes homosexuals happy, and it doesn't harm anyone else, then
they have a right to do so. (Granted that's from the Declaration of Independence
and not the Constitution, but clearly it was intended to be a founding principle
of our country.)
Ironic how Cannon sees anti-polygamy legislation of the late 19th century as
persecution. LDS leadership and members who defied the laws of the land are
hailed by him as heroes. He fails to see the parallels between what society and
the US Goverment of that day did and what the Prop 8 proponents are doing now.
Cannon's use of this example is silly.Mormons are free to worship as
the want. What Oaks is talking about in his talk really is 'freedom from
criticism'–and Mormons should not expect that. They stepped into the
public debate and can't escape the criticism that comes from their actions. If you stand the heat.......
Laugh at our religion all you want.In fact, laugh to your heart's
content.We don't care what you or the world thinks.We
do, however, fear God and care what he thinks.Getting back to your
laughter...I recall an old sunday school lesson where many laughed and mocked at
Noah as well.How'd that turn out for them?
"By the way, the only children sacrificed in the Old Testament were those of the
pagans worshiping idols."and those who disobeyed their parents.
Ah, the old "animals do it too". Well, then, by all means let's all live just
like animals. Some eat their young, is it ok if I do that? Some eat their prey
while it's still alive and kicking - sounds exciting! Hmm, animals don't worry
about whether their dinner is on the endangered species list... They all stop taking care of their young far earlier than humans, either from
birth or any stage up to the equivalent of early teens - Yay, that means next
time my 14yo sasses me, I can boot him out of the house, right?As
for animals engaging in homosexual acts, I'll be sure to write their preachers
and let them know they need to teach their species better morals. Because
animals are so capable of reason and morality...[Warning - the above
post is SARCASM for the humor impaired]
Old Guy | 11:25 a.m | 12:12 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009Re: "God did not
create homosexuals"This particular belief is a based belief from
NARTH which is not shared with much of the therapy that is used to "treat gays
and make them into hetero-normative individuals."In fact, much of
the literature that is used to treat gays does in fact reads that being gay is
not a choice.The attraction, the identity, the sense of being, is
definitely there.The literature and treatments, much of it, tends to
counter that with suppressing behavior, not identity.
The sad thing about this entire argument is that we are forgetting those that
are the real victims in all of this. Gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual
children and young adults within the church and society continue to hear that
they are "less than" and that they are flawed. THAT is what we should be
discussing. How many more of our children are going to take their
own lives because we adults cannot learn to accept GLBT people for who they are
and give them the unconditional love they deserve?
Rebeckah | 12:45 p.m.Was that a PRIVATE school? Or a public school
that fired someone for writing an anti-mormon book?If it was a
PRIVATE school... what obligation do they have to not fire him?If it
was a PUBLIC school... then it's a different story.But a Private
shool (especially one ran by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) is
not required to continue his employment.I'm not sure what incident
you're refering to, but the answer to my question would be critical to my
knowing if it was a big scandal or not.
re: 12:53 p.m.Okay, listen up dummies, for the third time now, the
argument made is that "marriage is NOT a civil right." This is absolutely and
completely WRONG. Marriage most certainly IS a civil right. Loving v.
Virginia, as well as many, many rulings from state courts have established this
fact many times over. The argument that "marriage isn't a right" is completely
and thoroughly a non-starter. If anyone ever tries to argue that
"marriage" isn't a right then now you know that they are either completely
disingenuous or simply ignorant. Please, read this comment several
times if you have to in order to comprehend it fully. Thanks for your time.
"Socially, the rights of women have not taken precedence up until decades ago in
terms of marriage."Bullpucky. Marriage laws were included in the
Old Testament, in Hammurabi's Code, and in many ancient cultures, right up
through the Middle Ages and up to modern times. They established things like
dowries, which remained the wife's property, and went with her if they divorced.
They set rules for divorce, required men to support their wives and children,
and established penalties if they didn't, including giving a woman the right to
divorce if he broke the law.Do women have far more rights today? Of
course - but a major component of marriage has always been to protect the weaker
sex. (That's not an anti-feminist thing - just an historic fact.)
Re: Arbitrary | 8:32 a.m. Oct. 19, 2009You wrote,"It
takes 20-30 years for the consequences of societal change to manifest themselves
on a population"The same has been said about giving any minority
rights in American history.Whether they were African slaves, Irish
immigrants, women voters, Native Americans, people have always feared what would
happen if....To use it in the context of the 1920's, F. Scott
Fitzgerald wrote, in the context of race, that people feared the rise of
"inferior races."(The Great Gatsby, Chapter 1)Race
outside, within the LGBT movement, there has always been a what will happen
if....* we let gays in the military* we elect them to public
office* Canada, Massachusetts, Spain, etc - and every other state - where
same-same marriage is allowed, won't they sue churches, temples, synagogues,
mosques?They have not, and even if they had, they would not win.Law experts within Churches know this. They have known this for years
which in essence gives them the right to marry whom they will.
you are not helping your caseyou claim to want choice but in the end you
simply want to deny anyone the right to disagree with your choice; thereby
proving that all the "scare tactics" of evil Mormons and Prop 8 supporters are
actually a correct analysis
"In other words, "Your dark skin isn't a curse, it's just how we know you ARE
cursed."Wow, that makes it so much better!"The curse
mentioned in the Book of Mormon was that the Lamanites lost the Spirit of God.
They were murderers and devil worshippers, so it stands to reason that they'd
lose the Lord's help and guidance. The dark skin was an outward manifestation of
their inner darkness. Did that apply to everybody born with darker
skin? No, of course not. In 2 Nephi 4:6, it's revealed that the curse only
applies to that first generation, not to their descendants. In Jacob 3:9, the
Nephites are commanded not to "revile" against the Lamanites because of their
darker skin. In Alma 23:18, the curse is completely lifted. I don't know if that
means the skin lightened or not, it doesn't say. But don't forget, there are
several times when the Lamanites are much more righteous and closer to God than
the Nephites are. To all of the Lamanites but those first ones, the
darker skin is simply genetic and not a sign of anything at all.
"...and if we, for whatever bizarre, uncomprehensible reason, think that maybe
perhaps there's a chance that your leaders don't talk to God...then why would we
want to wait for them to change their minds? why would you expect people that
are not mormon to "follow your leaders"?"Well, if you'd read the
article in question, you'd know that it was an article in a Mormon newspaper,
written to Mormons, and not to the world, telling the MORMONS not to help whip
up the situation in Missouri (or other places in the South) to the point of war
over the matter, when the Lord hadn't decreed it time for the slaves to be set
free. And if, as several comments in the article indicated, it was referring to
the spiritual and not the physical side, that didn't happen until quite
recently. It's easy to pick a quote out of context and make it sound
bad. It's a favorite trick of people trying to criticize members of all
different religions. But I've found that 99.99% of the time, the quote wasn't
saying what the poster was inferring at all.
Mormons are not entitled because they are special. Not because they've had a
rough history. And not because Oaks has "qualifications". Sure, Mormons are
entitled to defend their religious freedoms -- who is going to argue with that?
Now what? Joe Cannon takes us nowhere after stating the obvious.
This thread has become totally off topic. The topic is... "Do
Mormons have the right to defend their religion".It's NOT about "Is
Gay Marriage OK or not". But that's what has gradually and totally dominated
the conversation.I'm just wondering if we can get back on topic.
Because I'm VERY interested in what people have to say on the ACTUAL topic, but
not so much on the issue that seems to have suplanted itself as the actual
topic.I have to read dozens of comments arguing about Gay Marriage
to find one on the topic... "Mormons entitlend to defend their religion".We know where people stand on the Gay Marriage issue. Must we go over
it and re-hash it daily? Let's talk about something different (like the topic)
for a change.Personally I have no problem with gay people defending
their lifestyle, religion, politics, whatever. But likewise Mormons also have
the same right to defend their religion, lifestyle, politics, etc.Does ANYONE disagree?
"Then why do we find them in nature? As in, animals form homosexual pairs
too."Animals also eat their own feces. Are you really trying to use
that as an argument?
I am shocked at the one-sidedness of this article. There are reasons why the
Mormons were sent out of their early settlements, which this author, and indeed
the corporate church, does not admit. The illegal abomination of polygamy was
the most obvious one.Governor Boggs lived in fear of his life due to
the Mormon Danites, a fanatical group of Mormon thugs who tried to assassinate
him. Mormons’ block voting, plus their own burning and plundering, and
having the biggest private army in America were some more reasons they were
“persecuted.” Those wanting to know the real truth of
Mormon history, not the LDS whitewashed version, will discover some interesting,
disturbing facts that the church wishes their followers would never find out.
Mormons didn't vote Prop 8 into law, Califormians did, go whine to them.
The Flat Earth Society is also entitled to defend itself. Communists, neo-Nazis
and skinheads are entitled to their viewppoints too.
To: Study real history | 2:47 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009 Can you provide
citations or references to your claims? Thanks.
Study real history | 2:47 p.m.There's NEVER a good reason for a
Governor to order the "extermination" of a whole population, just based on their
religion, race, ethnic background, political background, etc.That
YOU somehow find a way to DEFEND that decision, is amazing!IF Gov
Boggs had a problem with a radical group trying to assasinate him (I've never
heard of THAT one)... But even IF it did happen... you go after THOSE law
breakers... YOU DON"T ORDER THE ETHNIC CLENSING OF A WHOLE SEGMENT OF YOUR
STATE'S POPULATION BASED ON THEIR RELIGION... EVER!ANYONE who
defends that practice deserves to be denounced by ALL people (not just Mormons).
["Well, if you'd read the article in question, you'd know that it was an article
in a Mormon newspaper, written to Mormons, and not to the world, telling the
MORMONS not to help whip up the situation in Missouri (or other places in the
South) to the point of war over the matter, when the Lord hadn't decreed it time
for the slaves to be set free"]again - "the Lord hadn't decreed it
time for the slaves to be set free".... your leaders tell you what
to do and what to believe. you do so because you think they talk to God. You
are probebly wrong and they can't really talk to God.. I rest my case. I suggest you not try to reply - your replies seem to go down the same
path of "my leaders told us so" - and we don't want to follow your leaders...
"Those wanting to know the real truth of Mormon history, not the LDS whitewashed
version, will discover some interesting, disturbing facts that the church wishes
their followers would never find out."Ah yes, those poor,
brainwashed Mormons... Trouble is, there's plenty of documented evidence, cited
by non-Mormon historians, that backs up the church's views. Have members ever
done bad things - duh, yes. Nobody's perfect, and people do get tired of being
pushed around and want to push back. But if you want to pile up the evil done
from 1828 or so to 1900, Mormons vs. non-Mormons, I'll be happy to be on the
Mormon side of that scale.
TO: GWB 4:34,I think you have your fact mixed up. It was Madalyn Murray
O'hair an Atheist who on June 25, 1962 had prayer removed from schools.People please, if we are going to comment, please make sure our facts are
ex-Catholic CalifornianVery fair comments!
As an LDS man with a gay brother, this past year has been tough. I stand by my
belief that my brother should have every right to marry his partner. The "persecution" I have felt as a Mormon does not even compare to what my
brother has gone through. My brother does not want to get married in the
temple, in fact he wants nothing to do with the church (no surprise there!). He
wants a civil marriage and the right to live a life free of prejudice and
hatred. The church leaders are wrong on this one.
Why should the atheists, the socialists, the nihilists, be allowed to set the
only agenda?If good people, religious people cede the culture to the
enemies of all that is transcendent, they are surely abandoning all that they
hold dear and aiding and abetting the destroyers of cultures.Not
LDS, but I applaud Elder Oakes, and am in full agreement.
"If good people, religious people cede the culture to the enemies of all that is
transcendent, they are surely abandoning all that they hold dear and aiding and
abetting the destroyers of cultures."Right because our only interest is to
destroy society. so how is the view from your self righteous high horse?
Nobody is attacking Mormons. Nobody is taking away Mormons' religious
freedoms.People are protecting the definition of "equality before
the law".People are protecting the "traditional" definition of
freedom and liberty.Just because Mormons believe their "religious
freedom" includes the freedom to deny the civil rights of others does not mean
they are correct.And please don't try to appeal to the authority of
Elder Oaks and his tenure as a Utah Supreme Court Justice! Sure, being a Supreme
Court Justice is impressive... in any other state besides the theocracy that is
UTAH! Oaks' understanding of the United States Constitution is pathetic, as
proven by this speech! He may have been a good SC Justice for Utah, judged by
fanatic Utah standards, but that doesn't mean ANYTHING outside of the LDS
Prove my point about nihilists, thanks.
The leaders never asked the members to vote against the proposition, what they
did say was study the issue and vote according to your conscience. You can go
to any bishop and they probably could produce the letter that they read to the
members. Big suprise, that members who believe in marriage between a man and a
women, that a lot of them probably voted for the proposition. The church did
want people to be involved. Other claims that the church invested money are also
false. The members donated not the church...... big difference.
To all who replied to my comments. Those are my beliefs, and I'm sticking to
them. If you don't like it, you have the free agency to disagree and LUMP IT!!
Another interesting thread - most of the negative comments on here don't have
much factual basis behind them - weak arguments mostly. i really haven't seen
any of the Mormon missionaries in New England carrying guns forcing people to
follow their creeds. And the LDS people I've met at work and around don't seem
to be the kind to force anything on anyone except maybe standing up for decency.
Not all of them, but those that profess to be followers actually do a pretty
good job of living christian lives (being kind and nice to everyone - at least
more so then those claiming to be athiest or following their own inner spirit -
whatever that means. They're not as wishy-washy and stand by their convictions
for the most part. What's in the water out there in Utah that brings out the
Nothing wrong with the water here in Utah.I'd bet anything that most
of the incoherent crybaby comments are from San Francisco. Democracy doesn't
play well there. They lost on prop 8, twice, and are still whining about it.
I don't think anyone will argue the point that the First Amendment guarantees
freedom of religion and it goes without saying that when attacked, most people
will push back.I agree with "Eastern Observer" as one living outside
of Utah that there really is no issue here. I've met only 1 person in my 20
years outside of Utah who had a problem with Mormons - everyone else has been
very supportive.I live in an area that is 2% LDS with a 40% activity
rate, so figure 1% active LDS. Two of the three schools here have Mormon kids
as Student Body President. Last year and the year before, it was also 2 out of
the 3 schools. The LDS kids are well liked and well accepted.The
Prop 8 issue is non-existent here - I wouldn't even know about it if it weren't
for this website. And as far as persecution against our kids who won't drink or
smoke, I think in every era there have been kids trying to get their friends to
do that. It's nothing new.As I said, this article tries to make a
mountain out of a molehill.
Utah Mormons are different from Mormons in other states because of geographic
isolation, and having to suffer more closely under bad leadership, beginning
with Brigham Young onward. As a consequence, many Utah Mormons are
very defensive and prejudicial against “outsiders.” This upsets the
non-Mormons in Utah.
Hmmm... I'm a non-Mormon Utah resident. I don't have any problems like you
seem to think that you have. Maybe it's you not Mormons. Just sayin'...
Now we see why the anti movement is so blinded by their hatred that they
fabricate facts and accuse the church of whitewashing history.Nearly
every reliable source I can find is clear that the accusation that Mormons tried
to kill Gov Boggs is completely baseless. Heck, even wikipedia got it right.The claim that Joseph Smith put a bounty out on Boggs and that Porter
Rockwell made the attempt is attributed to an angry ex-Mo named Bennett. Gosh,
Bennett wouldn't have any hidden motives, would he? Rockwell was in fact held
illegally for a year with absolutely no evidence.Boggs was hated by
many groups, not just the LDS. He was a corrupt and evil politician. Amazing
that the anti's would come to his defense.How about you guys stop
blackwashing history by buying "hook, line and sinker" the claims of ex-Mo's.
You know, they might have lied.
You accuse Utah Mormons of being defensive and prejudicial and then you make a
comment like "suffer under bad leadership with Brigham Young onward." You just
insulted the prophets of the LDS church and you don't think that's going to put
people on the defense?Go to the Vatican and tell them all the popes
are lousy and see where that gets you.I've lived both in Utah and
out of it and the Non-Mormons in Utah have it pretty good. Remember, the
Mormons grew what is now Utah out of nothing, so those coming to get in on a
good thing are welcome, but should not complain about the people and values that
made Utah what it is.
@One Human familyYour brother is lucky to have you stand up for him,
wish him and his partner my best when they wed, and you definitely qualify for
The information posted in the rebuttal at 7:37 is true, but moreover, that
incident where somebody tried to murder Boggs and the Mormons got the blame for
it, didn't occur until after the Mormons had been settled in Nauvoo for several
years. The extermination order had already been put in place long before it was
even dreamt up. Boggs was a wildly unpopular governor, and he had a lot of
enemies. The Mormons weren't even suspected until Bennett mades his claims a few
weeks later.Secondly, polygamy didn't come to be known to anybody
until, again, the Mormons were gathered in Nauvoo. The persecutions they
suffered in Kirtland and twice in Missouri had nothing whatsoever to do with
polygamy. And, just as a point of reference, POLYGAMY WAS NOT ILLEGAL AT THAT
TIME. It was not made illegal until well after the Mormons were forced to flee
to Utah.If you're going to demand that we "study real history,"
perhaps you should do the same. This is all easily verifiable by multiple
I have a brother that I've wondered about for some time, so I appreciate your
post. I've given a lot of thought to how I'd feel if he ever confirmed that he
is gay.He will always be my brother and I will always love him. I
don't know what he is going through or how he feels.That said, I
respect any church for sticking by its values as it seems pretty straight
forward in reading the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I would be unable to
belong to a church that went against the teachings of the Bible due to political
and social pressure.That said, I believe we can love everyone
without condoning their actions and choices.I wish you the best.
"Utah Mormons are different from Mormons in other states because of geographic
isolation, and having to suffer more closely under bad leadership, beginning
with Brigham Young onward. As a consequence, many Utah Mormons are very
defensive and prejudicial against “outsiders.” This upsets the
non-Mormons in Utah."It's been my experience that you find what you
look for. Going around telling the Mormons that their leaders, whom they hold as
prophets of God, are bad people probably doesn't tend to endear you to the local
Mormons. To those wondering what's in the water down here, Salt Lake
City is one of the most religiously divided places you'll go in this country.
There are more vocal Anti-Mormons there than anywhere else in the state. Go look
at the comments in the Trib, and you'll get a better picture of what I'm talking
about.To put it another way, I was spit on for being LDS in downtown
Salt Lake City, ON TEMPLE SQUARE. I wasn't on the temple grounds, but I was on
the square by the office buildings, and all I did was confirm I was LDS. That
wouldn't happen elsewhere.
The original letter writer asked the question if Latter-day Saints should be
allowed to defend their religion.Does the First Amendment allow
freedom of speech?Yep.There's your answer.Don't like it?Guess you'd better change the Constitution then.Dan MaloyEnid, OK
Religious freedom does not require government benefits. If I were a pastor in CA
who believed in gay marriage, I would perform the ceremony according to my
beliefs and help the couple register as domestic partners.Since the
CA law provides domestic partners the same rights as married couples, the quest
for gay marriage is in effect a way to achieve a social and quasi-religious
affirmation via the state. It is also a political strategy for changing federal
laws and the laws of other states. It does affect people in other states.Votes are needed to change government benefits and definitions. No one
is invading bedrooms or private ceremonies. Don't invade the voting booth or
harass those who vote according to political and religious freedom. I support domestic partner rights and traditional marriage. Domestic partner
rights would readily extend to any two people, not just gays. Any government
benefits need to be properly funded and voted on. They are separate from
President Thomas S. Monson asked Latter-day Saints in the Salt Lake Valley to
reach out to the aged, the widowed, the sick, the handicapped and the
less-active members of the LDS church."Extend to them the hand that
helps and the heart that knows compassion,"
I'm from out of state.A guy I work with had a tour as an F-16 pilot
at Hill AFB. I asked him if the members of my (LDS) church treated
him well while he was there.He said that though he was a little
nervous about being surrounded by Mormons when he first moved there (he bought a
home in Layton) that LDS members treated he and his family very well during his
assignment. Said he loved his stay in Utah.Made me feel good to
hear that.Bottom line....don't believe everything the anti's tell
@Chris Domestic Partnerships don't provide anywhere near equal benefits of
married hetero couples. State Supreme Courts have ruled repeatedly Civil Unions/
Domestic Partnerships set one group up as second class, which is
To Anonymous 10:15 pmIt was the Nebraska State Supreme Court that
over ruled a lower federal court on the States Marriage Admendment. In fact
what it did is to allow the admendment to stand. Your statement is only for
those so called states that have either over-ruled its citizens voting rights
IAW the State Constitution or going against a legislature for doing so. When
Iowa finally gets around to putting this issue to a vote, then the population of
the state will once more vote for the Marriage Admendment to the state
constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. That I believe
will take place within the next four years. It will pass because many in the
state were upset with the courts ruling. What was unconstitutional was the way
it was instituted. The law will come forth and Iowa will join the states
banning same sex-marriage.
I belong to a church that believes that God wants same-sex couples to be able to
marry. Laws that prevent this from happening take away my religious freedom.
Where do you get such paranoia? There is no anti-Mormon movement “blinded
by hatred.” In truth, few people really know or even care about the
Mormons. But there are those who want to find out the real truth of Mormon
history, especially since the church has been less than honest about it.Regarding Gov. Boggs: Orrin Porter Rockwell, Mormon vigilante (Danite),
is still considered the prime suspect in the assassination attempt of the
Governor, even though he was acquitted due to lack of evidence.From
1831 Joseph Smith had been issuing prophecies that Missouri belonged to the
Mormons. The Danites were urged to drive non-Mormons and ex-Mormons from
Missouri. So you see, the history in Missouri has another side. The LDS church
has whitewashed the history to make themselves look like the only victims.
To 3:50 p.m.Read my post again. You are completely over the top,
putting words in my mouth that I never said. I recommend you study real history
to understand why the Missourians felt threatened by the Mormons.
""Then why do we find them in nature? As in, animals form homosexual pairs
too."Animals also eat their own feces. Are you really trying to use
that as an argument?"Once again; the response was to the claim that
God doesn't make homosexuals. I pointed out that homosexuality occures in
nature. I would assume that God is responsible for the creation of animals in
your worldview, therefor God DOES indeed create homosexuals. Is arguing logical
fallacies a course they teach you people? When I took logic it was with the goal
of getting people to avoid making them, but here it seems like the goal is to
To 7:54 pm:Joseph Smith taught plural marriage from 1831, but it was
kept secret until 1843. Nevertheless, people were hearing about it in Kirtland,
Ohio before the move to Missouri, such that the church had to write denials
about it in Ohio. Sixteen-year-old Fanny Alger became Smith’s first
plural wife in 1833 in Kirtland. Indeed this was one reason the Mormons fled to
Missouri. There was also Smith’s liaison with Nancy Marinda Johnson in
1831, though she did not marry Joseph Smith in polygamy until 1842.The point is, people in Missouri heard about Mormon polygamy. Christian
belief of North America at the time believed in monogamy, and that anything else
was an abomination. Citizens back in the U.S. had been jailed for polygamy even
before the Mormons went to Missouri.
Below are some great Mormon histories by respected Mormon scholars (not
apologists):Blood of the Prophets, by Will Bagley In
Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, by Todd ComptonMormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts
AveryNauvoo Polygamy, by George D. SmithNo Man Knows My
History: The Life of Joseph Smith, by Fawn Brodie (niece of LDS President David
RE:Pagan"I disagree."No one cares if you disagree."Interacial marriage and gay marriage have many similarities."The difference is that Loving v. Virginia is based on the concept that if
white men can marry a white woman than black men should be able to marry white
women since all races should be treated equally under the law. This is not
similar to gay marriages since a gay person can marry under the same terms as a
straight person and there is nothing that says:A straight (white)
person can marry a person of the opposite sex but homosexuals can only marry a
person of the same sex. The law must only treat them equally.It doesn't need to add an additional definition. It only needs to say
"if a heterosexual can marry a person of the opposite gender then a homosexual
must be able to do the same" and "homosexuals can't be denied a marriage as it
is defined based on their sexual orientation."Neither gays or
straight people can marry a person of the same sex nor are gays denied marriage
to the opposite sex hence you have equality as currently defined.
To Anonymous: Laugh all you want you and your buddies well keep on growing and
getting stronger. Until every tongue and every land has the chance to hear the
truth. And take a minute to where you and most american are heading because of
your arrogance and ignorance on facts. Im thousands of miles away from America,
so I can tell how it looks from outside. And whats in store is very sad. Good
"undefiled is this, to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and administer to the
afflicted."This is true religion according to the Bible. Has anyone
persecuted the Church for doing this?
People who are vehemently and vociferously outspoken against any organization,
and the LDS church in particular, become that way due to disaffection, and
offense that they take. Usually, it is people who prefer to find their
"freedom" to pursue happiness or indulgent behavior outside of the guides and
mores that practicing LDS find as our root to freedom and happiness. In other
words, those who have transgressed, sinned against, or cannot live up to or
within the liberating lifestyle of the obedient are those most likely to claim
injustice and hypocracy or irrelevence of organized religion, based on their
prideful claims of mistreatment or higher intellectual powers, which of course
are mostly as a result of covering said transgressions, sins, or attitudes. To the brother of the gay subject, why does he think he needs to "marry"
to be happy? What is wrong with a civil ceremony, recognized by civil
authorities, and granting him legal rights of partnership? Why continue
demanding "marriage?" Marriage is reserved for one kind of pairing; gaining a
religious body's recognition and sanctification cannot be dictated. He can go on
seeking happiness in his way, or be conflicted and miserable over his choice.
To 12:27 a.m. Oct. 20, 2009:Pleeeeaaaseee, not that Danite hogwash
again. There weren't any Danites. Never. That is so much historical baloney.
Firstly, there is no document, nor any incident, nothing in fact
that confirms the existence of the Danites. Secondly, such an
organization goes against all the teachings of the LDS Church.Do you
also believe the moon is made of cheeze?
It does not matter whether you believe it or not, but Elder Oaks is a Prophet,
Seer, and Revelator. It cracks me up when people argue and bicker about this
whole thing. Its not like the Quorum of the Twelve just gets together and says,
let's come up with something to say that is going to tick people off. PROPHETS
SEERS AND REVELATORS! Today's environment is no different than Old Testament,
New Testament, or Book of Mormon times. Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have
always been beguiled by those who would bring them down. You know what the
difference is? Unlike previous times, the church is going to continue to stand,
no matter what anyone else says or does. So go ahead, keep punching, keep
kicking, keep wailing and gnashing your teeth. Elder Oaks is a Prophet, Seer,
and Revelator. That's a fact. Period.
To DavidYou cant just make things up, there is a legal process to
starting a religion.Nice try tho.
Respected by whom? That is the real question.
Joe | 12:41 a.m. Oct. 19, 2009If you're reading,On your
last post, you were chiding me for shame for not replying to your post. You
only gave several dozen of pages to read, my friend and I applaud that we can
engage in researched study.Can we agree not to call each other
hater? It diffuses the issue from the issue to personal.Answers to
your studies forthcoming.
To JoeOn the issue of domestic violence in hetero households versus
versus gay households.Your source said the following:"Is
domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National
Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged
18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in
homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given
time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex
partnerships. The National Criminal victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999
reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of
domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women
reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently
reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married."There are
several issues I need to take with this study. Would you please regard,
To Joe Re: Domestic violence in hetero households versus gay households* This is contracted by statistics released by The American Bar
Association where they cite,11% of lesbians reported violence by
their female partner and 15% of gay men who had lived with a male partner
reported being victimized by a male partner. Patricia Tjaden,
Symposium on Integrating Responses to Domestic Violence: Extent and Nature of
Intimate Partner Violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women
Survey, 47 Loy. L. Rev. 41, 54 (2003).The presentation of this other
set of statistics is quite different than what your study showed. I tried to
find a source which was not right conservative fundamentalist Christian and at
the same was not biased towards the LGBT community to find some objectivity.Further, the statistics with male-female levels of domestic violence
incidents are not defended in other sources:In a 1995-1996 study
conducted in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, nearly 25% of women and
7.6% of men were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former
spouse, cohabiting partner, or dating partner/acquaintance at some time in their
"Religious freedom does not require government benefits.” The
separation of Church and State requires that the government allow the same
government benefits to individual citizens regardless of religious moral
objections. Now, if there is a solid, proven detriment to other members of
society when such benefits are allowed, it is permissible for the government to
deny those benefits. When there is NO solid, proven detriment to anyone it does
not matter how many people vote against it, they are stepping over the line
separating church and state if they try to deny those benefits. It was true in
the case of racial rights, it was true in the case of female rights, it is true
in the case of homosexual rights. America is a democratic republic (not just a
democracy) which promises that the church doesn't get to tell whomever they want
what to do just because they are able to sway a majority of voters. No church is
allowed to break the violation of church and state by creating "moral" laws that
deny rights to people who harm no one by having them.
To the person who wrote that the following is a great history on Mormons---No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, by Fawn Brodie Fawn Brodie won acclaim when her book was first published. The interesting
thing is that she later wrote a biography on Thomas Jefferson, in which she used
the same tactics that she used in her book on Joseph Smith. The Jefferson book
was, of course, reviewed by many prominent US historians, who then soundly
scolded the author for her fiction. Brodie changed sources that she quoted in
her Jefferson book to help make her point. After that fiasco she was a
disgraced historian.And interestingly enough, no one had checked her
source material for the Smith book, which when it was discovered that she had
altered source material for the Jefferson book, LDS historians did some checking
on their own. Guess what? Brodie did the same thing in her biography on Joseph
Smith. She is a charlatan and a discredited academic historian.
To Joe, on Sexual Orientation and Mental and Physical Health StatusYour source read,"Results. Gay/lesbian participants reported more
acute mental health symptoms than heterosexual people and their general mental
health also was poorer. Gay/lesbian people more frequently reported acute
physical symptoms and chronic conditions than heterosexual people. Differences
in smoking, alcohol use, and drug use were less prominent. Conclusions. We found that sexual orientation was associated with mental as
well as physical health. The causal processes responsible for these differences
by sexual orientation need further exploration."Source: American
Journal of Public Health, June 2006.Absent from this study is the
following:* What if anything, does suppression play into the role
of these causes.The study did not try to find causes, incidentally,
and by its very wording, "the causal processes.... need further exploration."This study Joe, is not definitive by its own admission.
"The law must only treat them equally."Not true, "Don't like it
then...", the law may not prohibit actions based on religious morality, only
based on benefit or harm to the citizens. American Indians could not hunt bald
eagles because they used to be endangered, even though it is a part of some
tribes' religious practices. Now that they are no longer endangered there should
be provisions made to allow some native Americans to hunt them - the prohibition
is no longer based an a perceived harm. There is no credible evidence anywhere
that homosexuals being married harms anyone. Laws against them are a violation
of the laws separating church and state. The Mormons made that abundantly clear
in their crusade during Proposition 8.
"People who are vehemently and vociferously outspoken against any organization,
and the LDS church in particular, become that way due to disaffection, and
offense that they take. Usually, it is people who prefer to find their "freedom"
to pursue happiness or indulgent behavior outside of the guides and mores that
practicing LDS find as our root to freedom and happiness. In other words, those
who have transgressed, sinned against, or cannot live up to or within the
liberating lifestyle of the obedient are those most likely to claim injustice
and hypocracy or irrelevence of organized religion, based on their prideful
claims of mistreatment or higher intellectual powers, which of course are mostly
as a result of covering said transgressions, sins, or attitudes." This is simply not true. It is a convenient story religions tell their members
so that other members aren't tempted to take a long, hard, factual and rational
look at their religion and stop obeying and giving money to the organization.
"To the brother of the gay subject, why does he think he needs to "marry" to be
happy? What is wrong with a civil ceremony, recognized by civil authorities, and
granting him legal rights of partnership? Why continue demanding "marriage?"
Marriage is reserved for one kind of pairing; gaining a religious body's
recognition and sanctification cannot be dictated. He can go on seeking
happiness in his way, or be conflicted and miserable over his choice." Perhaps his religion tells him it is a sin to fornicate and he does not wish
to sin but be married in according to his deity's wishes. And saying marriage is
reserved for, or means, what you CHOOSE to have it mean doesn't make it so.
Marriage is a loving commitment between two committed and mature adults. I don't
feel that it should be anything else. (i.e. No more 16 year old girls marrying
50 year old guys either -- legal with parental permission in most states but
Vince | 1:50 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009 Re: Arbitrary | 8:32 a.m. Oct. 19, 2009You wrote,"It takes 20-30 years for the consequences of
societal change to manifest themselves on a population"-------------------------------------Please go back and look at
that again. I did not write that - It was a response to me. My post is just
"So go ahead, keep punching, keep kicking, keep wailing and gnashing your
teeth."Ummmm, you guys are the ones weeping and playing the
persecution card again. People who believe in equal rights regardless of sexual
orientation will continue to stand for the rights of homosexuals, just as the
civil rights activists did until all men in America had access to their basic
To Rebeckah:The traditional family is what is important. That's it.
Bottom line. Gay marriage will never benefit society like the traditional
Svoboda | 9:37 a.m. Oct. 20, 2009 To Rebeckah:"The traditional
family is what is important. That's it. Bottom line. Gay marriage will never
benefit society like the traditional family."Please be clear that
that is only SOME traditional families. Some are so disfunctional that they are
a detriment to society. Some homosexual families are very
beneficial to society, since they are raising children that have been discarded
by their biological parents or the bio parents are so concerned with drugs, etc.
that they neglect or abuse these children.Why can't we support ALL
families? Why do we only support traditional families? What about single
parents? What about grandparents raising their grandchildren?Why
only traditional families?
"Why can't we support ALL families? Why do we only support traditional families?
What about single parents? What about grandparents raising their
grandchildren?Why only traditional families?"Hey, don't
blame Svoboda, take it up with "God" if you have a problem with it!
["Gay marriage will never benefit society like the traditional family."]there is no such thing as the "traditional" family, and hasn't been
since mayberry rfd. perhaps you've missed the last 50 years...
"What these two men (Joseph Smith & Brigham Young) were saying was
that nobody in this country could free the slaves until God decreed it was
time."So you honestly actually believe that God condoned slavery?
Humans owning other humans, treating them like animals? It was ok, until He
decided it wasn't?"Alma 3:6 clearly states that the darker skin was
a physical manifestation of the mark, which was the curse, not that the dark
skin was the curse"I thought only Catholics believed we were born
with sin. But it looks like the Mormons believe black people were.We
are all 99.9% genetically the same. We originated from what is now known as
Africa. Peoples who traveled to places colder and less sunny lost melatonin in
their skin.So, what say you?
The Danites did exist, and were documented in Mormon diaries and writings
beginning in 1838 Missouri.
The Pope has now authorized Anglicans to convert to Catholocism after their
split with Rome in 1534 when King Henry the VIII was refuse marriage annulment,
and create the Church of England and the King James Bible. Since the LDS
support and use King Henry's bible, which was re-written to support the Kings
ideology; does this mean that the LDS faithful will be granted the same rite?
That is, will the Vatican authorize LDS members to convert as Anglicans are now
allowed? Since the King James is invalid, and the LDS faith is based on the
King James, is it logical to suggest that the LDS will be allowed choose freely
not to use an invalid version of the Holy Bible?
We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;
we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.Ever hears
Polgamy was first introduced to the Church around 1834 or so. Many brethern did
not and I repeat did not practice it until they had arrived in the Salt Lake
Valley. Some of those who did practice, Joseph Smith and maybe a few others did
so after much consoltation with the Lord. Porter Rockwell was aquitted of such
a crime. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't but no one and I mean no one knows
for sure. Bennett as ex-member of the Church is the one who tried to tie it to
Joseph Smith. Again the case was dropped against Joseph Smith.Gallatin refused to allow Mormons to vote and this is what caused a so called
riot. Members of a mob kidnapped several (three) members of the Church and a
members of the Church went to get them. A battle ensued. Lies were told to
Governor Boggs of the so called Mormon involvement and thus the extermination
order was issued. Did you know this order was not removed until the 1980s?
That is right in the state of Missouri up until it was revoked a man could have
legally killed a Mormon.
I will not lie but the saints were admonished for some of the treatment they did
to the other members of Missouri. That was for those who moved from Jackson
County to Cass County. Joseph Smith formed a small body of Saints to try and
get the property back. In the end, they never fired a shot in anger over the
property. There were many lies told to cover-up the Mob violence in Missouri by
the Missouri militia that were sympathizers with the mobsters. People were
driven from their homes. Printing presses were destroyed. People were killed
for nothing more than their beliefs. Yea, we weren't perfect but we did not
kill, drive people from their homes or stop the printing presses in Missouri.
What you are stating is exactly what was spoken then and that it is it was okay
to kill a Mormon but no ok for them to defend themselves. That is where the
first admendment of the Constitution comes in. Our rights to religious freedom
were utterly destroyed and no government official whether at the state or
federal level was willing to intervene. We are using our rights as citizens to
@BillYou aren't too sharp on Iowa law, it takes TWO sucessive legislure's
votes to bring this ruling to a popular IA vote....HA!
Your posts show that you are not well informed about Mormon history. You would
do well to read some of the books listed above in the post "To Grandma" at 1:29
I hope everyone purchases something from the ads on these pages so this
"discussion" will have served it's purpose.
Arbitrary | 8:42 a.m. Oct. 20, 2009 I understood, I was
commenting to the person commenting on your original post so that we're good on
who said what.
I think the real question at issue is what do we think about the nature of
homosexuality? If we can answer that question (an obviously difficult, if almost
impossible task), we can then determine whether supporting/opposing it is right
or wrong.God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has
been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification
to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find
themselves answerable to God.Some portray legalization of so-called
same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is
a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to
raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the
family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve
traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional
prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
"How many [homosexuals] are beaten up, killed, fired, electroshock "therapied"
and other atrocities at the hands of Mormons? Apparently neither you, nor Elder
Oaks, want to admit to the persecution of homosexuals at the hands of faithful
LDS members. Hypocrite!"I know of zero incidents of "faithful LDS
members" who are capable or willing to participate in any of the persecution or
discrimination that you charge faithful LDS members with. Please share your
source(s) for these allegations.I have been a member of the LDS
church for over 40 years, and I have NEVER heard any living leader who has
taught such repulsive and morally wrong behavior. Likewise, I have NEVER read
any account of any former LDS leader teaching anything like what you are
alleging.The worst crimes in the world have been perpetrated by
members of nearly every faith, but that does not mean that those religions teach
or condone these behaviors. If anything you allege has actually
happened, know that the perpetrator is NOT in harmony with Church teachings and
would be disciplined and removed from the Church immediately and prosecuted.Reckless, unsubstantiated allegations of criminal discrimination by LDS
are slander and unfair.
To Anoynmous:I'm from Missouri at one point and time. I've study
extensively the Church's involvement in Missouri along with other books. I have
read journals of those who lived and died in Missouri during the riots. Yes, I
know what is in those books but as I stated, the saints were not perfect but
what you are stating is that it is ok to kill the Mormons simply because of
their beliefs. That is why we continue to fight for our first admendment rights
to do so.The saints living in Missouri were for the most part from
New England and were against slavery. Most of those living in Missouri were in
favor of slavery. It is true that Mormons were kept from voting in Gallatin.
Study Church history and you will find that not everything written is as it
seems even from those with a pro-Mormon twist.
re: Polygamy known before Missouri | 12:45 a.mIndeed, this is
what gets me about mormon apologists. Doctrine and Convenants section 132 spells
it out. Either the Lord was directing pologamy to be followed or Joseph Smith
and others were nothing but adulterers and pedophiles. Which would lead one to
ask the next question: why anyone would even want to follow a religion where
their presidents were adulterers?
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of
civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what
re: Eye in the churchBOY are you really OFF BASE !!!!!!!!I think that most likely 95% of strong praticing LDS members would agree with
this article!Where are you getting your facts/oponions??? Please
share them or quite trying to pass your lies arounds
Directed at 'Don't like it then...'My quote: "I disagree."His quote: 'No one cares if you disagree.' Hate to break it to you
but apparently you do. Also, your example that gay men/women have
'equal' rights since they have the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex,
just like straight people is, well, pathetic really. Your not even
taking into account the fact of someone's sexuality into this marriage. Let me put it another way. If I am gay, why would I want to marry
a person of the opposite sex? Foolish logic. Oh, and for
the 'being gay is a choice' crowd, I have one simple solution. If I
can change my sexuality... you first.
Regarding discrimination and who is the victimTrue, no one likes
being the victim and it is an incorrect assumption for some based on a single
event, or a "trend" via the buzz about who the victim is. Who wants to be
really?Nonetheless, when we look at statistics about hate crimes,
for examples, we find that in this day and age, hate crimes are still based
on:I quote in part#1 Racial biasAmong the
single-bias hate crime incidents in 2007, there were 4,956 victims of racially
motivated hate crime.■69.3 percent were victims of an
offender’s anti-black bias.■18.3 percent were victims of an
anti-white bias.■4.7 percent were victims of an anti-Asian/Pacific
Islander bias.#2 Religious biasOf the 1,628 victims of an
anti-religious hate crime:■69.2 percent were victims of an
offender’s anti-Jewish bias.■8.7 percent were victims of an
anti-Islamic bias.■4.3 percent were victims of an anti-Catholic
bias.■4.1 percent were victims of an anti-Protestant bias
a man, a woman:: in polygamy there is still only one legal marriage
Great article. Should educate people. Some will choose to ignore the facts. But
the fact is, Mormons have as strong a right to give voice to religious freedom
'a man, a woman:: in polygamy there is still only one legal marriage' Actually Tigerlily polygamy is against the law. It is very much, Ilegal.
Exactly! The LBGT community are the ones perpetrating the hate. they know that
very few people in america will accept marriage other than between a man and a
woman. They cannot convince people that that lifestyle is ok, so they have to
find another way to get people to accept their way of life by looking like the
victim, which they are not. The church didn't whine like babies after having
their churches vandalized, their members shunned by people in their own
community for simply exercising their right to express their opinion, etc. The
church has always maintained a position of loving your neighbor. This does not
equate to tolerance for sinful behavior, which the church cannot and should not
actually pagan, polygamy is one legal marriage and the other are mistress.
Adulty too is against the law
To Vince:As you are aware every prophet has basically stated that
Homosexuality is a choice. Now there is evidence that same sex gender
attraction may be otherwise. There are temptations as well as other weaknesses
we are born with just as same sex gender attraction. To act upon those impulses
is a CHOICE, plain and simple. There are many things that bother me but as long
as I don't act upon them then I am fine.The act of homosexuality is
what is sinnful and a grievous sin before our Father in Heaven and his son Jesus
Christ. You can easily love the sinner with all your heart, mind and spirit;
but still hate the sin itself. You know very well that there are those who have
same-sex attraction that have never acted upon it and though they may not marry
one of the opposite sex in this life, nor even have a loving mate, in the
eternities that will change. If they are true and faithful to the commandments
and the covenants they make they will be able to have a mate in the
eternities.Same-sex marriage is NOT ordainded of God.
Also, Tigrerlily, who cares about polygamy when there was never-ever a
revelation to practice such a vile act. It has always ONLY been a mans
revelation, and a made-up one at that. There are a FEW men who automatically
have such revelations. Some of these men decide to use God for their cover-up
which is a transgression in itself by using the LORDS NAME IN VAIN. Men on earth
are clever connivers and can be quite mischievous. I pray someday your eyes are
opened. The mind is a fragile and easily manipulated organ.
TO Pagan:: no one has never been tried and covicted of polygamy
["a man, a woman:: in polygamy there is still only one legal marriage"]only one legal marriage? polygamy means multiple wives. so the husband has
multiple marriages. how do you get one legal marriage out of that? perhaps you need to look up the definition of polygamy...
This is directed at Adam's last post. Wow. I'm not
even going to quote the entire thing. To quote Anchorman "I'm not even upset,
I'm amazed.' I don't think the LGBT community is hateful, I think
they are angry. Members of the LDS church can marry a person of
consenting age. (In some places, more than one) A gay man/woman
cannot. The LDS church preaches 'love the sinner, not the sin'. So
by definition, a gay person is a sinner. Regardless of actions taken but rather
by intent. And even thought the American Phsychological Association
(150k members) calls 're-orientation' attempts 'harmful' many LDS members claim
1) sexuality is a choice and 2) It should be changed. No one is
questioning the ability of religious groups to express opinion. Just
the logic of it. For example, if the LDS church is so perpetrating
love, why do the actively campaign against marriage? OR is that only
ok to do if your doing it to a gay person?
Why is it understood to be persecution/discrimination if someone voices his/her
opinion? Guess what? We live in a place where from time to time you may hear
things you may not agree with. That does not mean you are being persecuted or
discriminated against. Call me crazy, but I thought that was the whole point of
a free society...
"The LBGT community are the ones perpetrating the hate."Really?
Prove it, please. Mormon's play the victim card so willingly. Most of us just
ignore your melodramatics."they know that very few people in america
will accept marriage other than between a man and a woman."You are
very wrong about that. MANY people are willing to see marriage be defined as a
legal contract between two consenting adults. The era of homophobic hatred an
backlash is ending. I wonder why that frightens so many religious people? Afraid
that without a boogyman to enrage people against they'll lose their hold on
"The church didn't whine like babies after having their churches vandalized,
their members shunned by people in their own community for simply exercising
their right to express their opinion, etc."It didn't? Then what was
Oaks' speech about? Sounded like whining to me. The same sort of whining that
brings up "persecution", "martyrdom", and "extermination order" every time the
rest of the world mocks their hypocrisy and unloving attitude.
'no one has never been tried and covicted of polygamy' How would one
prove it? Oh, and technically Tom Green was convicted of Bigamy.
However, in a 'spiritual' sense he was a polygamist. Last
Tigerlilly, I am glad your only doing a 'name drop' with polygamy and gay
marriage. Because anyone defending the LDS church's right to freedom
while quoting polygamy against gay marriage is pointless. As the
majority of gay men/women do NOT have the legal right to marry the person
(singular, one) person of they're choosing, and the LDS church has a history of
the ability to marry multiple (more than one) person of they're choosing in the
past. As polygamy is still very much illegal, in all 50 states,
though very hard to prove. As many only consider polygamist marriage
'spiritual' as to avoid legal consequence.
tigerlily | 10:52 a.m. Oct. 21, 2009 TO Pagan:: no one has never been
tried and covicted of polygamy.False. They arrested plenty of LDS
men during the 1920's. They used to be housed in the prison that was situated
where sugarhouse park is now.I think that just a decade or so ago, a
man named Green was convicted of polygamy, remember?You need to read
a little, tigerlilly.
WOOL is for clothing::: Yes there was a revelation. My eyes are wide open.
and the texas FLDS guys are probably going to jail for it. (i know - they
aren't LDS in your eyes... but they are in us regular folk's eyes...)
How come polygamy always seems to come into LDS story's? Are some out there
trying to run everyone off?Anyone who practices polygamy is short of
being normal. Polygamy is cult not a religion. There should not be any FREEDOM
for sex abusers who hide behind God.
Anonymous, by the 1920s the church was excommunicating those practicing
polygamy. In the late 1800s those still practicing polygamy went to the mexican
colonies where some still live today.
RESPONSE TO COMMENT POSTED BY GWB4:34a.m.Oct.18,2009 In your final
paragraph you state, "that minority religions attacked the religious freedom of
the baptists to pray at their football games?"How blind to the truth and
misleading can you be?Nothing could be further from the truth!Your own statements indicate that the intent of the students who raised the
issue, was to secure to themselves the same right afforded to the"baptists","to pray at their football games?" and not, to bring"the practice to an
end."Furthermore, it was not the LDS and Catholic studentswho
ended "the practice" but the judges of the landwho handed down the final
decision, which made the whole thing a lose/lose situation rather than a win for
anyone concerned, except for Satan and his emissaries.Sadly these
judges exercise what must be described as "Legal Wisdom", which bears no
resemblance to either common sense or THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON, both of which were
highly valued in times past, but seem to have become extinct in so many venues
of our present day.Now I ask, does this not strike you, as Ironic?
If Latter Day Saints spent as much time sharing the gospel as we do defending
the gospel then we would see millions of people joining the church.People are
less interested in knowing why we think other churches are wrong and more
interested in knowing what we have and why we believe it to be true.
You are correct. A lot of lunatics posting here..lol I have never read so much
garbage in weeks.
Good point, but I know of almost no one who spends time talking about why we
think other churches are wrong. That seems to be the M.O. of the "born again
Christians." I know there are some folks out there who are offended when they
ask Mormons if we think our church is THE true Church. There's nothing to be
ashamed of. There is one Lord, one faith, one truth.We can be firm
in our convictions and still be kind about it. But all of this political
correctness is getting carried away.
'Anonymous, by the 1920s the church was excommunicating those practicing
polygamy.' That is because before that point the LDS church was
endorcing those practicing polygamy tigerlilly. After Utah was to be a state
this changed. Not before. To pretend otherwise is a lie. And
last, people try to be 'politically corret' due to much discrimination and bias
in the world. There is no harm in trying to be polite. However, if
you feel like burning a cross on somoene's lawn, or 'ringing up' a person of
color on a tree, well that's you. And working to deny marriage to a
pair of consenting adults is not 'kind.' Many would say it's cruel.
to - Anonymous | 1:48 p.m | 4:46 p.m. Oct. 21, 2009 and the texas FLDS
guys are probably going to jail for it. (i know - they aren't LDS in your
eyes... but they are in us regular folk's eyes...) The flds are not
re: Anonymous | 1:32 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009 //Laugh at our religion all you
want.In fact, laugh to your heart's content.//I'm not
laughing. Just highlighting some of the naivety, ignorance, & cognitive
dissonance.//We don't care what you or the world thinks.//Your posting here suggests otherwise.//We do, however, fear God
and care what he thinks.//Therein is the problem not only with the
LDS mindset but Organized/revealed religion in general.Being
motivated by fear and what someone else expects NEVER works out well. God is
compassionate & understanding. Honestly and sincerely doing better today than
you did yesterday (i.e. continual self-improvment)is all He wants IMO.There are ALOT of people myself included who are going to be really surprised
when we get to Heaven.
re: Hank | 6:36 p.m. Oct. 19, 2009 Exactly. Something about all men
are created equal, equal protection under the law, & life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.It seems to me that the LDS hierarchy and
members can dish it but can't take it. This only validates the
persecution complex and justifies the false sense of entitlement that they are
the "chosen ones"
re: Leni10 | 6:41 a.m. Oct. 20, 2009 The Truth? You can't handle the
truth. Especially when it turns out your light years away from it.
I guess according to many of you the mormons should not persecute other
americans who don't have their same beliefs. So should we let Miss Smarts
kidnapper go because he was following his beliefs and they don't go along with
ours. OF COURSE NOT! It's not easy to stand up for what's right but have some
backbone and do it! I hate these comments in the DN that talk about illegals and
gays and people classify all mormons as being anti whatever. I'm a Mormon and I
don't hate or dislike anyone. I may not agree with their life style or whatever
but I still care about them. Let's move on and be mature about this. We have a
right to say we disagree with what you do but it doesn't mean we hate you. WE
JUST DISAGREE!!! Love you all. Have a great day!
What I find most interesting is that we Mormons like to wave the "religious
freedom" banner, but I hear so much condescension about Muslims, Evangelicals,
Seventh-Day Adventists...the list goes on.I've even heard people in
our church say Muslim women in the U.S. should have to take off their burquas.
(Sorry if I spelled that wrong.)We tend to forget - conveniently, so
- the last part of the 11th Article of Faith: "...and allow all men the same
privilege. Let them worship HOW, WHERE, and WHAT they may."The
knife cuts both ways.We receive the persecution when others feel
persecuted by us. Others come after OUR way of life, when they see us coming
There was never ever any revelation for polygamy. This practice has always been
made up by men to give them more sex partners. It's also wrong to use Gods name
in such a vain manner to benefit ones sexual desires. I would have to say that
these kinds of men no doubt are condemning themselves to eternal damnation.
There is no such thing as defending perversion in the name of religion. The two
do not go hand to hand.
Are Mormons so against gay marriage because they think the Church will be forced
to perform gay temple marriages? Because, technically, I'm LDS, but I didn't
get married in the temple because my husband and I didn't have recommends. Gay
Marriage would be a civil ceremony, like we had. So, what's the big deal? How
does it affect you Mormons if gays are allowed to marry? Please do not
compare it to allowing someone to marry their pet, or to pedophilia, and please
don't say how you don't hate the gays, and how hey, they're allowed to call it a
civil union. Why don't 2 consenting committed adults in love deserve the same
societal rights as the rest of us? Why do you care? What is it to you? How
will it affect YOUR own personal life?
"The flds are not mormons"Then the LDS are not Christians. In fact,
the FLDS are closer to LDS in theology than the LDS are to most of Christianity
and than most of Christianity is to Judaism. Futhermore, the FLDS certainly seem
to be living the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young more closely than
any mainstream LDS.Just pointing that out.
"Mr. Cannon, you forgot to mention that it was a Mormon girls that also ended
the practice of prayers at school before football games and other activities.We often hear that religion is under attack because prayer is not
allowed in school, but it was an LDS girl and a catholic student that brought
the practice to an end.After being denied the right to say the
prayer at their Texas high school football game because they were not of the
prevailing religion, the mormon and catholic kids sued and won all the way to
the supreme court.Now I hear that people from these same religions
are using their religion to deny rights to other individuals.Does
that strike anyone as Ironic?"Thank you, poster GWB for bringing
that up! I love to throw that in people's faces at church when they start with
"religion's under attack" because there's no prayer in public school. Wouldn't everyone be in such a tizzy if the Muslims started praying or if a
"Church of the Devil Worshipper" started demanding the right to pray in our
little kids' classrooms.It works both ways and all ways.
Criticism is one thing. False and malicious adds, vandalism of buildings,
threats of bombing, boycotting people out of their jobs, and many related things
are another. They are a set of actions that should not be engaged in.
To the 5:16 commentator, I did in the past point out that a clear
implication of Elder Oaks talk was that people should not refuse to vote for
people because they are Muslims (or Budhists, or whatever). I think I
said something to that effect in one of my posts to the Deseret News, I am not
sure if it got posted. There was a bizarre claim that somehow people in
Utah voting straigt Republican tickets violated this principal. While I have
never voted a straight ticket, and in most elections with more than six races
manage to vote for at least one third party candidate, I do not see voting
straight party as a violation of religious freedom. I think the
reasons that this has not been brought up is because those who hate Elder Oaks
can not skew this as a bad thing, and those who really do refuse to vote for
someone because they are a Muslim have not yet realized that Elder Oaks called
I sat 13 rows away from Elder Oaks when he gave this talk at BYU Idaho. I
listened to the entire talk and not just the section of it that people get
sensitive about. The talk was ment to give wisdom and encouragement to those
that will be active in our government for years. The section of gay marriage was
only a portion and example of what he wanted to teach. It was not an attack on a
group of people. He laid out the simple facts that traditional marriage has been
on the earth for thousands of years and that defending it is protecting civil
rights, not destroying them. He has been in law his whole career and he knows
what he is talking about. How many people noticed that the talk was to teach,
not attack? He encouraged my peers and I to give in to intimidation like the
kind that followed prop. 8 voting. Threats were dealt out to church members and
buildings were vandalized. Despite this his first point of council was for us to
speak with love despite the reaction of others.
To David 12:20 am Oct 20You say laws prevent your church from
performing a same-sex marriage. This need not be true if your church would
separate its ceremony from the state. As before, if I were pastor of such a
church in CA, I would perform the marriage ceremony according to my beliefs and
help the couple register as domestic partners (same rights in CA, but not
federal).I have checked this with a lawyer in CA. It works if you
separate church from state.Politically, I think the quest to change
the definition of marriage or even to extend domestic partner rights has been
hurt by the harassment of Prop 8 supporters. I understand the anger. Much of it
stems from reliance on an activist court and misunderstanding of distinctions
between state and federal laws and religious freedoms.
In support of the 10:52 commentator, In around 1972 the United States
Supreme Court specifically ruled that defining marriage as the union of a man
and a woman did not violate the constitution.
"The LDS are not Christians"Who are you to say? You don't determine
who I do or don't worship. Saying someone isn't Christian because they chose to
accept the 15 or so passages in the Bible forbidding homosexuality is on pretty
shaky ground in my humble opinion.
In 1984 the Utah Supreme Court ruled that mormons were christians. It is done
and you can stuff that in your sock. Go away haters and antis.
(The LDS are not Christians)"Who are you to say? You don't determine
who I do or don't worship. Saying someone isn't Christian because they chose to
accept the 15 or so passages in the Bible forbidding homosexuality is on pretty
shaky ground in my humble opinion."You miss my point. I don't
actually worry about determining whether or not LDS are Christians. However, IF
the FLDS are not "Mormons" THEN the "Mormons" cannot be Christians. The
arguments used to claim exlusivity are the same in both cases. In other words,
if you can deny FLDS their "Mormon-ness" then "Christians" can deny you your
"Christian-ness" and Jews can deny "Christians" their "Jewish-ness". Get it?
Sorry, didn't mean to post as anonymous. That response to Christian-ness and
Mormon-ness was me.
"In 1984 the Utah Supreme Court ruled that mormons were christians. It is done
and you can stuff that in your sock. Go away haters and antis."sighAgain, I am not claiming that Mormons are not Christians. I am
pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that the FLDS are not Mormons while
claiming to be Christian over the assertion by mainstream Chrsitians that you
aren't. Also, the Utah Supreme Court hardly applies to me. I'm not a citizen of
Utah.I just wonder. Are you (or perhaps the original poster who made
the claim that FLDS aren't Mormons) FLDS haters and antis? Just curious.
To Rebeckah - I am impressed with your prolific posting and wonder if this late
response will catch your eye.You responded to my comment that
"Religious freedom does not require government benefits” by essentially
saying that the government should not discriminate on individual benefits based
on religious objections. I agree. That is a different issue. Our government did
not create marriage and the people have voted to maintain the traditional
definition.CA gives the same rights to domestic partners as married
couples and we may see more states and the federal government do the same by
vote or legilslation. We still have a need for different words for different
associations. Your definition of marriage as a loving commitment between two
mature adults is overly broad. Should I be able to continue my mother's Social
Secuirty benefits or have her estate pass tax free (if she were super wealthy)
to me by claiming your new definition of marriage?Some laws have put
more obligations on married couples - debt, income tax disadvantages, etc. Our
laws have many ways of making distinctions that are not discrimination against
It is not only funny but highly bizarre that Mormons fight against same sex
marriage. Are we talking about the very same Mormons who practiced polygamy? And
STILL would be if it were not put set into law as illegal. Mormon polygamy case
went all the way to the supreme court in George Reynolds vs United States and
polygamy was made illegal in 1862. The same Mormon's trying to tell others how
to live? LOL!The more you try to suppress people the more revolt.
Live and Let Live! Let people alone just as you wish to be left alone. The whole
middle east conflict that has been going on for thousands of years is all about
religious fanatics trying to control others. Leave people alone!! Same sex
marriages have nothing to do with Mormons or anyone else. They are not hurting
you, have nothing to do with you.....
Chris,I tried to respond to your post but apparently my responses weren't
acceptable to the censors. Feel free to contact me via e-mail if you really want
to have a discussion. I use the same name as a Google blogger. (Not that I have
a blog -- I just post on Google blogs.) I have an e-mail with it.By
the way, I don't think I was in any way rude, so I'm not sure why my posts were
censored. Oh well, it happens. ;)
They are still going on about this at the Trib. Most haven't even read the talk,
then they show us exactly what Elder Oaks is talking about. It is ok in America
to hate one for his/her religion, and rights are being taken away. And if you
mention it, well, you'll get more hate. I will make three posts. Don't know if
the editors will want it all here.
Mormons sought to practice polygamy in the privacy of their homes and
ceremonies. It was not a quest for government benefits or redefining marriage
through the courts. The 1878 Reynolds case confirmed the traditional definition
of marriage. Then subsequent laws and enforcement lead to government abuses
where homes were invaded, families torn apart, and assets were seized.In the 1960's, the Loving v Virginia case corrected the abuse of government
invading the home of a biracial couple. Proposition 8 confirms the traditional
definition of marriage consistent with prior votes. Domestic partners have the
same rights in CA and Mormons support these rights. No one is invading homes or
private ceremonies. For those who want to change state or federal laws, muster
the votes and avoid harassment.
Rebeckah,I found that posts may not be accepted if they include a
web link. I found a Google blogger listing with Rebeckah and posted a note, but
was not sure if it ws the right one.See fairlds org site for Prop 8.
See blacklds org site re comparisons to race issues. I would also get comments
on this site.
No, Chris, that wasn't me. Look for Rebeckah Mae in Eastern Washington -- I
think that narrows me down properly. Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how
this blogging stuff works. ;)