Comments about ‘Gay groups disagree with Elder Oaks’

Colour me surprised.

I do not believe in hatred or bigotry. I DO believe in supporting those things which support the long-term well-being of society. Traditional marriage is one of those things. You can not logically complain that something (in this case the ability of gays to marry) has been taken away if it has not existed in the first place. Traditional marriage is the status quo (that which now exists). To make a change, you must convince society that the change is beneficial to society - that it is superior to the status quo. It is not a "right". There is no right to marry. It is a privelege. You must meet the qualifications as to age and sex (meaning heterosexual). That is the status quo.

Homosexuality has historically not even been tolerated. It now is in most western cultures, but that does not mean it should be given the same status legally as marriage. What you do in private is your business but don't ask me to condone it or give you the same legal standing as traditional marriage unless the majority of society agrees - and don't tell churches that they have no right to speak out about what they see as a moral issue. That is what they are supposed to do.

...and the wind continues to blow....

It's hard to say I believe in what Christ taught and then practise homosexuality. That is not what the Savior taught. He taught us to put off the natural man and become like him, as Elder Oaks and the other Church Leaders have taught us.

Those Mormons...how dare they stand up for what they believe???? How dare they exercise their religious freedoms??? How dare they fight for the right to keep their children from being indoctrinated by government legislated gender role re-education???


The nerve!

I don't think separation of church and state means that churches can't voice an opinion and create change (or keep status quo). These aren't state-run religions, they are private organizations not affiliated with the government. I believe the church did what was perfectly within its rights, and if people believe in preserving marriage, what's to stop them? This isn't an I'm right, you're wrong, fact is fact thing. It can't be, because both sides believe the other is wrong (the majority of Christians believe one way) to some degree. If I don't believe that homosexuality is right, and a gay person doesn't believe that God is real, we are at an impasse, and we are left to the voting machine. I really don't see anything wrong with that. Better than protests and riots and anything else.

You shouldn't preface your comment with how you don't believe in bigotry, and then procede to bigot all over the place. However, you're doing a great job of staying on point throughout these comment boards! But me thinks thou dost protest too, too much. What skin off your nose (that you love to stick into other people's business) is it if gay couples get married? I mean, really?

Elder Oaks was all about freedom of religion. That is the right to believe your religion and not be forced to change those beliefs. The LDS church believe that marriage is a "contract" between a man and a woman. A very fundamental part of the LDS belief. Being forced to believe or act differently would take away that freedom. The next step will be to force the church to perform same sex marriage. You can also toss in the mix affirmative action adoptions. The threat would be defranchising the religion, in other words the right to worship. That is why you could say that the LDS church if fighting for it's religious freedoms all over again. I believe the LDS church will welcome anyone to the church as long as that person will follow the doctrine of the church. Unfortunately there are those who want to force the church to change it's beliefs. That is flat out wrong!

Gay marriage did NOT exist in California until a judge decided to legislate from the bench, creating a legal loophole that allowed it for a brief time. He did not create a 'right' or allow something that was denied unjustly.

Prop 8 was put before the public, to vote up or down. People supported one side or another, groups rallied, fought for their causes. It was ultimately denied by a fair vote, straight and simple. A right was not taken away, rather a privilege was allowed for a time and then removed because more Californians than not disapproved of what the judicial branch allowed without their approval.

Hard to believe it's one year later and we're still talking about this. Nobody's talking about how John McCain should have won anymore! Let it go.

McC,first off bigot is a noun not a verb. Second just having an opinion contrary to someone else's, doesn't make one a bigot. What Shaun was saying is the MAJORITY of california doesn't want gay marriage. Our society is founded for the people by the people, and a minority shouldn't get their way as they so often seem to get in this day and age of law suits galore.

This nation is afraid to stand up for their beliefs because of people who yell bigotry every time they don't get what they want. Honestly I am surprised that something passed that did upset a vocal minority.

I am also proud to be a member of a church that isn't afraid of standing for it's right of speech and beliefs. Elder Oaks' comments may be upsetting to some, but he didn't say anything contrary to what we believe. He didn't tell anyone to go out and persecute anyone. All he did was tell his fellow members to protect what they believe, if someone feels the need to force silence on us because it is contrary to their beliefs, that is bigotry.

Elder Oaks exerted his right to free speech in encouraging his fellow Mormons to support the beliefs of their church. That allows all those who support gay marriage free to support those who believe in gay marriage to support those beliefs. And it also means, if gay marriage is ever legislated into being, it gives each church the right to marry only those whom they believe have that right to marriage in their church's doctrine. That said, Mormons won't have to perform gay marriages because they believe they are against their churches beliefs. Each church will have to determine what their own church's doctrine says.
This isn't gonna happen overnight, so give it a rest already!

From an LDS perspective - am I reading that some current members (which accept the idea of an Apostle being called of God and speaking with authority from the Lord) thinks it is OK to then disagree with that voice?

Now that is obviously faithful people indeed...wickedness never is happiness.

“Four gay advocacy groups… released a joint statement Friday disagreeing with points made… in a speech on freedom of religion by Elder Dallin H. Oaks…”

“The statement called the church's decision to advocate for traditional marriage an attempt to force its belief system on others”

I have a few questions about this.

1) How is Elder Oaks forcing his “belief system on others” by openly speaking of his beliefs? Seems to me the “Four gay advocacy groups” aren’t doing anything different from Elder Oaks by openly voicing their disagreement with his disagreement.
2) How is an LDS Church leader giving a speech at an LDS Church based university “an attempt to force its belief system on others”? Elder Oaks was giving counsel to his fellow members. That is part of his position in the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
3) >50% of Californians voted for Proposition 8. So if 50% voted for Proposition 8 then how is it all the LDS Church’s fault gay advocates failed?

Elder Oaks spoke openly of his beliefs. That's his right under the first ammendment. He isn't forcing any one to agree.

Marriage was set up by God because the family is ordained of God and it will continue into the eternities.

Marriage was set up by government because governments have a vested interest in the promotion of self-sustaining role of birthing and raising children. When a marriage is disolved the government's role in divorce is to establish who will educate, feed, clothe, house, and care for the children from the marraige. It is as important for government to arrange for those issues at the inception of a marriage as it is at the end. That's the purpose of government instituted marriage. To establish a contract between husband and wife that they will be responsible for the education, housing, clothing, feeding, and care of the children who may come into that marriage.

God-ordained marriage and government-ordained marriage share the same purpose. Its about the children.

You can call gay unions whatever you want, but they are not marriage and they should not be ordained in any way by the state. They don't produce any children, and the state should simply ignore any claims otherwise. Marriage is about the kids.

There is a reason for the scripture "Many are called, but few are chosen" -Doctrine and Covenants 121:34+40. That is also why many members say the church is perfect, but the people aren't.

Even Members are not forced to agree with the leaders of the LDS church. All are allowed their agency under the law of God. That is why we have the Plan of Salvation. Chrsit came to redeem us from the mistakes we make in the flesh if we call on him in repentance and obey his commandments. Elder Oaks gave his counsel now it is up to the members to do with that what they choose. If they disagree, and obviously some do, then that is their choice. It only goes to show how wrong these advocacy groups are that he is trying to force his belief system on anyone; even those who claim they share his belief system.

If you want to believe marriage is ordained of God, you are allowed to under the Constitution of the United States. What you are explicitly NOT allowed to do under the Constitution of the United States is write laws because God said so.

Someone help me out with a little detail. The article stated that, "The groups called for the LDS Church to reconsider the funding it has provided for public campaigns to support traditional marriage."

I thought it had been established that members of the LDS church contributed time and money, but that the corporation of the LDS church did not contribute money to the campaign concerning Proposition 8.

Somebody clear up my confusion on this point.

to contest with a previous statement, there have been cultures and governments that have condoned, supported , and even expected "homosexual" acts. Young men in anceient Rome were instructed by their tutors in every way, and to the Romans that included sexual education through male to male intercourse. I am just citing the historical fact that not all societies in the scope of time rejected male to male lovemaking. Now, I personally, do not condone homosexual acts, but that does not mean I hate gays. I would ask that if they have homosexual feelings they remain celebate, like we ask of our heterosexual single members. They abstain form sexual acts that do not maintain and uplift the family. I don't beleive it should be condoned in others. While I do not think you can choose who yuo are attracted to persay, you can choose to not induldge your lusts and passions. This beign said, If that group feels that they need to publicly disagree with Elder Oaks, that is their choice. But I truly know this to be the church of God, adn His laws will ruel out in the end.

If you are going to condemn gays by using bible verses you can't just pick and choose who to hate and oppose, you have to condemn everything else that the Bible lists and God considers sinful or an abomination.

After all the Bible tells us that shrimps, lobsters, crabs and mussels are all an abomination before the Lord.

So, if you consider that gays are an abomination and protest against gay marriage, same sex unions or the gay lifestyle in general, why are you not also part of the Christian crusade aimed at restaurants that oppose God's law by selling 'abominable' seafood?