Reader comments
Text from LDS church regarding Salt Lake City's non-discrimination ordinance
62 comments | Read story
Matt from California | 7:34 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
This is a great story. All of these media sites try to pigeon whole the Church
with a label of hate and yet here the Church is supporting right, dignity, and
civility even as it stand by it position on marriage. Well done. Well done.
The Church has it right.
Excellent News! | 7:35 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
What a terrific approach for the LDS Church to take. Great news!
Comments continue below
JJE | 7:38 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Very well said. The Church has made clear it's viewpoint while showing
respect for the views of others. Love it! And remember, there will be those
who will be angry and say uncommonly hateful things about the church simply
because they disagree and have no real leg to stand on. When the critics of the
church run out of logical reasoned thought to go on, they turn to spewing
garbage and hate. When the church disagrees with a person or group of peoples
viewpoints about certain issues they are kind and respectful.
5th gen Brainwash escapee | 7:41 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"I represent a church that believes in human dignity, in treating others
with respect even when we disagree — in fact, especially when we
disagree.
What a crock of BS...
What a crock of BS...
wandrew | 7:43 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The Church continues to try and distance itself from the redicals like Senator
Buttars, and that is admirable. They could do more, but they are always
cautions on such things, and this is at least as good as we could hope for. For
this gesture, I say "thanks".
Gert | 7:46 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The point that was also made, which seems to be missed in these comments, is
that they are respectful of others and their views and when they disagree they
do it with respect. That is something that is good to remember as we add
comments.
Chris | 7:47 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The fact remains that from the governments perspective marriage is simply a
contract. Denying two consenting adults from entering into this contract while
allowing others is wrong. It is supporting inequality. All men are created
equal.
MM | 7:50 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I don't see what's shocking about this. It's the stance that the
Church has always taken and always will. It's not like the Church has moved
in its position on any issue in any way. No one has ever been taught to be
hateful or discriminate in any meeting I have heard of.
The teachings have anyways been to love your neighbor and treat others with Christlike love and dignity, and at the same time sticking up for your values.
The teachings have anyways been to love your neighbor and treat others with Christlike love and dignity, and at the same time sticking up for your values.
Matt | 7:51 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
"while safeguarding the crucial rights of religious organizations, for
example, in their hiring of people whose lives are in harmony with their
tenets"
Sounds like discrimination of faith
"Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society"
Sounds like discrimination "Just shut up" Matt
Sounds like discrimination of faith
"Our language will always be respectful and acknowledge those who differ, but will also be clear on matters that we feel are of great consequence to our society"
Sounds like discrimination "Just shut up" Matt
One Human Family | 8:06 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
I am very happy that the church leaders are supporting the non-discrimination
ordinance. I still disagree with their stance against marriage equality (my gay
brother and his partner of 10 years have just as much of a right to obtain a
CIVIL marriage as my wife and I do!), but the fact that the church came out in
support of this ordinance instead of remaining silent is a positive sign. I
hope they are doing this because it is the right thing to do and not because
they just want to stem the criticism due to Proposition 8 and the kissing
incident in the Plaza.
Anonymous | 8:23 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
we have freedom make the right chose with it,this life is a test also,the
saviour is our only guide.
Jan | 9:03 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Great statement and position - I can only hope that people who disagree will be
equally respectful when defending their beliefs.
The LDS church and others were perfectly within their rights to get involved with Prop 8 and the "kissing/groping/vulgarity incident" was on LDS church property. They have dealt fairly with people who come onto their property and people need to respect the rights of religions as well.
The LDS church and others were perfectly within their rights to get involved with Prop 8 and the "kissing/groping/vulgarity incident" was on LDS church property. They have dealt fairly with people who come onto their property and people need to respect the rights of religions as well.
Re: One human family | 9:09 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
The church has always had the stance of defence of traditional marriage, so
there actions here are of no surprise. What is shocking though is some people
raction to this, for instance, fox13now article on this shows the attitude
towards the LDS, appluading the action while still insulting them with
assuptions and implied accusation. This is not a first step, this is merely one
of many that have always fell in line with the churches beliefs and teachings.
People just fail to acknowledge what the church believes and make up their own
assumptions and distortions.
The church has already shown it is willing to compromise, too bad none of their opponents have shown the same gestures of kindness that the LDS have embraced, as shown in their disrespect for the churches private property rights and the need to blame them for prop 8 which decided through a democratic system which the members have every right to participate in.
The church has already shown it is willing to compromise, too bad none of their opponents have shown the same gestures of kindness that the LDS have embraced, as shown in their disrespect for the churches private property rights and the need to blame them for prop 8 which decided through a democratic system which the members have every right to participate in.
Steve Foster | 9:26 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Sorry for missing the bandwagon, but I think whoever made this decision may have
acted rashly.
If churches have a crucial right to see that the lives of those constituting their corporate entities are "harmonious" with church opinions, then any business-owner or residence-owner anywhere has an identical right. And it's true; only in socialized nations are such rights withheld from "private sector" participants.
My political view is that I hope this ordinance is defeated, despite its backing. I don't see how it would change things anyway unless its scope were expanded; it seems more a goodwill gesture. If it is expanded, it will be yet another disservice to business owners. Think about it: the ones who already hire without regard to personal morality wouldn't need the ordinance, and those who adhere to certain moral standards would have their choices overridden and their work-place religious freedom marginalized.
Well, whatever. If Church spokesmen care for the Church's interests, then let us private citizens care for our own interests. I don't support this ordinance.
If churches have a crucial right to see that the lives of those constituting their corporate entities are "harmonious" with church opinions, then any business-owner or residence-owner anywhere has an identical right. And it's true; only in socialized nations are such rights withheld from "private sector" participants.
My political view is that I hope this ordinance is defeated, despite its backing. I don't see how it would change things anyway unless its scope were expanded; it seems more a goodwill gesture. If it is expanded, it will be yet another disservice to business owners. Think about it: the ones who already hire without regard to personal morality wouldn't need the ordinance, and those who adhere to certain moral standards would have their choices overridden and their work-place religious freedom marginalized.
Well, whatever. If Church spokesmen care for the Church's interests, then let us private citizens care for our own interests. I don't support this ordinance.
Boz | 10:25 p.m. Nov. 10, 2009
Anything that promotes homosexuality in our community is wrong, including this
ordinance. I'm sorry to hear it passed and sorry the church didn't
take a stronger stand on the issue.
Dallin | 12:48 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I suppose my over all feeling (being an out LDS gay male) is that I find it
positive that the church is ok with the new law, but at the same time why do
they have to throw in their statements about the foundations between a man and
woman. Why can't they just say "we support the bill, and what it
stands for" and just sit down. They still have to throw in the personal
view point.
More than anything I still can't fathom how as a society people can be so hateful towards gays. It doesn't matter though. Whether it's in 5 minutes or 20 years gays will be able to marry, it's only a matter of time and on that day I'm sure the LDS church will be calling its members to Jackson county LOL ;)
More than anything I still can't fathom how as a society people can be so hateful towards gays. It doesn't matter though. Whether it's in 5 minutes or 20 years gays will be able to marry, it's only a matter of time and on that day I'm sure the LDS church will be calling its members to Jackson county LOL ;)
Anonymous | 1:03 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
As an ex member of the church and CURRENT homosexual, i believe that heavenly
father will "forgive" me if I am wrong in this life. I will have sex,
drink and be proud of my sexuality! If God and jesuschrist are so forgiven as we
preach they are, then they will forgive me when I stand before them. I will use
my freedom to choose, and will not care about what the church and hypocretical
members believe to be right or wrong.
JD | 1:43 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
It's a little nauseating to see all these presumably LDS folks patting
their church on the back and congratulating themselves for how loving they all
are towards gays. I'd like to remind you all that up until now the LDS
church has either directly opposed nondiscrimination policies or has been silent
at best on the issue.
I'm significantly more interested in how gays and lesbians themselves would assess their treatment by the LDS church. This gay Mormon is not impressed. On the contrary -- why is it that the church, which claims to follow Christ's teachings, is always the very last to stand up for a dis-favorable minority? Well, congratulations. You were last on racial equality, last on women's rights, -- surprise surprise -- you're last again.
I'm significantly more interested in how gays and lesbians themselves would assess their treatment by the LDS church. This gay Mormon is not impressed. On the contrary -- why is it that the church, which claims to follow Christ's teachings, is always the very last to stand up for a dis-favorable minority? Well, congratulations. You were last on racial equality, last on women's rights, -- surprise surprise -- you're last again.
shawilli | 2:27 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I support the churches stand on this issue, I don't agree with the gay
lifestyle and agenda but when it comes to being able to live the lifestyle of
their own choosinng without being harrassed that I support 100%.
Steve from Tucson | 5:54 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I too am an EX-Mormon and proud gay man. I live with my husband of 16 years in
Tucson Arizona. Sad that the Church thinks this crumb will remove their sins
against myself and my GLBT Brothers and Sisters. I continue to pray for
forgivness for the Church and their man-driven positions on my marriage.
Suzie | 5:56 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
All I ask is that we use the correct term for same sex individuals which is
HOMOSEXUAL - not GAY
Steve | 7:47 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Let me guess...Steve doesn't believe in the Bible? Because if he does then
he does such violence to the interpretation thereof to not understand a very
simple point. And that is namely: In the beginning God created Adam and Eve not
Adam and Steve.
Oh yes and and to use the word sin, as you did Steve, would presuppose you have a belief in God and the devil. Because without one absolute Good (God) and one absolute evil (Devil) there is no such thing as sin. Sin cannot exist without these constant polar opposites. And conversely righteousness cannot exist without either.
So Steve I'm happy that in your words you confess an understanding of absolute wrongs and rights. I only wish now you'd come to an understanding that homosexuality is both unnatural and deviant to the plan of God. And if you already have this understanding I hope you can gain enough courage to throw off the shackles of your current situation and come to know of the true and natural joys that God intends for his children living within his commandments.
Oh yes and and to use the word sin, as you did Steve, would presuppose you have a belief in God and the devil. Because without one absolute Good (God) and one absolute evil (Devil) there is no such thing as sin. Sin cannot exist without these constant polar opposites. And conversely righteousness cannot exist without either.
So Steve I'm happy that in your words you confess an understanding of absolute wrongs and rights. I only wish now you'd come to an understanding that homosexuality is both unnatural and deviant to the plan of God. And if you already have this understanding I hope you can gain enough courage to throw off the shackles of your current situation and come to know of the true and natural joys that God intends for his children living within his commandments.
Marriage is not a contract | 7:51 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
RE:Chris
"The fact remains that from the governments perspective marriage is simply a contract."
This is getting old. Marriage is not a contract in the sense you are trying to use it since there are three parties and one of those parties is the state and it is a take it or leave it proposition. If you want legal marriage you have the choice to meet the terms of legal marriage or not. If you do not than you don't have a right to force any party to enter that relationship with you including the state. If you are correct and marriage is a contract than you are essentially arguing two parties to the contract can force a third to be party to that contract.
"Denying two consenting adults from entering into this contract while allowing others is wrong."
It's not about allowing anyone to do anything since this is about what the state is willing to do since the state is party to every marriage and has a lot of responsibilities associated with THEIR MARRIAGE to the couple since that is essentially what is happening. A marriage that consists of three or more parties including children
"The fact remains that from the governments perspective marriage is simply a contract."
This is getting old. Marriage is not a contract in the sense you are trying to use it since there are three parties and one of those parties is the state and it is a take it or leave it proposition. If you want legal marriage you have the choice to meet the terms of legal marriage or not. If you do not than you don't have a right to force any party to enter that relationship with you including the state. If you are correct and marriage is a contract than you are essentially arguing two parties to the contract can force a third to be party to that contract.
"Denying two consenting adults from entering into this contract while allowing others is wrong."
It's not about allowing anyone to do anything since this is about what the state is willing to do since the state is party to every marriage and has a lot of responsibilities associated with THEIR MARRIAGE to the couple since that is essentially what is happening. A marriage that consists of three or more parties including children
Gay life is a sin.... | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Gays will NEVER be happy until they can convince the world their life style is
not a sin….(which it most definitely is). Their life style is not a race,
it does not procreate, which would make them become extinct. The only way they
do not become extinct is to convince and indoctrinate others to live this sinful
lifestyle. Many of them thrive on hating anyone that disagrees with them and
their favorite word is “bigot”.
Louise | 7:55 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
The bottom line is not "human rights" or "civil rights" or
"equal rights" -- it is behavior. Homosexual behavior is both immoral
and unhealthy, as well as against nature. We should all be tolerant of people,
and people have a natural, God-given right to make choices. Choices, however,
have consequences. Acting on bad choices brings bad consequences. That's
why they call them "bad choices." Homosexual behavior always has bad
consequences, both for the individuals involved and for society around them.
Homosexual behavior does not "stay in the bedroom." It is frequently
displayed, even flaunted, publicly; it is constantly being promoted, especially
among the young; and many of its unhealthy aspects (HIV, hepatitis, and other
sexually-transmitted diseases, as well as some that are not
sexually-transmitted) are highly contagious. At the same time, those who do take
the risks of a homosexual lifestyle should be treated humanely and respectfully,
and they should treat non-gays with respect, as well. However, it is the right
and duty of all people to speak the truth as they understand it.
Mike in Texas | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
While I applaud the church for taking a position favorable to the fair treatment
of the homosexual community regarding the right to have a place to live and
work, it seems that they are still forgeting that married people have rights (as
well as obligations) that unmarried people do not have. If the church is willing
to support legislation that guarantees some fundemental rights to homosexuals
why not permit laws that allow the same partnership rights that married people
have?
Also, their oft quoted statement that the church supports marriage between "one" man and "one" woman seems disingenous as best, considering that it wasn't that long ago that the church supported marriage between a man and more than one wife.
Suspension of the "practice" of poligamy is not the same thing as repudiation, and so I ask the obvious question; by their most recent proclamation, that marriage is between one man and one woman, are they now repudiating poligamy as a revealed doctrine of the Church?
Also, their oft quoted statement that the church supports marriage between "one" man and "one" woman seems disingenous as best, considering that it wasn't that long ago that the church supported marriage between a man and more than one wife.
Suspension of the "practice" of poligamy is not the same thing as repudiation, and so I ask the obvious question; by their most recent proclamation, that marriage is between one man and one woman, are they now repudiating poligamy as a revealed doctrine of the Church?
Jacob Alma Palmer | 9:07 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
"violence" to marriage...that's funny. The Mormon church is a
corporation and should be taxed like one.
Deja vu | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
These discussions/arguments are reminiscent of previous ones. The church
defined marriage as a contract between a man and SEVERAL women for many years
(many of those in open defiance of the law at the time), and still does in the
eternal perspective. The church was actively against black people marrying with
white people, and getting full rights, until relatively recent times. Positions
seem to reflect the challenge of reconciling the sincere personal statements of
a young prophet in his 30s with what is acceptable to the majority of the people
in the church and in the USA, and what readiness there is to accept others'
positions.
Ihavetolaugh | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
re: JD
"I'm significantly more interested in how gays and lesbians themselves would assess their treatment by the LDS church."
really? let's be fair here then.
I'm significantly more interested in how LDS church members (or we could even insert "religious persons in general") are treated by the LGBT community, and how they would asses that communities moral values based on how they are treated.
I have never been judged so harshly and quickly as I have been by supporters of the LGBT community when they find out I'm a practicing Mormon.
The golden rule my friends. The golden rule.
"I'm significantly more interested in how gays and lesbians themselves would assess their treatment by the LDS church."
really? let's be fair here then.
I'm significantly more interested in how LDS church members (or we could even insert "religious persons in general") are treated by the LGBT community, and how they would asses that communities moral values based on how they are treated.
I have never been judged so harshly and quickly as I have been by supporters of the LGBT community when they find out I'm a practicing Mormon.
The golden rule my friends. The golden rule.
Anonymous | 10:08 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Wait until they come banging on the door to be married in the Temple. By any
standard this is a bad move. I think we are on a downward spiral from here.
UNLV | 10:12 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
@anonymous: You are correct, you do have your agency to choose. Also you must
understand that God cannot break the laws of justice and mercy. Repentance
would be meaningless unless there were an eternal punishment in place for the
unrepentant. If there were no law, then men would be free to sin without
consequences. God's can not forgive unless one repents. It would go
against His eternal laws to do so. With every law given a punishment is affixed
and repentance granted. The law of mercy can claim the sinner (we all sin)who
repents because Christ paid the penalty for sin required by the law of justice.
Otherwise justice would claim the sinner and execute the law of punishment.
Without punishment for breaking God's laws, God would cease to be God. God
is only forgiving if one repent or God would be breaking His own laws.
mark | 10:31 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Maybe that's what this is all about IRS checking into the amount of
political activism funded by LDS, and endangering their tax exempt status. If
not in Utah, in other states.
That makes the most sense, nothing gets a Mormon to jump, like squeezing their wallet.
That makes the most sense, nothing gets a Mormon to jump, like squeezing their wallet.
Sam | 10:32 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
to MIKE IN TEXAS
Why would the Church open the flood gates and condone sin? They dont condone people treating others unfairly, nor do they condone Homosexual relationships.
When doctrine is revealed, the Church follows it, when it is revealed that poligamy has served its purpose, we follow. What exactly is your argument?
Why would the Church open the flood gates and condone sin? They dont condone people treating others unfairly, nor do they condone Homosexual relationships.
When doctrine is revealed, the Church follows it, when it is revealed that poligamy has served its purpose, we follow. What exactly is your argument?
Rick | 11:06 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Okay, so everybody is warm and fuzzy about the LDS Church "allowing"
the gays to have a few rights they should naturally have anyway. Some are
calling it an olive branch, a breakthrough in civil rights....I think it's
nothing but a... cop-out PR move. In the same sentence, Michael Otterson,
representing the church says, "The Church supports this ordinance because
it is fair and reasonable and does not do violence to the institution of
marriage." Violence? Who ever said anything about violence against
marriage? Letting two people who love each other get married is
"violent?" I need a lesson in what violent means, but it seems to me
it is not even in the same universe as love. Then he says "I represent a
church that believes in human dignity, in treating others with respect even when
we disagree." REALLY?! Since when? By supporting the efforts in California,
and recently in Maine, to disallow gay marriage? This is treating others with
respect, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE?! I guess I need to go back to school to learn
definitions again.Read More
mark | 11:18 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Maybe all the lousy ant-gay PR Utah and SLC has had for a few years (since your
meddling in Hawaii) has dropped what students and athletes were willing to go to
Utah Universities, and were leaving the state.
I can't imagine anyone wanted to visit the LDS mall, with the treatment the same sex couple received, and how many SLC businesses felt that drop in customers? You couldn't pay me enough to go to Utah(after prop 8), and half my extended maternal side of my family are there.
I can't imagine anyone wanted to visit the LDS mall, with the treatment the same sex couple received, and how many SLC businesses felt that drop in customers? You couldn't pay me enough to go to Utah(after prop 8), and half my extended maternal side of my family are there.
mark | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 11, 2009
@10:08
ONLY a Mormon would imagine an LGBT couple would even want to be married in a House of Worship with a pack of folks who LOATHE us. That is a day significant in OUR lives, why would we include YOU?
NO CHURCH is ever forced to perform ANY rite they object to....EVER. That's your freedom of religion, you can also preach ANY sermon you choose.
There are many open and affirming churches which perform same sex marriages, as well as Justices of the Peace, and Judges.
We don't want ANYTHING LDS controls, and NEVER will.
ONLY a Mormon would imagine an LGBT couple would even want to be married in a House of Worship with a pack of folks who LOATHE us. That is a day significant in OUR lives, why would we include YOU?
NO CHURCH is ever forced to perform ANY rite they object to....EVER. That's your freedom of religion, you can also preach ANY sermon you choose.
There are many open and affirming churches which perform same sex marriages, as well as Justices of the Peace, and Judges.
We don't want ANYTHING LDS controls, and NEVER will.
Anonymous | 12:42 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Wow, there are a lot of LDS church haters out there. I am sure it helps them
sleep at night to constantly bash the LDS faith. Just leave already, and be
happy, you claim you are but you it sounds like you are trying to convince
yourself that you made the right decision by leaving.
It reminds me of Lehi's dream where people are so attracted the the great and spacious building. They leave the iron rod and strait and narrow path and feel thier way towards the great and spacious building. I find it ironic that when they get there, there is nothing to do in the building but turn around and scorn and point thier fingers at those partaking of the fruit.
Just keep pointing your fingers and scorning the faithful members of the Church. The Lord's kingdom will continue to grow without you and you will learn someday that your choice hurt you not the church.
It reminds me of Lehi's dream where people are so attracted the the great and spacious building. They leave the iron rod and strait and narrow path and feel thier way towards the great and spacious building. I find it ironic that when they get there, there is nothing to do in the building but turn around and scorn and point thier fingers at those partaking of the fruit.
Just keep pointing your fingers and scorning the faithful members of the Church. The Lord's kingdom will continue to grow without you and you will learn someday that your choice hurt you not the church.
Anonymous | 12:53 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Jacob Alma Palmer
"violence" to marriage...that's funny. The Mormon church is a corporation and should be taxed like one."
Deal and once we are fully taxed we will more fully participate in elections, endorse candidates and any ballot issues. Right now we are only legally allowed to take part in ballot issues but once we are taxed we can start acting like a corporation and not as a religion when it comes to political participation.
"violence" to marriage...that's funny. The Mormon church is a corporation and should be taxed like one."
Deal and once we are fully taxed we will more fully participate in elections, endorse candidates and any ballot issues. Right now we are only legally allowed to take part in ballot issues but once we are taxed we can start acting like a corporation and not as a religion when it comes to political participation.
JohnnyLingo62 | 1:00 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
To Chris,
Marriage is a type of contract, but it is much more than that. A contract is not a marriage. Entering into a contract in a business sense gives two parties certain rights, obligations, penalties, rewards, restrictions, etc. Some contacts are very one-sided and may only benefit one of the signing parties while completely restricting the other party(s). So, to equate marriage as just a contract is to minimize the whole ideal of marriage. Perhaps this is what today's world has brought our society to - get married, it's short-term, it's easy, if you don't like it, just divorce and go on, it doesn't affect anyone, etc. etc.
Talk to children of divorced families and see how happy they are when their parents "end their contract" of marriage. There are underlying issues that affect them for their entire lives. Most learn to cope, just as a family who has a parent die with young children, but that's different than abandonment or split families.
The idea of marriage is for a lifelong commitment to bring up posterity, enhance society, and strive for love and harmony. Lofty goals not entered into lightly.
Marriage is a type of contract, but it is much more than that. A contract is not a marriage. Entering into a contract in a business sense gives two parties certain rights, obligations, penalties, rewards, restrictions, etc. Some contacts are very one-sided and may only benefit one of the signing parties while completely restricting the other party(s). So, to equate marriage as just a contract is to minimize the whole ideal of marriage. Perhaps this is what today's world has brought our society to - get married, it's short-term, it's easy, if you don't like it, just divorce and go on, it doesn't affect anyone, etc. etc.
Talk to children of divorced families and see how happy they are when their parents "end their contract" of marriage. There are underlying issues that affect them for their entire lives. Most learn to cope, just as a family who has a parent die with young children, but that's different than abandonment or split families.
The idea of marriage is for a lifelong commitment to bring up posterity, enhance society, and strive for love and harmony. Lofty goals not entered into lightly.
Amy | 1:23 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I am very happy for the gay and lesbian families of Utah that are happy about
this, but it just makes me mad. I can’t believe we live in a world that we
consider this progress, THE CHURCH HAS TO SAY ITS OK IN ORDER FOR SOMTHING TO
PASS. This law is exactly what this article said COMMON-SENSE. When will we live
in a world where a church doesn’t get to decide who I love, who I live
with, or what job I have based on who I love? This is ridiculous!!! This is
America isn’t it?
Anonymous | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
It is Adam and Eve and NOT Adam and Steve. All you activists need to get over
ourself and leave the Church alone.
Rick | 6:04 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
Well said, Amy! But this is the theocracy of Utah, where separation of church
and state means "all deals must be under the table and approved by LDS
Inc."
Fortunately, there are two people leaving the church for every one that joins, so the controlling days are limited.
Fortunately, there are two people leaving the church for every one that joins, so the controlling days are limited.
Grateful for good | 6:18 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
It's always the same dead horse being ridden by the anti-LDS preachers.
Polygamy was removed from practice TWO HUNDRED years ago, which was also
practiced in the bible. Why don't you call into question their practice
thereof?
Another dead horse: rights of blacks, women, etc. Ignorance isn't absent among the members of the LDS faith, but some topics aren't ready to be declared officially among its general populous, similarly to any large body of members of any organization.
Our true fault as human beings is our obsession with the negative. What we CAN'T have or what we DON'T agree with. The millions of dollars and service hours spent on philanthropy efforts of the LDS church goes under the radar.
Stop walking away from a restaurant and complaining, "My server didn't keep my drinks topped off 100 percent of the time." Be glad you enjoyed the time with your friends and family, and are not on the verge of starvation similar to a significant amount of others in the world.
Signed,
~Grateful for good
Another dead horse: rights of blacks, women, etc. Ignorance isn't absent among the members of the LDS faith, but some topics aren't ready to be declared officially among its general populous, similarly to any large body of members of any organization.
Our true fault as human beings is our obsession with the negative. What we CAN'T have or what we DON'T agree with. The millions of dollars and service hours spent on philanthropy efforts of the LDS church goes under the radar.
Stop walking away from a restaurant and complaining, "My server didn't keep my drinks topped off 100 percent of the time." Be glad you enjoyed the time with your friends and family, and are not on the verge of starvation similar to a significant amount of others in the world.
Signed,
~Grateful for good
Re Anonymous | 7:06 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
"As an ex member of the church and CURRENT homosexual, i believe that
heavenly father will "forgive" me if I am wrong in this life. I will
have sex, drink and be proud of my sexuality! If God and jesuschrist are so
forgiven as we preach they are, then they will forgive me when I stand before
them. I will use my freedom to choose, and will not care about what the church
and hypocretical members believe to be right or wrong."
Now where have I heard that before? Oh Yes now I remember.
“And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God--he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God”
2 Ne 28:8
Now where have I heard that before? Oh Yes now I remember.
“And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God--he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God”
2 Ne 28:8
Fern RL | 8:54 p.m. Nov. 11, 2009
I agree with Louise: “…it is the right and duty of all people to
speak the truth as they understand it.”
I believe that one of the main purposes of government is to do things that strengthen society as a whole. Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by providing the system for determining who is responsible when children are born. Homosexual relationships, married or not, provide little or no value to society, and may actually weaken it, since they are a risk factor for some health concerns–not merely communicable disease, but also physical damage.
I believe that one of the main purposes of government is to do things that strengthen society as a whole. Marriage between a man and a woman strengthens society by providing the system for determining who is responsible when children are born. Homosexual relationships, married or not, provide little or no value to society, and may actually weaken it, since they are a risk factor for some health concerns–not merely communicable disease, but also physical damage.
Lia | 7:38 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
The only reason the church is trying to look OK with this is not because they
want less discrimination against gays, but because they want Romney in the White
House, and want to appear tolerant.
Nice try.
Nice try.
Re: Chris | 9:48 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I'm reading this and responding late. Some of these comments are
interesting. However, I want to respond to the comments by Chris when he quoted
the Declaration of Independence -- "All men are created equal." The
quote by itself to defend the right to practice homosexual unions is
interesting.
The fact of the matter is that we are not equal in material things and this was never intended. This begs the question as to how we are "created equal". The fact is that we should be considered equal in the sight of the law. The inequities in society should be ignored when we are on trial. One is not considered guilty of a crime because they are poor or not guilty because they are rich. However, this does not mean that the law should be blind to a choice made to break the law.
Your choice in misinterpreting the meaning of equality as referring to it being a right to have it applied to homosexual unions is not correct. If we were all equal then everyone would be either heterosexual or homosexual. We are not equal in this and judgment on sexual preference itself is not made in our courts.
The fact of the matter is that we are not equal in material things and this was never intended. This begs the question as to how we are "created equal". The fact is that we should be considered equal in the sight of the law. The inequities in society should be ignored when we are on trial. One is not considered guilty of a crime because they are poor or not guilty because they are rich. However, this does not mean that the law should be blind to a choice made to break the law.
Your choice in misinterpreting the meaning of equality as referring to it being a right to have it applied to homosexual unions is not correct. If we were all equal then everyone would be either heterosexual or homosexual. We are not equal in this and judgment on sexual preference itself is not made in our courts.
Fern RL | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
If the Church wants to "appear tolerant" it is because the Church
wants to appear the way it actually is. There has never been a time that I know
of from either personal experience or historical study when the Church has been
intolerant of anyone. Sin, yes, but not the Sinner. Understandably, it
doesn't want to have the doctrine of sinners imposed upon it, but why would
any church want that? The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS has always had a
position of wanting Free will and choice for all, and it can't get that
through any attempt to force others to live righteously. Violence of any kind,
and denial of the basics of life toward anyone of any belief has always been
contrary to the doctrines of the Church. I am much less sure that the Church
wants Romney in the White House.
Violence Towards Marriage?? | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Why would he use such a statement in referencing Civil Rights for Gay people yet
leave out hidden/protected child molestations committed by heterosexual members
of the Church? Or fail to mention the many LDS heterosexual priesthood holders
who are deeply addicted to Pornography? THESE are violent actions towards LDS
marriage. This is bizarre and delusional that the LDS church (which I love by
the way and believe is True) would even support this thinking (that gays are
violent towards marriage). This is as crazy as the early leadership of the
Church ordering the slaughter of the travelers who passed through Utah because
they were paranoid. This is defensive and no wonder more people in Utah take
anti-depressants than any other place in the world. No wonder the suicide rate
is higher in Utah than any other State. Scary thinking. Modern, civilized,
contemporary gay people want to have a job, a house, and a family they can visit
in the hospital with benefits and the LDS church thinks that is an assault on
the LDS temple marriage. I think what the Church meant to say was "we want
freedom to be shown to gays but not by us".
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Related content
- WSU looks to impress voters 11:17 p.m.
- BYU women triumph 11:14 p.m.
- Photos: Korver delivers coats 11:12 p.m.
- Passer-by frees pinned truck driver 11:12 p.m.
- Aggies try to bounce back 11:07 p.m.
- Utah tax on escorts struck down 11:07 p.m.
- Hazmat team called to University 11:06 p.m.
- Site offers tips on sustainability 11:05 p.m.
- National news briefs 10:46 p.m.
- The Number: 39.6% in college 10:38 p.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Horrifying scenario described
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th title, 4 years
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Utah jobless rate at 6.5%
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah167
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified103
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case96
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio95
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.94
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
A little after midnight Wednesday morning, about 21 hours ago as I write...
There's a lot of reason to leave your plastic home as you shop:
Latest comments
Sorry, I can't think of anything that better describes Harry Reid. He's just...
The mentioning in the article about the middle ages always adding some...
Montae Ellis? nahhhhh Sacramento has become a better team mainly...
This game will go down as one of the all time classics in High School...
"Everybody else" gets a job after high school to earn money to get a car so...
Sorry Darn it. But I disagree. Those Juan Diego kids work hard. They deserve...
What an incredible game! They played their hearts out and congratulations to...
Too bad either team had to lose such a great game! The final 7 minutes of...
BYU is innovative and will come out on top.
Hey PrepFootballFan, if you really were a fan you might understnd a few...
Advertisements
I agree. Truth is more important than political correctness. The goal is to promote what is best for our society, not to try to please everybody.