Quantcast

Comments about ‘Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 11 2009 12:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anonymous

This exact same article was commented on only twice where I live in North Carolina.

Anonymous

There are gay Bishops in the Church. I know, wink!

ColleenHarper

I would be very interested to see what political donations were made and by whom in the Washington State referendum for "Everything But Marriage." Which way (if either) did the LDS go? Did they support or oppose this referendum? After all, the title tells the whole story.

Having said that, I would like to know how this modern support for gay and lesbian non-discrimination coincides with past history. Is it a case of revisionism (as I suspect) or was the LDS church in support of gays and lesbians prior to the 1969 Stonewall incidents.

And I haven't even asked if transgender people are to be shown the same non-discrimination protections.

Born that Way

Sadly many good people struggle with the chains of their choices, thinking all the while they are being true to themselves. Many young people have an assortment of sexual thoughts as they grow and develop. By perpetuating the idea that because one has seemingly inborn budding tendencies to view sexuality and hypersexuality through the lense either gay or straight has done untold damage to many souls.

I despise the idea that I have no choice because I have a homoerotic thought. It is manipulative and heavy-handed rhetoric that casts me as a victim who cannot contain my inclinations. There are many reasons to keep such matters private. And having lustful thoughts does not entitle me to unethical or intolerant behavior.

Repeatedly the LDS church has shown a willingness to accomodate differing points of view where they do not impact revealed church doctrines, for which I'm grateful. The public gay response has been despicably backhanded, skeptical, and shameful--that continual push to destroy marriage. It is never enough. Sadly it only demonstrates their bigotry, and a desire that those in their community that think differently do so quietly or not at all.

Pagan

'This exact same article was commented on only twice where I live in North Carolina.'

Well, it's been commented on 321 times & counting in Utah.

And if we're talking recognition, gay marriage is allowed in the Netherlands.

Pagan

'i doubt very much that there are any gay bishops in the church.' - 10:04 a.m.

Good thing that's a doubt. And not presented as a fact. Regardless if someone is in the closet, that does not make anyone less gay.

Now, as for open gay bishops... ok!

Gene Robinson, go ahead, google it.

You can be gay and religious. Many are just not given the chance.

Observer

Bravo to the church for taking a positive stand. Lets see more of this action so we can clean up the PR fiasco of Prop. 8

Pagan

'The public gay response has been despicably backhanded, skeptical, and shameful--that continual push to destroy marriage.' - 11:10 a.m.

Born, please give me an example of a straight marriage being completely destroyed by a seperate gay marriage.

I'll wait...

To Born that Way

"I despise the idea that I have no choice because I have a homoerotic thought. It is manipulative and heavy-handed rhetoric that casts me as a victim who cannot contain my inclinations. There are many reasons to keep such matters private."

Many people actually are bi-sexual and are able to lean towards the heterosexual and acceptable behavior.

Believe me, there are those who, no matter how hard they pray, how many times they fast, no matter what are going to be attracted ONLY to the same sex. Even the LDS church admits that some gays will not be able to change in this lifetime.

Be a little more charitable, can't you? All of you!

Unacceptable

The debate always comes back to the same point:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's just what the word means. That definition already includes all of humanity, unless you exclude yourself by not participating.

So work on changing the law if you want a union outside of marriage recognized more by the law.

Civil Rights for unions outside of marriage is a matter all its own. The LDS church is the only organization I know of who is sensible enough to recognize that Civil Rights can be granted everyone while still protecting the definition of marriage.

Ask yourself:

How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is? Or not change the meaning of every other important societal definition--like family?

When you know how important families are you don't try to undermine their meaning in any way.

Also ask:

Why do gay marriage advocates want to change the definition of words in a law instead of seeking to change inclusion in the law (use words that better define them)?

B/c more than equal rights, it is about wanting unseemly actions recognized as equally acceptable.

Pagan

'Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's just what the word means.' - 1:04 p.m.

Unacceptable, that's what the word means NOW. It originally meant just two people of consenting age who are not family.

Funny how those laws changed recently and every claims that's how it's always been?

'How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is?'

Because this marriage does not affect yours! Your trying to say a gay marriage affects yours? Give me a real-life example! Your trying to deny others a very real marriage based on your very made principals.

'...use words that better define them...'

What, like abomination? Not human?

If this WERE about equality with you, then there would be no hesitation. As yet, you still view the other as not good as your own.

And that, is truly sad. As I take no issue with any straight persons marriage against my life.

Anonymous

"How does changing the definition/meaning of marriage not attack what marriage is?"

It is like civil marriage and temple marriage. Does having civil marriages attack temple marriages? Why would having gay marriages attack other marriages? Merely a broadening of the term.

(Besides, Since 2001, there has been gay marriage in this world. A little too late to fight for the word, isn't it?)



"Or not change the meaning of every other important societal definition--like family?"


Is an aunt raising her nephews a family? Yes. Is two octagenarians that just married a family? Yes.
Is two gay men raising 3 crack babies a family? Yes.

Why is your defination so narrow? All families deserve to be protected and cherished.

Anonymous

"B/c more than equal rights, it is about wanting unseemly actions recognized as equally acceptable."

Ok, maybe I found the problem.

Some people do not know the difference between acceptable by their beliefs and acceptable by law.

Homosexuality is ALREADY acceptable by law. It has been for years. Because of that, homosexuals do NOT have to have your approval. You are free to feel about them any way you want. You just are not free to treat them as second class citizens. They are not. They are law-abiding, tax paying, American citizens.

mark

The laughable response that IT'S NEVER ENOUGH to please LGBTs.

EXCUSE me this is the VERY FIRST baby step the LDS church has EVER made towards my community, which didn't entail calling us HOMOSEXUALS (which none of us call ourselves), or pervert, or sodomite or saying we are ill pschologically,, or abnormal or child mollestors, or equal to incest, beastiality, or polygamy.
This baby step probably was unneeded for the ordinance to pass....anyway.
So get over saying how you have given, and given, and given to those selfish gays and it's just not ENOUGH. It only makes you look foolish, and doesn't mend a thing with LGBTs.

MPT

A pact to support the gays is not in the best interest. They will take and take and take until they can finally marry in a desecrate the Temples. This was a bad move and one that the gays will just take advantage of.

Adam and Even = first marriage

"It originally meant just two people of consenting age who are not family."

Just keep telling yourself that. Better yet, try explaining that to your Maker.

Counterfeit marriage affects all

1:58,

You must be one of those who "do not know the difference between acceptable by their beliefs and acceptable by law." Equal rights already exist for all, homosexual or otherwise, but for some reason you believe that a new law should be put in place to match your belief in homomarriage, but that's a contradiction in terms.

Homosexuality itself is acceptable by the law of the land. Yes, everyone should treat everyone as first class citizens and leave sexual attraction/life doesn't even need to be part of the conversation.

But changing the definition of marriage from its original and intended meaning as a union between a man and a woman is still not acceptable by most state laws. If you are law-abiding you will quit trying to force your beliefs on us and make what isn't acceptable by law, become acceptable.

Homosexuality itself will never be acceptable by those who believe in a higher law, but with the law of the land no one's trying to stop you from practicing homosexuality, just from changing what marriage is to the rest of us. Why should we change the definition of our marriages?

Anonymous

"Homosexuality itself will never be acceptable by those who believe in a higher law, but with the law of the land no one's trying to stop you from practicing homosexuality, just from changing what marriage is to the rest of us. Why should we change the definition of our marriages?"

Can you separate your faith from your countries laws?

Look at it like civil marriage v. temple marriage.

Just because the state has civil marriages does not in any way change or dilute or mock your temple marriage.

The same for gay marriage. It is a civil law and will be dealt with by civil authorities.

You have not had any belief forced upon you. You will STILL believe in temple marriages. Life will not change and law abiding citizens are treated equally under the law.

Easy.

mark

Marriage was merely a financial arrangement between one man and HIS PROPERTY.
Marriages were arranged through most of human history by parents, with the two people being married, having no say in the marriage.
The woman was the property of her father, he gives a dowery to UNLOAD her, it's a bribe. The woman switches from the property of her father, to the property of her husband.
Several Ancient societies Greece, Persia, Macedonia, and Rome had financial arrangements between same sex couples too. Including a dowery the younger man's family provided the older man. There were also divisions of property based on their unions, if one partner died.
St Bacchus and St Serge were married by the early Christian church, as were other male couples.

Pagan

'Yes, everyone should treat everyone as first class citizens and leave sexual attraction/life doesn't even need to be part of the conversation. But...'

Right there.
Right there is where people claim all is equal HOWEVER the gay community is less of a human being and should not be allowed marriage as a hetersexual person.

'Why should we change the definition of our marriages?'

Your not.

Please give me one example of how a gay marriage will affect one law, one right, one ability of a straight marriage.

There is none.

That whole argument is based on the PRINCIPLE of marriage. Not the fact.

If we're going to the basis of marriage, women would still be sold as property.

I think many argee that is no longer the case.

If you want to stick to the IDEA of a marriage, please,

keep it in your head.

The rest of us would like to live our lives now.

to comment

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