Reader comments
Readers' forum: Chosen behavior?
46 comments | Read story
Nice thought Gavin, | 2:42 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
but you don’t make any sense. You compare behavior to belief, while
confusing nature with behavior.
“Nature” is what a person is. Choice is not involved. We may have learned to be what we are. We may have been genetically predisposed to be what we are. It doesn’t matter. We are what we are. If what we are causes us pain, then we must find ways to change what we are. Society doesn't care what we are until it affects our bahavior.
‘Behavior’ is what a person does. There is nothing “biological” about it. Sexual acts are a behavior that we choose to perform. Religious acts are a behavior we choose to perform. Neither have fully protected status. Society rightly defends itself by determining the acceptable limits on all behavior.
‘Belief’ is what a person thinks. Religious affiliation is based on belief. The notion that ‘homosexual behavior is harmless’ is a belief. We can’t help what we believe. No one should be forced to condone another’s behavior. Unfortunately, I see few people on these posts that are humble enough to be able to conform their beliefs to the truth. All beliefs should be protected.
“Nature” is what a person is. Choice is not involved. We may have learned to be what we are. We may have been genetically predisposed to be what we are. It doesn’t matter. We are what we are. If what we are causes us pain, then we must find ways to change what we are. Society doesn't care what we are until it affects our bahavior.
‘Behavior’ is what a person does. There is nothing “biological” about it. Sexual acts are a behavior that we choose to perform. Religious acts are a behavior we choose to perform. Neither have fully protected status. Society rightly defends itself by determining the acceptable limits on all behavior.
‘Belief’ is what a person thinks. Religious affiliation is based on belief. The notion that ‘homosexual behavior is harmless’ is a belief. We can’t help what we believe. No one should be forced to condone another’s behavior. Unfortunately, I see few people on these posts that are humble enough to be able to conform their beliefs to the truth. All beliefs should be protected.
John Adams | 5:55 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Gavin, actually religion is protected by a pesky little document called "The Constitution of the United States" (see amendment 1)
Comments continue below
Question | 6:19 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
So what makes a legal marriage?
If someone is married in a court is that legal? How about in the temple or another religious ceremony?
What if someone is married by hitler, sadam husen, or even another religious group that you don't agree with.
Marriage is a legal contract that imposes contractual rights and responsibilities, it is not about morality. Anyone who can comply with the requirements of the contract should be able to make one. Period.
If someone is married in a court is that legal? How about in the temple or another religious ceremony?
What if someone is married by hitler, sadam husen, or even another religious group that you don't agree with.
Marriage is a legal contract that imposes contractual rights and responsibilities, it is not about morality. Anyone who can comply with the requirements of the contract should be able to make one. Period.
wallofvoodoo | 7:37 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Religion is a chosen behavior too. Before you freak, I don't support gay
marraige, but I think the Salt Lake bill is right on target. You shouldn't
discriminate against people for any reason.
Darrel | 7:54 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I agree with the letter writer. The previous poster who contends belief is
different from behavior, I would add that belief leads to behavior, and I can
control what I believe. I am LDS because I choose to be, not because I was born
that way.
The Constitution protects religion only in that Congress cannot pass a law restricting it. It says nothing about people being denied where they can live and work for being a certain religion. That is why we have these anti-discrimination laws to protect religion further.
With the passing of this city act, people of all orientations can now have equal protection under the law with regards of where they work and live, gays and straights.
The Constitution protects religion only in that Congress cannot pass a law restricting it. It says nothing about people being denied where they can live and work for being a certain religion. That is why we have these anti-discrimination laws to protect religion further.
With the passing of this city act, people of all orientations can now have equal protection under the law with regards of where they work and live, gays and straights.
Choice or not? | 7:55 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Many homosexuals put forth the argument that they were born "gay",
that they never "chose" to be gay, and thus they never had control
over their sexual preference. I am not so sure.
We are sexual beings by nature, but our sexuality does not normally emerge until our teenage years (or at least it should not). I am heterosexual, but I remember thinking girls were pretty useless until I was in Junior High.
If I were abused, raped, or exposed to sexual materials as a child, maybe I would have turned out differently. If I were told in 6th grade that I had to make a choice on my sexuality, who knows what I would have "chosen". Boys were cool and girls were not at that time.
I am just saying that the premature sexualization of our children probably has a lot more to do with homosexuality than genetics.
We are sexual beings by nature, but our sexuality does not normally emerge until our teenage years (or at least it should not). I am heterosexual, but I remember thinking girls were pretty useless until I was in Junior High.
If I were abused, raped, or exposed to sexual materials as a child, maybe I would have turned out differently. If I were told in 6th grade that I had to make a choice on my sexuality, who knows what I would have "chosen". Boys were cool and girls were not at that time.
I am just saying that the premature sexualization of our children probably has a lot more to do with homosexuality than genetics.
Lagomorph | 8:13 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Lee, John, et al.
Correct, but you miss the larger point. Why are religious beliefs and practice (both matters of choice) granted "special rights" in civil rights laws at all? Yes, it's in the 1st Amendment, but why? Opponents of equal rights laws protecting the GLBT community often claim that civil protections are limited to immutable, innate characters (race, sex, nationality, etc.) and that any protections for mutable characteristics (which, rightly or wrongly, they consider sexual orientation to be) confer unequal and unconstitutional "special" rights. The 1st Amendment clearly refutes this position with its inclusion of religion as a protected class. As the letter writer pointed out, religion is a matter of choice. Further, the 9th Amendment concedes that the Founders knew they couldn't possibly enumerate every conceivable civil right. Considering the 9th Amendment together with the precedent of the 1st Amendment protecting a chosen (i.e. not immutable) characteristic, the logical conclusion is that GLBT protections such as those passed Tuesday by SLC fall easily inside the constitutional penumbra.
Correct, but you miss the larger point. Why are religious beliefs and practice (both matters of choice) granted "special rights" in civil rights laws at all? Yes, it's in the 1st Amendment, but why? Opponents of equal rights laws protecting the GLBT community often claim that civil protections are limited to immutable, innate characters (race, sex, nationality, etc.) and that any protections for mutable characteristics (which, rightly or wrongly, they consider sexual orientation to be) confer unequal and unconstitutional "special" rights. The 1st Amendment clearly refutes this position with its inclusion of religion as a protected class. As the letter writer pointed out, religion is a matter of choice. Further, the 9th Amendment concedes that the Founders knew they couldn't possibly enumerate every conceivable civil right. Considering the 9th Amendment together with the precedent of the 1st Amendment protecting a chosen (i.e. not immutable) characteristic, the logical conclusion is that GLBT protections such as those passed Tuesday by SLC fall easily inside the constitutional penumbra.
Choice? | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
The real science has been in for quite some time now. People can find out that
people are indeed born gay. Search the internet. Stop just listening to gossip
and use logic instead of fear.
I could post plenty of URL"S that would point to past and recent studies that conferm what most thinking people have known for centurys.
There are many types of sexuality. Just like we are all born with differing genitic makeup. Each of us has differing levels of chemicals that make up our sexuality. It is not black and white.
Stop with the 16th century thinking and move society towards a point where we can respect all human beings for what they were born as. Good people who respect the laws, help other people in need, good neighbors, etc.
What religion they belong to does not weigh in at all.
I could post plenty of URL"S that would point to past and recent studies that conferm what most thinking people have known for centurys.
There are many types of sexuality. Just like we are all born with differing genitic makeup. Each of us has differing levels of chemicals that make up our sexuality. It is not black and white.
Stop with the 16th century thinking and move society towards a point where we can respect all human beings for what they were born as. Good people who respect the laws, help other people in need, good neighbors, etc.
What religion they belong to does not weigh in at all.
Sensible Scientist | 8:22 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Though unpopular in some circles, there is plenty of scientific evidence
indicating sexual preference is a choice.
Anonymous | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
On the contrary @6:19, marriage automatically implies approval of the subsequent
sexual behavior and therefore it is about morality.
As has been explained a gazillion times (to no affect), marriage is not just a contract that binds two people together for life. It also implies societal approval of sexual behavior within the marital relationship — behavior that IS chosen by the couple. If you say you approve of a couple’s marriage, you are also saying you approve of them having sex. If the government says it condones a couple’s marriage, it’s also saying it condones the couple’s chosen sexual behavior.
But (this may come as a surprise to the militant gay community) the people govern this country. I am one of the people. If I do not condone the choice to participate in same-sex sexual behavior, I automatically cannot reasonably condone same sex marriage. As one of the people governing this country, I am obligated to show my lack of support for behavior that I do not condone. If the rest of the people contradict me, so be it. They have the same right that I have. That’s how it works.
As has been explained a gazillion times (to no affect), marriage is not just a contract that binds two people together for life. It also implies societal approval of sexual behavior within the marital relationship — behavior that IS chosen by the couple. If you say you approve of a couple’s marriage, you are also saying you approve of them having sex. If the government says it condones a couple’s marriage, it’s also saying it condones the couple’s chosen sexual behavior.
But (this may come as a surprise to the militant gay community) the people govern this country. I am one of the people. If I do not condone the choice to participate in same-sex sexual behavior, I automatically cannot reasonably condone same sex marriage. As one of the people governing this country, I am obligated to show my lack of support for behavior that I do not condone. If the rest of the people contradict me, so be it. They have the same right that I have. That’s how it works.
Bologna | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Sensible Scientist | 8:22 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Though unpopular in some circles, there is plenty of scientific evidence indicating sexual preference is a choice.
Where? By whom? You are no scientist.
Though unpopular in some circles, there is plenty of scientific evidence indicating sexual preference is a choice.
Where? By whom? You are no scientist.
@Sensible | 8:48 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Scientific evidence from whom exactly?
Political or religious "scientists"?
People don't just wake up one day and say: Ok, the rest of my life I will be gay. I want to be beat up at school, discriminated against in most every aspect of my life, hide in shame from my religious counterparts, not be allowed by dogmatic people to be who I am, think that God hates me, according to scripture that some guy wrote hundreds or thousands of years ago, and on and on.
Yes, I want to chose to be gay.
The silly mindset of the people who believe that we are all born with the same genetic makeup make me wonder about the teachings of Jesus, and what has happened to his love for all beings on earth.
Got common sense?
Political or religious "scientists"?
People don't just wake up one day and say: Ok, the rest of my life I will be gay. I want to be beat up at school, discriminated against in most every aspect of my life, hide in shame from my religious counterparts, not be allowed by dogmatic people to be who I am, think that God hates me, according to scripture that some guy wrote hundreds or thousands of years ago, and on and on.
Yes, I want to chose to be gay.
The silly mindset of the people who believe that we are all born with the same genetic makeup make me wonder about the teachings of Jesus, and what has happened to his love for all beings on earth.
Got common sense?
@ 8:18 | 8:50 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
A lot of your REAL science is also AGENDA science. You can find opposing
scientific views if you look harder. Sure we are all born to be different and
our vices affect each of us differently. YOU may have more propensity to become
an alcoholic after one drink, then I do. I may have more of a propensity to be
attracted to pornography after being exposed to it, then you do, etc etc...
There is plenty of case history about people that happily overcome and leave the
gay lifestyle, but those stories are never highlighted. They go against the
template of the gay agenda. An agenda which is a LIBERAL agenda that is advanced
by the media, and other purveyors of pop-culture. Yes we are all human beings,
and should be treated with human decency and respect in everyday life, according
to our obience to the laws.
@Darrel | 9:11 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I agree with you that the writer is correct that gays deserve certain rights regardless of their choices of behavior.
You are incorrect however, in assuming that you can control what you believe. Is there a switch in your brain that allows you to just turn off a current belief if you don’t want it? I don’t think so. Your beliefs are a result of what you have learned up this point. You can direct your life so that you will learn certain things and not learn others. You can seek new information in hopes that it will be convincing enough to redirect your beliefs. But without that new information, you simply believe what you believe. You are stuck with the knowledge (true or false) that is with you now.
Your beliefs do affect your behavior, but they do not control your behavior. People often behave contrary to their own beliefs
Anonymous | 9:26 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Well said, this letter. One can wave the flag of the Constitution, but it
misses the point.
Oh the dumber we are | 9:34 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
our society is becoming dumbed down when we need to be dictated common sense
laws! Its wrong to discriminate against anybody bottom line! Whats next a law
that dictates to me how i should speek to someone the is mentally handicap, or
that one shouldnt shake an infant! Plheeeeze!
@@Sensible | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Always bringing Jesus into it. Jesus recommended celibacy.
Liberal agenda? | 9:41 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Media agenda? Agenda science? Wow indeed!
Truth and real science trumps old books and scripture written by people who had little or no education.
Religious agenda in this country is second only to Turkey. Think about that fact.
Religious viewpoints have no place in modern society, concerning judgments towards any group of people. Religious viewpoints belong in church. I have no problem with church or scripture, as long as it is kept out of politics and society as a whole.
Science is proof of an idea or theory. Religion (any) is theory without proof. Why on earth would people use religion to beat down innocent people and children is beyond logical thinking.
Truth and real science trumps old books and scripture written by people who had little or no education.
Religious agenda in this country is second only to Turkey. Think about that fact.
Religious viewpoints have no place in modern society, concerning judgments towards any group of people. Religious viewpoints belong in church. I have no problem with church or scripture, as long as it is kept out of politics and society as a whole.
Science is proof of an idea or theory. Religion (any) is theory without proof. Why on earth would people use religion to beat down innocent people and children is beyond logical thinking.
To 9:11 | 9:51 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
It can be argued that one cannot act contrary to one's beliefs,
particularly if we hold with the rest of your post about controlling what you
believe.
One may act contrary to what others think they believe (or should believe) - but one cannot act contrary to what one truly believes. When presented with two conflicting options, one will choose the option that they believe presents the lesser harm - but one will not act contrary to these beliefs.
One may act contrary to what others think they believe (or should believe) - but one cannot act contrary to what one truly believes. When presented with two conflicting options, one will choose the option that they believe presents the lesser harm - but one will not act contrary to these beliefs.
Correction | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
It says nothing about passing laws preventing discrimination of religious individuals.
It says nothing about passing laws preventing discrimination of religious individuals.
@8;50 am | 10:06 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I'm not real sure of the Liberal/media/science agenda.
But I'm real sure of the neo=con agenda. Previous occupants in the White House worked the neo=con agenda so well that they ruined all the good things we had going for us in the good old USA.
I would take any so called agenda in place of the christian/neocon agenda again.
But I'm real sure of the neo=con agenda. Previous occupants in the White House worked the neo=con agenda so well that they ruined all the good things we had going for us in the good old USA.
I would take any so called agenda in place of the christian/neocon agenda again.
to "Question" | 10:19 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
You are right. Anyone who can comply with the requirements should be able to
get married. The requirements are two competent people that are of legal age,
opposite sex, and not too closely related.
Ultra Bob | 10:22 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
It doesn’t really matter how you got that way.
Our founding documents seem to be saying that “All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That statement is limited by our society by “so long as those rights do not impinge on the rights of others.
A persons behavior, even bad behavior, is a persons right, so long as it is in his own personal sphere.
Our founding documents seem to be saying that “All men have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That statement is limited by our society by “so long as those rights do not impinge on the rights of others.
A persons behavior, even bad behavior, is a persons right, so long as it is in his own personal sphere.
Anonymous | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
My family is genetically pre-disposed to alcoholism.
However, I must choose not to be.
But that craving is always there.
Tough questions,
I'm just relieved I'm not the one to judge others.
However, I must choose not to be.
But that craving is always there.
Tough questions,
I'm just relieved I'm not the one to judge others.
to "Lagomorph | 8:13 a.m" | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009
YOUR logical conclusion is that these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution.
There are countless mutable characteristics that you would agree are not
covered by the 9th amendment. So how about in situations like this, we go
with... oh I don't know... the will of the people?
@10:19 | 1:14 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
"The requirements are two competent people that are of legal age, opposite
sex, and not too closely related. " In Utah, you can marry a first cousin
as long as you are past child bearing age.
Lagomorph | 1:14 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Re "to 'Lagomorph | 8:13 a.m' | 10:23 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009"
More precisely, what I said was that GLBT protections were constitutional, not that they were guaranteed by the Constitution. I think there may be a fine difference there. I'm mostly OK with the will of the people; that's what the SLC Council followed, by the way. That said, sometimes the will of the people is wrong or misguided or a bit behind the times and it takes a little nudging to move it along. That's what politics and activism are about. Sometimes the judiciary needs to lead. Where would the "will of the people" vis-a-vis race be today without the lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, Dr. King, etc. Similarly, would the LDS Church have moved at all on GLBT issues without the kiss-in last summer?
Agreed, there are many mutable characters whose protections do not rise to constitutional status. However, should a class of people be consistently denied such fundamentals of living as jobs, housing, and personal safety on the basis of hair color or whatever, it might be a sign that those need legal protections, too.
More precisely, what I said was that GLBT protections were constitutional, not that they were guaranteed by the Constitution. I think there may be a fine difference there. I'm mostly OK with the will of the people; that's what the SLC Council followed, by the way. That said, sometimes the will of the people is wrong or misguided or a bit behind the times and it takes a little nudging to move it along. That's what politics and activism are about. Sometimes the judiciary needs to lead. Where would the "will of the people" vis-a-vis race be today without the lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, Dr. King, etc. Similarly, would the LDS Church have moved at all on GLBT issues without the kiss-in last summer?
Agreed, there are many mutable characters whose protections do not rise to constitutional status. However, should a class of people be consistently denied such fundamentals of living as jobs, housing, and personal safety on the basis of hair color or whatever, it might be a sign that those need legal protections, too.
Anonymous | 1:26 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I am predisposed to robbing and vandalizing, so you conservatives had better not
get in my way or discriminate against me because I didnt choose this. I was
born this way. Don't discriminate! Crazy liberals.
Ultra Bob | 1:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
A question for anti-gay people:
Does a Gay person have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?
I am anti-gay lifestyle. But I believe that all adult Americans have those rights.
Does a Gay person have the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?
I am anti-gay lifestyle. But I believe that all adult Americans have those rights.
mark | 1:43 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
@@Sensible, you claim that Jesus recomended celibacy. Not being overly familiar
with the Bible myself, can you point out to me where he said this?
@1;26 | 2:05 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Being predisposed to robbing and vandalizing is a childish statement if I ever
heard one.
Voting the rights away from any group is wrong. We are all Gods children no matter how we were born.
Blame God if you don't like the products he sent down here.
To compare being born gay with somebody killing and robbing is about as good as an elementry school kid could come up with.
Voting the rights away from any group is wrong. We are all Gods children no matter how we were born.
Blame God if you don't like the products he sent down here.
To compare being born gay with somebody killing and robbing is about as good as an elementry school kid could come up with.
mark | 2:43 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
But if you will notice, @1:26, that is about the quality of conservative
argument.
Mike Richards | 2:49 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Isn't it strange that the children of God have chosen to reject Him and His
teachings?
Isn't it strange that they have decided that, because it is more pleasurable for them to sexually defile themselves in every imaginable way, that they have the "right" to demand that we accept them?
Isn't it strange that they choose to quote the scriptures that tell us to "love one another" yet they ignore the scriptures that tell us that to sin is to die spiritually, and that if we die spiritually, that only the sinless one, Jesus Christ, can restore to us that pure and innocent life that we thoughtlessly gave away - and that He will only restore innocence to those that comply with His laws?
Isn't it strange that they who would live outside the law demand that we change the laws that govern what conduct is acceptable to include their rejection of law?
Isn't it strange that they are fulfilling the prophecy of s Isaiah: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
Isn't it strange that they have decided that, because it is more pleasurable for them to sexually defile themselves in every imaginable way, that they have the "right" to demand that we accept them?
Isn't it strange that they choose to quote the scriptures that tell us to "love one another" yet they ignore the scriptures that tell us that to sin is to die spiritually, and that if we die spiritually, that only the sinless one, Jesus Christ, can restore to us that pure and innocent life that we thoughtlessly gave away - and that He will only restore innocence to those that comply with His laws?
Isn't it strange that they who would live outside the law demand that we change the laws that govern what conduct is acceptable to include their rejection of law?
Isn't it strange that they are fulfilling the prophecy of s Isaiah: "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"
gavin | 3:09 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
True, choosing to practice a religion or believe something is a choice. The
difference between choosing to practice a religion and choosing to engage in
sexual relations with a person of the same sex is that religion is good for
society whereas homosexuality is not. Not all religious beliefs are good, for
sure, but religion is essential to having a free, orderly, moral society.
Homosexuality does not offer any added benefit to society. At its very best,
it's as good as an average heterosexual marriage and certainly doesn't
add the kind of value that religion does. There's a reason religion is
protected in the First Amendment.
@ Anonymous 1:26 | 3:17 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
"I am predisposed to robbing and vandalizing, so you conservatives had
better not get in my way or discriminate against me because I didnt choose this.
I was born this way. Don't discriminate!"
So, you are unable to distinguish between behavior that harms others and behavior that does not harm others and you think this is a valid argument for conservative principles.
Yeah, if that is the best you've got - you've got nothing.
So, you are unable to distinguish between behavior that harms others and behavior that does not harm others and you think this is a valid argument for conservative principles.
Yeah, if that is the best you've got - you've got nothing.
@mark | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
When he spoke to his disciples and said: paraphrasing, some are born eunuchs,
some made eunuchs by other men, and some become eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven. It is a hard teaching, for those who those who have the ears to hear.
There are biblical sites where you can type in a phrase and it will pull up the book and verse.
There are biblical sites where you can type in a phrase and it will pull up the book and verse.
@mark | 3:37 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
King James, Matthew 19:12
Anonymous | 4:42 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
I love it when hypocrites quote scripture.
Reminds me of my favorite story where Christ bodily threw them all out of the temple.
Reminds me of my favorite story where Christ bodily threw them all out of the temple.
1:26 | 4:47 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
What many of you are missing about 1:26's is that he/she is not saying
robbing/killing is ok because it doesn't hurt anyone. He/she is pointing
out that its a weak argument to say "I was born like this." I think
the commentor could have used the example of doing drugs alone. It doesn't
hurt anyone else, but someone it doesn't matter that someone is predisposed
to doing drugs, wrong is wrong.
obvious | 4:58 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Obvious Biological Fallacy??
Obvious to who...you who lives in Merryland? I've got news for you....My neighbor is married with 3 children, after spending 10 years in a gay relationship! He just decided he deserved more and wanted to raise his OWN children....Try telling his children that he is just a biological fallacy!!
Obvious to who...you who lives in Merryland? I've got news for you....My neighbor is married with 3 children, after spending 10 years in a gay relationship! He just decided he deserved more and wanted to raise his OWN children....Try telling his children that he is just a biological fallacy!!
Dear Gavin | 5:00 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Dear Gavin, religion is protected by the US Constitution along with a host of
amendments. You should read them sometime and perhaps learn something about your
country that you missed in jr high. Secondly, sexual debauchery is not protected
by the constitution. No Gavin there are NO special rights granted for
homosexuals or transvestites or cross dressers etc... by the constitution. There
are many today trying to force those so-called rights down the throats of normal
society and there are many today trying to protect marriage and other
institutions from being destroyed by these twisted folks.
King James, Matthew 19? | 6:08 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
Hate to break it to you, but that scripture is not about Jesus promoting
celebacy or anything like that. It is similar to His teaching on giving up all
things for the kingdom.
That verse is implying that the greatest people are those that are willing to sacrifice earthly pleasures (such as sex) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Some people are born with the ability to do that and it is natural for them. Others have to be compelled to do it. The greatest of us however, choose to be that way without having to be compelled or having it come naturally to us. Such people willfully give up pleasures in life when it serves the kingdom.
Contrary to what that scripture seems to be saying to those who do not have the spirit - Jesus does not want us to castrate ourselves (like the eunuchs)for the sake of the kingdom.
That verse is implying that the greatest people are those that are willing to sacrifice earthly pleasures (such as sex) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Some people are born with the ability to do that and it is natural for them. Others have to be compelled to do it. The greatest of us however, choose to be that way without having to be compelled or having it come naturally to us. Such people willfully give up pleasures in life when it serves the kingdom.
Contrary to what that scripture seems to be saying to those who do not have the spirit - Jesus does not want us to castrate ourselves (like the eunuchs)for the sake of the kingdom.
@ 4:47 | 7:58 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
That sounds like an argument to legalize drug use - not an argument to ban
same-sex relationships.
Although, arguably, drugs do cause harm. Or perhaps you are not familiar with the problems where they are grown and the harms caused by addiction?
Although, arguably, drugs do cause harm. Or perhaps you are not familiar with the problems where they are grown and the harms caused by addiction?
@ 7:58 | 8:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009
are you talking about the 528 "legal" perscription drugs deaths in
Utah last year,
or the 104 who died using "illegal" drugs.
I don't know which "harmful" drugs you are refering to.
or the 104 who died using "illegal" drugs.
I don't know which "harmful" drugs you are refering to.
mark | 11:06 a.m. Nov. 13, 2009
So let me get this right, you think Jesus wants us to castrate ourselves? Like
the eunichs? Well anyway it sounds like he, if he actually said that and it
wasn't just added, was just saying that some do that, not that everyone
should. Of course if he was saying that people should castrate themselves we
would run out of Christens very fast wouldn't we? Also if Christ thinks we
should be celibate how does that sync with LDS teachings to have children?
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.
- TCU still has a chance 2:04 a.m.
- Unranked Orange move to 4-0 1:52 a.m.
- 3A: Juan Diego 12, Hurricane 10 1:51 a.m.
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii 1:38 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham vs Davis 1:32 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham 35, Davis 24 1:30 a.m.
- 5A: Darts impress in title loss 1:13 a.m.
- 5A: Miners' Cantwell makes name 1:11 a.m.
- Can BYU throw vs. Air Force? 1:10 a.m.
- 4A: Timpview defense stepped up 1:09 a.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- 'New Moon' doesn't rise to occasion
- 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 unqualified105
- 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
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
Ask just women of childbearing age do they want to decide their reproductive...
On behalf of the millions of people worldwide who worship the devine and...
That happened approximately 9 years ago.
For being a terrible program, Bronco still has one more win than Kyle...go...
wow, that was a game. #56 for Hurricane seemed to be in on almost every...
That was the most amazing drive and play I have ever seen in high school...
for stepping up and doing the right thing in challenging portions of the...
A majority of us are apposed to abortion, but we are in even greater...
"Speed kills. Speed beats size everytime. " haha, everytime eh? If that...
Air Force 35 BYU 21
Advertisements
"Special" protections based on sexual orientation choices are not . . . yet.
Lee Padron
Draper