Deseret News | Mormons and gay rights

Reader comments
In our opinion: Mormons and gay rights

250 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

My Question | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I'm justs wondering how many "Known" Gays, work in a paid function for the LDS church.

Wonder if they practice what they preach....

G-Man | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I applaud the church's stance and its conduct on this issue.

However, I would like to see examples of homosexuals who do "violence" to the institution of marriage. What violence has been done/could be done to marriage? Does a loving, committed gay couple who may end up staying married for forty years do more "violence" to the institution of marriage than Britney Spears' 36 hour Vegas marriage? I don't see how using inflammatory rhetoric follows Christ's teachings. I would love for someone to show me. I would also love to hear how gay people are a "threat" to marriage. Allowing gays to marry does nothing to diminish the institution or to damage the relationships in straight marriages. Only the individuals in the marriage itself can do that.

Thank You | 11:29 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Amen!

Comments continue below

jim | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

great kudo's to the lds church. this was not an easy decision--but it put love and understanding above fear!

CB | 11:32 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

How are your going to defend yourself against any claim of not hiring, or renting to someone who says that are "gay"? Those of us who practice employment law think this is going to give the claimant great emotional leverage, so anyone in the interview, when they see certain mannerisms,will hire just to avoid a law suit, not on qualifications, and alternatively, questions will be asked about someones sexual persuasion by someone inexperienced with such interviews, which automatically creates an inference of discrimination. Such questions are always inappropriate, though not illegal under the federal act,Title VII.If someone thinks they have been discriminated against, how will the employer prove neutrality to defend against such claims? I do not think you know how powerful such a claim will be to intimidate an employer?

Reality Check | 11:36 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Vitriolic comments follow the LDS Church when one or two things happen: 1. Statements by the church are either misinterpreted, or ignored altogether; and 2. when the LDS Church remains silent on an issue and lets other speak for them. This latest action is an example of how to do it right. It is a statement of beliefs---Christ-like love for all, while restating rock-solid doctrines that will not change through societal pressure. Whether one agrees with the LDS set of doctrines or not, you have to respect an organization for it's resolve to stick to its beliefs amid a morass of changing secular morality; and yet is making its best effort at keeping dialogue open with all groups. Hats off.

is it needed | 11:39 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Is this really a problem that needs a solution?
Who has been fired/not hired for being gay?
Who has been denied a rental for being gay?
I would like some specific examples, that I could look at, or google.
Tried to find cases but nothing came up.
I do not want a bunch of "it happens all the time"
I would like some examples of where gays have been discriminated against in work, or renting due to being gay.
I believe that each human deserves dignity, and respect.
I had a friend who was gay, everyone knew not to mess with him, or they would have to answer to me.
No one ever messed with him

What about what I want? | 11:46 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I don't like to pay my bills on time. I still pay them- just a few weeks late, with interest, so I'm not hurting anybody. I know I was born this way because it's the only thing that makes me happy, and if you disagree with my behavior for any reason it means you HATE me. I don't want to have collectors or repo men coming after me any more- it's ruining my life!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can I have special rights based on my chosen behavior too, Salt Lake City, or are you going to discriminate against me like everyone else?

Tammy | 11:55 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The surprise and relief disparaged by this editorial were direct results of the church's earlier and deafening silence on the Common Ground Initiatives. Remember that, Mr. Editor?

One Human Family | 12:07 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The church's support of this ordinance is too little too late. After proding its members (me included) to spend millions of dollars to rob the ability of our homosexual brothers and sisters to marry, do the church leaders really believe that this current action will change how the church is viewed?

Marriage and politics aside, the sad reality is that gays and lesbians are still treated very poorly within the church. I remember when my brother came out to me and explained all that he had been through growing up gay. I cried for days. This amazing brother had prayed daily for his entire life to make his same-sex attractions go away. He had put himself through years of therapy to change. He even attempted to take his own life because he felt no one could love a homosexual. No one should have to go through what he did and the one place that should have been a safe reprieve, church, was (and continues to be) the worst offender.

I sincerely hope that this action by the church is only the beginning. They have a lot of making up to do.

Bill Baumgardner Sr. | 12:08 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The biggest surprise is to learn that the Church owns this newspaper! Most of our leaders back here in the east have denied this on many occasions. Not sure whether it was ignorance on their part or thought it was a big secret to be kept as such.
Having stated this, I am now REALLY surprised of the many kinds of down grading articles I have read in this CHURCH owned paper. WOW! What would Jesus do if he stood in the editorial rooms of His paper? We have a hymn in His Church that asks us that very question. I can only imagine. :(

Brother Chuck Schroeder | 12:13 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

So, what this DN story says, is that President Gordon B. Hinckley lied, when he said this then hey?. And these statements by the LDS church are either misinterpreted, or ignored altogether, when it boils down to so called "behavioral problem" homosexual rights?, and what it's saying then is when the LDS Church remains silent on an issue, and lets other speak for them, it won't SOUND as if President Gordon B. Hinckley lied ?. I know better. Do you?.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read and said by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

It's the full TRUTH.

Bill Baumgardner Sr. | 12:23 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

MORE CENSORSHIP OF MY STATEMENTS! CHRIST TAUGHT THAT WE HAVE "FREE AGENCT" TO SPEAK THE TRUTH. WHEN I DO, I AM CENSORED.

Pagan | 12:23 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

'Who has been fired/not hired for being gay?'

13,000 men and women discharged under Don't ask, Don't tell.'

I have been evicted from a rental property due to my orientation. This was around 13S. 2E. SLC.

I'm glad you protect your gay friend from discrimination 'is it needed'.

Let's not pretend we all have such protections.

SLC July '09 discrimination report gives 300 other examples that is not the case.

Re: Is it needed? | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Of course it is needed. If you need "proof", talk to people who are gay and listen to their stories. Just knowing your friend and your need to defend him should be proof enough for you.

Brad | 12:29 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

"Can I have special rights based on my chosen behavior too, Salt Lake City?"

Sure. It's called religion.

Anonymous | 12:31 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

re: jim | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 12, 2009

//great kudo's to the lds church. this was not an easy decision--but it put love and understanding above fear!//

The rumor I heard is; Romney called "the Powwers that be" & said you are hamstringing my chances for the Oval Office.

Anonymous | 12:38 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The first couple of comments here illustrate an important point. For those who choose to attack the LDS Church, it doesn't matter what they do.

Something they like" It isn't enough, or isn't sincere. Something they don't like, the Church is out of touch or bigoted, or in some other way evil.

The Church has explained itself well here. The doctrine hasn't changed. We support the protection of your rights to the extent it doesn't damage the divine institution of marriage and religious freedom.

Jeff | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The elepahant in the room here is very simple. Latter Day Saints believe that homesexual sex, as well as pre-marital sex of any kind is a sin. The Church also believes that no unclean thing can enter the kingdom of God. Therefore, you must repent of your sins and come unto Christ. Very simple people. If gays marry, they will be continually sinning and not repenting. Its that simple. No different that someone who is heterosexual living with someone out of wedlock. EXACTLY the same. If you argue against the Church by saying "Gay marrige does not hurt anyone, etc, etc," you are missing the elephant in the room. The Church TRULY believes in equality, but that equality, that is, we are all sinners and must repent to be saved in the Kingdom of God. If you are living in sin and un-repentant, you cannot be saved. Why is this elephant never mentioned? People on both sides argue till they are blue in the face. If you do not agree that homosexual sex is a sin, then we are talking apples and oranges.

BigD | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The Sutherland Institute got it right when they said that this is a victory for homosexuals. They will continue to chip away at morality and try to gain acceptance any way they can. SLC has now created a new class of protected citizen, "Gay". Wrong thing for the church to do. Wrong thing for SLC to do. I don't believe in discriminating against gays but I don't believe in giving them special status either. Proof of my opinion is the state reps that said now that SLC did this they want the state to follow suit. If you don't think this will hurt anyone you are very wrong. It hurts all of society when we start to legitimize immoral and abhorant behavior. This will just give the LGBT community strength to continue their fight. I for one am tired of the rhetoric. Sin never was happiness.

2 bits | 1:14 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I don't think the Church is against "Gay_Rights" in general, they just don't agree with the PROMOTION of the gay_lifestyle.

That's just MY opinion though. They could have it out for gay people and just hate them and want them to suffer as much as possible (as many seem to assume).

The only reason they got involved in Prop_8 is they saw it as an attack on the family (which they consider to be the most important relationship and a core societal link, the main purpose for life itself.

One of our main reasons for being here on this earth is to be fruitful and replenish the earth (a commandment). Gay unions (by some curse of nature) can not result in natural procreation. These relationships are built upon a perversion of "natural" sex.

Sex is not only for reproduction, but that is an important part, and something gay sexual relations can NOT produce.

Sex is also intended for joy, and to draw us together and bind us together as husband and wife. Gay sex CAN provide (or at least simulate) that.

God loves ALL people. But he has some expectations regarding how we use sex.

dbushy | 1:17 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Is Deseret News going to report that Jeffery R Holland also issued a statement applauding the ordinances passed by Salt Lake City. This needs to be reported so as to help members of the church understand that homosexuals are not the monsters that a lot of members believe they are. Understanding on both sides may help these poor teens make better choices when they find they have same sex attraction and think and a lot go through with suicide.
If it is understood that the church recognizes the fact that the LGBT community does not have the same rights as those in the straight community have then we may save some of these kids....Come on Deseret News report the NEWS. If it is somewhere here and I am not seeing it please feel free to tell me where it is.

@ What about what I want? | 1:20 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I am sorry that you are so uneducated that you do not see a difference between sexual orientation (which everyone has) and a failure to fulfill your responsibilities.

Comments such as yours do nothing to move the dialogue forward and disadvantage your side by being so off topic as to be ridiculous. Actually - it almost works to advance the other side by showing how little validity there is in opposition to anti-discrimination laws. Seriously, the best argument you have against the LDS Church position and the proposed ordinance is that you think you should get special treatment because you don't want to do something everyone is subjected to? That is like arguing that you shouldn't have to die because you choose not to breathe...

to Pagan | 1:21 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I live around that area - glad you're gone

Anonymous | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Just as the liberals will never stop, I will never stop affirming my knowledge that being a homosexual is wrong. I am not Mormon, but happily join the Mormons as we fight to prevent the moral decay of society.

Oregon Man | 1:37 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

It is a relief to me that the LDS church, the GLBT community, and SLC have come together in the manner they did. As a heterosexual Mormon, I hope this dialogue serves as a template for all future dialogue between all parties on this issue.

I feel hurt when the homosexual community calls me a bigot or unChrist-like for supporting marriage as an institution solely between a man and woman. I would be more sympathetic to their cause if they would cease the name calling and be more cognizant of the first amendment guarantee that "congress shall make noe law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

@ My Question | 1:41 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

There are religious protection statutes which protect religious entities from having to hire those who do not follow their tenets when that job is closely related to the beliefs and religious functions of the religious entity. In other words, no church has to hire employees who are not members of that church and do not follow the teachings of that church.

Pagan | 1:41 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

'Sex is not only for reproduction, but that is an important part, and something gay sexual relations can NOT produce.'

Neither is the 50% divorce rate, 2 bits.

Neither is the CDC reporting that 40% of all children in the US are being raised by a single-parent house hold.

Neither are people who are advanced in age to have children. Should we anul grandma's marriage because she can't have children?

'God loves ALL people. But...'

Thank you for making my case.

Keith in Colorado | 1:42 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I always find it interesting how when someone is living in sin, and the scriptures clearly state it is a sin, and someone points it out as such, he is immediately labeled a bigot, judgemental, uncompassionate, and old fashioned. What's more, because more and more people are living the sin, they rationalize that it's no longer a sin? Clearly, we are living in a time when "evil is good and good is evil" in the eyes of many people.

In truth however, nothing has changed. The Savior still loves them, but the guilt remains and it will always be there until such time as the sin is fully repented of.

God is unchangeable. If he were, he would cease to be God. As compassionate and loving as he is, He does not change his position on sin simply because more and more people engage in that sin. And because He is an eternal and loving God, his love is never diminished when we choose not to follow Him.
As in the case of all sin, this too can be overcome and repented of. It may take a lifetime of endurance and faith, but it can be done.

@ Jeff | 1:44 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

There is one big difference: if you are a heterosexual couple and living together without the benefit of marriage, you can correct that.

Anonymous | 1:48 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

I personally disagree with this ordinance. Having said that, I also am personally against discrimination in any form against anyone.

My reason for disagreement is that I fear that some gay folks who are turned down for employment or housing would sue for discrimination when there was none. I think antidiscrimination laws in general (not just this one) have taken us too far in one direction and the pendulum needs to swing back to the middle. Employers and landlords also have rights and I think those are being infringed upon to some degree by this.

In my family business there was a recent opening that drew quite a number of qualified applicants. The most qualified candidate and the best fit for our business happened to be a gay person, and that is the person we hired. This person has become a friend and valued member of our staff.

What Goes Around Comes Around | 1:50 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Seems to me like the church has finally "found religion" and is trying to save face after the trouncing it took following its reprehensible conduct with Poroposition 8. The distortions and lies pur forth by the church in that campaign in its misplaced zeal to "protect marriage" did almost as much harm to the church as it did to gay civil liberties.

re: Brad | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

""Can I have special rights based on my chosen behavior too, Salt Lake City?"

Sure. It's called religion."

I already have that right. I'm talking about the right to not pay my bills on time. Why do you hate me?

Ralph | 1:51 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

This is for WHAT ABOUT WHAT I WANT - I personally believe it's possible for some gay persons to be born that way. That still doesn't make it right, any more than being born blind or addicted to drugs makes those things right. It's just another challenge to face. I often wonder, if science found a no-doubt-about-it gene that causes same-gender attraction - and proved without a doubt it was defective - how many "afflicted" with this ailment would choose to have it corrected. Sadly, I doubt that many would. Which gets to the bottom of it all - whether born that way or not, it's still a choice. A more difficult one, but still a choice. For the benefit of full disclosure, I share my thoughts with full knowledge that one of my daughters is living a gay lifestyle. I love her unconditionally no matter what. I don't agree with her choice, but it's her right to choose, without fear of repercussion from her parents.

Re: One Human Family | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

How do you suppose the human family came to be? One man and One woman. Homosexuality violates the natural process of procreation in all forms of animal life. I am not saying the person who chooses to live a lifestyle should be demeaned in any way. The behavior, however, is contrary to the individual's design, purpose and potential. You and others I'm sure will want to disagree with me, but no one can deny what is true.

gays, please explain this: | 2:01 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If you as gays say that gay marriage is a purely RELIGIOUS thing and start bashing religions, how is it that the very ATHEIST People's Republic of China does not allows "civil unions" of homosexuals or "marriage" between homosexuals.

Please explain the world's abhorrence of homosexual acts and marriage. It is because it is wrong, unnatural and quite frankly disgusts the majority of those in the world.

To: One Human Family | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

While I understand at some level, what you've expressed, and I feel your pain, I must ask, what more would you expect the church to do in behalf of your brother? There's only so much the Church can do. Ultimately, it's up to the individual and his Savior. The atonement is and always has been the only answer. Members of the Church can be very insensitive and cruel at times. But that's the members themselves, not the Church as a whole.

To 'dbushy | 1:17 p.m.' | 2:13 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

dbushy | 1:17 p.m.

How do you know that Mormons think gays/lesbians are "Monsters"? I've NEVER heard that from a Mormon! Did you just make that one up, or did you actually hear that statement from a large percentage of the Mormon population?

And do you think ONLY Mormons have issues with the gay lifestyle? I think you would be wrong if you make that assumption.

Collin | 2:21 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The LDS church is walking a fine line. It's hard to do, but they are being consistent with their beliefs. No one should be denied a job or housing for their behavior that has nothing to do with the job or being good tenants. But homosexuality has everything to do with family and marriage, so the church gets involved to uphold what it thinks is right. This move shows the church is not unreasonable, but careful and not vindictive.

Utah Independent | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

If being in heaven means I have to live with people like Jeff and the Sutherland institute wackos and "anonymous", then I just don't want to be there anyway.

Pagan | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

'I live around that area - glad you're gone' - 1:21 p.m.

You would.

Genius. I'm still here. I went to the city council meeting. I vote as a resident of Utah.

What are you doing? Insulting a gay man on a anonymous thread. Yeah, your a prime example why laws are needed. Thanks for helping my case.

'I am not Mormon, but happily join the Mormons as we fight to prevent the moral decay of society.' - 1:31 p.m.

Then please work to help to lower 50% divorce rate.

Oh, wait. MA did that when they allowed gay marriage. It now has the lowest divorce rate in the country.

to Pagan | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

More tired arguments. Allowing grandma and grandpa to remain married does not change the definition, the ideal, or the societal image of marriage.

Certainly, divorce and single parenthood are causing a lot of problems in this country.

How about you come up with a viable solution to those problems and I'll support you on that. Until then, I'll continue to support marriage as it always has been--between man and woman.

Pagan | 2:30 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

'Please explain the world's abhorrence of homosexual acts and marriage.' - 2:01 p.m.

Sure. It's all in your head.

As Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, and Sweden all have gay marriage.

jake | 2:37 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

how ignorant and hateful it is to say that homosexual relations are abhorrent and "wrong". the church itself has basically acknowledged that homosexuality is natural or genetic. the 1st presidency has also approved several sex-change operations for church members who feel legitimately that they were born in a body of the wrong sex and that their soul is really male or female. this fight is casting lds people in a poor light people. we are coming off as hateful people who are intolerant of others. remember that before the civil rights movement interracial marriage was considered "abhorrent" and "wrong". our image of hate is hurting everyone, especially those who might one day join the church. i plead with everyone to be more understanding of others.

Seek understanding | 2:42 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

How did homosexuality come to be? A certain small percentage of homosexuals are born in every generation. Those who call this “wrong” are showing no compassion for what nature has done to these people.

Ralph, I believe that if there were a sure-fire cure for homosexuality, many would choose the cure, because it is difficult to live with this gender predisposition in our society. What homosexual wants this societal grief?

Maybe God is testing our tolerance. There are people who are born different. Let us try to understand the how and why, and be compassionate.

Anonymous | 2:44 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

The issue of fraudulent lawsuits being brought by gays against employers is, well, a red herring. Has a Catholic employer ever hired an unqualified Mormon solely because the employer fears being sued by the Mormon if he isn't hired? One's religion, too, is protected by this type of ordinance.

Anyone who has the funds to waste can sue; that doesn't mean the suit has merit.

to Pagan | 2:45 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Silly pagan. Massachusetts had the lowest divorce rate in the US in 2002. That was BEFORE homosexual marriage was allowed.

Pagan | 2:47 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

'Allowing grandma and grandpa to remain married does not change the definition, the ideal, or the societal image of marriage.' - 2:26 p.m.

However, grandma & grandma cannot 1) Give birth to or 2) raise children as they are in they're twilight years.

The argument of 'but the children!' is invalid when your talking about someone who is 95 raising a 3month old.

I've already given a solution to divorce. Allow more marriage. Pay attention. Single parenthood would be lowered by 1) more marriages and 2) more willing parents supported by a legal family.

I realize I have used these arguments before. Too bad any rebutuls can only involve the fiction of sin and morality.

Support the union of marriage as a man and a woman. The facts support you have no basis for it.

Pagan at 2:47 | 2:56 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

Too bad the truth of sin is all the argument we need

And do you blush when someone calls you out on your "facts" such as poster at 2:45?

just askin | 2:56 p.m. Nov. 12, 2009

So does this mean my gay co worker won't be fired for discriminating against me and my religious affiliation?

Page:
1
2
3
4
5
Next >

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.