Reader comments
Readers' forum: Sodom and Gomorrah
52 comments | Read story
sigh | 2:48 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
If it was up to you, homosexuality would be a crime, not just a sin. Your
bigotry is not welcome in the United States of America.
Evangeline | 3:23 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Oh dear, what's a bigot to do?
Comments continue below
Ugly | 7:44 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
The line of reasoning in this letter would also be used to excuse bigotry
against people of different skin colors and religions.
Roland Kayser | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Ezekiel 16:48-50 Explains that the sins of Sodom were that "She and her
daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and
needy.
Anonymous | 7:50 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
For employment of for renting since they are private property landlords and
employers should have the ability to rent out and hire and fire who they want.
If they want to have apartment tenants with traditional family values they have
right to rent them out that way.
There are family only apartments, and they have regulations on pets why not say you only rent out to married couples and not to cohabiters and on and on.
There are family only apartments, and they have regulations on pets why not say you only rent out to married couples and not to cohabiters and on and on.
MormonDem | 7:56 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
So, if you accept the Proclamation but reject this latest counsel, you're
saying that you only listen to the Brethren when they tell you what you already
want to hear?
Anonymous | 8:07 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Marvin, I know there's little or nothing I could ever do to change your
mind about gay men and women as many people like you are convinced that
they're doing God's work. I will just continue to live my life, be a
good person, do well by my friends, family and neighbors and wait (and work) for
the change I feel is inevitable. Little by little, and with growing momentum,
people are recognizing the REAL truth about their gay neighbors and no longer
feel threatened by them. I see it around me each and every day - even here in
Utah. It's only a matter of time until your generation has passed and more
inclusive (and truly Christ-like) values are embraced.
Kevin | 8:26 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
"Employers should have rights, and among those is the right to hire and
fire whom they want. Landlords and all providers of shelter should have equal
rights to provide service as they want. At one time I operated a bed and
breakfast, making it clear that I only provided services to those who adhered to
traditional family values."
So I can fire a Mormon because he's a Mormon? I can evict a Mormon because she's a Mormon? I didn't think so.
What happened to your B & B? Maybe the marketplace gave it a thumbs down.
So I can fire a Mormon because he's a Mormon? I can evict a Mormon because she's a Mormon? I didn't think so.
What happened to your B & B? Maybe the marketplace gave it a thumbs down.
right to work state LOL | 8:29 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Utah is billed as a "right to work state" and every employment
contract I have seen here says the employer has the right to terminate
employment at anytime with/without a reason. This new ordinance says this does
not apply in SLC.
As I understand it, the new CITY ordinance has no bearing on the hiring or leasing of dwellings; it only applies after an employer has hired and a landlord has leased.
I agree it should be my property, for which I pay taxes and am responsible; my business for which I am licensed, pay taxes and am responsible should equal my way. In my experience, a person seeks me out to lease my property in which to live and/or my business in which to be employed; therefore, I should have the right, unless otherwise stated in our contract to terminate access to my property and/or my business.
As I understand it, the new CITY ordinance has no bearing on the hiring or leasing of dwellings; it only applies after an employer has hired and a landlord has leased.
I agree it should be my property, for which I pay taxes and am responsible; my business for which I am licensed, pay taxes and am responsible should equal my way. In my experience, a person seeks me out to lease my property in which to live and/or my business in which to be employed; therefore, I should have the right, unless otherwise stated in our contract to terminate access to my property and/or my business.
Anonymous | 8:36 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Marvin, my head is spinning from your double speak. You say you have compassion
for those who choose a different lifestyle but will never knowingly support
them. How do you reconcile those two statements in a real and practical way.
Further, how do you reconcile that position to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, how do you reconcile your position to the position that the inspired LDS church leadership has taken.
Marvin, I think the the pursuit of the right thing you have gone so far that you have lost sight of what is the right thing. You are not able to reach a proper balance between true principles.
For example, as concepts, the balance between justice and mercy is a very delicate thing. As is the balance between loving and accepting others and not judging them. You need to have more love and less judgment.
Further, how do you reconcile that position to the gospel of Jesus Christ. And, how do you reconcile your position to the position that the inspired LDS church leadership has taken.
Marvin, I think the the pursuit of the right thing you have gone so far that you have lost sight of what is the right thing. You are not able to reach a proper balance between true principles.
For example, as concepts, the balance between justice and mercy is a very delicate thing. As is the balance between loving and accepting others and not judging them. You need to have more love and less judgment.
dave | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Hilarious. Nice troll letter. There is no way someone like the writer could be
real.
Lulu | 8:47 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
So you are upset that the Church supports people who may be fabulous renters
(pay on time, keep the place clean) and wonderful employees from being fired or
kicked out because their sexual choices aren't "mainstream" How
very Christlike of you--as a member of the Church I'm embarrassed by your
opinion. I'm GLAD the Church stood up and supported this bill and I'm
beyond angry that a bill like this even had to be passed.
Doug G | 9:35 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Marvin, it's interesting to hear your vehement support for a world where
you coud have been denied service or lodging or work for no other reason than
you are not gay.
Anonymous | 10:19 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
I am a member of the LDS Church and I also support the Proclamation to the
Family. It's a difficult subjuect, but are you saying you wouldn't
give a gay man or woman a place to sleep or eat if they needed it, or not hire
someone who needs money and a job to live? The Savior I know and love
wouldn't treat someone like that. Matthew 25:40 didn't say
"except gay people" We may not agree with the lifestyle, but does that
mean we hate and deny rights? We still need to love people. They may live their
life in a way you don't agree with, but it doesn't lock doors to a
church building where we need to befriend and love them and it certainly
doesn't lock doors to human rights.
Donald Foster | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Clearly, Mr. Wharton is being ironic. No one could be so narrow and spineless
without a smirk.
Anonymous | 11:09 a.m. Nov. 15, 2009
I am a faithful Salt Lake LDS member and was not in the least surprised by the
church's decision in this matter. We are all "sinners" and we
all struggle everyday to become better people. Heterosexual "sin" is
as much as, if not more than, a catalyst to the breakdown of families as
homosexual "sin". My own family was destroyed by my ex-husbands
addiction to pornography. Should he have been fired fomr his job for this? No!
Should he have trouble finding a place to live because of it? No! I know and
love many gay people. They are good people who like anyone else are trying to
find their way in a cold, cruel world. They deserve our love and respect and
humanity regardless of whether or not we agree with the behavior. In the end, I
believe God will judge pride and bigotry and hatred as being far more evil then
homosexuality.
Anonymous | 12:00 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
"Utah is billed as a "right to work state" and every employment
contract I have seen here says the employer has the right to terminate
employment at anytime with/without a reason. This new ordinance says this does
not apply in SLC."
No, it doesn't.
No, it doesn't.
nonceleb | 12:15 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Another hilariously ridiculous, yet tragic attitude.
How can "compassion" and discrimination co-exist?
Fifty years ago a person like this would say they have empathy for Blacks, but would not allow them in their restaurant.
This is as absurd as Gayle Ruzicka saying she hates the sin, but loves the sinner, then does everything she can to deny them rights. Give me a break.
How can "compassion" and discrimination co-exist?
Fifty years ago a person like this would say they have empathy for Blacks, but would not allow them in their restaurant.
This is as absurd as Gayle Ruzicka saying she hates the sin, but loves the sinner, then does everything she can to deny them rights. Give me a break.
@ Anonymous 7:50 | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
"...why not say you only rent out to married couples and not to cohabiters
and on and on."
Well, it may be possible to do that, because then you would not be discriminating against same-sex couples - all unmarried couples would be being treated equally. The problem then would be that same-sex couples would have grounds to argue that, not having the option to marry, they are being treated unequally under the law - which may lead to an advance of the argument for allowing same-sex marriage.
Well, it may be possible to do that, because then you would not be discriminating against same-sex couples - all unmarried couples would be being treated equally. The problem then would be that same-sex couples would have grounds to argue that, not having the option to marry, they are being treated unequally under the law - which may lead to an advance of the argument for allowing same-sex marriage.
mark | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Using a Biblical story to deny Civil Rights in America.....says SO much about
LDS followers, and it's why I'll never return to Utah,(even though the
entire maternal side of my family are LDS members who love and respect me as
openly gay.)
Sodom story is about a HOST not performing the duty recognised in EVERY Middle East religion and culture concerning a GUEST-FRIEND. Not protecting someone you invited into your home, was one of the worst crimes imaginable.
Sodom story is about a HOST not performing the duty recognised in EVERY Middle East religion and culture concerning a GUEST-FRIEND. Not protecting someone you invited into your home, was one of the worst crimes imaginable.
I'm confused... | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
On previous threads individuals who are gay or who support rights for gays have
been told that they are bad Mormons to question the word of the Prophet and that
if they are not prepared to follow the teachings of the Church, they should
leave it. Now, those who are opposed to any rights for homosexuals are not only
questioning the word of the Prophet, but speaking out against it. Does that
mean they are bad Mormons and should leave the Church?
Anonymous | 1:08 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
While the Proclamation on the Family is an important document, it, and the PR
push in the last 20 or 30 years has made the family supreme, over Christ and the
core principles of the Gospel. This is lamentable. I suspect Christ would take
a different approach than that taken by the writer of this letter.
jackhp | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
"Utah is billed as a 'right to work state' and every employment
contract I have seen here says the employer has the right to terminate
employment at anytime with/without a reason. This new ordinance says this does
not apply in SLC."
No, it doesn't. "Right to work" means employment can be terminated without a reason, but not for ANY reason at all. You still can't discriminate. In other words, if you fire someone BECAUSE they are LDS then they can sue you. If you fire someone BECAUSE they are gay then they can sue you. If you fire someone for no particular reason at all then they can't sue you.
No, it doesn't. "Right to work" means employment can be terminated without a reason, but not for ANY reason at all. You still can't discriminate. In other words, if you fire someone BECAUSE they are LDS then they can sue you. If you fire someone BECAUSE they are gay then they can sue you. If you fire someone for no particular reason at all then they can't sue you.
For those talking Scripture | 1:44 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Scripture, including even Koranic scripture, is totally against
homosexuality.
The Bible makes it a capital crime.
Has God changed? I think not.
The Bible makes it a capital crime.
Has God changed? I think not.
Why The Change? | 2:04 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Last week this letter would have been supported with dozens of post saying the
very same thing.
Yet today it is mostly condemnation and calls for compassion toward our Gay & Lesbians citizens.
What has changed?
Did everyone change their opinion overnight?
Do supporters of civil rights and civil dialogue feel safe to speak up now?
Do the anti-gay under any circumstance feel ridiculed into being quiet?
I don't know the reason, it is strange for a change to happen so quickly. It is very confusing.
However, we should welcome a more civil and respectful dialogue that shows compassion toward everyone. I hope it is real and I hope it last.
Yet today it is mostly condemnation and calls for compassion toward our Gay & Lesbians citizens.
What has changed?
Did everyone change their opinion overnight?
Do supporters of civil rights and civil dialogue feel safe to speak up now?
Do the anti-gay under any circumstance feel ridiculed into being quiet?
I don't know the reason, it is strange for a change to happen so quickly. It is very confusing.
However, we should welcome a more civil and respectful dialogue that shows compassion toward everyone. I hope it is real and I hope it last.
Anonymous | 2:11 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
It used to be that some people were bigots. Today,as many of thexe postings are
proving, you can just call anyone a bigot if they don't approve of your
behavior. Sad.
@ For those talking Scripture | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Some religions (namely Episcopalians) have a different interpretation of Matthew
19:12 - they feel it offers support of homosexuality. They feel that since this
is actually Christ talking, it supersedes other Biblical verses - particularly
those from the Old Testament.
Whether or not God has changed really depends on where you believe He started.
Whether or not God has changed really depends on where you believe He started.
@ Anonymous 2:11 | 2:29 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
"big·ot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
If the definition fits....
"big·ot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
If the definition fits....
Brian O. | 2:41 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
@ "For those talking Scripture":
You ask if God has changed, and state that Homosexuality is a crime? I assume you're referring to that one verse in Leviticus, correct? Have you read the rest of Leviticus, specifically where it states not to eat pork or Shellfish, not to wear clothing of mixed fabrics, or where Women are required to leave the camp during menstruation?
While we're on topic, ever hear the term "Salad Bar Christian" before?
You ask if God has changed, and state that Homosexuality is a crime? I assume you're referring to that one verse in Leviticus, correct? Have you read the rest of Leviticus, specifically where it states not to eat pork or Shellfish, not to wear clothing of mixed fabrics, or where Women are required to leave the camp during menstruation?
While we're on topic, ever hear the term "Salad Bar Christian" before?
Anonymous | 2:46 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
If LDS members feel confused by the church supporting SLC non discrimination
act, imagine the distrust and suspicion of LGBTs, who were attacked by you
within months ago.
I feel massive donations to anti gay measures in Maine and WA state are soon forth coming, and LDS fears an even BIGGER BACKLASH than after CA.
I feel massive donations to anti gay measures in Maine and WA state are soon forth coming, and LDS fears an even BIGGER BACKLASH than after CA.
Conservative comments... | 3:13 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
...I turn off at
"I remember back when....."
"I remember back when....."
@2:48 and 3:23 and 7:44 | 3:20 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
When did the definition of ‘bigot’ change from prejudice towards a type of person to disapproval of a type of behavior? You are the real bigots.
The writer did not say he was against gay people. He said he was for the right to deny rental to people whose behavior does not meet an established standard.
I don't agree with the writer, but you name-callers are no better.
Rolan @7:45 | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
So, I suppose we can ignore Genesis 19 that clearly states at least one other
reason that Sodom was destroyed. Give it up already. Sexual intimacy, other
than that between a man and his wife,is a sin. You don't have to like it or
agree with it. But your wasting time trying to use the Bible to say otherwise.
e.s.p. | 3:58 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
So many posters here are reading so much more into the writer’s comment
than what was actually said.
He didn’t say he would not serve a gay person. He, in fact, said the opposite. People just can’t accept it.
He’s saying, first, that there is a lot more sin going on in Salt Lake than there used to be. I agree. Now, even if you believe that murder is the only sin, than he’s still probably right. If you don’t believe anything is sin, than that’s your opinion.
Second, he’s saying a business should be able to establish behavioral limits on those using his services. How is that view any different than “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”? Are those businesses ‘bigoted’ against shoeless people? Businesses regularly establish limits on behavior of those who use their service.
He didn’t say he would not serve a gay person. He, in fact, said the opposite. People just can’t accept it.
He’s saying, first, that there is a lot more sin going on in Salt Lake than there used to be. I agree. Now, even if you believe that murder is the only sin, than he’s still probably right. If you don’t believe anything is sin, than that’s your opinion.
Second, he’s saying a business should be able to establish behavioral limits on those using his services. How is that view any different than “no shirt, no shoes, no service.”? Are those businesses ‘bigoted’ against shoeless people? Businesses regularly establish limits on behavior of those who use their service.
Brian O. | 4:07 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Genesis 18 never clearly states homosexuality...in fact, it never states
homosexuality at all. It alludes to the townspeople wanting to rape Lot's
Guests, the fact that it would be a homosexual raping is irrelevant compared to
just the fact that it's a massive gathering of townspeople gang-raping a
visitor. Were it homosexuality that were the sin...why is it that Ezekial never
sees it worthwhile to list as one of its sins? And why weren't people
screaming out "Sodom, Sodom!" when that law against panhandling went
out?
@mark12:51 | 4:30 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Some day, I’d like to read a truthful comment from this ‘mark’
character.
The writer did NOT try to use “a Biblical story to deny Civil Rights in America” as you so deceptively put it…in desperate hopes of yet again slandering the LDS Church. And you make these baseless claims in spite of the evidence against you of your own family members. Your family isn’t unique in the church. Most LDS are just as accepting and loving as your family is — in spite of your efforts not to see it (as evidences by your desire to stay away from Utah).
Your observation about Sodom’s wickedness is partially accurate, but you conveniently neglect to mention from WHAT the guest-friends in Sodom needed to be PROTECTED. Sodomites weren’t trying to kill them or beat them up or steal from them. Face it mark. The extreme wickedness that made Sodom so worthy of destruction was the act of not protecting guests from homosexual sex. Homosexuality, mixed with a lack of concern for the guest, made this the ultimate form of wickedness.
The writer did NOT try to use “a Biblical story to deny Civil Rights in America” as you so deceptively put it…in desperate hopes of yet again slandering the LDS Church. And you make these baseless claims in spite of the evidence against you of your own family members. Your family isn’t unique in the church. Most LDS are just as accepting and loving as your family is — in spite of your efforts not to see it (as evidences by your desire to stay away from Utah).
Your observation about Sodom’s wickedness is partially accurate, but you conveniently neglect to mention from WHAT the guest-friends in Sodom needed to be PROTECTED. Sodomites weren’t trying to kill them or beat them up or steal from them. Face it mark. The extreme wickedness that made Sodom so worthy of destruction was the act of not protecting guests from homosexual sex. Homosexuality, mixed with a lack of concern for the guest, made this the ultimate form of wickedness.
Kyle | 4:33 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Homosexuality, Polygamy and all sex abuse are of the devil and all fit tight
with a modern day Sodom & Gomorrah. The world is doomed if people don't
start working on their morals. God is not happy with any of these people.
@2:29 | 4:37 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
That's the whole point. The definition does not fit. The LGBT fits the
definition of bigot. The writer does not.
JanSan | 4:45 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
I have read the letter and most of the comments...
One thing that stands out in the comments is that the church has "changed" and more welcoming of the gay people.
PEOPLE take note... the church HAS NOT changed anything!!!
The Proclamation to the Family is just as important today in the church as it was when it first came out. The church has had the stance about the civil rights for a long time...
Once again.. the LDS Church did not capitulate to the gay community in anyway what so ever! It stands as it always has and ALWAYS will. That marraige is between and man and woman.
It also reconizes the second great commandment. We are to love EVERYONE! (this goes for the gays as well as the LDS) even our enemies!
Love the sinner - hate the sin! That is what Christ taught and that is what He expects from ALL of us!
One thing that stands out in the comments is that the church has "changed" and more welcoming of the gay people.
PEOPLE take note... the church HAS NOT changed anything!!!
The Proclamation to the Family is just as important today in the church as it was when it first came out. The church has had the stance about the civil rights for a long time...
Once again.. the LDS Church did not capitulate to the gay community in anyway what so ever! It stands as it always has and ALWAYS will. That marraige is between and man and woman.
It also reconizes the second great commandment. We are to love EVERYONE! (this goes for the gays as well as the LDS) even our enemies!
Love the sinner - hate the sin! That is what Christ taught and that is what He expects from ALL of us!
Even if a person | 4:46 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
believes in the traditional interpretation of homosexuality in the Bible you
must also believe that the example Jesus set Love would include everybody. Jesus
didn't judge people. At times he would say "go thy way and sin no
more", but he certainly wouldn't have excluded "sinners"
from the basics of life (housing etc). Addtionaly, most people don't
believe that people living thousands of years ago had the knowledge that we have
today about people. I am not gay, but have a few gay friends. I love them as I
love others and find my friends to be kind and giving. I don't judge who
they are and I know that a higher power does not either.
@Brian O | 4:48 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Ezekial didn't say anything about rape either. By your logic, he must have
been okay with it. Even Lot didn't seem to have a problem with allowing his
own daughters to be raped.
I'll bet there is as much condemnation of rape as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. I'm just glad that there are still enough of us with enough common sense that we don't need scriptures to tell us that rape and homosexual behavior are sins.
I'll bet there is as much condemnation of rape as there is condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. I'm just glad that there are still enough of us with enough common sense that we don't need scriptures to tell us that rape and homosexual behavior are sins.
RE: Brian O. and Roland | 4:55 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Give it up.
the SINS of SODOM and GOMORTAH were many and not limited, their wickedness knew NO BOUNDS, even their children were growing up in sin,
that is the reason they were destroyed.
it is silly argue it was this sin or that sin,
they were so mired in ALL sin they were beyond redemption.
And the scriptures make QUITE CLEAR that ANY IMMORALITY is a SIN, including practicing homosexuality.
While Jesus came to fullfill the law moses, immorality of any kind is still a sin.
while no one is no longer put death for sexual sin and immorality, it is still a sin and something that one must repent of.
the SINS of SODOM and GOMORTAH were many and not limited, their wickedness knew NO BOUNDS, even their children were growing up in sin,
that is the reason they were destroyed.
it is silly argue it was this sin or that sin,
they were so mired in ALL sin they were beyond redemption.
And the scriptures make QUITE CLEAR that ANY IMMORALITY is a SIN, including practicing homosexuality.
While Jesus came to fullfill the law moses, immorality of any kind is still a sin.
while no one is no longer put death for sexual sin and immorality, it is still a sin and something that one must repent of.
Rights and Protections? | 5:49 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
For those that say these workplace protections should not be granted, here is a
personal experience for you to consider.
I worked for a local company for two years with glowing performance reviews every six months. Then one of my coworkers felt it was their "Christian-Duty" to inform the company owner that I was gay. He made comments to several people that he "did not want any of 'those people' working for him" and I was fired.
Based on one comment by a coworker, I went from a trusted and respected employee to one of "those people." The Utah Labor Commission told me that according to Utah Law their hands were tied–but, if I had been fired for my race, gender and even my "religious affiliation" they would have been able to file a complaint against the employer.
So, if I had made the choice to be LDS (which I am) and was fired for that choice, the State would have had recourse against the employer. But, because I was gay (and many of you feel that is also a choice) the State could do nothing. Why should one group have legal protection and not the other?
I worked for a local company for two years with glowing performance reviews every six months. Then one of my coworkers felt it was their "Christian-Duty" to inform the company owner that I was gay. He made comments to several people that he "did not want any of 'those people' working for him" and I was fired.
Based on one comment by a coworker, I went from a trusted and respected employee to one of "those people." The Utah Labor Commission told me that according to Utah Law their hands were tied–but, if I had been fired for my race, gender and even my "religious affiliation" they would have been able to file a complaint against the employer.
So, if I had made the choice to be LDS (which I am) and was fired for that choice, the State would have had recourse against the employer. But, because I was gay (and many of you feel that is also a choice) the State could do nothing. Why should one group have legal protection and not the other?
Echoing... | 6:56 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
what Rights and Protections? said -
When all those who are against "special" protections for LGBT individuals sign petitions to give up their special protections (i.e. anti-discrimination laws protecting age, gender, race, religion, etc.), then they will have credibility. In the mean time, it sounds like whining based on bigotry.
When all those who are against "special" protections for LGBT individuals sign petitions to give up their special protections (i.e. anti-discrimination laws protecting age, gender, race, religion, etc.), then they will have credibility. In the mean time, it sounds like whining based on bigotry.
Anonymous | 7:01 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
There are no special protections granted from these ordinances. EVERYONE has a
sexual orientation or gender identity. EVERYONE. You cannot be fired for being
heterosexual and you cannot be fired for being homosexual. No special rights,
just equal rights.
If you cannot grasp this concept and still feel someone has "special" rights by not allowing you to fire them for their sexual orientation, you are the reason for the laws in the first place.
If you cannot grasp this concept and still feel someone has "special" rights by not allowing you to fire them for their sexual orientation, you are the reason for the laws in the first place.
mark | 7:01 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
@@mark
If the sin of homosexuality was so horrible why didn't it get listed in the ten commandments?
Why did Jesus say NOTHING about it?
Why did the original twelve disciples who knew Jesus in life, say NOTHING about it.
If homosexuality was worthy of destroying a city, and everyone who lived there, why wasn't King David's kingdom destroyed, his love of Jonathan surpassed his love of women?
If the sin of homosexuality was so horrible why didn't it get listed in the ten commandments?
Why did Jesus say NOTHING about it?
Why did the original twelve disciples who knew Jesus in life, say NOTHING about it.
If homosexuality was worthy of destroying a city, and everyone who lived there, why wasn't King David's kingdom destroyed, his love of Jonathan surpassed his love of women?
Anonymous | 7:25 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Actually the LDS church didn't start saying or writing that homosexuality
was a sin until 1951 when first presidency counselor J. Reuban Clark started
preaching against it. Plus, Joseph Smith said Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed
only because they rejected the prophets, nothing to do with homosexuality. Then
it was changed I believe by David o'McKay to interpret Sodom as homosexual
sins. So if homosexuality is what you hate then maybe you do need to stop
looking at the church to blame for your bigotry and start looking inward and
find out what it is you're really afraid of.
Rachelle | 7:42 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Actually, it wasn't until 1952 that the LDS church started to say
homosexuality was a sin, started by first counselor J. Reuben Clark.
And until then started by first prophet Joseph Smith Sodom and Gomorrah downfall was only rejecting the prophets and that it had nothing to do with sexual crimes of any kind. (prob. to justify their use of polygamy) Anyway, that wasn't reversed until like Bruce R. McConkey or after to justify their changed position that homosexuality was in fact a sin to go with Catholics at the time.
So stop using the church or any other church to justify your bigotry and hatred of me as a lesbian and other LGBTs. Look inward and use a mirror for your soul to find out what it is you really hate. It may be yourself.
And until then started by first prophet Joseph Smith Sodom and Gomorrah downfall was only rejecting the prophets and that it had nothing to do with sexual crimes of any kind. (prob. to justify their use of polygamy) Anyway, that wasn't reversed until like Bruce R. McConkey or after to justify their changed position that homosexuality was in fact a sin to go with Catholics at the time.
So stop using the church or any other church to justify your bigotry and hatred of me as a lesbian and other LGBTs. Look inward and use a mirror for your soul to find out what it is you really hate. It may be yourself.
Richard G. | 10:16 p.m. Nov. 15, 2009
Mr. Wharton's views are unacceptably bigoted.
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.
- 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
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
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
Take a step back from your bible thumping and look at history. You will see that in the past people were claiming the downfall of culture because women could chose to wear pants and blacks were permitted to own land. None of theses things have degraded our culture, they have only helped the elevate it.
We are all humans. We all should have the same rights as any other human.