Isn't it sad that GLBT activists can't be happy with society's
tolerance. When I was young, sodomy was a crime. Such private behavior is no
longer criminal. Couldn't you folks just take a generation or two enjoying
your new-found freedom? Why must you leap all the way to preferential treatment
and the hijacking of Society's most sacred institution? You have been
offered "civil unions" in many locations. Even a civil union puts you
ahead of a great many heterosexual couples. A large percentage of
"committed" heterosexual couples live together without marriage or any
other kind of formal, legal recognition. What make you better than they? Why
can't you see that society has offered the advantages of marriage to
encourage the creation of the best possible environment for the rearing of its
most vulnerable and impressionable citizens. This is not just what society
wants; it is what society needs.
Wasn't it Satan who hated the idea that people had the right to "choose
for thyself, for it is given unto thee"; and sought to destroy man's
agency by forcing us to act as we should rather than as we wanted to? What does
Mero believe?Brigham Young said that he would only infringe upon
someone's agency via a good word and a good example. What does Mero
believe?If people don't have the right to sin, then their
agency is infringed.Gays aren't looking for special rights
anymore than Christians are asking for special rights in Saudi Arabia for
wanting to build churches. They aren't asking to be free from consequences.
They WANT those consequences. They aren't forcing us to label them as moral
any more than LDS are trying to force Evangelicals to quit referring to us as a
cult.Supporting Prop. 8 violated 1 Cor 10:29. This can't be
explained away or ignored.Why do so many people wish to abandon what
the scriptures say and then embrace Satan by denying agency via imposed force?
Where in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality?
RanchHand,Special rights and benefits? Who knows?The
ones you guys protest, march, and call people racist for. The ones from
legalizing marriage.People don't do these things without
wanting something. Special rights and benefits.
Re: ". . . you CHOOSE to do these things, therefore you CHOOSE to accept the
legal requirements . . . ."Hmmmmmm. Your choices determine legal
outcomes.Thanks for making my point.
@procuradorfiscal;I do think its OKAY for you to disagree. It is
NOT okay to deny us the same privileges and benefits that you partake of from
our government through the legal contract of marriage.What
you're saying with your last paragraph, is that it is OKAY for you to deny
us OUR "freedom of conscience" but it is NOT OKAY for us to expect to be
treated equally in the secular arena.As long as an organization
(secular or religious) is taking public money then they can't discriminate
against Americans (some of whom) are providing that money. When you get a tax
break for a pavilion you rent out, you have to also rent to glbt Americans as
well. When you start a business you have to abide by non-discrimination laws.
There is nothing about "freedom of conscience" - you CHOOSE to do these
things, therefore you CHOOSE to accept the legal requirements - that is where
your conscience comes in. If you can't/won't accept those
requirements, you do not accept the tax breaks or go into business.
@Worf;Please, what "special rights and benefits" are we
asking for? We're asking for nothing more than what any heterosexual
couple is getting from the state. There is nothing "special" about
that. It's simply equal.
Re: ". . . we're PERFECT exactly as we are."Then
you're abnormal. Perfections is WAY more than 2 standard deviations from
the norm. It's a matter of statistics.More importantly, whether
you're perfect, or not, is really none of my business. It's a matter
between you and God.Which is the point of the my post above.Do your thing. You have that "right." Just don't expect me
or most Americans to bless it.It's dishonest to suggest LGBT
are being denied rights. It's disingenuous to suggest some overriding
morality prohibits holding an opposing position. It's shameful to assert
that some past denial of legal rights justifies forced adoption of new
"rights" that are unacceptable to humankind outside of declining
civilizations. And, it's scary that LGBT activists assert
it's somehow OK to deny Americans freedom of conscience to legislate
acceptance of their thoughts, and the outlawing of ours.
It's peoples right to be gay or get married. I'd defend that, but I
don't care to give special rights, benefits, or made to feel guilty for not
finding it a desirable lifestyle.
Ranch: I agree with you. We do have differing opinions. I am simply sharing my
opinion and feelings here because I feel it is the place to do so.Procuradorfiscal: Although I strongly believe that marriage is between a man
and a woman, and that homosexual sex (not tendencies) is just as serious as
extra-marital relationships in light of New Testament and Old Testament
doctrine, I do beleive that a gay and lesbian person is just as abnormal as
anyone else who has been struggling to find out who they are in this mortal
world. You and I are abnormal in this light. In a religious aspect, we all
have tendencies to act against God's will in some way or another. What we
choose to nurture is a different matter.
@Apricot Tree;If you believe that marriage is between a man and a
woman then by all means, follow your belief.You have not right to
define what marriage is for anybody else, only you and your spouse.@procuradorfiscal;Odin says that you're worshipping the wrong
god.I have no idea why the DN let's your insulting comments
through. We are NOT abnormal; we're PERFECT exactly as we are.
Re: "I, personally, think it's extremely selfish to deny others the
chance to have any rights and privileges that I am allowed."Me
too.But LGBT already have EVERY right and privilege you or I have.
It's the CONSEQUENCES of use/abuse of those rights they're demanding
freedom from.LGBT can choose their thoughts and actions, same as you
or me. But, they want to choose badly, then force me to tell them it's
OK.The problem? It's not OK.They're free to
hold ceremonies and call each other "Mrs. and Mrs.," to include one
another in their wills, visit one another in the hospital, even -- to our
collective shame -- adopt and rear children.But, that's not
enough for them.They want to force us to tell them they're not
abnormal.But, they ARE abnormal.They want to force us to
change God's word.It won't change His mind.It
really does boil down to philosophical approaches -- freedom of thought is ours,
destroying freedom is theirs.
So, if we set up laws that only allow people to do what they ought, does that
mean we are also taking away their agency?
@mike richardsif we do not have the right to do as we please, do we
really have the right to do what we ought? let me put it another way, If we are
restricted in our right to do what we want then doing what we ought becomes
compulsory does it not?
There has only been one "free man" in this earth's history.
Because he always chose to do the right thing, because he always chose to think
the right thing, because he was obedient to law, he was completely free.He never had to overcome appetites and passions because he did not even
participate in the thought, much less the deed.He never had to worry
that the consequences of his actions might hurt others, because he controlled
his actions. He did nothing that hurt others or that hurt society.True freedom comes from self-restraint. Christ showed us that there is no
freedom in giving in to appetites and passions. Christ taught us to love our
neighbor, not harm him. Of the two examples cited in the letter,
Acton's showed that he had an understanding of what Christ taught. He,
"believed that liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right
of being able to do what we ought."We can demand that we have
"rights" to do as we please, or we can do the right thing and do what we
Might does not rule (even the Romans eventually fell)... but common sense,
anatomy, spiritual manifestations and Biblical references (for many), and
history do have powerful sway in people like me. When defining marriage and
rights, it remains a divided issue, obviously. I can speak Donald
Duck, and at times, I think I've even waddled...
Apricot, that doesn't hold up to even a mild examination.Don't waste your time with Mero's meaningless labels and mangled
history. Consider - I believe that all US citizens, including
citizens whose sexual orientation differs from my own, should live equally under
the laws and enjoy the same protections of their civil rights. I believe that
the equal application of the law is a moral imperative, and that denying my
lesbian neighbors the right to marry constitutes a national moral failure as
significant as Jim Crow. I am therefore, by your definition, being the
"conservative" voice on this issue.You however, by believing
that popular religious bigotries and tradition are sufficient reasons to create
second-class citizens, would be the utilitarian here. You're
essentially taking the position that "might makes right," and
"we've always done it that way." Those exact same arguments were
used in my lifetime to defend racist miscegenation laws."Of
course, my message will be translated by some into hate and bigotry, but it is
not."Your protests notwithstanding, if it quacks like a duck and
walks like a duck...
Blue:"The utilitarian, believed that liberty is the right to do
what one desires, with certain restrictions. Acton, ever the conservative,
believed that liberty is not the power of doing what we like, but the right of
being able to do what we ought."You represent the Utilitarian, I
represent the Conservative. You are putting same-sex marriage on the same page
as how much water I choose to use on my lawn. I don't believe these are
the same rights. I think most Americans agree.I've always been
impressed with America because the majority of Americans still have a limit and
a 'line' that halts us from setting our standards into complete chaos.
Of course, my message will be translated by some into hate and
bigotry, but it is not. I simply view marriage as a relationship between one
man and one woman. Gay and lesbian tendencies are real. I don't
understand it, but one's sexual attraction is not an excuse to change
history, definition of marriage, and anatomy.
So, who is exactly being selfish--the gay couple who wants to be able to share
their lives with all of the rights and privileges afforded by a legal marriage,
or the married couple who wants to keep those rights and privileges for their
own exclusive heterosexual marriage club? I, personally, think it's
extremely selfish to deny others the chance to have any rights and privileges
that I am allowed.While I applaud a group of immigrants who chose to
leave behind their lives of coal mining in England, I don't think it is a
fair comparison to homosexuality. Thousands of young women and men have been
told they can change that condition, but it's not reality. How many youth
constantly hear that it's their choice and lose hope when they cannot
change. It's a very dangerous thing to tell them they need to keep at it
because they aren't trying hard enough. Even your religious leaders--well,
most of them--have stopped saying that homosexuality is a condition that can be
changed or cured. Perhaps it's time to follow your leaders.
Mr. Mero purports to reflect LDS church teaching on political matters. However,
the church has taken the position that the LGBT community should not be
discriminated against in employment and housing. What is your position on that
Apricot Tree: "What a dangerous principle it is to think that freedom is the
right to do whatever we want - with no though of future consequences."And if I were to apply that argument to the number of children you have,
the amount you water your lawn, the church you attend, the career you follow, or
the fuel efficiency of your car, what would be your response?Or is
the right to live your own life as a law-abiding citizen something you reserve
exclusively for yourself and deny others?
""We know how you personally benefit from gaining all of the privileges
you seek. What we want to know is how society benefits?" In other words,
selfishness isn't a right in a free society, ..."---Is it selfish to want to protect our families and our loved ones?Not in the least. Society DOES benefit when ALL families are able to
have the legal protections provided by marriage.The true selfishness
is where you want to have your own benefits and deny those same benefits to
others, which, in fact is BAD for society.Mero can twist any subject
The people of Utah are "peculiar" in that many of us have detailed
histories of our ancestors that go back more than two-hundred years. Many of us
can give the exact date when an ancestor decided to change his behavior and act
differently from other family members and neighbors. Most of us can look on
both sides of that "date" and see what happened to other relatives who
chose not to change. Many from my own family were poor coal miners
in England. As far back as we have history, my ancestors were ppor. They lived
poor. They acted poor. They spent their time in the mines and in the pubs.
Most of them literally ended up in the "poor house" with others who had
nothing but old age to show for their lives.The difference was that
those who decided to change left behind the poverty and the lifestyle. The had
the "faith" to become better than they had been. Generations of my
family are better off because a few miners knew that they were not born to be
poor miners.What "choice" will we use our agency to make?
Mr. Mero - good article. I see this 'rights' issue much different
than Martin Luther King days. In those days, rights were peacefully obtained.
Much different than the bitter, angry, and spiteful methods of Gay/Lesbian
'right' promoters. This really worries me. What a
dangerous principle it is to think that freedom is the right to do whatever we
want - with no though of future consequences. I firmly believe that
gays/lesbians have tendencies that are very real. There are many things out
there that conflict. It is easy to conclude that over the last ten years there
has been quite a socially constructed movement to promote homosexual behavior.
How much of this is motivated by love, peace, and futuristic thinking is still
to be determined.
Looking at it a little further, rather than stopping at whether or not society
benefits from extending 'privileges' to gays, we should ask whether it
would at all be possibly harmed by doing so? Harmed, not offended or tied up in
the semantics of what someone thinks marriage is. Selfishness shouldn't be
elevated to the level of rights, but in the case of our society it may already
The conflict extends to other issues as well, and including gun rights, and
More rancid pablum from Mr. Mero.He's not even talking about
giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, he's talking about whether or
not they are entitled to any civil rights at all. Incredible.Contrary to Mero's assertion, suicides among gay teens as a result of
their being stigmatized and bullied are not irrelevant anecdotes, they are
profoundly important to the discussion. They are a tragic, statistically
significant reality.The evidence that being gay is genetic is
approximately equivalent to the evidence that being left-handed is genetic. No
single gene has been found that controls a person's handedness. Does that
mean being left-handed is an acquired "deviant" behavior? Of course
not.The truth is that while no single gene has been identified as
responsible for determining one's sexual orientation, there is abundant
credible research that hints strongly that sexual orientation is determined
through a combination of genetic factors.Mr. Mero can always be
counted on to promote repressive, retrograde philosophies that appeal to the
worst of our history and our nature.