Published: Thursday, July 19 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT
Please show me how Mormons in MA have been affected by allowing gays to marry
there. Show me that since 2004, Mormons (or any other religious people) are now
marrying gays in their temples, cathedrals, synogogs, or any other building that
they do not want them to marry in. Show me the harm that has come from allowing
gays the same rights as the rest of Americans.Show me where gays are
marrying in our temples in Canada. How about the harm to all the marriages in
the Netherlands? Sweden? Spain? Mexico City? DC? Anywhere?Gay
marriage has been allowed for about a decade. If there were to be harm, it
would start showing, don't you think?Show me the harm.
Mr. Robert P. George wrote an excellent article that more than explained his
point. He didn't resort to name calling. He didn't resort to
innuendo. He didn't twist words. He simply told the truth clearly using
logic. That is refreshing. People who use logic when they read his
article will not be fooled by rhetoric that is used by some to inflame, distort
Hm - lots of "my rights are being infringed upon!" and very little
substance or examples to illustrate the claim.Under President
Reagan, religious charities started wanting government money to fund their
efforts - instead of relying solely on donations. At that time there were many,
both religious and non-religious, who argued against this on the grounds that
receiving government money would either negatively impact the religious charity
by forcing them to change their standards so they could serve everyone or it
would allow them to discriminate against those seeking services from them.Religious charities answered these concerns by stating that they knew
they would have to follow the law and offer services to all without
discrimination which may sometimes mean setting aside religious conflicts.Now, those religious charities are claiming that not only should they be
allowed to discriminate in the services they offer, they should be allowed to
codify their beliefs as law and deny civil benefits to those who act in ways not
inkeeping with that religion's beliefs - anything else is a violation of
their religious freedom.Your religious freedom does not - and never
has - extended to the point of forcing me to adhere to your standards.
It was not Christian charities that went chasing after government dollars, but
government that went chasing after charities to off-load the heavy burden that
FDR, LBJ and other Democrats placed on government. Government looked for
partners, which is not what those who distort history are telling us.President Reagan firmly believed in a partnership between private charities
and public charities. He was well meaning, but the left is vilifying him for
having compassion and vilifying Christian charities for being CHRISTIAN.
Instead of being grateful for some help in handling some of society's
problems, the left wants to tell Christian relief organizations that unless they
act opposite to their Christian Doctrine that they will force those charities,
through the courts, to abandon Christian principles.To that, I would
tell the Christian charities to give the government full responsibility to care
for the sick, the poor, the homeless. Give the left what it wants. Let the
liberals handle the full load themselves without help.Mr. George
pegged this one accurately. He is warning us about the deception and guile of
those who pretend to be one thing as they privately plan to destroy the entire
concept of marriage.
Marriage is a contract. What two people do within this contract is no
one's business but there's. Worrying about other
people's private lives is creepy. Get over it.
If one believes in the American creed, he cannot escape the notion that freedom
is the ability of the individual to do as he pleases so long as he does not
infringe on the freedom of others. The American Constitution
specifically exempts from coercion , force and imposition the control of a
persons thoughts and beliefs. It does that by keeping government out of the
religious world. And that requires keeping religion out of government. When
religion is in the government, there is no freedom of religion.Churches and religions are straining at the chains that hold them back from
using the government to enforce their religious beliefs. We must not allow
religion to break free from it’s mission.
Ultra Bob is right, which is why the government should not establish official
government approve of a practise opposed by millions of its religious citizens.
Government backing of same-sex marriage is the equivalent of government
establishing an official religious viewpoint on homosexual behavior. The
government would be saying that this is the official approved religious view of
the United States. It is laughable to proclaim that doing this would not affect
people who dare to have religious views contrary to the government's
@RABI don't see how allowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to
government establishing an official religious viewpoint on homosexual behavior.
For religious reasons, I don't drink; the government allows drinking. Is it
taking an official religious viewpoint on drinking? For religious reasons, i
don't use drugs. The government outlaws drug use. Is it taking an official
religious viewpoint on drug use?
He's spot on. There are few who are willing to address the argument at
this level. SSM can never be equal HSM because in and of itself and
under the best of circumstances, it can never bear the same fruit and benefit to
society. Make it a civil union, fine. But the benefits that are derived from
it are not and can never BE the same. I don't feed a six-year old the same
amount as an 18 yr. old, but I have treated them equally. Unfortunately a lot
of this was changed in the court system by changing the lens by which sexual
orientation was viewed. Race, gender, and sexual orientation to this point had
been considered things that were unchangeable. Someone can not change their
race. By changing the view of sexual orientation, the assumption is that it is
something that can not be changed. My two cents...peace.
Title: After 5 Years of Legal Gay Marriage, Massachusetts still has
the lowest state divorce rate...' - Bruce Wilson - AlterNet - 08/24/09Line:'Massachusetts retains the national title as the lowest
divorce rate state, and the MA divorce rate is about where the US divorce rate
was in 1940, prior to the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.'
This information was gathered from the National Center for Vital statistics. The only 'consequence' of gay marriage? Gays
marry. Zero evidence of the harm to any heterosexual.
@mcawberThe issues you cited are not the same as gay-marriage. The
goverment ALLOWS drinking. It does not officially APPROVE OF or condone
drinking. To establish approval of something, you invest in it and support it
financially. If the government were to pay for all alcoholic drinks for anyone
who wants them, then they would be establishing government APPROVAL of
drinking--and they would be wrong to do so. The same is true if they condone and
support homosexual behavior by supporting gay marriage with tax breaks etc. They
are not just ALLOWING gay marriage. They are establishing APPROVAL of it.The drug issue is also irrelevant. Religions that approve of drug use as
part of their ceremonies have been allowed an exception. Thus, the general
government disapproval of drug use is not conflicting with anyone's
religious views. If religions did have officail religious views that encouraged
drug use, the government would then be in the wrong to establish official
government disapproval of drug use.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments