Comments about ‘Same-sex marriage votes Tuesday night turn conversations back to family’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Nov. 8 2012 6:27 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Really???
Kearns, UT

@zoar63

Yes, I do believe in apostles and prophets, yet I know from our history that they also teach the concept of continued revelation. Perhaps new doctrine comes when the hearts of the members are changed enough to accept the new revelation.

Think about Bruce R. McConkie and the things that he taught. He said some controversial things as an apostle that the PR department asked him to tone down or retract. In fact, he actually said the following: "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

We have new light and knowledge about homosexuality. Many still deny the information that years of research is now teaching us about the subject, yet many hearts are now softening; and they are trying to make amends for how we treated others in the past.

The church recently toned down a comment Boyd K. Packer made in a general conference talk. Could it be proof that apostles make mistakes?

very concerned
Sandy, UT

I still believe my statements about the founding fathers to be true, BUT we could argue all day about specific points each one of us has made.

Let me tell you what my argument is based on. This is where I’m coming from. I’m sure you’ll recognize it. God does not approve of sex between people of the same gender. Period. I would kindly try to explain that if I thought most GLBT were practicing immoral behavior innocently, not knowing what they were doing was wrong or not in opposition to God’s laws. But I don’t believe that.

I am convinced that most of the GLBT community - who do not abstain - do know. They have either seared their conscience, rationalized their behavior, gone deliberately against the commandments, or used some other excuse to justify their behavior.

I have sympathy for those who have the tendencies and do not act on them. But to put it scripturally, *. . . and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.* (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3) I didn’t say it, He did.

zoar63
Mesa, AZ

@Really

It puzzling that some LDS are softening their views towards homosexuals but they are also creating a paradox with LDS members who are gay. My point is LDS who feel that gays should be allowed to marry cannot offer those who are LDS and homosexual the same opportunity in the church. I am sure you can see the reason why.

Really???
Kearns, UT

Well, it wasn't until 1978 that black members of the church were allowed to receive the priesthood ordinances in the Temple.

JSB
Sugar City, ID

I got 10 recommendations on my first comment in which I said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalization of polyamorous families and the social chaos that will follow. No one of the pro gay marriage commentators responded to my comment. Why? Do you really want legal recognition of polyamorous families? Do you want the child neglect and disease and legal wrangling that will inevitably follow? Don't be so short sighted. New policies we adopt now will have long term consequences.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Shimlau,atl134 How do you know if " the church did internally assess prop 8 as a PR mess not a benefit." Were you involved in the councils that helped to determine this? If not, then watch what you say.
KJK:The Church has been very quiet on gay marriage initiatives since 8. Baptisms fell in CA. Americans believe that forcing others to abide by a church’s beliefs is wrong.

very concerned: We do reserve marriage for a certain citizenry. We don’t let close relatives marry. We don’t let underage citizens marry. We don’t allow polygamy.
KJK:Sholdn’t be base denial of marriage on objective rounds? Restricting marriage to willing adults otherwise able to enter contracts should be the standard rather than subjective moral beliefs.

very concerned: Inevitably, religious teaching will guide many of us in our policies, voting, and beliefs.
KJK:Religious teachings of others force us to abandon polygamy. Scripture condemns using religious teachings to restrict the rights and liberties of others. Gays HAD the right to marry in CA prior to Prop.8. 8 infringed upon that right. We violated the scriptures in supporting Prop.8.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Sasha Pachev:.. I would argue that any measure that promotes homosexuality or makes it more acceptable will result in more homosexual relationships.
KJK:If it were illegal for straights to marry, would there more or less fidelity and sex?

Really???: Could it be proof that apostles make mistakes?
KJK:Yep Prophets too. Go to the Church’s website and wordsearch “coy”. You’ll find a 1988 talk by President Benson. He states-“Would a husband be pleased if he saw his wife flirting and being coy with another man? My beloved brothers and sisters, this is what Paul meant when he said: “Abstain from all appearance of evil”. The problem is that the word “appearance” in Greek does NOT mean “how something seems to be”, but rather “manner, occurrence or manifestation”. Check the verse’s footnotes or foreign language or more modern English translations. The bottom line is that the president of the Church misinterpreted scripture. They are men subject to error. HBL and JFieldingSmith said that if their words contract scripture, we are to obey scripture.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

zoar63: My point is LDS who feel that gays should be allowed to marry cannot offer those who are LDS and homosexual the same opportunity in the church.
KJK:LDS likewise feel people should be able to teach infant baptism, the Athanasian Trinity, to shack up, smoke, etc... but refuse membership to such. How is that inconsistent?

JSB:I got 10 recommendations on my first comment in which I said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalization of polyamorous families and the social chaos that will follow. No one of the pro gay marriage commentators responded to my comment. Why? Do you really want legal recognition of polyamorous families? Do you want the child neglect and disease and legal wrangling that will inevitably follow?
KJK: How will neglect and disease occur in polyamorous families while monogamy immunizes people against them? The legal issues can easily be addressed. Our ancestors practiced polygamy. There is no objective reason to deny it to others. Denying the legal protections marriage provides children and the non-working spouse(s) harms straight couples, gay couples and polygamous families. Why be anti-child and anti-family?

JSB
Sugar City, ID

re. Kirkham. Ample research shows very clearly that the best situation for children is in a home with both biological heterosexual parents. I never said that monogamy "immunizes" children from neglect and disease and legal wrangling. It is just the very best situation. The word "immunizes" is a word you selected which distorts the meaning of what I said.

Polyamorus "families" are rather loosely structured. The more people involved, the more likely there will be "divorce" with its attendant legal problems. And children of divorce are often seriously handicapped as a result of that divorce. So, unless you are in total denial, more children will suffer under polyamorus families.

"Infidelity" is more common in polyamorous families. If someone has sex with someone outside of the "family" who has VD, then, before long, every adult in the family will have the same disease. That isn't too difficult to figure out.

My point is that any decision that is made about "marriage" should consider the long term social consequences especially how it will affect children. This is something that the advocates of gay marriage are not doing or are at least refuse to respond to.

Free Agency
Salt Lake City, UT

To think that there might be a change of mind down the road regarding Tuesday's pro-gay marriage results because people today are still questioning pro-abortion rulings done many years ago, is comparing oranges to apples. The two issues are completely different.

No matter how many abortions people have, it's still the killing of an unborn child. The question is, do women have the right to choose this killing. (I, personally, say yes--though I would hope they wouldn't.)

Gay marriage is an expression of love between two people who happen to be of the same gender. As more and more gays flourish in their marriages--and more and nore straights personally know gays who are flourishing in their marriages--it will become harder and harder for the majority of voters to "change their minds."

In short, abortions are focused on death, gay marriages are focused on life. And I have no doubt that life will win.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

JSB:” the best situation for children is in a home with both biological heterosexual parents”.
KJK:Agreed, but should those kids raised in same-sex homes suffer even more by being denied the legal benefits they receive from married parents?

JSB:Polyamorus "families" are rather loosely structured. The more people involved, the more likely there will be "divorce" with its attendant legal problems..."Infidelity" is more common in polyamorous families.
KJK:Who‘s more likely to leave a relationship..married people or those cohabitating? Marriage strengthens ALL families. Should only those whose demographics indicate a low chance of divorce be allowed to marry?
Aren’t people entering into marriage less likely to seek sex from others outside of the relationship than those cohabitating? If straights were denied marriage, would that increase or decrease people seeking sex from others?

JSB:My point is that any decision that is made about "marriage" should consider the long term social consequences especially how it will affect children.
KJK: Affect children? Denying marriage to gays harms their children. It harms stay-at-home parents too. Both of these show that denying gay marriage is anti-family and anti-child.

georgeman
Kearns, UT

"The human species evolved as heterosexual, pair-bonding species. Would it be wise to mess with hundreds of generations of human evolution in order to accomplish some kind of social, feel-good, politically correct goal?"

Totally agree with you JSB. Whenever this subject is breached in the media, many of the comments by LGBT activists are aimed at the religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage. I think this is an evolutionary issue even more so than a religious issue.

We are a species that through time and science, has evolved to propagate through our gender. When we take a small percent of the species that is prone to go against that science, we introduce changes in our social development as a species. What the outcomes of that social development are become uncertain.

We have certain social morals that once we go against them, create new social dilemmas. One of them being the issue of children and the affects on them. Both sides may argue that they know what the outcome is for children, but the fact remains taht we really don't, even with the numerous studies done on the matter to date.

SoCalChris
Riverside, CA

I agree that there is no need to rely upon religion to believe marriage should maintain the traditional definition. I made this comment on a thread that quieted down, so I'll go ahead and plagiarize myself:

You're naive if you don't see that if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land there will be far-reaching consequences. Legally it would mean that homosexuality and heterosexuality are completely on par. There is no way that kids could be taught anything other than that in school without facing lawsuits. I don't want my kids to be part of that kind of social experiment.

There are many of us who have sincere compassion for gay people and believe their wires got crossed through no fault of their own and that there should be legal accommodations for gay couples who want to formalize their union -- Civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. But I don't go along with the notion that homosexuality and heterosexuality are purely a matter of taste and that both are equally normal and healthy.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments