Mr. Brown,Thank you for bringing to our attention this interesting
conversation. I particularly interesting found the position of the
7th Day Adventist Church Pastor (video). Who basically stated that he may
disagree on religious principles with SSM. However, he feels his religious
conviction shouldn't affect the political outcome in society. It seems to
me that that stand is the most respectful and spiritual of positions.Raised was the issue of "what if in the future these LGBT people attempts
to force churches into performing marriage ceremonies against the churches
convictions". Well, we cannot legislate thinking the worst of human beings.
Besides, even if that where to happen, "the churches who would be the
oppressed in that case", would have the opportunity to go through the
process of politically defending their rights.As of now churches
behind Proposition 8, are acting as the oppressors. Attempting to force
political decisions limiting the rights of law abiding citizens on religious
grounds and irrational fears.I sincerely hope we can all understand
that difference of opinions doesn't make us enemies. However, we should
understand that human dignity compels us to defend and demand to be recognized
as equal citizen under the law.
Once again, Mr. Brown's fair and balanced articles are enlightening.
Everyone should read this.
I'm not Mormon, but I stand with Mormon prophet Monson and Pope Francis on
this one.They both claim to speak for God, and they both think it
should be illegal for a man a woman to marry.Yay Prophet Monson and
correction: Pope Francis and Mormon Monson think it should be illegal for a man
and a man to marry. My bad!I stand with Mormon Monson and Pope
Chris B:[They both claim to speak for God, and they both think it should
be illegal for a man a woman to marry.][correction: Pope Francis and
Mormon Monson think it should be illegal for a man and a man to marry. My
bad!]Don't sweat it. A lot of us are having a hard time keeping
track of this arbitrary and capricious distinction between who should and
shouldn't be allowed to marry. It wasn't all that long ago that the
Mormons allowed marriage between a man and several women.
Kumakke,and it would only be fair to allow the Mormons to begin
marrying several people again, if gay marriage is allowed. If we're going
to open up marriage for anything, why not stop all "discrimination"2 brother should be allowed to marry too.A person should be
allowed to marry an inanimate object if they want(Yes, these people exist, and
why discriminate against them if they were born that way?)And any
form of polygmamy between adults should also be allowed.If gay
marriage becomes legal, a man should be able to marry his brother, 4 women, and
a fence if that is what he wants.After all, he was born that way.
@ Chris B.Congratulations!!! I don't know how you were able to
pass that through the DN monitors. I have been stopped for things I thought made
sense.Marriage requires maturity concern.Is poligamy
socially and economically benefitial for all parts involved?No, you
cannot marry somebody or something that does not have the maturity or rational
ability to make a proper decision.Egyptians used to marry between
siblings to preserve the divinity of the line. Genetically speaking it
didn't work very well. But you know all that.
@Chris BStill sounds like an argument used by those who opposed
@Baccus0902 said, "Raised was the issue of "what if in the future these
LGBT people attempts to force churches into performing marriage ceremonies
against the churches convictions". Well, we cannot legislate thinking the
worst of human beings. Besides, even if that where to happen, "the churches
who would be the oppressed in that case", would have the opportunity to go
through the process of politically defending their rights."I
applaud your comments. I too would love for there to be a separation of
political and religious beliefs. I would love for religions to practice what
they see are important beliefs. I would also love for everyone to be able to be
married. But currently the legal side of this equation slants toward not
allowing religions their rights, if there is no definition of marriage as being
one man and one woman. Churches and religious individuals have already tried to
go through the process of politically (and legally) defending their rights.
Those court cases have not been favorable to the religions in the past. I hope that we can find a solution that benefits both sides in this.
The Prop 8 campaign was ugly and divisive. I expected better from religious
organizations--and in fact, as a religious person the ugliness and disrespectful
campaign caused me to switch sides. The ads and some of the campaign material
demonized LGBT people and relied on fear-mongering tactics. Some of the
campaign material was less than truthful or worse. I've never been more
ashamed of my church. I hope lessons have been learned. Churches should never,
ever turn their support of issues over to campaign professionals. Political
campaigns are soul-destroying. Religious organizations should always represent
their views in repectful and loving ways. The ends do not justify the means.
I do not condone the violence or bad behavior by those who opposed
Prop 8. Such behavior is counterproductive. But i hold my fellow
"religiously-active" folks to a higher standard. I lived in
Los Angeles during the Rodney King riots. It was an unsettling experience. Let's hope we don't repeat that event.
Chris with time I am becoming your fanwho would have thought
Why does the article ignore (hide?) the fact that Randall (Randy) Paul,
President of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, is a Mormon? Or that Daniel
Peterson is on the Board of Directors? Or that the Mormon Church is one of the
largest donors?This is the deceptive approach the LDS Church took to
Proposition 8 in the first place (as well as a number of other attempts to
manipulate legislation, cultivate government offices, and otherwise hide their
attempts to be a lobbying group).In the face of all that, and in
light of the LDS Church "purchasing" scholars and academics as well as
expensive Public Relations firms, can anyone trust what is going on here?
Someone posted an idea a while back that marriage be a religios thing that you
participate in at Church and should do that according to the rules of their
church. Likewise, now which is call marriage and is governed by law and
preformed by judges be call a civil union. For those to benefit in the
privilidges all now legal marriages would be converted to civil unions and any
joined in the future would get a civil union licence and whatever ceremony or
papers the law required. They could be made open to all.The word
marriage would be defined as a religious ceremony preformed by a Church
authority under the rules established for the Sacrament of Marriage. Other words
such as sacrament that have religous meanings would also be reserved for
Churches.The problem with that idea is the defination of
"Church" , what it takes to establish one and how you resolve any sure
beliefs of that congretation that differs from mainlain society from pologamy to
blood sacrifce like in the Old Testament. Must I permit the sacrafice of my
grandaughter because her parents choice of Church believes in that idea? How
about a Gay Church?
Holy Matrimony, would mean that it's sacred. Life is the thing that is
sacred. the preservation of life is the purpose of mirage. For any thing to be
sacred should serve that purpose. Family's forever and ever.