on a lesser note- my wifes friend was harrassed at work for eating Chick-fil-a
by a gay co-worker last week at City Creek. Freedom of lunch- an unforseen
cassualty of the road we're on.
To those saying that the BYU students who support marriage equality
shouldn't be going to a Mormon school if they can't support the Church
position on this issue:I'm not Mormon but I think I'm
pretty familiar with Mormon teachings. I've certainly had several visits
from missionaries, and I've studied Mormonism on my own.From
what I've learned, I'd say the foundational teaching of Mormonism is
Eternal Progression.Coupled with that (at least in my mind) is the
teaching of Free Agency. You can see by my name how much I resonate with *that*
teaching!So these students seem to me to be living exemplary Mormon
lives: they're using their Free Agency to decide how they feel about an
issue, and they're taking part in their Eternal Progression by doing so.
(Could they progress if they ignored what their spirit was telling them is
right?)It finally seems to me that many in the Church only extol
these teachings when they *don't* conflict with the Church’s
position. But when they do, then is Free Agency supposed to go out the window?
And one's Eternal Progression with it?
Re: KVC,If you don't want others to point conservatives,
Mormons, Arizonians, etc. with a broad brush as being people without conviction,
racist, bigoted, deceitful, etc., please don't do so with liberals.
Overgeneralization does nothing to contribute to a healthy, rational, and civil
discussion. I don't believe all
conservatives/Mormons/Arizonians or even most display any or all of the
characteristics listed above. I also firmly believe that all liberals are not
evil people out to trample rights and make your life miserable.If
you want to have a discussion on the topic, by all means share your views and
opinions, not your (inaccurate) perceptions of the views and opinions of others.
When you overgeneralize, you waste your time saying anything.
LVIS- you are not free from Religion because, as you quoted, the Constitution
forbids the government from prohibiting the Free Exercise of religion. This
means that you cannot prohibit anyone's religious beliefs, even if they
surround you or are contrary to your beliefs. You cannot limit the exercise of
the beliefs of those around youas long as they conform with the rest of the
Constitution. Unfortunately the Supreme Court and other Courts get this wrong a
lot.Liberals also seek to limit the exercise of religion on a regular
basis. They do not believe religious views opposed to their views have any place
in government or society, and seek to demonize those they disagree with.Liberals fight vehemenently against discrimination, but openly discriminate
against those who share beliefs different than them. They have succeeded in
getting opponents of Gay Marriage fired from jobs, and continue to work toward
that end. The same discrimination they decry against their beliefs, they openly
and brazenly practice against others.
"A Bible ? A Bible ? We have no need for a Bible. We are free
people and can follow our own ways. The laws which Moses quoted are no longer
with us". Thus it is said by certain of the generation of this
day, But although to them the ice looks firm, yet it is thin and the reckoning
will surely follow. It is only God's law which will prove to be solid.
@ Say No to BO:I see your point, but I'm not questioning how
the matter is being handled. We must research, study, and do the best we can.
@LVIS lost in DC said "Freedom FROM religion is specifically banned by the
1st amendment."I don't know either, but apparently I'm
not allowed an opinion as the censors have removed my comments after approving
Re: thunderbolt7Yes there is. The goat can't consent. As has
been explained hundreds of times, the attempt to equate beastiality to
homosexuality is offensive and spurious. If you have a logical argument against
same-sex marriage, by all means share it. It doesn't help anyone to offer
spurious examples in an attempt to get cheap laughs.
How about a father marrying his daughter, a mother marrying her son, (or
father-son, mother-daughter)? Or a brother marrying his sister (or another
brother for that matter or sister to sister)?If your mantra is
"equal marrying rights" then you surely can't be opposed to two (or
more) members of the same family marrying. They should have the right to marry
whomever (or whatever) they choose, regardless.This is not about
equality. There is a greater agenda. Watch and see if they get what they want
now, will they be satisfied? In Mass. they weren't satisfied with marrying,
it then had to be considered hate speech to say that you were not in favor of
same gender marriage. Then they will try to force religions to
recognize and perform those marriages.If you don't believe me,
look at the kind, understanding, loving way that they defaced sacred religious
property after prop 8 passed legitimately. This is not about love, it is about
power.I don't know the final goal here, but marriage is just
another step towards it.
HVHI have a difficult time believing your comment that hatred is not part
of your life when you continually rant about “magic” and
“mysticism”. You know those terms are demeaning to people of
religion, yet you continue to use them, apparently just to be insulting,
hurtful, and hateful. And please tell me where I injected religion
into the argument against same sex marriage. I did not. I said there is no
inequality when the same rules apply to all. How is that religious? atl134,If you cannot tell the difference between race and gender, may I
suggest a biology class at a continuing education center. But that is beside
the point; the same rules even then applied to ALL. So again, it was NOT
inequality, but changing the definition. LVIS,Unless you want
to deny everyone around you the constitutional right to beleive as they see fit
(or not), you will NEVER be free from some type of religious influence. Sorry
you find that so confusing and offensive.
Is there anything wrong with me marrying my goat? What am I missing in this
@HVH--"Freedom FROM religion is specifically banned by the 1st
amendment. "May I ask which 1st amendment you are referencing?
The one I am most familiar with says only the following: "Congress shall
make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof;..."And what does your statement mean, anyway?
The 1st amendment bans being free from religion? So, you CAN'T be free from
religion? I are confused.
@ worf and Say No: You are absolutely right - not a single voice of dissent is
allowed to be heard - I mean, just look at the comments - the only ones here are
those in favor of gay marriage!Not!
@INTELLECTUAL"I have a hard time understanding how you can belong to a
group that clearly opposes/is against the teachings of the church and still be a
student at BYU in good standing. "Elder Whitney Clayton of the
Seventy who led the church's Prop 8 involvement stated that LDS members
should feel free to disagree with the church on the issue without fear of
sanction. @patriot"gay marriage is a state issue ... not a
federal one."Do you believe Loving vs. Virginia striking down
interracial marriage bans was an incorrect ruling? @lost in DC"there is no inequality in marriage. If there were inequality, different
rules would apply to different people."This argument could be
used to justify interracial marriage bans. Something like 'it's not
inequality, everyone can only marry someone of their own race, see equal'.
The stance of the church is simple and well laid out. The BYU students involved
in this rally either do not understand the church's position on same sex
marriage or they willingly choose to go against the prophets council. At the
same time I think they should be free to express their opinions like anyone
else. That being said, they do the institution and the church a disfavor when
they show up to same sex rally's wearing their BYU apparel.
Here in Washington State the voters approved of gay marriage because we felt
every family is important and should be supported. People who have been
together for decades are now getting married and younger couples with children
are getting as many benefits as their straight counterparts that the state
allows. How is this a bad thing?
Gay Marriage never would have become an issue at all, We could have
saved the definition of "Marriage" had it not been for the radical
Right-wing who so's hard-hearted, stiff-necked, mean-sirited and
uncompromising position denied Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships to
LGBTs.[You know - The non-religous type of contracts. Legal
Partnerships recognized by the laws of man, not by God. With a Courthouse, Legal
Documents, Licenses, Justice of the Peace. Like a Corporation.]But
NO.Looks like your plan completely back-fired on you, and now all of
us.When to go for All-or-Nothing (i.e., no compromising)Sometimes you are the one ending up with nothing.I guess now my
feelings toward gay marriage will now come down to how I view abortion.If
you don't want one, don't get one.You stay out of my
business, and I'dd stay out of yours.
Happy Valley Heretic -- How in the world does someone with your
belief/non-belief system live in Orem, Utah? It would seem to me that you enjoy
being the vocal extreme minority?
Blue,The argument put forth to foward gay marriage is a well-crafted lie.
there is no inequality in marriage. If there were inequality,
different rules would apply to different people.the same rules apply
to all - find someone agreeable of legal age, unmarried, of the opposite gender
and you can marry them. These rules apply to ALL, regardless of sexual
orientation or lack thereof.What gay marriage proponents really want
is a redefinition of marriage. But they do not want to expand the definition to
polygamists or polyandries, so they are being just as bigoted as they accuse
those supporting the traditional definition of marriage to be.Wilf
55,your comment displays a woeful misunderstanding of LDS theology,
doctrine, and history.HVHFreedom FROM religion is specifically
banned by the 1st amendment. BTW, your diatribe against religion is off-topic.
Your diatribe displays all the bigoted hatred for which you decry others. So
much for the all-inclusive tolerance of the left.
@Happy Valley HereticExcuse us for offending you.There was a time
when marriage was closely linked with religion.Sorry. My bad.
It is pretty simple. The Church is opposed to Gay Marriage! If you disagree with
the Prophet that is your choice, but you shouldn't go to a university
subsidized by the Church and its members if you don't agree with their
teachings.With regards to the Civil Rights issue, where are these
same civil rights activists when polygamists are not recognized? How is it
really different? If marriage cannot be defined by gender, how can it be defined
by the number involved? This is the issue that gay marriage advocates dodge
regularly. They have their idea that polygamy is immoral while they demand
others keep their morals out of their decision. Incredible liberal hypocrisy.Personally I am tired of Liberals who demand tolerance for their
beliefs, but then show enormous intolerance towards anyone who does not
wholeheartedly agree with them. They preach what they are unwilling to practice
themselves. This is the liberal ideology preached from the top of the Democratic
How wonderful when the youth stands for what is right and fair.
Patriot - I agree and I believe the SCOTUS will turn the decision back to the
gay marriage is a state issue ... not a federal one. If the progressive stink
hole states want to allow gay marriage and legal marijuana and a host of other
debaucheries then go for it ... those are states I don't have to visit or
start a business in let alone raise a family in.
I think it is **hilarious** to see people talking about how the LDS church will
eventually figure out that traditional marriage, between people of opposite
sexes, the one prominently and exclusively referred to in its "Proclamation
on the Family" a mere 18 years ago, is actually an outmoded and irrelevant
artifact of stuffy non-progressive thinking.That it is not actually
the "divinely appointed" ideal model of a nurturing and supportive
environment for people to be raised. That it really doesn't have the
advantages to children and society that so many very careful studies over many
decades has repeatedly and conclusively show. Not to mention the once
common-sense experience of most people during the last several centuries.Surely once the LDS church has figured out the fallacy of its
proclamation, it will only be a matter of time before God himself will realize
that the model of a Heavenly Father and Mother is actually a silly anachronism
that must change to suit the political realities of our "modern" era.Yup, all the rallies and protests will eventually convince the creator
of the universe that he got it all wrong.And that's when I jump
on the bandwagon.
@worfI's pretty high up when they edit a talk by the President of the
Quorum of the 12.I can handle an opinionated High Priests Group Leader.
The trouble comes when the PR Department says more about an issue than The
Prophet in Conference.(See also amnesty.)
I keep listening to the arguments against equal rights, and as hard as try not
to, I can't find them anything except shallow, baseless, fundamentally
irrational and more than a little desperate.Folks, your straight
marriages, and your own heterosexual orientation, is not threatened in the least
by same-sex marriage and equal rights for all Americans, regardless of sexual
@ Say No to BO:I wouldn't brand these people as "the LDS
Church", and I still believe in the Family Proclamation.I've learned a long time ago, to be very selective when trusting the
wisdom of others. Some are Mormons in name only.
Intellectual,Well this is an easy one. It's none of your
business who is allowed to attend BYU. As long as they continue to recruit
athletes who can do whatever they want, I have no problem with students
expressing their point of view on civil rights.
I believe one day the Church will change its stand, like it did on polygamy and
the priesthood ban. Insights must ripen, inspiration must be sought, but changes
@worfThat's not true. We are heard and labeled as bigots and
haters.I'm not sure what the LDS Church believes any more. I used to
quote the Family Proclamation.
Voices against gay marriage will not be heard.
I have a hard time understanding how you can belong to a group that clearly
opposes/is against the teachings of the church and still be a student at BYU in
good standing. The article mentions support for LGBT students at
BYU, are there support groups on campus?