Comments about ‘Linda & Richard Eyre: Defining marriage by what it does’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Jan. 8 2014 10:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Esquire" how does it subvert the concept of "freedom of religion"? Where in the constitution does it say that there has to be a separation of church and state?

The constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Where is the limit on religion?

Unless you are anti-religious (which can be defined as a religion), what is wrong with a religion stating that they encourage their members to support laws that define marriage as being between a man and a woman only?

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

The Constitutionality debate just muddies the waters. Simply put, it's wrong, wrong, wrong to insist that others conduct their private lives in accordance with my religious views, or to design PUBLIC POLICY specifically to fit my church's doctrine. How is this confusing to so many LDS? Mental gymnastics and fallacious "slippery slope" arguments inevitably proceed until the debate has melted into a circular, yet somehow still shapeless mass of nonsense.

Regardless of how you read the Constitution, the idea that citizens should be prohibited from engaging in behaviors that do not infringe upon the rights of others or cause demonstrable harm to others should be objectionable to anyone who values a free America. To be clear, the idea of two men getting married may be gross to you, but it in NO WAY infringes on your right to define YOUR OWN MARRIAGE. Questionable "studies" and "expert opinions" from either camp aside, if two adults want to marry, who am I to object? My "view" about someone else's marriage is irrelevant, unless you'd be OK with the government outlawing your marriage for whatever reason, as long as "the people" support the decision.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "SlopJ30" read the statement from the LDS Newsroom. From the LDS web site, and their news releast titled "Church Statement on Definition of Marriage" the church has publically declared " we encourage all people of goodwill to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman, and to consider carefully the far ranging impact for religious freedom if marriage is redefined. We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the timehonoured definition of marriage."

That statement alone makes it quite clear that the LDS church desires laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Since, within the US we are all entrusted with the public good, we should all support laws that maintain the definition of marriage.

Or do you know something that the LDS Church leaders don't?

SlopJ30
St Louis, MO

Completely irrelevant. I fear we're speaking two different languages. The issue at hand is public policy, which affects more than just Mormons, so falling back on scripture or proclomations, or LDS Church statements or policy is meaningless. As long as the laws on the books don't prohibit you from practicing your religion or defining marriage any way you choose, it's not your business to tell other adult citizens how they should define theirs.

Allusions to "far far ranging impact for religious freedom" are designed to stoke irrational fear of imagnary bogeymen, which encourages compliance. The future impact of allowing SSM to take place is completely unpredictable, but I believe it would simply turn out to be another Y2K . . people flipping out over end-of-civilization fantasies, followed by . . nothing much. The world will continue spinning, the sacrament will still be passed, and you will still be able to attend temple sessions. Or maybe everyone will turn gay.

Of course, to anyone who is always just going to fall back on "Well, the Brethren said X, Y, or Z" or "The Lord says your'e wrong," there really is no point to any of these debates.

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Redshirt1701
The ("Church Statement on Definition of Marriage") makes it quite clear that the LDS church desires laws that define marriage as between a man and a woman. Since, within the US we are all entrusted with the public good, we should all support laws that maintain the definition of marriage.

Or do you know something that the LDS Church leaders don't?

KJK
I know that D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 denounce those who let their religious beliefs prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. I think we should "liken the scriptures unto ourselves" regarding this issue. Harold B. Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith both stated that if they say anything contrary to scripture, that we are to cling to scripture and ignore their own teaching. I think we should liken this counsel unto this situation and the aforementioned statement.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Kevin J. Kirkham" so waht you are saying is that you are going to use an unrelated scripture to support your desire to NOT do as the LDS church leaders ask.

So tell us, who is right? The current head of the LDS church has said to support laws that uphold the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. You are saying that the current Prophet is wrong and that he is leading the church to go against the scriptures. Is that what you are really intending to say?

You have not answered the question that I proposed. Do we listen to the Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the teachings that we don't agree with?

Again, do you know something that the LDS Church leaders don't?

Kevin J. Kirkham
Salt Lake City, UT

Redshirt1701
You are saying that the current Prophet is wrong and that he is leading the church to go against the scriptures. …Do we listen to the Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the teachings that we don't agree with?
KJK
The referenced verses condemn using subjective morality to justify infringing upon the rights of others. In the case of Prop.8, the gays DID have a right to marry in CA prior to 8 and thousands did. Our religious opinions were used to justify infringing upon that right. Please explain to me how that DOESN’T violate those scriptures. 2 Stake Presidents (1 is now a temple president) couldn’t tell me. Both signed my recommends when we were through discussing it. Recent postings on the Church's media site admit that the priesthood ban was due to Brigham Young's own personal beliefs and not revelation, so we know that prophets can and have promoted ideas as doctrinal without any scriptural or revelatory backing.

Since we let drug dealers, pornographers and child molesters marry and raise kids, we surely can let loving homosexual couples do likewise. There is no objective reason to deny it.

GTOBoomer
USA, UT

Procreation is a big deal, whether it happens or not. Should it happen, in heterosexual, natural marriage, the biological parent should be the same as the parent raising a child. With adoption, there is an assignment that should be permanent. The result should be stability, security, and an environment for possible children to establish identity.

Consider a lesbian who married another woman in one state where SS marriage was legal. The marriage lasted only two years, and there was a child created by a sperm donor. Now the woman has moved on and has a lover who has born two children with the woman's brother as sperm donor. That's three children, two mothers, two sperm donors with no involvement in their lives and utter confusion. It's chaos we're trying to avoid. I know that things can get complicated in the heterosexual world, too, with ex husbands and lovers and kids with no secure home, but that's why moral conservatives are also against cohabitation and easy divorce.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Kevin J. Kirkham" you are sidestepping the issue, which FYI isn't gay marriage specifically.

FYI, the LDS web site only states that Brigham Young announced that blacks could not hold the priesthood, they never say why. Your reasoning falls under the unsubstantiated theories to explain this, meaning it is just somebody's idea and not the truth. The truth of the matter is that we don't know.

The issue is that once the LDS leaders have been inspired to declare something and you choose to not follow their advice are you going against God's desires?

Again, do we listen to the Prophet as he is inspired or do we ignore the teachings that we don't agree with?

to comment

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