Published: Friday, Jan. 10 2014 6:07 p.m. MST
The message is pretty clear: "We love you...as long as you remain second
class citizens."With "loving" neighbors like that, who
I had to check thrice to see if I was actually reading the DN.Very
nice op-ed, Erika. Now if you can convince the Sutherland Institute...
they're running those awful ad's claiming that granting protections to
LGBT people takes away the rights of non-LGBT people.
The message is very clear. Anyone can have sex with any consenting adult at any
time, regardless of sex, but no one, absolutely no one, has the right to change
the definition of the most sacred unit on earth, the family. No one, absolutely
no one, can claim that they are being treated "unequally" just because
they "feel" that the physician was wrong when he told them that they had
a male body or a female body. We can show tolerance and empathy for
those who disagree with their doctors, but we do not have to redefine
"marriage" to accommodate anyone who wants to be made "normal"
by a judge's decree. The problem is two fold. First our
Creator defined "marriage". Secondly, the only way that a homosexual
individual can find someone to have sexual relations with is to convince that
person that he/she is also homosexual. Until there are laws that would convict
anyone who even talked to minors about homosexual "feelings" or
"orientation", then the homosexual community is asking us to open our
homes and our schools to their propaganda.
After my eyebrows returned from the back of my head reading this the first time,
I actually feel sorry for you Mike. It’s clear you see a world filled with
all sorts of evil (e.g., homosexual brainwashing others to “turn”
gay) and you no doubt feel it to be your Christian duty to stamp out this
evil.And as chilling as many others will likely find your last
sentence above, I’m curious how you reconcile such draconian laws –
and can we assume “gay gulags” for those who break these laws
– with your strict libertarian views of our Constitution?
I think Mike's comment represents why it is so important to protect the
free speech of those you disagree with the most. He is changing the hearts and
minds of others as he shows the true colors of those that so ardently oppose
LGBT rights (Including ignoring the counsel of his own religion). I say let the
man speak and don't be afraid to point out the flaws in his logic. The more
people see and hear these types of venomous comments and see good people stand
up and speak out against it the sooner we can reach true equality for the LGBT
Thank you for posting a loving editorial on a subject of civil justice. No
society benefits from hatred and persecution. This law will ultimately
strengthen your state. Good luck to you in getting it signed into effect.@MikeRichards: Your contempt is showing. Transgender people and
homosexuals might be statistical minorities in our population, but within the
context of our society, they work, study, keep house, shop, drive, vote, pay
taxes, tend to their loved ones, manage their finances, water their lawns, and
do almost everything else, just like the rest of us. They can even be good
neighbors, if they're not beleaguered with the fear of being hated.So, I would argue that they might be uncommon, but that doesn't
mean they're abnormal. And civil rights won't change that.
They'll still be uncommon. But they're already "normal"
enough for society's purposes.Hey, if you don't like who
someone is marrying, don't go to the wedding. And if you don't like
the couple next door, no one says you have to accept their invitation to dinner.
But, everyone should have a right to live peaceably, under the protection of
Thank you Erika! I love the suggestion to find an LGBT person in our community
and ask what this legislation would mean to him or her. Really getting to know
and listening to our LGBT neighbors and family is the best way to bridge the
divide of misunderstanding about these issues.
I can invite loved family/ friends into my home and still appropriately deny
them a shared room. I am still groping with the concept about making
a law that puts restrictions on that.
Erika, well said. You brighten my day.
Mike:Depending on religious persuasion, it appear our Creator has
changed his/her mind several times on the definition of marriage, types of
family structures, etc.Or, like on a recent clarifications of a
previous racial ban, maybe the religious leaders earnestly *thought* they were
given specific direction from our Creator on acceptable or even recommended
marriage structures, but they weren't.In any case, it appears
the results of those divergent family structures didn't exactly ruin
society. There are still some of those family types in existence today, in Utah
and other states, and yet for the rest of us, life goes on unabated.
@ A Quaker,Perhaps my "contempt" is showing. I find it hard
to agree with anyone who would eliminate all human life within one lifetime if
his ideas were practiced by everyone. I find it hard to agree with anyone who
would require the schools, the churches and the government to teach people that
his way of same-sex sex is normal and acceptable when same-sex sex, if practiced
by everyone, would eliminate all humanity within one lifetime. I find it hard
to agree with anyone who claims that his lifestyle and his definition of
marriage be considered equal to the marriage of a man and a woman when his style
of marriage would eliminate all humanity within one lifetime.@10CC,When you find the way to ignite the "spark" that
gives a body life, then you can tell God what to say and when to say it, until
then wouldn't it be more prudent to study His word and align yourself as
perfectly as possible with His doctrine?He commanded us to marry.
He defined marriage as being between men and women. He commanded us to
replenish the earth.
You cannot claim to love someone and work to deny them the legal
protections, you enjoy. Double talk is not what God intended. For more evidence, we need to see what Jesus actually said about gay
marriage. Which is, nothing.
Mike, thanks for your discussion. Now, here's the deal: I'm not
obligated to buy into it. Not one iota. Plus, your contention that a gay
individual has to 'convince' someone else to be gay in order to obtain
a partner is a total denial of the idea, which according to the article even the
mormon church supports, that people do not choose to be gay.
@Mike: >> "He defined marriage as being between men and
women."Do you mean like Solomon, who was "married" to
700 wives, and had 300 concubines?Or do you mean between a rapist
and his victim - who was forced to "marry" her assailant? (Deuterotomy
22:28).Or do you mean the virgin female prisoners of war who were
forced to "marry" their invaders? (Numbers 31).I certainly
hope you don't mean the "marriage" defined in Genesis 2:24 - where
a bride who was not a virgin was stoned to death.So which exact
definition were you referring to? Or, shall we just say that the definition of
marriage is not as clear-cut as many people think?
@Mike Richards"I find it hard to agree with anyone who would eliminate
all human life within one lifetime if his ideas were practiced by
everyone."As long as in-vitro fertilization exists, you're
not even factually accurate in that statement.Do you also dislike
heterosexual couples who, for whatever reason, don't have children either?
I had dinner last night with two friends who never want to have children, do you
hate them too? "just because they "feel" that the
physician was wrong when he told them that they had a male body or a female
body. "For the last time... the "wrong body" thing is
trans, gay/lesbian deals with who one is attracted to. Gay men still consider
themselves men, for instance.
"How do we follow this exhortation when it comes to our LGBT/same-sex
attracted brothers and sisters?"Don't be a third derivative
of position. (math pun)
"...Given the rapid pace of change in the prevailing attitudes toward LGBT
people, many of us may feel fearful and cut adrift in uncharted waters. But
while fear can save us from imminent physical danger, it is not a helpful
emotion as citizens seek to make their communities harmonious and loving
places...".Erika...Thank you for taking the time to
express your opinion.
@Mike " Secondly, the only way that a homosexual individual can find someone
to have sexual relations with is to convince that person that he/she is also
homosexual.'It looks like your comment is getting beaten up
quite a bit, with other commenters claiming that you are spreading baseless
fears. In reference to the quote above, I know that this is absolutely taking
place. One of my teen relatives announced to his family that he was gay and
logged into a gay chat website soon thereafter. It was no surprise that he was
skyping with a gay adult 24 hours later who was trying to convince him to have
sex with him. Even the teen realized that he was being rushed into something he
wasn't ready for.Not all gays are predators and not all
hetero-sexuals are child molesters, but there are a a significant abundance in
both groups. Gays deserve equal housing and employment, but they
are at risk for something that laws cannot protect them from. They deserve all
the protection they can get.
Mike Richards, maybe your (our?) creator defined "marriage" as you (and
me?) understand it, but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking
about the government's definition of marriage. The government's
decision to change its definition of marriage to ensure the law protects all
equally has no bearing on God's definition of marriage (nor mine, nor
yours, nor the church that I assume we both attend).I have a hard
time understanding why people think that making the government's definition
of marriage or family more inclusive is an attempt to change what they believe
or God's definition of marriage? Are we seeking a Mormon version of sharia?
We don't drink alcohol--should it be illegal to make or possess? Should
"relations" outside of marriage be illegal? What about sabbath day
observance? Fines for all who open their stores and the shoppers too?
Mike Richards Anything taken to an extreme (everyone doing the same
thing ) is unhealthy for any society, for example if we were all carpenters we
would all starve to death in really nice houses sitting on fancy furniture and
any country that has forced everyone to follow one religion always falls into
brutality and eventually war. No one is talking about everyone being forced to
be gay we are talking about peoples right to live their life without your
interference so maybe we can scale back on the all or nothing thinking.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments