Has there ever been civility in any society when gay acceptance, and behavior
was around fifty percent of the population?It's never going to
happen. It has always led to a downfall.
@worfThere are no examples of what you are asserting.
The LGBT community will never be satisfied. They are not willing to allow
businesses who do not want to provide services to them because their religious
views do not agree with the LGBT communities views. IE - A florist or a baker
that do not want to provide their services because they do not believe in the
Gay lifestyle they sue and put them out of business. You can not expect
tolerance of you do not have tolerance of the views of others!If
you want me to accept the LGBT lifestyle - You have to accept my views that
differ from yours. You can not expect others to let you live as you want if you
can not accept others to have their views. You can not expect me to
serve you in a florist shop for example if you can not accept the fact that
your lifestyle is against my religious belief. I have the right too not believe
in the LGBT lifestyle just as you have the right to not believe in my religious
beliefs. To get respect you have to respect others point of view.
The Reader, I'm sorry that it's hard for you to imagine a
day when commercial businesses will be "forced" to offer services to gay
couples. But that day will be just like any other where we are "forced"
to keep our business doors open to all minorities. It's just the name of
the game. You can't own a business that is open to the public, but then
randomly choose who you will serve. You might get away with "no shirt, no
shoes, no service" but try getting away with "no Arabs", "no
deaf people", "no left-handed people", or "no Mormons".
Being against same-sex marriage is a sin. My God says those who oppose it are
sinful. However, I love and respect all of humanity, and I will forgive them
for their sins if they are willing to repent. I hate the sin, not the sinner.
southmtnmanA very large percentage of those who support traditional
marriage and do not support gay and lesbian marriage do believe it is a sin.The Judeo/christian principles upon which the constitution was written
do not support the gay and lesbian lifestyle. Those who wrote the constitution
were largely practicing Christians. Christian churches at the time the
Constitution was written did not look upon the gay lesbian lifestyle as
sinless.That said we all need to be respectful of others beliefs.
We need to be kind to each other. I am not trying to be hateful. I am just
stating the facts and the history of the Christian religion.Perhaps
over time we can all be more respectful of the right for all to have their
individual beliefs. My beliefs will not likely change. But, I am
not going to stand on the street corner and call the gay and lesbian community
they are going to hell just as I will not to that to anyone whose behavior
disagrees with my beliefs just as I expect the same of the gay and lesbian
community. We can disaagree and still be respectful toward each
EDMThat is just the problem with the LGBT community. They want
acceptance but do not want to let others have their views. They know that many
in the Christian community believe the LGBT lifestyle is sinful and they want
to force themselves and their vies upon others.
Red Corvette,“We do not reject you. … We cannot reject
you. … We will not reject you, because we love you.”-Boyd K
PackerThe problem with hatred is that those who dish it out will
never acknowledge who's really doing the hating. Every word from President
Packer has met my ears with love and kindness. Those who find hate where none
exist are guilty of the only hate expressed (see 1 Nephi 16:2, it's a very
simple verse and a simple principle).
No matter what the church wants , equality for all Americans ,gay and straight
will be the law of the land .
southmtnman,I've been called by those terms and worse.
I've even been equated to Hitler, even while expressing an opinion with no
words of disrespect.Are there people from all backgrounds capable of
showing disrespect? Yes. But what matters is how we encourage showing respect.
Suggesting we "silence" Worf ultimately amounts to the same thing Worf
described. What I find most interesting about the civility discussion is how
much people are willing to butt their heads against each other. If we meet
hateful remarks with hateful remarks, we fail. I'm not saying either of you
were hateful, simply butting heads against each other on the same exact
point.Instead, we ought to offer suggestion, respectful commentary,
and principles. Peaceable discourse requires a reflection on matters in a
peaceful way. Silencing people not only isn't practical, there is nothing
peaceful or civil about it.I believe Worf's opinions are worth
hearing and fair consideration. I also believe yours are.
As a supporter of traditional marriage, between one man and one woman. And one who believes that civil unions should be given to all unrelated adult
unions; such as man and woman, woman and woman, man and man, man and adult
women, woman and adult men. I do not think that marriage should be
any business of the government as long as there is no abuse and all are
unrelated adults.Yet, when I express my beliefs and my moral values,
I am always attacked. I personally believe that homosexuality is a sin, and this
makes me a bigot.I have never been mean or even rude to anyone and would
never tell anyone else how to live. We are all free to choose how we live
and we should all be free to choose what we believe.
Nothing to do with hatred, equality, or civil rights.Just can't
be sympathetic, understanding, or supportive of the behavior between two gay
I hope this "LGBT leader" was addressing the "pro gay rights"
folks who were using intimidation against opponents of the California
initiative. Or, is this another case where certain protected
classes get to do whatever they want to, while those in favor of traditional
values can be vilified, bullied, and even assaulted, all in the name of
I applaud Kate Kendell for her call for civility. I also fear she's
probably right about gay marriage being inevitable.
My religious beliefs include the idea that homosexual intimacy of any kind is a
sin...and I guess that makes me a bigot and a hater in some people's minds.
Oh well. Perhaps we should ask the question "Can a bigot/hater be civil to
those they are bigoted towards?" As far as refusing to serve
clients based on their sexual orientation, generally I would think that
isn't right. I believe there is still some wiggle room based on personal
preferences, even when one is open for business from the general public. I would
hope that a baker could still refuse to make a cake with wording or designs they
personally found offensive, or a photographer refuse to take nude photos, for
example. And we are not yet at a point where we are "gender blind" in
our society as locker room attendants, bikini-waxers, and other occupations
still have some gender constraints.I don't expect that
we're all going to agree to treat others with civility. Yet we can try, and
encourage others to do the same. The tide might not turn, but we'll be
better people in the long run for the trying.
I am so weary of the labeling, the name calling. "You are mean."
"You hate me." That does help me want to listen.
"That is just the problem with the LGBT community. They want acceptance but
do not want to let others have their views. They know that many in the Christian
community believe the LGBT lifestyle is sinful and they want to force themselves
and their vies upon others." We have difficulty knowing which moral
view to codify into our civil laws. A sinful view or one supported by Episcopal,
Unitarian, Reformed Judaism, Quaker, Buddhist and other deeply held religious
views honor and perform same sex marriages because they are blessed with special
access to moral truth for which other religions are not yet privy.
I totally quote The Reader in every word he/she wrote! The real trouble behind
this story is not rights or anything else, it's just that what the gay and
lesbian community wants is to obtain more and more and leave less and less
freedom. It's become impossible to make any kind of humour regarding
homsexuals because it's banned as "homophobic", but nobody seems to
be so annoyed when a theatrical show insults The Book of Mormon, LDS
missionaries and the LDS faith. The LDS Church has been more than respectful
towards EVERY ONE, but we don't seem to receive so much respect in return.
The same with many christian confessions, who are victims of hate and disrespect
everywhere in the world; from communists, muslims, gay lesbian communities and
so on, christians have been mocked and disrespected many and more times and
nobody moves a finger from the outside.
@WorfJust put inter-racial in place of LBGT and see how it sounds.
I find it interesting that the very first comment was hateful on what I consider
to be a very good article. So unnecessary. I keep hearing about how wrong
people are in business to not want to bake a cake or (or whatever the business
is) because of their beliefs. Many years ago at a law firm I worked for there
was a surprise birthday party for an attorney in which not all were invited. It
was held in a conference room. The cake brought in was a replica of a very well
formed naked lady detailed in every way. Everyone laughed but I thought it
offensive and demeaning. I have often wondered how that baker felt preparing
that cake for that party. Just saying. There are different ways to look at
It seems like it is easier to demonize the other side than to debate honestly
Article: "She held those two realities effortlessly."I think
believing that is a great dis-service to her mother, to consider it
'effortless'. Being an LDS woman, finding out her child
was same-sex attracted, and now a Lesbian and an socially prominent Lesbian,
this mother knew she, as a mother, was giving up a lot of LDS dreams she had
held for this daughter.I applaud her, but to say what she went
through, and still goes through, is 'effortless' cheapens and demeans
this mother's experience.
@worf;Puhleeze. LGBT couples getting married does absolutely
NOTHING to lead to a "downfall of society". Failure to treat your
fellow men decently on the other hand...@The Reader;What
would you say and how would you react if every other business had a "No
heterosexuals served here" sign posted? If my
'lifestyle' is against your religious beliefs, yet you continue to
provide flowers to the Sabbath breakers, bake cakes for the adulterers and
photograph the weddings of fornicators, then I say to you that you are using
your "religious beliefs" as nothing more than a reason to discriminate
against LGBT and that it isn't about your "religious beliefs" or
you wouldn't serve those others breaking your "religious
beliefs".Your view of "sin" applies to you and what
others do isn't your business.@county mom; Would
you tell Rosa Parks that the back of the bus arrived at the same time as the
front?It isn't believing that homosexuality is a sin that makes
a bigot, it's using those beliefs to discriminate against the homosexual.
We note that the "ACLU threatens Utah parents’ right to protect
children from same-sex propaganda" in Farmington, Utah.From a
news report: "The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter Friday to the Davis
School District in support of its policy that requires parental consent before
children can check out a homosexual advocacy book titled “In Our
Mothers’ House” from elementary school libraries. The American Civil
Liberties Union contacted the district and demanded that it allow children to
access the book without the knowledge of their parents. “Public schools should not surrender to ACLU intimidation when it asks
them to expose children to sexual content without parental knowledge,”
said ADF Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “Parents, not the ACLU, should
decide whether young children have access to this type of propaganda, which is
obviously aimed at re-educating children regarding the nature of the family. The
law clearly upholds the right and duty of schools to protect children and
respect the role of their parents.”Let parents of chidren in a
civil way stand up for the community standards that are founded in sexual
decency and protect our constitutional rights.
"You can't own a business that is open to the public, but then randomly
choose who you will serve."I agree. However but you can refuse
to provide an individual a product that is against your deeply held religous
beliefs. For example if an LDS member went into a bakery owned by
Methodist and wanted a cake that was deocrated to emphasize something to do with
LDS doctrine and the baker did not want to make it. I as an LDS member would
agree with the baker.
The conversation with this topic has become so toxic. Let's
stop the mud slinging and start looking for a "win-win" solution.
The Reader @ 9:35pmThe LGBT community wants equality, just like any
other minority. But there can be no equality as long as religious views about
homosexuality (it's a sin, it's abnormal) remain codified, as they
are in Utah's Amendment 3.To use another example regarding
businesses, I'm sure there is no shortage of racist business owners out
there. But whatever their personal attitudes and beliefs are, it is illegal for
them to treat racial minorities as inferior. I'm sure they don't like
it - and it might even be against their reliigious beliefs - but the law
protects racial minorities from being treated unfairly.
Gibster,Just put "murder" in place of "charity" in
the law, and see how it reads.Just put "same-gender marriage" in
place of "heterosexual marriage".We believe in equality. But
that only applies to the same law and same principles. When you can throw
whatever definition or word in at a whim, then you no longer have law but
anarchy. Anything goes!
This is not about, "others having their views", especially when these
others have persecuted the LGBT for years. This is about equality and civil
rights. As for some Mormons, they need to look back in history, back to
"The Fall of '55" when 9 out of 10 gays were Mormons. I should
know, I was brought up as a Mormon and saw many hypocrites growing up, and by
the way, I am gay and was born that way.
EDM said--"The LGBT community wants equality, just like any other minority.
But there can be no equality as long as religious views about homosexuality
(it's a sin, it's abnormal) remain codified, as they are in
Utah's Amendment 3."Just curious if you feel that if it is
no longer codified in an amendment or law, Or if everyone who says so is
silenced into not saying it, will that change that it is somehow no longer
sinful or abnormal?
Governor Herbert is quoted in the article as saying, "I recognize that this
is a highly emotional issue with people of good will on both sides of the
debate. I encourage everyone to remain respectful of one another and the legal
process,"I disagree. There are not people of good will on both
sides. The LGBT side doesn't want to force any person to live how they
live. The LGBT side doesn't want to deny the civil right of marriage to
anyone. By contrast, the anti-LGBT side DOES want to force LGBT
people to live how they decree. Further, the anti-LGBT side wants to continue to
deprive civil marriage rights to LGBT people. I believe those
anti-LGBT positions are the very opposite of good will. They appear mean
spirited. I won't call anyone a bigot or homophobic because I do not know
what is in another person's heart. But whether the ill will towards LGBT
people is intentional or merely a function of one's earnestly held
religious beliefs, the effect on LGBT people feels well-imbued will ill will.
@Meckofahess"Let parents of chidren in a civil way stand up for the
community standards that are founded in sexual decency"While I
have never read the book you noted, I'm going to guess there's not a
single reference to sex anywhere in there. @worfStill waiting
for an example of any civilization that collapsed due to support for same-sex
@ Reader, your issue is not with the LGBT community it is with Public
Accommodation law. You should also respect those who may not want to serve you
in a restaurant, doctors office or grocery store because of a your religious
re: "Governor Herbert is quoted in the article as saying, "I recognize
that this is a highly emotional issue with people of good will on both sides of
the debate. I encourage everyone to remain respectful of one another and the
legal process,"So Rosa Parks should have been glad to be allowed
on the bus, let alone sit anywhere she wanted. Respect the views and good will
of other passengers and/or those who believe you should use a different drinking
fountain. Yup, makes a lot of common sense. Good will to all!
@ Inis Magrath Fort Kent Mills, MEVery well
stated. Thank you!!
@Schnee- Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), ancient Rome and Greece. Show us a
society that has flourished while defiling the Biblical God, the Holy One of
Israel's laws. Hittites, Amorites, Edomites, Sodomites, Assyrians,
Babylonians, Tyre & Sidonites all gone. The Philistines, however, are still
causing the same ruckus God said they would, (Gen. 16:12).@Ranch-
Good point. But I can't deny services to the morally bankrupt, unfaithful
spouses, sexually promiscuous, pedophiles or practitioners of bestiality in my
over-regulated Big Brother state or nation. I am dominated and subjugated into
the liberal Think-Like-Us-or-Leave enforcers.Even our own military
is rife with rape and promiscuity that their leaders refuse to vilify or
rectify. So all society suffers from rebellion and heathen practices. Adding
another legalized abomination to Satan's arsenal won't solve
man's unhappiness, but it does embolden the Deceiver. At least the Taliban
got some things right.
Thank you for a good article, Whitney. Anyone who has ever attended a Gay Pride
parade or public debate on the issue knows exactly who the rude intoletant ones
predominantly are. The Westboro Baptists are the exception. I
would clarify that simply stating your objections to a particular practice,
whether abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia or SSMarriage, does not
constitute bigotry per se. Being against a practice does not mean you hate the
practicioners. And legalizing en-utero murder is not softened or abrogated by
renaming it "pro-choice". It is still the choice to murder a viable
fetus/pre-human being. Period. The young woman here was trying to
give helpful advice to the rowdy crowd in her group. Hope they listen. But
nice or rude will never change God's Word for Biblical adherents. It just
keeps the discussion on a civil level so all opinions can be heard.
TheReader: "The LGBT community will never be satisfied."Part of the problem in keeping things civil in a discussion is making broad
generalizations. The LGBT community is 3-10% of the population. It includes a
broad range of people. It has more variety than the Village People. Any
population that includes Log Cabin Republicans and Radical Fairies cannot be
said to speak with a single voice or have a single, homogeneous identity. There
is no Gay Agenda. There are 10-20 million gay agendas (although many of them
will overlap). In any population this size there are bound to be jerks just as
there are bound to be some really nice people. The same applies to marriage
traditionalists, Mormons, evangelicals, florists, bakers, etc. The nice people
really don't have a lot of control over the jerks, except we can call them
out when they misbehave. And we can try to be more precise in our language,
saying "some in the LGBT community will never be satisfied" instead of
making a sweeping blanket statement. I know adding qualifiers cuts into the 200
word limit, but it keeps the discussion accurate and, well, more civil.
I became tolerant and respectful when I realized that humans are creative and
made up all this stuff in the first place. Languages, marriage customs, novels,
holy books, music, religions, Santa, God, even thousands of Christian
denominations; all made up.
I get really annoyed when the Christian-right tries to claim that they are the
ones being victimized in this discussion. The LGBT community isn't the one
trying to make your lifestyle against the law.
Great points, Vic in BC. Did you know that evolution, the Big Bang, Climate
Warming and Prince Geoprge are also all made up?FYI: Hittites,
Sodomites, Edomites, et al, were real civilizations in ancient Mesopotamia and
vicinity. Secular Israeli archeologists still use the Bible for current
excavations. Now they haven't located the Passover Bunny, but they did
find the full Hittite civilization in the early '80's, much to the
chagrin of the atheist naysayers, who insisted that no such entity existed:
Right where they were supposed to be, under layers of previous civilizations...
Exactly as the Biblical prophets prophesied their total extinction.The scattered tribal Hebrews? Well they returned to their land just as
promised: The only ancient, Biblical nation to totally resurrect their nation
and original language to modern times and usage. The Prophet Ezekiel could
order a sandwich at a Tel Aviv deli today. Their current enemies? The same
tribal animosity from 4,000 years ago, of recorded/verified history.I am having a tough time locating Prince Geoprge though...
For Shazandra, many things are not made up by humans. Math, science and nature,
for example, seems to be mostly discovered. In general the two major sections of
libraries are a decent start to try to sort things out, fiction and non-fiction.
Then everyone has their opinion where religion, philosophy and the meta-stuff
belongs. Then there are things like dreams and prophecies, part of our
existence, yet strangely not there, or are they, as bits of electrical
disturbances. Those "goldilocks" planets are also probably really there,
no matter what the ancient writings said. I also follow the BAR and am amused.
Watch any decent historical account or read any book of the Bible to realize
human creativity and influence.
Ranch:Do some homework.Look at the poor African nations
as a start.
@ Windsor"Just curious if you feel that if it is no longer
codified in an amendment or law, Or if everyone who says so is silenced into not
saying it, will that change that it is somehow no longer sinful or
abnormal?"Your opinion that SSM is sinful or abnormal may not
change, nor does it need to. Your opinion is simply not relevant to the issue.
You're confusing your religious doctrine with civil law.
@Meckofahess,You must know that there is a history of previous
generation's parent's lack of acceptance of their own children's
differences in any way, especially their children's sexual identity.You must know those parents are often violent towards their own
children, beating them, throwing them out of their homes, into the street to
survive, under age, on their own.You must know those children --
children -- are then often both severely suicidal, and or severely abused by the
experience of trying to survive on their own, under age, in the underground of
society.To force those children -- children -- to be confronted by
their parents before they are "allowed" to explore a supportive book is
cruel and insensitive to all children.Remember, a "straight"
child can't be hurt reading such a book, learning that there are a variety
of ways of being, and a gay child will find comfort knowing at last that they
are not alone -- how beautiful for both children!
The twisting and contorting of logic from the radical religionists is quite
astounding!If a man and a woman want to marry, what business is it
of yours? Do they need your approval and acceptance?No.If you don't think they are a good match (perhaps because they are of
different religious faiths), do they need your permission to marry?No.So why if a same sex couple wants to marry is it any of your
business?But then when that couple wants to marry and cannot because
a mob has made it illegal, and so they go to the US Constitution and the Courts
for relief from this discrimination, all the religious radicals get upset and
play the victim card?This is like Alice in Wonderland! How contorted
and absurd can the reasoning of the religionists get before even they start to
realize it?History will not look pleasingly on the religious for
what they are doing and the absurdities they are expressing today. It is
@The ReaderYou want to own a florist shop and the right to refuse service
to those who are homosexual? In the 50's and 60's we desegregated
because of attitudes like that. "I have no problem with black people I just
don't them in my shop." It was determined that is not okay and a
personal disagreement with with a lifestyle is not a good reason not to offer
them services. If we no longer segregate the races, why would you think it is
okay to segregate the sexualities? For anyone who doesn't
believe that gay marriage is a national inevitability, I put forth to you--Utah
was in the top 20 states who approved it. One of the most (if not the most)
conservative state in the nation. It will happen.