@TheWalker;Not a single teaching of Jesus tells you to discriminate
against others. Not one. We're not going to tolerate discrimination; why
The Eyres have a distinct tendency for redundancy. We have listened to and read
the exact counsel from church leaders standing at the pulpit at General
Conference and have copies, have read, and been counseled on "The Family, A
Proclamation to the World." Maybe their teaching points aren't as
obvious to other people.
I teach my children that homosexuality is wrong today, was wrong yesterday, and
will be wrong tomorrow. As far as tolerance is concerned, look
around and see how tolerant the LGBT advocates are regarding the rights and
beliefs of those that disagree with them.
One of the curious things about the whole "gay" discussion is how blown
out of proportion it is. From reading the news and watching television, one
might gather that somehow homosexuality is the greatest of all sins; bearing
false witness, adultery, fornication, covetousness, and even murder pale in
comparison.Gay marriage posing a threat to conventional marriage? Given
the divorce rate (and other creative means of ending marriages) among
heterosexuals, it would appear that they are doing a fine job of destroying the
institution without any assistance from the gay community.And as far as
gay marriage posing a threat to Temple Marriage? So long as scripture and Gospel
ordinances don't change, and our leaders don't become weak and allow
opinion and public sentiment to run the Church, rather than revelation from God,
there is nothing to fear.Speaking of fear, we should not let it take the
place of common sense, good judgment and promptings of the Spirit, regardless of
the issue. And we certainly should not allow fear to cause us to lash out at our
brothers and sisters, but show them love and compassion, and always set an
example for them to follow.
@Brown, you are fifty years too late--single adults, gay and straight, have been
adopting children since at least the sixties. Did you not notice this?I marvel at the influence you have on your single friends who “yearn for
children” but don’t adopt “because it would not be in the best
interest of the child”. Really? And your friends who find themselves as
single parents because of divorce or a deadbeat boyfriend? Do they all
immediately give their children to adoption agencies with the instructions that
they be placed with married heterosexual parents?
RanchHand,As a practitioner of that version of Christianity that
believes in practicing brotherly love, equality, peace, and community, as well
as leaving judgment to Him, I think it's a bit simplistic to give all
Christians the blame for the sins of the homophobes. Homophobia, with and
without religious justifications, permeates factions of all the major religions,
not only Christian denominations, but Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist ones
as well. Nor are atheists immune from homophobic belief. Hate and irrational
fear can occur in any group.I'm very tempted to use quotation
marks around the word Christian when speaking of those people in this context,
but on this forum I wouldn't want it interpreted as disparaging Mormonism
in general. I'm not sure what to call religious homophobes without
insulting the loving and evolved members of all religions who accept our
homosexual brothers and sisters as equal children of God.
@Brown, who tells me, "Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong. Your
arguments don't make sense or address the issue I outlined.":Your assertions notwithstanding, they certainly did.No matter how
many times anyone parrots the losing arguments that defendant states in these
actions have presented, they're still losing arguments. Not one federal
court has recognized the "but think of the children" argument as
relevant to the right of marriage for same sex couples.You see,
state laws about child welfare are written to be about the children.
Utah's legal code for example doesn't care if the child's parents
are single, married, divorced, or Martians. They have certain rights under
Utah's code, which seeks to treat all children equally.Interestingly enough, neither does Utah's code regarding marriage take
into account the issue of children. Both sections of law are independent of
each other, neither incorporating elements of the other. One of the reasons
Utah's argument of the "think about the children" tactic fell flat
in District Court, and will likely fall flat on appeal is that all the
plaintiffs need do is point to the Utah legal code.
@GreatScot;The fact that Christians no longer get to use their
religion in this country and many others, to persecute non-believers, is in no
way persecution of Christians. You feel pained because you've lost a lot
of control; you'll get used to living with the same freedoms the rest of us
enjoy. You'll also get used to the idea that you don't get to
The argument that "forcing" same sex couples to live according to our
religious beliefs is discriminatory needs to be weighed against the reverse
scenario where Christian people are being forced to conform to non-Christian
beliefs. People are already threatened with fines, and are in danger of being
put out of business. In other countries pastors are being arrested and fined
for preaching that they believe homosexual behavior is morally wrong. The
debate could be a lot more fruitful if we could understand that both sides feel
persecuted and discriminated against.
Religious agencies will not be forced to close their doors. They may, however,
be restricted from state funding if they discriminate. Currently,
Gays can adopt in many states - but only as single parents, just like single
straights. Gay marriage allows stable couples to adopt and have legal
recognition of their family.I looked at fostering in Ohio and
Georgia. In both I was told Gays are more willing (as a group) to foster/adopt
"special needs" kids. Special needs includes: over the age of 8,
siblings in the system or not in the system, any type of medical need, a history
of emotional problems, or is not white. ("Not White"? Statistically,
healthy white children are adopted by white families pretty quickly. The
others... not so much, making them "special needs.")Saying
"protect the children" while leaving them to grow up and age out of the
system without ever having a family is cruel, not caring. I know several gay
couples who have adopted - in every case, the kids are thrilled to have a loving
family and be out of the systems. That is thinking about the children.
It does no good for the DN to publish these articles, which, although are often
mostly fine, encourage an "ostrich" point of view about the real
world"... judging anyone for their beliefs or lack of belief,
gender, race, sexual preference or personal characteristics."---How
would lds people like to be told they have a "religious preference"?
The very use of the word preference is prejudicial and avoids the truth. It also
leaves the door wide open for terms such as sinner, misguided, unfortunate,
afflicted, etc.Beyond that, I think these articles are dishonest,
because, like the ostrich with its head in the sand, they do not address the
fact that mormon families produce thousands of Gay kids each year.Large mormon families are statistically more likely to have one or more Gay
offspring than smaller families, yet the DN and its writers keep taking the
point of view that Gay people are outsiders, who nowadays should be dealt with
more lovingly.How long must mormons born Gay wait to be included as
equals?Please don't tell me "oh, they're equal, they can
marry the opposite sex" --you know in your heart that is lying to God.
LDS.org "Judging Others" - Sometimes people feel that it is wrong to
judge others in any way. While it is true that we should not condemn others or
judge them unrighteously, we will need to make judgments of ideas, situations,
and people throughout our lives. The Lord has given many commandments that we
cannot keep without making judgments. For example, He has said: “Beware of
false prophets. . . . Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew
7:15-16) and “Go ye out from among the wicked” (D&C 38:42). We
need to make judgments of people in many of our important decisions, such as
choosing friends, voting for government leaders, and choosing a spouse.
@ A QuakerSorry, you couldn't be more wrong. Your arguments
don't make sense or address the issue I outlined. Gender
differences go much deeper than whether you are a sports fan or a homemaker
(Seriously?) Interesting you think you know what is in my head...talk about
stereotyping. Yeah, everyone should be 'judged according to
their talents' but society must set laws to protect the greater good. A
mature, tall 12 year old can't legally drive a vehicle no matter how
talented they are at it. Your logic is wrong.Gay marriage will
force religious institutions to place children in gay adoption situations or
close their doors. Thus, taking away the rights of the adoptive mother who
wants to protect her child's rights and allow it to have a mother and
father. It has been challenged already. It sounds like you are only interested
in protecting some folks rights and not others (in this case,
children's).We don't live in a perfect world but our
society should seek to protect the rights of children just as passionately as
some are for gay rights. The children's rights are being discounted in all
I do love the members of the church. It is truly sad that I will never truly be
considered a part of them! If I could pick out one thing that has hurt me more
than anything concerning this issue, it would deal with the members. I can not
tell you how hard I have tried to talk with others like I did growing up! It
always gave me more than anyone knows! I will not live a lie! You need to know
that it is so hard trying to share spiritual experiences with members when they
know that you are gay. I wish, with all of my heart, that I could share one more
truly honest moment ...... Why bother! I do believe in God!
There has been very little respect for gay people from the LDS Church! The
article mentions diversity. We all know that homosdexuality is not chosen.
Most experts will also say the same thing. Also, if the LDS Church would have
the decency to allow us to speak for ourselves, most all of us would tell you
that it isn't a choice! Nobody would put themselves through this! So, it is
very simple, God created me! God did crteate gay people and I challenge any one
of you to prove me wrong! I believe that God gives each and every one of us an
ability to know the truth about ourselves! He would never give any one of you
the right to tell me who I am without giving me the power to know His will
concerning me, concerning such an important part of our lives! No, He
wouldn't even give the prophet that knowledge without allowing me to know
for mysdelf!Enough for me! As much as I have ever known anything in my
life, I know that being gay is just fine! People can do whatever they want!
Kendy 831: "Well, how about those who are imposing their views upon us as
LDS regarding this issue by bringing this issue into the political arena in the
first place?"This actually became a focus when states started
passing anti gay marriage legislation and amendments to their consitutions.
That is when gays took it to the courts. You know what is happening there...----------src8: "Discrimination appears to be a dirty
word to many people these days"That is because discrimination
has always been a negative word, speaking of judgments AND actions that treat
others as less than.I think the word you want to use is
"discernment." You can discern whether or not something is good or bad,
but not treat those who choose it as less than.Try that word
instead. Discriminatory usually means to unjustly treat as less.
Perhaps you don't see a difference in living in a world where sin and vice
are the accepted norm compared to a world where sin and vice are kept from
public display and limited in as much as possible for the safety and enjoyment
of a highly cultured society. There again I feel for you.
@ Chris BThank you. Yes, that statement by the Savior concerning
Ceasars due has relevance to potentially several things and this may be one. My
question... is Alcohol consumption a relegious ( render unto God ) issue, or is
it a Civil ( render unto Ceasar ) issue? Some say both, and some get very angry
for the "LDS" chruch's influence on those laws in this State.
Alcohol consumptions toll on society, from individuals to families, from
properties to medical and health care, from relationships to lost wages, lost
opportunity, lost identity and on and on... is ABSOLUTELY STAGGERING! Is it a
civil issue? In my view it is. What is the cost of SSM to civil societies?
History has some answers, but I feel that the cost is more than we can see.
Civil law has it's roots in moral law as delivered to this planet from God
himself through his prophets. EXTREMELY difficult to make a complete separation
from religeous influence on civil law. Societies have risen and fallen in this
attempt. All one has to do is feel that civil or religious law does not apply to
them. That leads to bondage in all its ugly forms.
Who so ever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery in
his/her heart. This is sin, the forces of attraction should not be ruled by
sexual desire and appetite. Woman lusting after women and men after men falls
into the same category. I'm sorry for you if you don't see it the way
Christ taught it, it was pretty clear. An argument that homosexuals need a
sexual relationship to survive would be bogus since lust is ever a good
justification for a relationship. If the relationship was between two men or two
women living in the same house was non-sexual they would just be friends, right?
God and religion have no problem with this either, a friendship is not a
marriage but we always hope a marriage man/women is the best kind of friendship
with each other and God.
Discrimination appears to be a dirty word to many people these days. It's a
real shame that so many people can't Discriminate (judge) between good and
evil, right and wrong, Male and Female. So many have no moral justification for
calling marriage something it is not, other than; it should be whatever they
want to call it. They pervert the meaning of the constitution and say it is all
about equal rights of couples and doing whatever they want. In fact it says
nothing of marriage and has everything to do what protecting individual
liberties and allowing equal treatment under the law. Laws of the State and of
the US are enacted by state legislatures and Congress and should not be
interpreted by judicial and administrative process. They should only enforce the
laws. Congress in a bipartisan way approved DOMA and for some reason the LIBs
and Dems think they can go around congress and State legislatures. It's
going to come back and bite them. They will be put out of office and their
strong arm methods will be put to shame for years to come. The sooner the
Furry, There are countless things that are legal that are wrong.----------I'm less stating what should be legal/illegal
and more making a comment on something being right or wrong.if
you're unfamiliar with things that are legal and wrong I'm happy to
provide you some, but I'll let you see if you can come up with some on your
own first.Getting back to right and wrong, I'm just reminding
Mormons that their religion, according to my understanding, says that their
prophet speaks for God.---------I believe pope Francis speaks
for God.Mormon prophet Monson doesn't think gays should marry
each other.Pope Francis doesn't think gays should marry each other.
--------------Remembering who they speak for, I'll
say it again:Its nice knowing I'm on their side!
Ranch, There is nothing wrong with legislating your beliefs into law, what to
you think beliefs are? what do you think moral judgements is? You as an
individual have a obligation to do what feels right and uphold what feels right
to you. If you don't feel this way and want others to make that decision
for you, you are the one that does not uphold the constitution and you should
exit this country.
@theOtter;Silly water loving mammal. Murder is against the law
because it HARMS someone else. Same gender marriages do not.@samhill;Nobody is denying them the ability to "follow their
conscience" in their personal lives; once they open a business though, it is
no longer just "their personal lives".@RG;Same-sex couples marrying does not "devalue traditional marriage";
heterosexuals do that.@Sir Robin;No "logical
leap" required; I've read the other articles by the Eyres. They
flat-out state it in their others.@frugalfly;If it
weren't for those "gay activists", we wouldn't have the rights
we currently enjoy.@Tandrews;You don't get to
"choose to vote 'no'" on someone elses marriage (unless we get
to vote 'no' on yours).
To Steve C. WarrenYou are good to go by the scriptures. But it is also
taught in the LDS Church that we have a Heavenly Mother. It is taught that she
is not openly written about or discussed for sacred reasons--to protect her from
being verbally attacked as God and Jesus Christ often are by the public.
@goosehuntr: "Wouldn't it be easier to just believe there is no
God?"I know several Gay and Lesbian Christians, including
several who are ministers. They believe in the God of the Bible and are active
in their church and community. Modern Christians eat shrimp and
shave their faces and reject hundreds of other Old Testament rules as not
applying to modern life. Gay Christians look at one more thing in the Bible and
say, "I don't think that means what some claim it means, and therefore
I reject it as not applying to modern life. I can eat shrimp and pork, shave my
beard and I can be a Gay Christian."The Family Proclamation was
written for Mormons by Mormon leaders. It can be ignored by non-Mormons in the
same way the Wiccan Rede or Tao Te Ching is ignored by Mormons.
In response to Bradk77 who said:bradk77sandy/USA, 00"Showing respect for other beliefs INCLUDES not trying to use legislative
means to impose your beliefs on others while outlawing their beliefs. Case in
point: trying to ban gay marriage - how does that show respect for homosexuals?
Children "hear" actions much more than words." My
response: What about the fact that the issue became a matter of political
legislation in the first place? You say we should not impose LDS views on the
matter of gay marriage upon others by voting against it. Well, how about those
who are imposing their views upon us as LDS regarding this issue by bringing
this issue into the political arena in the first place?
I know that gay marriage is here to stay, and I believe that leaders of all
religions (not just Mormons) are fully aware of that. But, the fight must be
fought. It's not 'unconscionable'. In fact, it's rather the
opposite. The very nature of the fight is FORCING everyone to discuss, debate
and really care about what is going on. It forces all to come up with ways to
coexist/blend peacefully. It's difficult...much like any other type of
change in life. Sometimes, we have to go through something hard, learn from it,
and come out stronger. I have a brother and daughter who stand proudly on the
gay-rights side. And, honestly, I'm all for gay-person happiness myself.
But, while for them it's like their whole life revolves around it, and
they'd just as soon dismantle the Church as set foot inside...I see a
different perspective. To me, the Church is like a park-sized vegetable garden
with a vast amount of good food. They just want to stomp it all out because
there's onions in it.
@Chris B 8:42 a.m. April 3, 2014The Savior also said to "Render
unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are
God's" (see Matthew 22:21] This phrase has become a widely
quoted summary of the relationship between Christianity and secular authority.
In your comment you are rendering unto God the things that are God's. It
is your right and privilege to do so, and I commend your efforts. You should
realize, though, that the discussion about SSM is a civil/secular issue and is
therefore in the realm of Caesar and not something religion controls. The
comments from religious leaders on which you base your statement are at best
persuasive and are in no way controlling. Civil/secular law works
to protect the civil/secular rights of ALL people and is controlled by, among
other things, the protections found in the US Constitution. SSM being decided
on a civil/secular leval, civil/secular law will determine the outcome. As it
should. Just as adherence to religious requirements will determine our eternal
Wouldn't it be easier to just believe there is no God? That way you are
not accountable to anyone, or their laws. If you believe in God, then you must
believe in what He says. If you believe in God then you must see perfection in
His patterns. If you believe in God, then you must accept that His ways are not
ours, His thoughts not ours. Can't we accept that He may know something we
don't? That He may see an end result we don't see? Can't we
trust in His parental pattern? We see things through a glass darkly. He does
not. Society has tried this pattern of same sex marriage before in the worlds
history... it failed. When people stone the prophets, literally or
figuratively, things don't end well. Most teachings from living prophets
are addressed to the church. The Family, A Proclamation to the World was to the
world. It is Gods word and warning from living prophets. Unless, you don't
believe in God. Then you are free to fashion gods of your own make, and your end
will be as others who have done the same.
LDS Liberal,My understanding is your prophet(who speaks for God
according to Mormons I believe) does not support gay marriage.Do you
agree with your prophet?-----------------God's leader on earth today(Pope Francis) only supports marriage between
a man and woman---------I agree with Pope Francis and
Mormon Prophet MonsonDo you agree with and support your prophet?I do. And I'm not even Mormon!----------------It is important we be kind to everyone---------It is also important we never condone sin.----------Both Prophet Monson and Pope Francis have been clear on
what is acceptable to God.They agree with each other.I
agree with them.------------
@Brown: Your comment is wrong on several levels.People are not
generic. There is as much variation in individuals as there are between the
sexes. You can't average people out for policy decisions. You may have a
stereotype in your head of men as wage-earners and sports fans, and of women as
homemakers and nurturers, but that's not the reality for everyone. Some
women are horrible as nurturers. Some men are hopeless as sports fans. People
bring their individual strengths and talents to life, and should be judged as
individuals. Gender or other markers don't guarantee anything.As for adoptions by gay men or lesbian women, that ship sailed long ago and
has nothing to do with whether they're allowed to marry or not. Adoption
agencies place children in the best available homes. Sometimes these are those
of single women or men. Sometimes these are unmarried couples. Sometimes these
are couples with stable same-sex adult relationships.Society always
considers the welfare of children. With all the single mothers, divorced
parents, and abandoned children, these policies are, and have to be, independent
from the issue of marriage.
I have my doubts... I've been sympathetic to the idea of gay
marriage because I've seen what longterm gay relationships do to stabilize
someone who is socially radicalized, feeling alone, etc... especially my brother
who embraced a persecution complex (despite leaving a family with wife and four
kids to pursue this lifestyle) until he met wonderful man who encourages him to
calm down and see life in a much more tolerant way.I have a large
number of gay friends and acquaintances. Most of them that live in states that
support gay marriage, and NONE OF THEM are actually marrying their "life
partners", despite many of them being together for years and years. Yes, we always see the 'rush' to marry when a state's
laws are struck down by courts who decide their will to rob people of the right
of popular self-determination, but I've yet to see my friends caring one
way or the other... other than the desire to cry fowl whenever they're
denied it. It makes me think that despite our best efforts to be
compassionate and accomodating, this wasn't really about marriage at all.
Gay marriage is not a religious issue but a social issue. It is not good for
society and must be legislated. It will result in gay adoption and
will not recognize the rights of children who deserve to have a mother and a
father. Numerous studies show that a mother and father contribute differently
to emotional & developmental needs of a child, and children are strengthened
by the positive influence of both. Society should strive to place adoptive
children in the best possible situation for them to succeed; granted, it
doesn't guarantee success--there are bad parents out there. The point is,
children are given the best opportunities possible. Society seldom
considers the rights of children. I have single female friends who
yearn for children but haven't adopted because it would not be in the best
interest of the child and would be selfishness on their part. I
also have gay friends and stand with them in preserving their dignity. We can
pass laws which give gays equal legal rights without giving the right to marry
and thus, adopt. I stand for the rights of children who deserve to
have their best interest be represented.
The Eyres' "expect respect from others despite differences in belief
and doctrine — and that if they do not, it is more their problem."
Choosing not to drink alcohol (a belief) deserves respect, denying
another's civil right (marriage), based on religious belief, does not
deserve respect and should be challenged. It's not the problem of the
denied or denigrated, it's the problem of the oppressor.
Above all, Latter-Day Saints need to remember and recognize our own history, so
that we avoid appearing to be hypocrites on this subject: we ourselves were once
violently persecuted, both by civilians and the government itself, because of
unconventional marriage practices that the majority of the country found
unacceptable. We of all people should recognize that the government has no
business being involved in these types of affairs, and instead work towards
turning marriage into an entirely private institution.
Regarding marriage itself, the Church must affirm its beliefs on the subject,
but refrain from trying to codify those beliefs into law by force, in
contradiction to the Constitution of the United States, which Church leaders
have said is divinely inspired. By working to remove marriage from the law
entirely, instead of trying to force a particular legal definition of it upon
everyone, the Church can protect itself from future persecution, while at the
same time allowing others to exercise their free agency, for right or for wrong.
The world's standards for morality are different from God's and always
have been, almost since time began. We cannot and should not expect civil and
religious law to be congruent to each other, especially in a country where
separation of church and state is a foundational principle of government, as
much for the protection of the churches as it is for the protection of the
By teaching children to show love to individuals struggling with same-sex
attraction, not to judge them, or to ridicule them, or to be cruel to them in
any other way—and by showing them how to do so through our own
example—we can reduce the number of gay and lesbian members of the Church
who choose to leave it instead of working to overcome these issues, with the
love and support of those around them. This will help to set Latter-Day Saints
apart from the rest of the frequently intolerant Christian world and help to
open a dialogue between us and the gay community, which hopefully would
eventually lead to mutual understanding and rapprochement.
It's a difficult, and fine line to walk, between tolerance and apostasy,
between loving the sinner and inadvertently condoning or tolerating the sin. I
think the first step is to dispel a number of notions currently popular within
Mormon culture, first and foremost the idea that homosexuality is a
"choice" and that it is possible for someone simply to stop being gay if
they pray hard enough, or by some other miraculous means. While there have been
a very small number of homosexual Latter-Day Saints who have nevertheless chosen
to marry and have families with members of the opposite sex, the underlying
physiological attraction towards members of the same sex will always remain, and
will always be something the individual has to deal with.
ulvegaard said, "Society in general, from my observations, has pressed this
topic into a simple discussion - if you do not support gay marriage you are a
conveyor of hate, bigotry, homophobia, backward thinking, intolerance and other
polysyllabic words."Yes, I think this is how societies establish
new mores at the level of public opinion. Social pressure is brought to bear on
social creatures. Beliefs, perspectives, and behaviors that are seen as not
meeting the desired standard get frowned upon. Over time, fewer and fewer
people practice these beliefs/behaviors.I think that religious
proscriptions against SSM are based in the fear and lack of knowledge prevalent
at the time they were written. I think we as a society are recognizing that we
know better now and we are saying it's time to do things differently. We
believe in equality and justice, and we want our society to reflect this. I
think we want our religions to reflect this too.
What is tolerance?
@Redshirt"...Discrimination is not a bad thing, it can PROTECT
you in the end...".Discriminate...The people in the
south taught their children to discriminate...How did that work out
for those children as well as their parents?
There are really only two choices to make if you child is Gay, and Mormons are
no exemption or exception. You can alienate your child with the "love the
sinner, but hate your sin" lecture, or you can support them, and leave their
personal choices up to them with no shaming, judgments, pontificating, implied
threats of shunning or disowning them. Why? You will simply lose them if you do
not support them fully. They have choices. As we already know, many, many of
our Mormon Children already leave Mormonism for various reasons. If you
alienate them, in any way, they will leave YOU. Are you prepared to live the
rest of your life having driven them away? That has NOTHING to do with Religion
or Doctrine. They will simply leave.
I wouldn't say that the flaw in the BC or UTA cases involving same sex
couples were poorly drawn methodologically. The real issue is that we are
looking at a correlation, not causation. Of course a group of children raised by
those that are discriminated against in society, and manytimes those who came
out 20-years ago were also in a less socialized state in regards to societal
norms than your average person. Sure, drug use and other issues were also more
prevalent. They also had less of a social network to support children. However,
this has nothing to do in regards to the causal effect that homosexuality has on
one's fitness to be a parent. I would venture that the same studies done
with this generation's LGBT people would turn out much different, as they
contain a more average-above-average cross section of society.
@Values Voter, LONG BEACH, CA“The main problem with
"researchers" like Regnerus and Allen is that they start with a
conclusion (in this case, gays are bad parents) around which, all facts must
rearrange themselves.”I disagree with your assertions. The
studies were not engaged in to prove that ‘gays are bad parents.’
Regnerus is careful not claim gay parenting as causation, but he does state that
the no-differences claim between a child being raised by his married biological
heterosexual parents and same-sex parents is simply not true and needs further
study. I would invite anyone who wants to know more about Mark
Regnerus' study should Google, New Family Structures Research and the No
Differences Claim, Ana Samuel. Despite the constant claim that Regnerus'
study has been "debunked" and that his research was "flawed,"
you should note that those discrediting him have a stake in the demise of
Regnerus' credibility as a researcher. He is the constant target of
attacks, and blamed for factors he could not control in his study, (see Mark
Regnerus and the Storm over the New Family Structures Study). Also Google: The
Vindication of Mark Regnerus.
Society in general, from my observations, has pressed this topic into a simple
discussion - if you do not support gay marriage you are a conveyor of hate,
bigotry, homophobia, backward thinking, intolerance and other polysyllabic
words.I don't approve of gay marriage and do not vote in favor
of it; nor do I teach my children to hate those who are in favor of it. We try
to be respectful and kind and appreciate very much when other people treat us
with that same respect even if they disagree with our opinions.
bradk77 writes "Showing respect for other beliefs INCLUDES not trying to use
legislative means to impose your beliefs on others while outlawing their
beliefs. Case in point: trying to ban gay marriage - how does that show respect
for homosexuals?"We know that the most serious offense is
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. Next comes murder, or the shedding of innocent
blood. Next comes violation of the law of chastity, which states that only a man
and a woman who are legally and lawfully married to each other are allowed to
have sexual relations. Somewhere after that comes dishonesty -- stealing and
lying.As bradk77 asked, someone else might ask: "Showing
respect for other beliefs INCLUDES not trying to use legislative means to impose
your beliefs on others while outlawing their beliefs. Case in point: punishing
theft and perjury - how does that show respect for thieves and liars?"Passing and enforcing laws against dishonesty, while permitting
violations of the law of chastity, seems to be straining at a gnat and
swallowing a camel.
The one thing missing from this article and the Eyres' advice is an
explanation of religious freedom. The Constitution restricts the State to
prevent it from embracing one denomination or another, to allow all to flourish.
Because of this, Mormon and other churches, temples, mosques, synagogues,
meetings and other places and practices of religion have been able to thrive in
this country.In return for this freedom to hold our own religious
doctrines, faiths, and practices, we agreed that the kingdom of Man rules our
government, and that the result may not always comply with our religious
beliefs. Even though the two worlds may at times clash in principle, it
doesn't mean either of them is wrong. They just exist on two different
planes, to two different purposes.You should explain to your
children that civil marriage, an institution of Man, has no effect on Temple
marriage, a blessed institution of God. Combine that with your fine
expressions of love and tolerance and diversity, and wish gay couples well, and
you've got the perfect explanation.
Ranch, all law is based on someone's perception of morality--be it
religious/secular. The U.S. was founded by the voice of the people--all of us
have the right to influence the laws we must live under. SSM
argument cannot be simplified down to, "if you don't believe in
same-gender marriages..." SSM proponents have shown no mercy on a business
owner's exercising freedom of religious conscience. SSM advocates have
shown there will be no live and let live. The goal is not tolerance but
acceptance and conscientious objectors don't want to be forced to
participate in validating it. They also don't want their children taught to
accept it as a morally neutral lifestyle in the classroom. What individuals want
to do behind their own closed doors (legally) is their own business, when they
force it into the public square it becomes everyone's business and everyone
has a right to have a say in what they believe is best for society.SSM debate has nothing to do with hating individuals who identify as
gay/lesbian. The question is "what is the purpose of marriage?", a
question which crosses religious and cultural boundaries.
Until people vote with their wallets and get rid of our true role models (the
kardashians, TMZ ) we are in serious trouble.
The writers say they are concerned about not encouraging "prejudice" in
teaching their children about marriage. It's not prejudice, it's
@RedShirt said "there are lots of studies that show the harm that results
when kids are raised by same sex parents.""It's bad for
the children" is a sideshow.What's bad for children is
privation, abuse, divorce, disinterested parents or no parents.Loving parents, gay or straight, married or not-- doesn't even make the
scale.At any rate, "It's bad for the children," if it
were true, would be an argument against adoption/parental rights for gay people,
which no one is seriously considering. Not an argument against marriage.As for "many studies"-- this is phrase, translated, usually
means "I'm sure some qualified authority out there will validate my
biases with facts."Yet in case after case in which these studies
would be super-useful in slowing the progress of marriage equality, they seldom
appear, and the handful that do repeatedly fail to persuade.Incidentally, the very official sounding American College of Pediatricians you
mention is a group of fewer than 200 members, formed explicitly to oppose gay
adoption in 2002. It broke off from the 60,000+ member American Academy of
Pediatrics and finds no reason to oppose gay people raising their children.
RedShirt wrote: ". . . no, there are lots of studies that show
the harm that results when kids are raised by same sex parents.""Lots"? really? Unfortunately for you and your argument,
Allen was also a witness in the Michigan bench trial and he fared no better than
Regnerus. In fact, he produced a study with the exact same flaws as
Regnerus'. That's one of the things about a bench trial -- there is a
full, exhaustive, careful, detailed, examination of claims and counter-claims,
so that weakness and strengths in evidence can be teased out. The main problem
with "researchers" like Regnerus and Allen is that they start with a
conclusion (in this case, gays are bad parents) around which, all facts must
rearrange themselves. That's not an honest or ethical way to conduct
scholarship.Also, you're tipping your hand when you name an
organization like the 60 to 200 member American College of Pediatricians. That
sounds official, but its a fringe group. The American Academy of Pediatrics with
its 60,000 members is a much more reliable source of information in my book.
@RedWings"I have never been in favor of denying anyone their civil
rights. "Only because you and I define civil rights differently
or define it the same way but apply it differently. "Why not
make both valued?"Religious opinions do have a space and can be
a motive for someone's support or opposition to something. Nationally you
can probably best see this in the Moral Mondays protests in North Carolina. We
can see religious impact on the alcohol laws in this state but you might notice
that even this paper tends to use a secular perspective when writing in support
of those laws. The important thing is that a law has to be Constitutional."You then remove the conflict of religion vs homosexuality "If you did that (civil unions for state term), then marriage would still
end up being used publicly for same-sex unions through churches or otherwise
(can't ban non-religious ceremonies from calling itself a marriage).
I'm actually kinda surprised you're fine with that.""Heal" is the correct term, not conceal."Only
"correct" to those who think homosexuality is a flaw that needs fixing.
Yes teach our children that some are born straight and some are born gay and
thats gods plan and we love them all the same!
@RedWings said: "I have never been in favor of denying anyone their civil
rights." And "Why not make both valued? It is really simple. Give
'marriage' back to the churches (it is a religious ordinance anyway)
and government oversees 'civil unions.' You then remove the conflict
of religion vs. homosexuality and preserve everyone's liberty.”Well, if semantics are your concern, you can take comfort in the fact
that the expression "Traditional Marriage" now come to signify an
idealized type of marriage that is most vehemently not for gay people.And "the churches" (at least those already happily welcoming of
couples, gay or straight) can use that phrase to describe all the man-woman
marriages they perform to make clear the moral superiority and high regard in
which they hold their status as man-woman couples.Meanwhile, the
government will continue to oversee "Legal Marriage," where both the
washed and unwashed qualify equally-- regardless of their religion, and
independent of the need that someone morally approve their union or the two
people in it-- which seems to fit the whole liberty for all thing pretty
well.Your church: discriminate away. Our government: equality for
all. Everyone wins.
Red Wings - What is the difference between legally allowing gays to marry and
legally allowing adults to drink?Both are a sin in your beliefs.
Both will be legal. Both are forced upon society - especially Mormons who do
not believe it them.What makes this so different than booze? Why
are you claiming that you are being called upon to support something against
your religion with gay marriage but not say that when it comes to allowing
adults to drink?BTW, Amendment 3 will not allow gays to have any
sort of legal relationship, remember? Gay advocated tried to get us to drop
that sentence, but we wouldn't! We knew what was best! We had to give
them nothing. Now, they are proving that their cause is constitutional, we are
changing our tunes. We are saying that they can have (as if it were ours to
give) Civil Unions and let the churches use the word marriage. Too late. It
has gone before the judges and it WILL be all or nothing...just nothing for
those who do not like sharing the word "marriage."
To "Values Voter" no, there are lots of studies that show the harm that
results when kids are raised by same sex parents. There is the study by Douglas
W. Allen from the Department of Economics at Simon Fraser University in British
Columbia where he found that kids raised by gays are less likely to graduate.According to the American College of Pediatricians, children raised by
gay parents will suffer from all sorts of problems. From exposure to domestic
violence, to engaging in risky behaviors that set children up for failure as
adults.There are lots of studies out there showing the detrimental
effects of children being raised by gay parents.
@RedWings – “My issue is that religious beliefs in this situation
are marginalized in favor of a secular opinion. Why not make both
valued?”Can I ask a more fundamental question? What is it about two consenting adults loving each other that religious people
find so troubling (which is a bit ironic for a religion that has Love as its 1st
commandment)? I have yet to hear a good argument against it other than
“it’s yucky” or “because our sacred book says so”
(and as a straight person I can relate to the 1st one, but also recognize that
shouldn’t trump anothers rights).Is there a moral (not to be
confused with religious) argument against homosexuality? And since
society is dealing with this now vs. the bronze-age, perhaps it is contingent
upon God to give us an update of his views here – and by update I mean a
moral argument as opposed to a divine command - because if God just wanted
people who would obey his sacred books or prophets, he didn’t need to give
us such a large brain… a dog’s brain would have sufficed.
Lane & Tyler:My point is that the secular view of homosexuality
is forced on those of us who do not believe that view. It is the other side of
the coin. I have never been in favor of denying anyone their civl rights. My
issue is that religious beliefs in this situation are marginalized in favor of a
secular opinion. Why not make both valued? It is really simple. Give
"marriage" back to the churches (it is a eligious ordinance anyway) and
government oversees "civil unions". You then remove the conflict of
religion vs homosexuality and preserve everyone's liberty. Because I worship God according to my own conscience does not make me a bigot,
yet I get called one because of my beliefs. There is no difference between that
and me calling an LGBT person a derrogatory name....Schnee:"Heal" is the correct term, not conceal. Those who have oversome SSA
feelings have more freedom and peace and ever. It is not repression of
feelings, it is healing through Christ and His Atonement. And it is real.....
gwtchd wrote:"Research also shows that children are harmed who
live with same sex couples."I hope you're not referring to
the thoroughly discredited Regnerus research. Not sure if
you're aware of this, but Dr. Regnerus was recently called to testify in a
marriage ban case in Michigan and he performed very poorly. Under direct and
cross examination, he completely fell apart and ultimately the judge wrote that
Regnerus' study was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious
consideration”. Also, on the eve of his testimony, his employer, the
University of Texas at Austin (Sociology Dept.) released a statement distancing
itself from his research and its conclusions.(Unfortunately, the
briefs for the State of Utah cite Dr. Regnerus' research prominently in
their arguments).Finally, I have to say I was very impressed with
the tone and content of this article by the Eyres. This seems like progress.
Many LDS and non-LDS alike tend to forget that it's important to take care
of the beam in one's own eye before addressing the mote in the eye of
another.While striving to live goodly lives, we must allow others
their agency, even if that involves their making mistakes and wrong choices, and
hope that the example we set and the love and encouragement we show for them
inspires them to choose the right.Nevertheless, they MUST choose
their OWN path or agency means nothing. All one can do is provide the means by
which they can make the right choices, from that point the decision rests with
@ Falasha - You bring up a good point. When children are young they can become
confused by certain incidences in their lives. Sometimes children play
"doctor" and check each other out. We naturally to respond to touch, so
a child might come to the conclusion that because they liked their same gender
friend touching them they must be gay. I had this experience with one of my
daughters. I found a note she wrote regarding the incident, so I talked to her.
She is happily married to a very good man now, with a family of her own. As the
Eyres have said, we need to be frank, and as parents we need to be watchful and
ever vigilant. Aside from that I find it interesting that we are told we
can't speak our minds about how we believe because that would be
"mean" or bigoted, but those who don't believe the way we as LDS
members do, feel they can say anything they want, including calling us bigoted
or mean spirited.
I don't understand which LDS church Ohio-LDS belongs to, but we don't
believe or ever have the 3 points that he/she made in his/her comments.
LDS liberalHe also told them to go and sin no more.
Twin Lights,Your quotes are uncanonized opinions. What I referred to
is canonized scripture, which refers often to God the Father but never to a
Heavenly Mother.Borrowing President Hinckley's words,
"Logic and reason would certainly suggest that if" the Father is indeed
omnipotent, he could certainly create spirit children without outside help.
Also, logic and reason (along with natural law) would suggest that immortal
beings with physical bodies would not sire children who are spirits. Same with
the premortal Christ (a spirit) who created the physical bodies of Adam and Eve
through creation, not procreation.
Thank you for bringing this up! To discuss this at home, in perspective of the
gospel, will, I think, allow families to defend themselves and other loved ones
against the "cunning plan of the evil one." Thanks for
helping our society.Best wishes!
To "Ranch" it is good to teach your kids to discriminate. Yes I said
it.I teach my kids to discriminate between eating junk food and
eating good food. I want them to discriminate against the junk food.I teach my kids that hanging out with thugs is a bad idea. Yes, they
discriminate against thugs.I teach them to not just buy the cheapest
item that may work. They discriminate against shoddy products.I
teach them to avoid the sex offenders. They discriminate against sex
offenders.Discrimination is not a bad thing, it can PROTECT you in
the end.To "TaipeiModerate" you almost have it. There is no
sin in same sex attraction. There is sin in sex between 2 people of the same
gender. That is what I teach my kids.To "LDS Liberal" we
know what God would say. He tells his gay children the same thing he tells
everybody else. Sex outside of marrige is a sin. Marriage is between man and
woman only. If a gay person wants the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom,
they must enter into a heterosexual marriage. The expectations are quite black
How does a group of people "Claiming" to support Freedom, the
Constitution and the Freedom of Expression, then seek to ban, and
mistreat, and disallow others THEIR Constitutional Freedom and Rights? BTW -- Jesus loved and tried to help the sinner, He didn't
kick them Out, but brought them IN, but he REALLY did cracked
down hard on self righteous hypocrites.He then commanded his
followers [the true believers] to do as he did.
@RedWings"there are thousands of people who have overcome same-sex
attraction and are leading heterosexual lives with an opposite sex spouse,
children, even temple marriage. "Conceal, don't feel,
don't let them know.
The metropolitan areas of California, where we live, are very diverse also.
All my kids have friends and aquantances that are gay. It is easy to love the
sinner without condoning the sin, when you know the sinner. As Pres. Uchtdorf
quoted a bumper sticker that he saw, "Don't judge me because I sin
differently than you".
@RedWings – “So how does a court ruling that leads to changes in
educational cirriculum, restrictions on the rights of private business owners,
etc support our pursuit of happiness?”I think you might be
confusing the rights guaranteed by our Constitution (including our 1st amendment
right not to have religious beliefs passed into law) with living in a democratic
republic where constitutionally permissible laws are passed by the majority.You may not like not always getting your way, but I bet you would like
it better than living in a theocracy (which should be painfully obvious if you
look at historical Europe or many modern Middle Eastern countries).
Steve C. Warren,Much is from Fairmormon:Eliza R. Snow
composed a poem that is now the hymn “Oh My Father” which states
“truth eternal tells me I´ve a mother there.” It is almost
certainly based on Joseph’s teachings to her.Under Joseph F.
Smith, the First Presidency stated: “man, as a spirit, was begotten and
born of heavenly parents, and reared to maturity in the eternal mansions of the
Father [as an] offspring of celestial parentage...all men and women are in the
similitude of the universal Father and Mother, and are literally the sons and
daughters of Deity”The Family: A Proclamation to the World,
states “All human beings—male and female—are created in the
image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and,
as such, each has a divine nature and destiny.”President
Gordon B. Hinckley said: “Logic and reason would certainly suggest that
if we have a Father in Heaven, we have a Mother in Heaven. That doctrine rests
well with me.”Dallin H. Oaks said “Our theology begins
with heavenly parents. Our highest aspiration is to be like them.”
Red Wings: "You say that religious beliefa are being forces on unbelievers.
Yet secular beliefs are forced upon believers at every turn."---------So, you are forced to believe in alcohol and tobacco,
right? You are forced to believe in gambling. You are forced to believe in
pre-martial sex (since it too is not illegal). Boy, there is a bunch of things
that you are forced to believe in that are lawful actions!Why not
treat gay marriage like alcohol? It is legal, but you do not partake of it.
You can still consider imbibing a sin. So too can you believe gay marriage a
sin. Just don't partake of it and you will not be judged for it.
Brave Sir Robin - the article didn't explicitly mention legislation
allowing or banning same sex marriage, but given the church's recent
history on the matter, even if the authors didn't intend an implication,
there are those that will infer an implication, which is why it needs to be
said.To equate banning gay marriage to banning murder is
disingenuous, as you can make secular arguments in favor of banning murder, as
it deprives the murder victim to their rights to life (and by extension, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness), whereas whose rights are we depriving by allowing
gay people to get married? The only arguments that can be made against gay
marriage are religious ones, and since we live in America, that means we cannot
legislate by religious arguments.Further, those who equate
legislation defining marriage to such things as traffic laws, what do we then
say if, for example, the people decide they want a traffic light at a certain
intersection rather than just a stop sign? The tide is turning towards allowing
gay marriage for those whose beliefs allow for it, even if our own do not.
Bradyk77: So how does a court ruling that leads to changes in
educational cirriculum, restrictions on the rights of private business owners,
etc support our pursuit of happiness? In every state that has addopted SSM,
expressing opposition to homosexuality on religious grounds is almost criminal.
It will likely be a criminal act soon...You say that religious
beliefa are being forces on unbelievers. Yet secular beliefs are forced upon
believers at every turn. Hypocritical, isn't it?
@Chris BSalt Lake City, UTThere are two issues here-----------------First, how do we treat people who are living
against what we know to be right?--------Second, does being kind
mean we support things we know to be wrong?=========== I'd like to take a crack at answering this one:The exact same
why I treat people who drink coffee, tea, or you [being a "non"-Mormon].
My "religion" teaches it isn't right, but that should
not change how I treat anyone.In Fact, My "religion" teaches
that I whouls be even MORE kind and supportive.Same applies to Gay
sg: Sorry, but there are thousands of people who have overcome
same-sex attraction and are leading heterosexual lives with an opposite sex
spouse, children, even temple marriage. To say that the "gospel will not
change" SSA is simply not true. I know many of these people, so I can speak
to this. SSA can be changed through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.I
would also disagree that there is a "right" to express love for another.
This is a priveledge. It is done through respect for the other person, and
putting their needs above yours. That is true love and devotion, and Christ is
our supreme example of this. There is no greater love shown that to die for
To Brave Sir Robin,We (myself and the others you cite in your comments)
are not challenging this well written article. We are commenting about the
recent actions of the LDS faithful and our Utah legislature and Governor which
actively promote laws restricting SSM. The obvious examples are the LDS
faithful's vigorous support of Prop 8 in CA and our Utah legislature and
Governor fighting the District Court ruling invalidating Utah's ban on SSM.
Even the Editorial Board of this paper believe that laws restricting SSM are
proper use of majority power to restrict the ability of homosexuals to pursue
their right to pursue happiness - which hardly shows respect towards
homosexuals. Our point is that if one has respect towards others then one would
certainly not work hard to legally ban the exercise of their heartfelt beliefs
and pursuit of happiness. We think that that would certainly follow from the
principles expressed in this article.
LDS Ohio:parents should also teach their children about the changing
definition of marriage in the relatively brief 200-year history of their church.
(I agree)This includes the requirement of polygamy for exaltation (which
we no longer practice) (due to the Law of the land. it is still a celestial
law), condemnation of inter-racial marriage (which condemnation we now
disavow) ( meant for the protection of those who would enter into it at the
time. think about that.), and the view that husbands stand as
intermediaries between God and their wives (we now teach that spouses stand on
equal footing before God) (this has always been taught. Husbands still stand as
intermediaries. This in no way lessons the equality of husband and wife).As children understand that there is still great truth and purpose for them in
the church, even as the definition of marriage and church teachings on marriage
have changed, (but not sin.) they will be prepared should further changes come
to the definition of marriage in the future (marriage will never be owed by God
between same sex couples).
The Constitution is built on natural laws. Same sex marriage is not natural no
matter how you justify it. The are organs made for natural things to happen.
Research also shows that children are harmed who live with same sex couples. We
need to protect the sanctity of marriage the natural law of God and our
children. Some states have all ready given same sex couples rights of
cohabitation. All the same rights as married couples or different sex couples
Llew40, I need to ask you the question that's been asked a million times:
Just how does same sex marriage "hurt all of us"?
Such an idealistic article that doesn't ring true when parents have a gay
son or daughter period. I would be interested to hear what these two experts
would have to say if they had a son or daughter who is gay and decides to live
as a gay with the right to marry and have relationships? Those who aren't
gay will NEVER understand what it is like and frankly the church and gospel will
NOT change same sex attraction. To tell them to remain celibate is easier said
than done. To deny them the right to express love as their heterosexual
counterparts is easier said than done. As parents, we can teach our children to
respect and love those who are gay, but when your own child is gay then it
becomes imperative to love them and accept them for who they are without pushing
the gospel down their throats. They will turn away. Love them. Plain and simple.
I didn't appreciate this article from these two 'experts'.
LDS parents first need to talk to their kids about cohabitation and the dangers
of premarital sex. LDS parents closing their eyes and hoping the kids will
repent and go to the temple later has been going on for the last twenty years.
The same sex marriage debate and even the ordain women movement support this
evidence that it's just getting worse yet no one in the LDS community wants
to talk about it for fear of offending anyone because premarital sex is now the
norm. Same sex marriage hurts all of us, especially our daughters who will grow
up questioning the value of a temple marriage that they have to wait until the
next life to experience.
To Tandrews: Majority wins in our system, yes, EXCEPT when the will of the
majority deprives others in the minority of a fundamental right without any good
reason for doing so. Then, the Constitution provides a recourse, which is what
is happening now. So it doesn't always come down to what a
majority says. Rather, the questions are these:Is marriage fundamental?
Everyone seems to agree that it is. Is there a good, secular reason for
depriving it from same sex couples? In all the courts where this question has
been raised, not a single judge has found one.
This is all well and good. Excellent even. Perfectly great that the authors and
others should revere marriage and want to teach its importance, as they
understand it through their religion, to their children. Yet it
doesn't explain--doesn't even try to justify--why this means others
should be excluded from marriage by the state, excluded from pursuing their own
happiness through marriage in accordance with THEIR beliefs.
RE: LDS Liberal, That same Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother,Not a
Biblical view i.e.. “Our Father which art in Heaven with, The supreme
being transcends space and time. The first goes to pieces if you begin to apply
the literal meaning to it. How can a sexual animal really be our father? How can
it be in the sky? The second falls into no such traps. C.S. Lewis.Mormons believe in a premortal life, the only Christian church with such a
doctrine .Bible believing Christians, and Jews believe that God created
all that exists ex nihilo (out of nothing).(Ecc 12:7)… the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it.For in him we live and move and
have our Being...(Acts 17:28)Creation is dependent on God for it’s very
existence.In (2Tim 1:9 & Titus 1:2)God existed before time,
implying he created time. Origen believed in the Platonic
pre-existence and transmigration of souls. The Council of Constantinople .. in
453 CE posthumously excommunicated him.
Before telling your 8 year old anything, ask yourself this.Is it
possible that my son or daughter could grow up to be gay?If your
answer is no, you may want to do some research.If your answer is yes, you
may consider how your words today could affect your kid tomorrow.
@theOtter – “If you don’t believe in murder, don’t
commit one.”A clever argument if we equate murder with being
gay. I can’t quite wrap my head around a moral code that would
do so, but I guess if it’s based on a bronze-age book we should also
include eating shellfish, wearing multi-blend fabrics and praying to graven
images (wonder how many more prisons we’ll need to imprison our entire
Hindu population). @RG – “society is the victim of any
movement that devalues traditional marriage.”Exactly, this is
why gay people want to strengthen it. How does allowing two gay
people to marry undermine it? And how does it negatively impact
“traditional” straight marriages? Are you and anyone you know
planning on getting a divorce the minute gay marriage is allowed? Do you believe
there are a significant number of straight people who are waiting for gay
marriage to become legal so they can “switch teams?”Regarding the article’s title, if we follow the two commandments Jesus
said are the only ones necessary to get to heaven, isn’t this a
There are secular reasons to ban murder; if there are secular reasons to ban
same-sex marriage inform the Amendment 3 legal defense team, since they've
done an awful job of proving that so far.
We need to keep in mind that what LDS Scriptures teach about being mothers and
fathers "in God's eternal kingdom" isn't exactly what the
Eyres teach.The Standard Works teach that we as spirit children were
created by just one parent, God the Father, who possesses an immortal physical
body. There is no mention of a Heavenly Mother(s). Even if he had produced his
children through a procreative process involving an immortal female, natural law
dictates that we would have been born with bodies, not as spirits.Similarly, in LDS scriptures (example: Ether 3:14-16) the premortal Christ
declares that he alone created the physical bodies of Adam and Eve.
My opinion is that I'm not imposing my religious beliefs on anyone if I
choose to vote "No" to redefining marriage. You have the right to vote
based on whatever belief system you have. As the Eyre's stated this
country is filled with different religions and viewpoints. In a democracy where
people are allowed to vote for what they believe, the majority wins. In states,
where that has been the case, I don't feel it's right for those whose
views did not win, to then go around and bully their opponents into giving them
their way. It's been a lot of bullying of individuals and companies who
oppose same sex marriage and that's not right. They are not beating up,
killing, or mistreating anyone, they just don't support the same belief
system. I often find it's ironic and hypocritical that in all these
campaigns against bullying, it seems the one exception is that it seems okay to
bully those of religious faiths. The point is everyone should be treated with
love and respect, even if you don't agree on everything.
Secular law and Gods law sometimes don't mix. I'm sure we LDS can
live with laws that go totally against what general society may be passing. If
you are LDS you might look at it like this. We have been called a "pecular
people" anyway. As the latter days move on and the signs of the times come
more and more to pass, I'm sure we, Mormons, will be seen as more and more
pecular, or "out of step with modern times". Whereas our standards have
stayed largely consistant, the secular world, (which is under much of you know
whos influence) will become farther and farther removed from us. This will
ultimately become the major "wheat from the tares" separation that the
Bible and prophets have forseen. We can still understand and teach what is
sinful and what is not. We have nothing to be ashamed of there. We know the
truth. And that is where parents have important teaching responsibilities to
their children. All the while knowing that God will be the ultimate judge of
I am so amazed at the hatred this subject always brings... The Eyers are writing
an article about what they do and how they teach their children, and if it has
worked for them, it might help some of us.. If you don't like what they
say, get a job writing an article and then you can voice your beliefs, WOW
LGBT people need to chill out!
Eyres: "Parents can strive to help their children feel strongly that all
faiths, including their own, deserve respect and tolerance; and that it is
possible... to have differences of belief while still respecting and
appreciating one another."Bravo. The Eyres are to be commended
for taking a conciliatory and respectful tone on this topic. Their call for
mutual respect and appreciation of diversity is particularly welcome. As part
of their appreciation of religious diversity, the Eyres should instruct their
children that faiths have different doctrines, sometimes conflicting. How
religious values get translated into civil law can be tricky, and the tolerance
they call for has to be part of the process. LDS doctrine eschews alcohol.
Catholics, on the other hand, consume wine as a sacrament. Civil law and civil
alcohol policy allow both to coexist harmoniously. The Mormon-dominated
legislature maintains certain controls on alcohol marketing and consumption, but
does not prohibit alcohol use. The priests can still serve communion.Likewise, many faiths allow and honor same sex marriage. Just because LDS
doctrine opposes SSM does not mean that Utah civil law should prevent those
other churches from freely practicing their faith
I live in a somewhat more liberal community than Salt Lake City. There is a lot
of diversity in the "gay" community. Many of them don't believe in
gay marriage. Many of them are quite conservative. Many of them do not
identify with the vitriolic disrespectful sector of "gay activists".
Some of them even understand and respect the Mormon policy and doctrine on same
gender attraction. I think through public discourses, we only hear one aspect
of the "gay" community. My gay friends ask me what my standards are and
then I find them reinforcing them to my own children! How novel is that!
There are two issues here-----------------First,
how do we treat people who are living against what we know to be right?--------Second, does being kind mean we support things we know to
be wrong?--------First, we should treat all people
kindly, even those making incorrect decisions and going against what Mormon
Prophet Monson and Pope Francis have told usSecond, its possible,
and in fact commanded from God, we be kind to other but never to condone sin.God cannot look upon sin with the least bit of acceptance.Be
kind, but never support or accept sin.That's the best
approach.----------------Liberals often try and
confuse these two different issues and believe that to be kind one has to
condone whatever that person wants to do.This is patently false and
goes against what Pope Francis and Prophet Monson have taught us.Follow the prophet - love everyone, but never go against what God has said.
And Pope Francis and Propeht Monson(who speak for God according to
their religions) do not support gay "marriage"
You can teach them, or they're going to find out in any case, that the
attitudes and actions you can control are pretty much restricted to your own.
Other people can, and will do things differently and you can accept it or be
bitter about it, your choice.
Great article and I like the openness on acknowledging our divine parents father
and mother. One question I had was how to teach our younger children who are
pre-adolescent what gay or lesbian means when they ask the question? How do we
teach our children that it is wrong and disobedient to God's laws for boys
to marry boys, or girls to marry girls, or for boys to marry two or three girls,
yet God loves them and we should not judge them? If we tell our young children
that gays are loved by God the same as everyone else, or that they are special
then I am concerned that my daughter who is forming her gender identity, may
think - "Oh no I don't really like boys right now either - maybe I am a
Here is what LDS people should do:Follow their prophetI
do! And I'm not even Mormon.I also follow Pope Francis,
God's leader on earth today.They teach to love the sinner but
never support sin.Its a wise approach to this issue.
To Ranch, bradk and others,I appreciate the legislative soapbox
you're standing on, but where in the article did the authors make any
implications that same-sex marriage should be legislated or banned? Seems to me
all they did was say (1) gay marriage is here and (2) this is how LDS parents
should talk to their children about it. Nowhere in there is an opinion on
whether or not gay marriage should be legal.Unfortunately the
"logical leap" you've made in your comments is somewhat typical of
the pro-gay marriage crowd, and frankly it's scary to observe and
detrimental to civilized debate about the issue.
I agree we should teach our children to love and respect all people. But to
prescribe what we can and cannot legislate because it is "imposing our will
on others" just makes no sense. Society has a right to define what marriage
looks like just as it has a right to "impose" traffic laws, zoning, food
safety, etc. All laws have some moral element. No one can say what we can or
cannot legislate. I teach my kids why we would want to make certain
choices but that we cannot hold others accountable in the same way who have not
made those choices (e.g. people living together, gays, etc.). It's like
saying, if you promise someone to do something, the fault is when you don't
do it, rather than in not making the promise in the first place.
"If you don't believe in same-gender marriages, do not have one."
This is like saying, "If you don't believe in abortion, don't have
one." Well, ok. But what about "If you don't believe in murder,
don't murder anyone."Obviously, murder and abortion have
victims. But what about same sex marriage? Are there victims? If not, then we
should allow it. I would not claim that there are always necessarily direct
victims. (Although I do believe that kids are better off with parents of both
genders.) But over time, society is the victim of any movement that devalues
traditional marriage. Society won't be as strong without a high percentage
of traditional families. Gay marriage is not the only culprit; adultery,
illegitimacy, easy divorce, spousal abuse, child abuse, misplaced priorities of
too much work/leisure/ over family time also contribute.
Great article! Spot on!To those who followed by saying that people
shouldn't use legislative means to impose on others need to remember the
cases of people who have lost their livelihoods simply because they wanted to
follow their conscience.Legislation IS the imposition of societal
values. Some agree others do not.If you believe that imposing your
definition of marriage on others who have a different definition is proper then
you are simply hypocritical in saying they are wrong for wishing the same thing.
Particularly when the imposition of the definition of marriage is done
judicially (will of a judge or judges) versus legislatively (will of a
Ranch, by that argument, denying others the right to murder because it is
against your personal religion is discrimination and is not a moral value. If
you don’t believe in murder, don’t commit one.To teach
your children your religious beliefs is one thing. To require non-Mormons to
live by your beliefs, by legislating your beliefs into law is unconscionable.
I've been bothered by certain statements by the Eyres in the past (not the
least of which is their book acting like a "sense of entitlement" is an
actual thing, rather than another right wing construct to shame the middle
class), but this seems like a very decent and respectful way to explain why we
believe what we believe about marriage.Still, our commitment to
freedom of religion requires us to acknowledge that there are those who do not
believe these things, and who will choose not to believe them even after we
explain to them. And since we live in a democracy, not a theocracy, there still
must be room for those who do not share our religious beliefs to engage in their
relationships (heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous, monogamous, polyamorous,
whatever) the same way we engage in our relationships, albeit without imposing
requirements on any given religious institution.
LDS parents should also teach their children about the changing definition of
marriage in the relatively brief 200-year history of their church. This
includes the requirement of polygamy for exaltation (which we no longer
practice), condemnation of inter-racial marriage (which condemnation we now
disavow), and the view that husbands stand as intermediaries between God and
their wives (we now teach that spouses stand on equal footing before God). As
children understand that there is still great truth and purpose for them in the
church, even as the definition of marriage and church teachings on marriage have
changed, they will be prepared should further changes come to the definition of
marriage in the future.
"How do we help adolescents understand and appreciate what we believe about
marriage and about same-sex marriage while at the same time teaching them of
God’s universal love and of the importance of respecting everyone? How do
we give kids the kind of clarity that will allow them to avoid judging others
and at the same time not cause them to negatively judge their own religious
culture?"========== That's easy -- You teach
your children by EXAMPLE.BTW -- Those icky "gay" people some
of you worry so much about.They are Children of God. [Yes, That same
Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother].How would God treat his gay
child?How would God expect you as a brother or sister to treat your Gay
brother or sister.Be honest and ponder that, and then pray for
the right answer.
Since a woman can't be sealed to more than one man doesn't God see her
for time marriage as a good thing after her husband dies and she remarries? What
about the man who marries for time a woman formerly sealed who does not want to
get unsealed due to kids? And he isn't sealed to anyone?
Showing respect for other beliefs INCLUDES not trying to use legislative means
to impose your beliefs on others while outlawing their beliefs. Case in point:
trying to ban gay marriage - how does that show respect for homosexuals?
Children "hear" actions much more than words.
You have been my "parent mentors" for many years and I am so grateful
for you both! We take our children out when they are 8 years old for the big
dinner. We have been influenced by your talents in so many ways. Thank you! I do
think this is an important conversation to have with your children, but I wonder
what age is appropriate to talk about this.
"Just as they should respect all races and religions, they should avoid
judging anyone for their beliefs or lack of belief, gender, race, sexual
preference or personal characteristics. "When did this start? My
LDS neighbors certainly haven't heard this.
Not that difficult. First, don't teach them that LGBT people are
"sick" or "sinful." Introduce them to normal gay people (who are
pretty much like the rest of us). Maybe have them watch a show like Modern
Family. Second, teach them the religious significance of their beliefs, but help
them understand that it extends to their beliefs and not to other people--
Coffee drinkers, their buddies who engage in premarital relations, and gay
marriage means bad to them, but not others.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Eyre;Regardless what your personal beliefs,
denying others civil marriage because it is against your personal religion is
discrimination and is not a moral value. If you don't believe in
same-gender marriages, do not have one (in other words, myob).To
teach your children your religious beliefs is one thing. To require non-Mormons
to live by your beliefs, by legislating your beliefs into law is unconscionable.