Notice the silence on the subject of social ills arising from SSM. All concerns
are about religious freedom, i.e., "We're afraid that, when in the
public square, we'll be forced to behave as if we approve of SSM when our
religion forbids it."I think it's more accurate to say that
you'll be required to refrain from discriminating against those of whom you
disapprove.MY concern is that some are placing their religion before
the nation. What's wrong with this? Of the two, which one is protecting
your right to practice your religion? (And my right to not believe.) If your belief about SSM is exempted from public accommodation laws, all other
beliefs must be honored too, and we revert to "majority rules." If your
religious sect doesn't have a majority right now, you're working
against your own self-interest.IMO, you are seeking relief in the
wrong place. It needs to come from your religion, not your nation. Your
religion needs to come up with a workaround that allows you to remain faithful
to it. Fortunately, our nation grants it the freedom to do this.
This article tries to give balanced information from the pro and the contra
sides, but gives the impression that religion is per definition against same-sex
marriage. It fails to acknowledge that many churches have already opened their
doors, their hearts, and their sacraments to our gay brothers and sisters. And
more are to follow.
"It was a massive mistake and a betrayal when the Supreme Judicial Court
foisted same-sex marriage on the people of Massachusetts, and it remains so
today." Being from Mass., I couldn't agree more. When the tyranny of a
few appointed individuals overrides the will of the people, as Shakespeare once
quipped, "Something is rotten in the state of ________ (fill in the
As hard as I try - and I have really tried over the past few years as the debate
has heated up - I still cannot come to grips with the concept of a girl having a
"wife" or a boy having a "husband." It all seems just so
unnatural and weird, just SO against logic and reason. And that a
child have have "two mommies" or "two daddies"? Yeah - that just
can't be normal; just can't be right. Can it???
This piece makes the case that those who oppose same sex marriage on religious
grounds ought to be given a pass for providing services to same sex couples on
the grounds that it violates their strongly held religious principles.The main religious objection to anything homosexual are a few references to
homosexual activity in the Bible that elevate the practice to some sort of sin
(the level of which I will leave to religionists). Unspoken, but on display, is
the another objection to same sex marriage. Namely the "I find it icky"
factor. (The child rearing argument has been thoroughly destroyed.)My question to religionists of any stripe. Why does the "sin" of
homosexuality become elevated so high. No one discriminates on the grounds of
strongly held religious views for someone who violates on of the Ten
Commandments. All you folks buying milk on Sunday ought to be sanctioned every
bit as much as a same sex couple wanting to get married.My question
to homophobes is why you find homosexuality so "icky". I find smoking,
obesity, crude language and a disregard for our common humanity far more
So same sex marriage might upset your religious sensitivities. That's too
bad. You're not owed the right to act on what you see as a god given
impetus to discriminate. I cut the lawn on sunday, while drinking beer. Some of
the neighbours probably oppose this. But like same sex marriage, they're
not owed obedience on my part because of it.
Cool Cat, I suggest you go back to Massachusetts and talk to some people there.
I don't understand your concern unless you think that you think you will
be forced to marry a SS person as soon as you cross the border. Ultragrandpa, I invite you to meet my daughter and her wife. The concept of
same-sex marriage seemed as strange to me as the concept of interracial marriage
once did. I invite you to come to my church and meet gay couples raising
children. I admire you for being honest about your feelings--it does seem
strange. The concept of interracial adoption seems strange to a lot of
people--heck, the concept of adoption at all (for otherwise fertile couples) as
a chosen way to build a family is hard for a lot of people to accept. Living in
Farmington, you may not realize how "unnatural" a lot of southerners
think it is to belong to the LDS church.
I could not agree more ordinaryfolks. What really annoys me is that in the bible
adultery is condemned just as harshly if not more harshly than homosexuality.
Adultery is condemned no fewer than 52 times in the christian bible and
homosexuality is only mentioned 6 times. Do these religious
organizations refuse to do business with anyone who has committed adultery.
Are they fighting for laws to allow them to discriminate against anyone who has
committed adultery? Why are they so obsessed with this one "sin" in
their book while they have let all the others go? Not even abortion, the other
really hot button issue, rises to this level. No one is asking for laws that
will let them never do business with anyone who's had an abortion.They likely do business with people who have violated every single belief they
hold sacred yet this one "sin" is the line they won't cross. The
"religious rights" argument makes these people look very bigoted to much
of society - simply because this seems to be only issue they are making this
argument against, it's the only one they seem to care about.
@Wilf55 >>>This article tries to give balanced information from the
pro and the contra sides
@Cool Cat Cosmo"When the tyranny of a few appointed individuals
overrides the will of the people,"It is a fundamental American
value that when the tyranny of the majority institutes something that is
unconstitutional, the courts have the duty to override it.
When they first allowed gay marriage in Utah, I was very upset. After a lot of
prayer and scripture study, I was filled with the knowledge that all will be
well. That the power of men can never overcome the will of our Heavenly Father.
Some may mock me for my beliefs, but I care not. All of this is just part of the
latter-days prophesized by ancient prophets and modern prophets. Although
I'll always be kind and courteous to those who disagree with me, I claim
the constitutional right to live and defend my faith. I claim the right as a
citizen of this great country to disagree with others and fight against things I
feel are wrong. I believe that all children of our Heavenly Father are worthy of
love. It is our actions that define us.
What other acceptances will same-sex marriage lead to?
@ultragrampa who said:"As hard as I try - and I have really tried over
the past few years as the debate has heated up - I still cannot come to grips
with the concept of a girl having a "wife" or a boy having a
"husband." It all seems just so unnatural and weird, just SO against
logic and reason."So an entire section of our community should
be denied equal rights because of your lack of empathy, understanding and simple
imagination?I personally find the thought of engaging in homosexual
sex icky. For me. It's just not gonna happen. But because I understand
loving someone and wanting to be with them forever, I will fight (and vote) to
ensure all my fellow Americans have the same right. To do otherwise is selfish
and just plain mean spirited.
@Cool Cat Cosmo - Also being from MA, I couldn't me more proud that the
Supreme Court of MA put an end to one form of discrimination. The founding
fathers left England in the pursuit to freedom to practice their beliefs or
non-beliefs without the burden of Governmental interference. Whatever your
religious beliefs are, this country is designed to protect your rights as
individuals to practices your beliefs without persecution from the Government
and as such religious organizations should not force, through legislation, their
beliefs on the masses.
The article states:"Just look at what happened to Catholic
Charities, which ceased adoption services in Massachusetts in the aftermath"
of the 2003 ruling."What the article doesn't state is that
Catholic Charities was taking tax-payer dollars to run the agency for all
citizens of the Massachusetts - not just Catholics. Private adoption services
run with private dollars such as LDS Social Services did not have the same
constraints. Had a state funded agency refused to provide adoption
services to Mormons because of the sincerely held religious belief of some that
"Mormons are not Christians," I doubt this newspaper would see that as
an act of Religious Liberty.
Have no fear Mormon friends very soon samesex marriages will be the law of our
great country and we all will be better for it!
@ultragrampa:"And that a child have have "two mommies" or
"two daddies"? Yeah - that just can't be normal; just can't be
right. Can it???"We have two adopted kids, a boy and a girl. They are thrilled to have two mommies and a loving home and security and
hope.Sometimes, I call her my "wife." Sometimes I use
"partner." Sometimes I call her my "husband" because she works
so I can be a stay-at-home-mom, and she changes the oil and kills spiders.We know a couple at church where she works as an internal medicine
doctor and he stays at home with their children. The insist that he is the
"wife" and she is the "husband." Started as a joke, but now it
is a statement about gender roles and what society expects. He is
very masculine, by the way. He is also good with kids and the best cook I know.
Whether SSM is legalized or not, decisions have consequences! God will not be
mocked and SSM is mocking Him! To place the acts of Homosexuality on par with
buying milk on Sunday is akin to equating abortion to a passionate kiss! One of
the great benefits, however, will be to see all our SSM advocates come to the
support of our brothers and sisters who want to live in polygamous marriages!
Equality for all is a wonderful concept that brings Social Justice to all forms
of marriage! Right!
Cool Cat Cosmo"When the tyranny of a few appointed individuals
overrides the will of the people"That is why they are appointed.
If they were elected their decisions would all look toward the next election and
what is popular at the moment and, over time, be influenced by whoever gave the
biggest campaign contributions. But their job, in the constitution,
is to be a balance that looks at the legality of the law and does what is right.
Yes, the system has flaws, but better appointed than elected.
If being gay is SO wrong - why do straight people keep producing them?God's will?
@Ultragrampa No it isn't right (at least not in the eyes of
folks like you and me). However, it is right in the eyes of the
traditionalphobes. I for one don't object if John and Fred want to be
lifelong partners and do what they want within their four walls - that is
between them and their God. What I do object to is the gay community trying to
force us to accept their definition of marriage and family structures. I think
society will need to come up with something like a "same-sex
partnership" that is recognized as different than traditional marriage but I
don't think the traditionalphobes will want to compromise at this point.
@The Wraith"Why are they so obsessed with this one "sin"
in their book while they have let all the others go?"Most refusals of
same sex couples happen when they are getting married, such as the Colorado
bakery case. It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe
is a barbaric violation of God's standards. Selling something to an
adulterer is not celebrating the sin. They are customers purchasing products
completely unrelated to their sin.
ultragrampa,Imagine if your only option was marrying another person
of the same sex? That IS the way gay people feel!
Laura Ann,We need more people like you in this world.
@bandersen: "One of the great benefits, however, will be to see all our SSM
advocates come to the support of our brothers and sisters who want to live in
polygamous marriages!"I would support laws legalizing polygamous
marriages. I would not support just legalizing polygyny - also known as
"plural wives." Polygamy, or as it is now more commonly known,
polyamory, might be better characterized as "plural spouses." I firmly believe that the biggest problem with polygamy is the hidden nature
of it, so it leads to abuse of all sorts. Legalizing it and regulating it would
not solve all the problems, any more than marriage laws end all marital abuse -
but it would certainly help. And you should understand,
"legalizing polygamy" is a huge button-pusher along the Wasatch Front.
Not so much in other parts of the country that has little connection to the
various historical issues Utah experienced with polygamy.
@Avenue: "It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe
is a barbaric violation of God's standards."You are selling
a product or service to the public. If you don't want to sell to the
public, do something else. In Atlanta I knew a professional
photographer who was a Mormon Bishop at least twice. He took jobs that paid. Bar Mitzvahs. Legal documenting for attorneys and insurance companies.
Family photos. And weddings. LDS weddings. Christian, Catholic and Jewish
weddings. Weddings in the nicest religious buildings, weddings in hotels and
rented halls, weddings in back yards. I know he shot at least one Wiccan and one
Pagan wedding because, while I was LDS at the time, I was widely read and
experienced and could answer some questions he had. Some he found
interesting. Some he found boring. Mostly, he sold his services and supported
his family and didn't much worry about being offended. I
recently read the owner of the bakery in Oregon is now hauling trash. Honest
work that supports his family and does not require him to be offended. See how
I am in Massachusetts sitting in my old room reading the Deseret News about
Massachusetts, "Same sex marriage creates uncertainties..." No, not that
I am aware of. Gay marriage is rarely a topic of conversation in media, public
forums, or private discussions. Gay marriage is a simple distraction to the
Catholic Church compared to the massive damage it inflicted upon itself with the
child sex scandals. The author indicates that Catholic Charities and the Knights
of Columbus are beloved organizations whose work is so important that they
deserve the right to discriminate against gays. Well, that's just not going
to happen. I attended Catholic elementary and high schools here and they dished
out anti-gay venom without any regard for the consequences of their words. It
was abusive by any measure, but it was within their four walls and within their
right to do so. Today however, most Bay State residents of all faiths don't
subscribe to the churche's view on gays. In summary, gay marriage is a
non-event here. You may discriminate privately, that's your right, but not
in the public forum. It's not a case of uncertainty.
@StormwalkerAll businesses have the right to refuse service to
anyone, no matter the reason. This is especially true if providing a product or
service would violate the personally held religious views of the owner to do so.
@Avenue:Not exactly...Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public
accommodation. The Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and
accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or
segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."The Americans with Disabilities Act extends that to disabled people. Even if your religion says you can discriminate, Federal law says you
can't. Many state and local laws extend protection to gays,
lesbians and transgender people. Currently, Federal law does not extend full
protection, however court cases are increasingly seeing animus as discrimination
and not recognizing "religious belief" as a legal reason to treat people
badly. I predict that the animus displayed about gay marriage will
give reason for the government, courts and general public to support adding
sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act.
@ MeckofahessEquality for all is a tradition too.
"All businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, no matter the
reason. This is especially true if providing a product or service would violate
the personally held religious views of the owner to do so."Do
you live in America? How can you say this or better yet how can you believe
this? If you operate a business you can't refuse service to anyone based on
gender, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, or religion. If you run a photography
business you can't refuse to take pictures of a Muslim family, or an old
couple, or a Black family, etc... Laws in many countries have added sexual
orientation and sexual identity to the list. America will follow shortly, and
"It is morally wrong to force anyone to celebrate what they believe is a
barbaric violation of God's standards"Not long ago I had my
name removed from the LDS Church's records. I celebrated by having a party
and committing, as the highlight of the party, quite publicly and proudly what
the bible , book of mormon, and LDS teachings consider to be the worst and most
unforgivable sin. To help celebrate I bought food, drinks, and other party
supplies from business I'm sure were run by Mormons. Do I see them out
pushing for laws to be passed so they won't be forced to celebrate what
they believe is the worst violation of god's standards in all of existence?
Nope.Are they're christian hotel owners pushing for laws that
would let them deny service to people who are renting their rooms in order to
commit adultery? What about a restaurant where two people having an affair go to
celebrate something? Nope and nope.No these businesses will go on
helping people to celebrate all manner of sin, happily taking their money. But
not the gays, not the gays.
@Avenue"All businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone, no
matter the reason. This is especially true if providing a product or service
would violate the personally held religious views of the owner to do so."This is what confuses me the most. I've read your Bible. And find
many things like:"Judge not, that ye be not judged.""And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?""He
that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."No where have I seen where it gives followers the right to judge other people,
especially people from other faiths. In fact it's the opposite throughout:
Don't be hypocrites, don't judge others.Yet, all of a
sudden, it's some cherished religious right to hold judgement over your
neighbor and withhold goods, services, and health care if you find them guilty
by your interpretation of your religion.I just don't get it.
And I find it more than a little disturbing.
"Unless lawmakers carve out broad protections for those who oppose same-sex
marriage on religious grounds, they see the trend of current court ruling
favoring gay marriage as an erosion of freedom of expression and conscience
rights."In your home and your church you can discriminate all
you want on "religious conscience". In the public arena, absolutely
not.Unless those claiming "religious conscience" refuse to
do business with adulterers, fornicators, murderers, thieves, etc. then all
their hullabaloo about "religious conscience" is a lie.I
guess Mr. Brown doesn't like the word "parent".They're not bigots, Mr. Brown for supporting "traditional
marriage", they're bigots for opposing marriage equality."Just look at what happened to Catholic Charities, which ceased adoption
services in Massachusetts in the aftermath"-- This is a lie,
frequently used in an attempt to disuade people from choosing equality. The
truth can be found online. One of the board members of Catholic Charities wrote
an op-ed and explains what really happened.
@ultragrampa;Yes sir, it can be right and I don't understand
why you should find it odd.@Laura Ann;Has it occurred to
you that the "all will be well" feeling is because God is okay with SSM?
Maybe you're interpreting your feeling incorrectly.@bandersen;Perhaps you're the one doing the mocking. Have
you thought about that? You continually spout "god says", "god
wants", etc. Perhaps she considers that "mocking",.@Avenue;But celebrating adultery, fornication, etc. is okay?
Hypocrites.@koseighty;They're just being deceitful.
There isn't any scripture anywhere that says "thou shalt not do
business with sinners". Not one.
Ranch Hand is correct in that there is no scripture that says one shouldn't
be working or assisting sinners as everyone that has lived, is living and is yet
to be born shall all sin in some way or another. The problem is that it is
decided that if we disagree with their choice that we hate them and can not love
them. Yet the Savior came to save all mankind and to allow them to return to
the Father but he didn't come to save them in their sins. Those who fail
to repent of sin will be severely judged and can not be saved in the kingdom of
God. Everyone makes judgements. Even the woman taken in adultery
and brought before the Savior by her accusers. Christ told them that they had
judged rightly. Yes, they did judge correctly but for them to kill the sinner
they must be sinless. That was part of the Law of Moses that was done away upon
the Saviors coming. We all make judgements and yes we will be judged on our
judgements and how we made our judgements.
@StormwalkerAmendment 1 of the United States Constitution prohibits
Congress passing laws that stops anyone from free practice of religion. It says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"Even if your political
leaders say you can violate the Consitution, federal law says you can't.@The Wraith"Are they're christian hotel owners pushing
for laws that would let them deny service to people who are renting their rooms
in order to commit adultery? What about a restaurant where two people having an
affair go to celebrate something? Nope and nope."The owners of these
businesses have no idea what their customers are doing, while same-sex couples
usually tell the business what they are using the cake for.@koseightyMy religion encourages not to judge, and I do not. I simply
love the sinner, and hate the sin. I do not celebrate evil and sinful behaviors
@Avenue;Neither a bakery, florist, or photograpy business are
religious organizations. As such, they don't "practice religion".
They are obligated, however, as public businesses to adhere to the laws which
prohibit discrimination.Jesus may have told the woman to "sin no
more", but what if you are wrong and loving couples who happen to be of the
same gender are not "sinning" to him? What if?Think about
@Avenue: "Even if your political leaders say you can violate the
Consitution, federal law says you can't."The Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Federal Law. People in the South thought they had
religious right to segregation and Jim Crow laws. Turns out, First Amendment
notwithstanding, they didn't. If you own a business that serves the public
you can't discriminate. The way court cases and public opinion
is moving do you honestly think Title II won't soon cover GLBT citizens? The First Amendment says you are free to practice your religion. It
does not say you can mistreat others or, if you are in business, can refuse to
sell to some people because God disapproves of them.We are already
seeing cases where business owners are claiming God gave them permission to be
mean to some customers. Those business owners have not done so well in courts of
law or in the court of public opinion. Few people want to do business with a
I stand with what Laura Ann has spoken. I have previously stated my position on
gay marriage and I will continue to do so, even if it so be that I am held at
gunpoint and told to recant my beliefs. I stand with the LDS Church.I stand with the prophets.I stand with the scriptures.I
stand with God.And nothing stops God from fulfilling His word.
@Let It Go!"even if it so be that I am held at gunpoint and told to
recant my beliefs. "It's easy to make overdramatic
statements about things that have no realistic likelihood of ever happening.
It is interesting how I hear a lot of LGBT supporters / promoters on here often
say how the country is so supportive and accepting of them and so on and so
forth.If that statement was true then you would have no problem
going through the typical manner in which laws are created and changed which is
through the state legislatures. Instead with all these lawsuits in the various
states I see the LGBT crowd trying to take the back door and force it through
the courts.If a lot of these cases make it to the Supreme Court I
wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court allows for the state amendments
to stand. It is up to State Legislators to make state laws if you want to
change state laws you should be going through the legislative branch to do it.
I am trying to understand the slippery slope that churches are going to be
forced to do anything. They do not have to marry any one for any reason. They
also do not have to accept any funds or support the government and they can do
whatever they wish. As for businesses...if you want to profit off a society you
have to follow the rules. You may not like the rules but it is the cost of
doing business. Like paying taxes.
@greatbam wrote: "Instead with all these lawsuits in the various states I
see the LGBT crowd trying to take the back door and force it through the
courts."The correct way to challenge the constitutionality of a
law is through the courts. There are many lawsuits against same-sex marriage
bans because that's the correct way to challenge them.Another
reason not to go a legislative-only route: because it's incredibly easy for
legislation to be blocked by a minority or even by one single legislator.
Because legislators do not always reflect the opinions of their constituents.
Because in some states, the process for reversing a constitutional amendment can
take years, and need a level of legislative support that is far higher than a
simple majority. Because justice delayed is justice denied.
Now Oregon.Another favorable ruling for Marriage Equality. This one
will not be appealed by the state and the judge did not stay his ruling.
Licenses are already being issued and marriages will start almost immediately.
A federal judge on Monday struck down Oregon's voter-approved ban on gay
marriage, saying it is unconstitutional. Mormons are you watching?Equality for
all Amerikans is on is way fast!
Ooops! I wrote too quickly. Apparently there is a 3-day waiting
period in Oregon between obtaining a license and getting married -- but it looks
like some clerks may waive the waiting period for same-sex couples, one saying
"they've waited long enough."
Diversity of genders in a union is called "marriage". Anything less is
simply living together with the approval of the state. The people who are
short changed from SS families are the children who don't have biological
diversity of parenthood in their families. It does short change them no matter
how happy the relationships are with the people who raise them. Spend a lot of
time with groups of ss people. Something is definitely missing. There is a
partnership with God that true marriage brings about that ss relationship cannot
give. They who set this world in motion created human bodies to procreate in an
ideal way with two opposite genders. Heterosexuality about loving what is
different from you in a very real way. Does that mean ss families are not good?
No, they can be good but they are not the ideal that we should strive for, the
same way that single parenthood is not ideal even though it can work for some.
Diversity of the sexes is the best for the human family. End of story.
For those who lament that this overturned a vote of the people --From the United States Supreme Court case of Lucas v. Forty-Fourth Gen.
Assembly of Colorado (1964):"An individual's
constitutionally protected right ... cannot be denied even by a vote of a
majority of a State's electorate, if the [law] adopted by the voters fails
to measure up to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. Manifestly,
the fact that [a law] is adopted in a popular referendum is insufficient to
sustain its constitutionality or to induce a court of equity to refuse to act.
As stated by this Court in West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette,
"One's right to life, liberty, and property . . . and other fundamental
rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no
elections.""A citizen's constitutional rights can
hardly be infringed simply because a majority of the people choose that it be.
We hold that the fact that a challenged [law] was approved by the electorate is
without federal constitutional significance if the scheme adopted fails to
satisfy the basic requirements of the Equal Protection Clause."
@ Understands MathIf it isn't defined as a right in the
constitution then how can it be unconstitutional?If it isn't
defined then it isn't a right the Federal government needs to protect. If
it isn't explicitly mentioned it is up to the states to define.
@ AerilusMaximus: The Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution answers your
question quite nicely, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain
rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people." It also negates the entire second part of your comment.
@ Maudine"It also negates the entire second part of your
comment."Umm..no not really. Maybe I need to further
clarify...All the Ninth Amendment is basically an allowance to add
further rights as necessity requires.If something isn't defined
as a right for all by the Federal government then it isn't a right.
Therefore if it isn't a right for all then they would not need to protect
it.A state can then define that it is a right for all respective to
@Lilalips"Spend a lot of time with groups of ss people. Something is
definitely missing." "Heterosexuality about loving what is different
from you in a very real way."I've spent a lot of time with
gay people and my experience is their relationships are all unique but are
generally good, complementary relationships where two good people are better
together, just like most hetero relationships. The loving what is
different argument is strange to me too. I think all people are attracted to
some things that are familiar and similar and some things that are different.
There are a plenty of differences between two men or two women that make a
healthy relationship just like there are differences between a man and a women.
In the end though, I don't get the point of your comment. Are
you saying gay men should try to marry straight women? Do you think that
outlawing gay marriage will make gay people start to love women?
@AerilusMaximus;According to the 14th Amendment, equal protection
means that if the government provides benefits to one group, they must provide
the same benefits to other similarly situated groups.Additionally,
the 10th Amendment allows the states to regulate the benefits provided by
marriage in the state, but not to violate the rest of the Constitution (i.e.,
they can't violate the 14th, 5th or 9th Amendments).
Every child who grows up believing there is no preferred responsible longterm
benefit to committed heterosexual parents raising their own children in a
committed loving relationship ultimately is disadvantaged and has the potential
to be a detriment to society's longterm stability. Same Sex
Marriage is but manmade invention that blurs the importance of longterm societal
stability. It does so with certain benefits and trade-offs, as well. Of much
more concern to me is the concept of No-Fault Divorce and casual sexual
relations that produce children with no commitment from both parents and have no
commitment to each other. The economic, social, mental and physical
disadvantages placed on single parents is devastating to us all. People should be free to acknowlege the huge societal benefit of heterosexual
couples who produce their own offspring, care for and provide for them, and
remain together in healthy lasting relationships. This is an ideal that many
religious people strive for and they should be credited for doing so--not
mocked. Imo, no matter how rare it may seem today, this will always be worthy of
the highest place of honor in society.
There aren't uncertainties, just people trying to find exceptions and
wiggle room to equal treatment. If you do business, religious or not, you may
not discriminate. Simple. In your church as a church, you can, and that
won't change. A hospital is a business. Renting a hall is a business.
@Born that Way "People should be free to acknowlege the huge societal
benefit of heterosexual couples who produce their own offspring, care for and
provide for them, and remain together in healthy lasting relationships... this
will always be worthy of the highest place of honor in society."Sure,
committed people raising children deserve honor, I'm just wondering how you
think the incentives work. Does honoring straight people with biological kids
make less people gay, less spouses die, less people infertile, less husbands
abusive? Does honoring a hard-working single mother, or an adoptive parent, or
committed same-sex couple take away honor from a straight married couple with
biological children? Imagine you see this announcement in your church
bulletin this Sunday, and let me know if it seems like it fulfills your vision
of honoring biological families:"Come to the Ward Family Party this
Friday Night. This is an event meant to honor and support true families
only--heterosexual married men and women with biological children. In order to
avoid confusion, we respectfully request that widows, single adults, step
parents, single parents, same-sex parents, orphans, and adopted children please
do not attend."
@Born That Way" and they should be credited for doing so--not mocked.
"Nobody is mocked for a heterosexual married couple raising
kids. The conflict comes from when condemnation is thrown at other families like
mine (parents divorced), same-sex couples, single parents, etc.
So, it will become more difficult to say that it is wrong! People don't
want to admit that they were wrong!You know, gay people believe in God
also! It is sad that so many people push us away. It truly is! I miss so much,
but I won't live a lie for anyone! People go way to far in judging us the
way that they do!