Who is this fella? Is he some sort of Mormon celebrity? Not sure why him being
misquoted would be headline news.
to mcclark: the biblical laws given in the Old Testament such as not wearing
two different cloths, are explained in the Bible as done away with when Christ
came to the earth, the law of Moses fulfilled in His coming. we seek to obey
those commandments Jesus gave then, as best we can, being imperfect at it, but
consistently trying makes us better. The New Testament gives multiple
references to explain that homosexuality is forbidden. Are you really
interested in knowing & following truth, or just being contrary? If its the
former, then give credit and applaud those who are trying to live God's
laws, to find happiness therein. God Bless You.
@Old But Not Stupid, "What would our society be like if everyone did
it?"Are you planning on leaving your spouse for someone of your own
sex? The point being not everybody's doing it. If you're worried
about gay marriage causing the end of the human race, I really don't think
you need to be.
it is impossible for homosexuality to be construed as equal to heterosexuality.
It's a lie to claim otherwise.Sorry Baccus: but no homosexual
couple is raising any child that conceived by homosexual behavior. It's
impossible. Your twist of truth is actually what the homosexual movement is all
about: distort, mislead, confuse the facts.
The notion has been mentioned here that a person can't be a devout member
of the church and at the same time, have their own opinions. Though not worded
that way, the direct quote was, "you can't have it both ways".In truth, you can. I can have my own opinions, scouting, for instance,
isn't my favorite subject in the church, but I support it and will have my
boys participate when they reach that age. I can have my own thoughts, but I
can also, and at the very same time, sustain church leaders, be obedient to the
doctrine and so no and so forth. As a father responded to his
daughter during an argument when she said, 'Am I not allowed to disagree
with you? 'Disagree, yes, Disobey, no'.
Most in the LDS church (and our leaders) are as "ahead" as Brother
Christensen, in that we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time now.
We call it a "sign of the times". We have known for a long time that
SSM would eventually become the law of the land. That doesn't make it
right - or any less right to continue to live by The Family Proclamation and
continue to speak out against immorality in all it's forms. That is hard
for some to hear, and they want to call us "haters" for speaking truth -
yet another sign of the times. Most of us will continue on anyway, no matter
what the courts end up deciding is the law of the land. Only one law really
matters. On the other side of eternity - not history - we will all see for
ourselves what that law is. (Hint: God's law. And His word will be the
final word on the matter.)
Carman just gave the affliction otherwise known as social liberalism the most
apt name I've ever heard. Unbelievable Mental Gymnastics. Well played.
Our language should distinguish between male-male/female-female legal unions,
and male-female marriages. To not recognize the obvious differences, biological
and otherwise, requires unbelievable mental gymnastics. Marriage is between a
man and a woman. Call other legal ties something else. It is not SSM.
The tolerant left will now be calling for, no, demanding his head on a platter.
I have come around to believe that "Civil Union" would be an
appropriate name for same gender marriage. But the term marriage has been used
for thousands of years for heterosexual unions. The reason same gender couples
want the term "marriage" is for respectability. I don't blame them
for that they have been a whipping boy, or girl for centuries. Still we need a
new term for marriage so we can identify which kind of union it is.
DeseretinaMurray, UTIt appears that the professor lives by two
sets of books. __________________Only to the willfully
@J.S"I don't think anyone is trying to change the
"definition" of marriage"Up to only 20 years ago, every
dictionary you look at included the concept of man and woman when defining
marriage. Up until only 2 years ago, all major on-line legal dictionaries I
could find defined marriage as between a man and a woman.So, yes,
this is about changing the definition, both legally and culturally.
@J.S"...but I also believe that civically and socially speaking,
marriage is a right that should be extended to anyone, including gays and
lesbians."You need to read [re-read?] all of the previous posts.
Several of them--in very clear and eloquent terms--pointed out that SSM is
neither a "right," nor equal in such key fundamentals as procreation.Without resorting to religion, I will assert that the SS lifestyle is
immoral. About any major social issue or behavior one needs only ask the
question: What would our society be like if everyone did it? If
that were to occur Humanity would die out in the next generation. Ergo, that
life style is immoral.And, no, I don't hate homosexuals.
Reading some of the comments here, I once again wonder how you go through the
Bible and pick and choose what no longer applies and what still does. Why no
comments calling for slavery to be brought back, why no calls for the death
penalty for wearing two types of cloth? What criteria do you use?
@ abtrumpetI don't think anyone is trying to change the
"definition" of marriage, but just get the rights and responsibilities
every other married couple in this country has.As a member of the
LDS church I do sustain what the Church says and does. But I am also entitled to
my own opinions about things. I don't believe the Church or any religion
should change its doctrines to show any kind of support to civil movement - but
I also believe that civically and socially speaking, marriage is a right that
should be extended to anyone, including gays and lesbians.
It appears that the professor lives by two sets of books. On one hand he
comports himself as belonging to the forward thinking intelligentsia - hence the
quote he confirmed, but wants to also appear as one of the brethren upholding
the sacred script of the church. Sorry, can't have it both ways.
@ SC Fanand yet, SSM continue rasing children, adopted and their
biological offspring. go figure!
Some of the comments do bring out some interesting thoughts on just what
"equality" really means in terms of marriage. One could say that a same
sex marriage could never be equal to a regular marriage because in the regular
marriage the chance for procreation is possible and likely. In a world of 100
billion same sex marriages, not one could ever produce offspring. And that is
an inequality that no law can ever change.
I agree with TheProudDuck. I have never seen any equality issue here. Marriage
is what it is, it cannot be changed and everybody is already equal. All people
have the "right" to marry, but no one has the right to change the
definition of it. I don't buy into the "marriage equality"
argument. That is definitely one of Satan's lies.
So the "this" that Brother Christensen declares he did not say: does
that refer to the implication of his words, or the quoted words "I think
I'm a little farther along" themselves?Did he actually say
that? Because that would be a fine thing if he did.Regarding
"equality," I understand the word to mean that like things are to be
treated alike. One may not think the differences between a male-female union
and a same-sex one are significant, but there is indisputably at least *some*
difference. Branding the whole thing "marriage equality" as
if that resolves the whole question involves quite a few stolen bases.
Regardless of the content, misquoting someone shows a lack of integrity and
honesty.I suppose those twisting this around would be fine if an
LGBT leader were misquoted nationally? Or would that make you upset?
Re: "Oh the horror! Being thought to favor marriage equality."I'm sure it's just as horrifying to Bro. Christensen to be
disingenuously accused of favoring "marriage equality," as it would be
to an aggressive, true-believing LGBT activist to be disingenuously accused of
favoring opinion equality. Or religious equality. Or professional equality. Or
legislative equality. Or expression equality. Or academic equality. Or judicial
Good job Clayton!It must have made you sick to think someone people
suggested you were ok with BLT "marriage"Keep up the good
The ever touted reason for gay marriage....equality. Used to justify just about
any aberration known under the sun. What about wealth equality. Sounds fair huh?
Everyone wants to be equal to everyone else, don't we? And on and on it
goes. Basic human rights will never makes us equal, nor should they. A human
right should protect us from others maliciousness and grant us freedom to make
informed and safe choices for all. Equal justice is a right all humans should
enjoy but everyone who has been married knows it is not about justice or being
right, its about trying to figure out how to get along with each other. If a
same sex couple want the same legal protections as a married couple, then pass
laws to enact those privileges. Driving an automobile is a privilege and clearly
certain humans should not have that privilege. Marriage historically is a
privilege, and clearly certain humans should not enjoy that privilege i.e. small
children, or brother and sister. To make it a human right, where all stand equal
in marriage is pragmatically impossible and would create chaos sooner or later.
When is common sense ever gonna kick in?
Oh the horror! Being thought to favor marriage equality.