FA - Lds4 seem(s) to argue that if LDS speak out against ANYTHING (murder,
pedophilia, speeding, gay marriage etc) that we are forcing our religion on
others. KJK LDS4 (and I) don't condemn speaking out against those
things. I have read LDS4 state several times that that we are to use
gentleness, meekness persuasion and love unfeigned to get people to live
righteously. He condemns us using our religious beliefs to justify infringing
upon the legal rights of others. Proposition 8 infringed upon the existing
CIVIL rights of gay. The verses LDS4 quotes shows that infringing upon the
rights of others, especially when founded upon our subjective religious
doctrines, is condemned.Pedophilia is objectively wrong because it
involves harming children who don't and can't give their consent. I doubt LDS4
would support pedophilia or condemn laws against it. Gays make up
only about 2% of the population and even a smaller % of marriages. Allowing
gays to marry won't affect whether straights get married or not. Do you REALLY
believe that a straight couple will state that if gays are allowed to marry,
that they will refuse to marry and instead simply live together? Of course not.
A voice of Reason - One cannot justify LDS doctrinal support for gay
marriage.KJK - I, and I'm sure LDSforgaymarriage, agree that
homosexual acts, including marriage, are contrary to established LDS doctrine.
The dispute is whether Mormons should try limiting the LEGAL rights of others
preventing them from violating our faith's doctrines. The verses
LDSforgaymarriage cites clearly show that God frowns on this idea and I haven't
seen any interpretation of his and other verses that permit Mormons to infringe
upon the rights of others. AVOR - It is doctrine. It is from
our prophet, the 12, the scriptures, etc. KJK - John Widtsoe said,
"In no sense can the Church be called autocratic. No one, from the
President down, can dictate to the Church. All must be done in harmony with
gospel principles, and by common consent. Even new revelations from the Lord are
presented to the people for acceptance as part of the doctrine of the
Church." Until the Proclamation or a First Presidency/12 Apostles
statement is approved via Common Consent, they are NOT doctrine. They must bow
to scripture and scripture condemns our infringing upon the rights of others as
Proposition 8 objectively did.
Lds4 I agree with Jeff. Activists often seek to silence religious
voices. You seem to argue that if LDS speak out against ANYTHING (murder,
pedophilia, speeding, gay marriage etc) that we are forcing our religion on
others. This recurring argument means only Agnostics etc can speak/vote on moral
issues. This is contrary to the Standard works, so I reject it. The research indicates that gay marriage is harmful to all. I've seen
eternal procreative families destroyed by gay propaganda. Gays will
survive without marriage. The World won't survive without keeping
hetoerosexual marriage sacred. Think of all. Vince, stats on
gays and pedophilia depend on who you get your info from. The claim that mainly
heterosexual men are molesting males doesn't work for me. Pedophile
organizations are intertwined with the gay/lesbian coalition (See Mirkin H. 1999
and "Man/boy love and the American gay movement" in Journal of
Homosexuality. And Pedophile activists present arguments very much
like gay activists: "the sexually privileged have disadvantaged the
pedophile through sheer political force in the same way that blacks were
disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement." From narth article: "On the Pedophilia Issue: What the APA Should Have
One cannot justify LDS doctrinal support for gay marriage.The first
presidency released a statement on this issue with the following quotation-
"The Churchs teachings and position on this moral issue are
unequivocal."It is doctrine. It is from our prophet, the 12,
the scriptures, etc. It is one thing if you want to argue about one source being
fallible within the church. But when every official authority within the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands firm and gives us a clear definition
of what is the truth from our Father in Heaven (a man who has more ability to
reason than anyone on this Earth)... it is very clear, the truth has been given
to us.There are those who do not accept it regardless. While I urge
those to reconsider, I understand that it happens. But to try to convince others
that your own ideas of LDS doctrine are the truth, Joseph Smith both commanded
and revealed in the Doctrine and Covenants the line of authority when receiving
revelation. It is a serious transgression to try to sway people away from God's
truth, if you feel you may be doing this, please reconsider.
Jeff |To "lds4gaymarriage": I am increasingly troubled by
your insistence on trying to use LDS doctrine and teachings to prove the prophet
wrong. (T)here is something wrong with your use of LDS scripture..LDS4The prophets have stated that their words are NOT official doctrine. Only the
scriptures are. You don't like my take on D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29? When
IS it OK to use religious belief to justify infringing upon the rights of
others? Is it OK for just us, or are antis, Muslims, etc...also allowed to?...there is nothing .. to imply that the Church should sit back and
allow unrighteousness to be sanctioned by law; nor ..prohibit..lobbying..The Church should only use persuasion to promote righteousness. ETB
stated,Government is force. Force is of Satan. McConkie stated, In this
present world where wicked men will not repent and come unto the fulness of the
Lord's perfect order of government, there must be two separate powers
'ecclesiastical and civil' the one supreme in spiritual matters, the other in
temporal. Neither power can dictate to the other. "We need to
obey scripture and render unto Caesar. The prophet isn't Caesar too.
@ "Vince here": I think you read things into my response that weren't
there or weren't intended.I had never heard of "NARTH"
before your post; so it's true that I haven't done any reading on that score,
but I have read a lot on the subject from a variety of other sources both pro
and con.I do not equate pedophilia with either homo- or
heterosexuality directly, except insofar as the sexuality manifests itself in
same or opposite gender acts. I meant to suggest that, regardless of the
strength of a person's passion, s/he does not become a pedophile until s/he acts
on the impulse.In my definition, "homosexuality" is not a
temptation; it is an action. Same-sex attraction is the temptation. No, I do
not believe people with same-sex attraction should marry someone from the
opposite sex until or unless they find themselves attracted to the opposite sex
(some do).I do not believe that sexuality is a determiner of
happiness or unhappiness. It is certainly possible to be celibate and happy,
just as it is possible to be sexual and unhappy.I agree with you
that growing up effeminate is not necessarily gay.
To "lds4gaymarriage": I am increasingly troubled by your insistence
on trying to use LDS doctrine and teachings to prove the prophet wrong. There
is nothing wrong with your having a personal belief that so-called "gay
marriage" is a good thing (though you're wrong); there is something wrong
with your use of LDS scripture to try to justify something that cannot be
justified by using LDS scripture. Your reading of D&C 134 is strained;
there is nothing in that section that is meant to imply that the Church should
sit back and allow unrighteousness to be sanctioned by law; nor does it prohibit
the Church from reasonable lobbying; nor does it prohibit the Church from
telling members what is right and wrong and asking them to defend the right. Do
D&C 121 and 134 take away all of the rights of the Church? No. And they
certainly don't take away a fundamental belief of the Latter-day Saints--that
there is a modern prophet on the earth to direct us.If we are called
names by those who want to give legal weight to unrighteousness, then so be it.
Jeff | 12:41 Jeff, it is clear by your comments that you haven't
done your reading - my question was meant to see where your logic took you.
NARTH, incidentally, argues that there is no such thing as homosexuality, there
is only heterosexuality. I wanted to see your initial reactions, and sure
enough, your comments are, sorry to say, superficial.As to the
comment of pedophilia - the vast majority of incarcerated pedophiles are
self-identified heterosexuals.What I mean by the comment of
"growing-up gay" means that I, like many gay males, identify with a
large part of feminine traits and behavior characteristics, nothing to do with
sex, but with identity. To that effect, some heterosexual boys "grow
out," so to speak, of feminine behavior from early childhood just as some
girls grow out of being tomboys. Behavior and identity is not always
synonymous.If you equate homosexuality with temptation, I submit the
alternative - what would gays do, if homosexuality is a temptation, as you
defend? Marry a heterosexual? The vast majority of those marriages don't last.
Become a heterosexual? Psychotherapy does not work. Be celibate and alone?
And unhappy? I thought happiness was the purpose of life.
JM | LDS4 The standard Works encourage voting on laws (and
when majorities go against righteousness they ripen for destruction) Helaman5:2;
and they also condemn homosexual acts. LDS4I agree with 100%.
Homosexual acts ARE in direct opposition to the scriptures and Church doctrine.
No argument from me here. That isn't the issue though. We LDS are to promote
democratic principles, but the scriptures rein us in a bit. D&C 134:4 and 1
Cor. 10:29 denounce us using our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon
the rights and liberties of others. We are forbidden in denying others their
rights, even if it means people use their liberties to sin. Satan was all about
forcing righteous behavior. We LDS are forbidden to use force to get others to
behave righteously.I also agree that when majorities go against
righteousness they ripen for destruction. Does this justify using force? No.
We are to use kindness gentleness, meekness, persuasion, long-suffering and love
unfeigned to get others to eschew sin and live righteously.
LDS have called for civility and love, and many activists have called to
"destroy." LDS have had rocks thrown, been fired, had windows shot
out, imitation anthrax sent (just "a prank") etc. I hoped
the HRC would call for a stop to this bullying, they didnt, still there is now a
pretense to kindness, but the underlying hatred seems still there. Here is one of many activist comments showing the attitude Ive encountered in
media, most of the others the DN won't post: "We are going to
go after your church every day for the next two years unless and until Prop 8 is
overturned...I would delight if everyone voting for 08 ended up unemployed,
penniless and starving on the street...Boycott all Moron businesses. Drive them
into the ground and let them know what we'll do when they spend money to hurt
us." Contrast this with LDS statements that bullying is never
ok, that no one need feel guilt for desires, Christ was likewise tempted etc.
Activists are also fulltime posting anti-Mormon propaganda, and
posting as offensive Mormons (I guess to increase hate towards LDS??) and
otherwise attacking LDS and faith on unrelated articles.
The Civil War was fought partially because some tried to override the majority
opposition to slavery, and thus Government "by The People." LDS4 The standard Works encourage voting on laws (and when majorities go
against righteousness they ripen for destruction) Helaman5:2; and they also
condemn homosexual acts. In our Democracy, The People say we dont
have certain rights. Murder; pot (once legal); polygamy (formerly legal); gay
and bisexual marriage; speeding etc are not rights. Voting is. Im4gays, but now strongly oppose gay marriage. Marriage legally binds into
crucial heterosexual relationships, sending a message to all that such are
sacred. I love my gay family, friends, and coworkers. However
activists have deceived us about homosexuality. While final causes are unknown,
research indicates: 1 Homosexuality is more influenced by
environment than genetics (see narth). We create environment.2
Mainstreaming homosexuality through marriage, school courses (often including
only history/studies manipulated by activists), etc increases homosexuality. 3 Increasing homosexuality increases suicide (even where gays are
accepted majorities), addiction, violence, domestic violence, etc. Ive seen the tears (some mine) and broken families caused by mainstreaming
homosexuality. I also oppose Jeffs (polygamist) and gays overturning
voted upon laws concerning polygamy and gay marriage.
Mick I believe that the gay community should have all rights that the
government has the ability to grant. LDS4In a statement by
Elder Lance B. Wickman, Church General Counsel in an interview he gave along
side of Elder Dallin H. Oaks on the Church's Newsroom site, he stated - "If
you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights
traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label
on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it's
given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our
doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, 'That is not right. That's not
appropriate.' " His statement is a clear call for the Church to continue
getting involved in the realm of Caesar contrary to the Lord's call for
separating Church and State and also contrary to D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29
which denounce using our religious beliefs to prompt us to infringe upon the
rights and liberties of others.The Church has already fought against
Civil Unions being adopted. This is why the LGBT community calls us haters.
"Vince here" asked me if, by my logic, "heterosexuals need to
engage in sex in order to be heterosexuals?" The answer would
be yes.I don't believe that we are defined by our temptations, but
by how we choose to act.Given that, I don't know what you mean by
"growing up gay." Do you mean that you grew up having sex with other
males, or simply wanting to? Or do you mean that you grew up identifying with
tradtionally female activities as opposed to traditionally male activities? If
you were sexualized at a very early age, what caused that? All of
us grow up with perceived intolerance from others, and most, if not all, of us
feel "different," lonely, and rejected during various periods of our
lives. Almost all of us question our sexuality in some way and worry about our
relative normalcy.What do you say to someone who was sexualized at a
very early age, and is constantly tempted toward pedophilia. Is that person a
pedophile even if they don't act?
I question again the DN policy of 4-posts per thread and the obvious
inconsistency in allowing one P p p poster here, by whatever means and number
of logins, to continue to abrogate that policy.
LGBT community-I believe in the definition of marriage between a man
and a woman. I believe that the gay community should have all rights that the
government has the ability to grant. That is not hate. Please
don't twist my words. I hope youe afford me my beliefs without hate
of my religion or beliefs.
The article does a poor job at generalizing who gay rights groups advocates are
and moreover, the article shows those groups as anti-faith.Nothing
can be further from the truth.There are gays of all kinds -
religion, or the lack thereof, is not the standard by which to measure sexual
identity. Should it?That there exists bigotry is true. Bigotry and
intolerance should not happen. Try growing up gay and see how much intolerance
there is.Faith (religious) people should, of course, feel that they
have religious freedom, but not at the expense of denying others the same right,
in terms of identity and rights.One of the groups listed in the
article, Exodus, however, is there to perpetuate nothing more than falsehoods
and empty promises. Their studies are baseless, their logic thwarted, and the
results dismal. In other examples, again, religious-based
organizations should not promote legislation based on outright lies for
political purposes. Duly granted, families, of all types, nuclear and
non-traditional, are the basis of society. Love and respect are the ties that
bind family groups together.
Jeff | 9:04 p.m. June 13, 2011According to your logic if neither gay
nor heterosexual represent identity but only sexual practices, then, please
explain the following,"Do heterosexuals need to engage in sex
in order to be heterosexuals?"
Well, Globetrecker, my question would be WHY DO THE REST OF US HAVE TO FOLLOW
YOUR BIBLE? Why are you so insecure that everyone has to be forced to play by
the rules that make you the most comfortable? Wasn't that Lucifer's plan?
Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of
alternative/immoral lifestyles to accept as normal what is not normal, and to
characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such
advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech for themselves, but equally
quick to criticize those with a different view--and to silence them by applying
labels like "homophobic." Those who believe behaviors
(whether open marriages, homosexuality, incest, etc). are immoral are
threatened. Even my little nieces and nephews know that it's not normal
acceptable behavior.I guess my other question would be this: WHERE
IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY IS OKAY? Men with men? Women with women?
If the bible and God teach that it is normal and equal, so be it. But nothing,
nowhere, does it teach pro-homosexual acts are normal. But it does teach to
follow morals while loving people. But it never, ever says to condone sinful
I don't for a minute believe the proclaimed poll claiming over 50% of Americans
support gay marriage. As the article rightly emphasizes, while a few percentage
points of people probably openly support gay marriage, it is just or more likely
that the others who ended up as statistics in the poll on the
"supportive" side did not have an argument to counter it, walked away
waving their hands "whatever" or felt that the pollster or those
standing by would make judgments about them for stating their true opinion, and
thus gave the PC answer before breaking away. Any political science student
knows how polls can be written, presented, and parsed, and the demographics
leveraged to get the desired responses.
How can one take a right away that is not already directly defined in the
constitution?**The CA Supreme Court said it was a right and we let our
religious opinions prompt us to infringe upon the rights of others in direct
violation of D&C 134:4.How can one justify the claim that the
whole must recognize a minority belief?**Ask the lovings who wanted
inter-racial marriage in the South. They were in the minority.How
can one justify taking something to court to rule against a vote by the people
to amend their constitution?**When that vote violated Equal protection and
the spirit of the Loving ruling.How can one justify demonizing a
religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their disagreement?**Raising half the funds and 90% of the foot soldiers in an organized effort
to deny people their EXISTING rights is hardly peaceful and freindly. How can one justify forcing society to adopt the acceptance of behaviors it
does not believe in?**Again, go ask the Lovings. Southerners didn't
believe in mixed race marriage. Perhaps the Court got that decision wrong. Eh?
Arguments in favor of same-gender marriage (and any other acceptance of deviant
sexuality) revolve around fluidly defined words. "LGBT," for example,
is used to represent a specific group, which it doesn't. Both the "B"
and the "T" in the acronym are groups with a choice, and only the
"B" group is capable of creating children, so the so-called "gay
family" is a misnomer.One definition of "to pervert"
is "to turn to an improper use; misapply," in which case all forms of
biologically useless sexuality could be considered "perverted.""Gay" is not an identity. "Gay" has become a
political word with a variety of meanings, none of which have been successfully
pinned down in any of these threads. "Homosexual" and
"heterosexual" are not identities, either, but represent sexual
practices."Homophobic" used to mean "having an
unreasonable fear of homosexuals or homosexuality." Now it means
(officially in some places) "intolerant of homosexuality." How
"phobic" (Greek for "afraid") can mean
"intolerant," makes no sense out of a political universe.For the record, "deviant" means "deviating or departing from
the norm," which clearly fits my opening sentence.
I respect those who disagree; with that, my argument-How can one
take a right away that is not already directly defined in the constitution?How can one justify the claim that the whole must recognize a minority
belief?How can one justify taking something to court to rule against
a vote by the people to amend their constitution?How can one justify
demonizing a religion that has only ever been peaceful and friendly in their
disagreement?How can one justify forcing society to adopt the
acceptance of behaviors it does not believe in?How can one justify
saying that people are born a certain way when the only real evidence (being
that living beings must be able to reproduce to be a functional living thing) -
how can one claim that that their 'version' of number 1 and number 2 equals 1
and 1?Believe and live as you wish, but forcing me to have to
legally agree with you isn't just morally wrong, it will only bring devastation
not only to our society and legal structure... you will see, even your own LGBT
community will suffer bad legal outcomes because of your own ignorant claims.
It's not the LDS role to "accept" other people's civil marriages. Why
do they have to pass an LDS religious test?
"Talk about social experiments. Do you have a daughter you'd like to have
marry a gay man?"Well, I would like my daughter to marry
someone in the temple. If the gay man is temple worthy, then it shouldn't be an
issue. The problem is very few gays are temple worthy (because most hate the
Chruch anyway).And for the record, I am not saying that homosexuals
are criminals. I am saying that homosexual acts (including gay marriage) are
sins, as God said they are.I am not taking God's position as judge.
I am not judging people. I am merely following His counsel on this matter.
Recognizing an act as sin is not the same as taking on oneself the role of
Supreme Judge of all mankind.
And to the commenter about 'not having the right to oppose gay marriage as it
would be like opposing women'.I certainly do have the right to
oppose anything I desire to, including women. I do not oppose women but I
certainly have the right to if I wish.Please, anyone, explain to me
where in the constitution you find state recognition of same-sex marriage
mentioned in literal writing (as the law requires, yes Roe v Wade was a
violation of legal authority, as neither the term 'implied' works in law nor
does the Supreme Court have any constitutional authority to exercise judicial
review) - where in literal writing do we find any mention of state recognition
for same-sex marriage? We don't.And amazingly we can somehow find
words in the constitution that do not exist and people have such outrageous
claims to even look over an entire amendment and disregard all of our rights to
believe and speak as we wish.You may disagree with me because you
have the right to - I guess for some reason, I lost that right when the masses
decided religion was too imposing on them.
Belief is one thing, but if you advocate discrimination in the public or
business sphere, then being called "bigot" is not persecution.
Persecution is denying people their rights in civil society because of their
sexual orientation... or religion, for that matter.
Why is it that no one understands something so very simple. Gays can get married
in Utah (YES, even right now!)But I as a citizen have voted NOT to
have the state, a creation of, for, and by the people, recognize their
contract.I vote to sustain what I believe to be moral as do my
neighbors. I have religious, secular, and religious supported by secular
arguments and beliefs to support my vote.I being LDS believe that
all were given the Agency to choose for ourselves. I do NOT believe in taking
someone else's right to choose for themselves. I do not believe I can tell a Gay
couple to be straight or to not do as they wish in their own home. They
currently have that right and no one has infringed it. They can marry and be as
they wish. - But while I respect their right to live peacefully as they wish I
demand and will fight for the same right. The masses are showing no ability to
reason when they can't see that state recognition of something isn't a right.
Proof? The U.N. just 'made' having internet a right. HA!
Hey Pagan/Pagen, why not Pagin? You really spend an amazing amount of time
trolling this website for anything mentioned about gays, the church and politics
so you can cite articles as "proof" that you are correct in your
The anti-gay crowd playing the victim rings hollow with me. Show us your
Matthew Shepard. I don't endorse violence or vandalism, but I will remain
intolerant of intolerance.I will agree to disagree, if you agree to
live and let live. Is that a deal?
RanchHand: "What about the religious rights of those religions that believe
GLBT couples should be allowed to marry? Their religious rights are being denied
and infringed by your religious rights. And Separate But Equal is not
equal."If the believe that way, then they can do that, but my
point is that people shouldn't be forced to accept something that is anathema to
Who did not know this? However,I laud you for having the courage to bring this
to the forefront. Hey,if you just mention that you do not want to comment
re GLBT preferences you can get in trouble with them. You are no longer able to
NOT comment in their favor or you are attacked as homophopic. Somedays I
just do not want to go out of my house and be in contact with society. You're a
racist if you disagree with President Obama and a homphobic if you are not
publicly declaring your support of the GLBT movement. A good day is when neither
subject presents itself.
1. One must look at a pattern of historical, long-term oppression to put this
into context. Those who identify as GLBT have been persecuted over generations,
while those who now claim to be victims have had heterosexual and (usually, but
not always) Christian privilege for even longer.2. One must resist
the temptation to take a few exceptions of aggressive behavior and apply it to
an entire population, especially when looking at a minority population. 3. One may take note that heterosexual men, usually of a higher profile
or position of power, can commit adultery, have affairs, abuse women, etc but no
media, no religion, no government regulation either labels ALL such men to be
adulters/abusers or creates legislation to prohibit ALL such men from having the
rights and privileges that others have. EXAMPLES: Arnold Schwarzenneger, Tiger
Woods, What's-His-Name Weiner, Bill Clinton.4. "The
Church" has erred and even bullied (representing the majority culture) in
the past: It has used the Bible to condone/support slavery; the Holocaust;
witch burnings; and pressuring Native Americans to be Christianized.
After the Ball cont"Generally speaking, the most effective
propaganda for our causemust succeed in doing three things at
once.· Employ images that desensitize. . . [T]he rational message
serves to camouflage our underlyingemotional appeal . Gain access to the
kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these
messages and, therefore,upon their gay sponsors... To be accepted by the
most prestigious media, such as network TV, our messages themselves will have to
beat least initiallyboth subtle in purpose and crafty in constructionIn explaining how to produce idealistic gay advertisements, Kirk andMadsen state. "[I]t makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us,
because were using them to ethically good effect"
If you don't like homosexual behavior, don't do it.If you don't like
same-sex marriage, don't get one.But allow all men (and women) the
same privilege, let them worship (and marry) how, where, or what they may.Do not engage in UNjust actions by mingling your religious influence
with civil law and deny others their rights to practice their religious and
marital rights on an equal footing with your own.It really is not
A note of correction to my previous post. When the APA put removing
homosexuality from the list of DSM mental illnesses, less than 33% percent of
the APA voting membership voted to approve this change. According to
Barbara Gittings, a noted gay activist,"It was never a medical decisionand
thats why I think the action came so fastIt was a political move. Thats how far
weve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association
running scared.In their book,After the Ball,Kirk & Madsen
explain their plan for gay activists to use the media in their agenda to
mainstream homosexuality in the US "The goal here has been to forge a
little entente or conspiracy with the power elite, to jump ahead of public
sentiment or ignore it altogether. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive
orders (which sidestepthe democratic process) and ordinances passed by
city councils . . .constitute political payoffs by elected officials whose
candidacy theorganized gay community has supported"
The amount of vitriole for "freedom" for such a small minority of
anomalies for sexual preference is quite mind boggling. The contention that is
being created over this "gay marriage" (not "gay rights" for
legal rights) comes from only one source - and it's the opposite from the pure
love of Christ. Bitter, hateful, spiteful name-calling is rampant whenever
this topic is broached. This "movement" for exceptional
religious recognition to an alternate lifestyle will find little traction to
dissuade anyone from their entrenched position of opposition, yet the battle
rages on.... reminds me of the outcome of World War I (the trench war) where the
battle lines didn't move, just the body counts continued to rise. In the end,
everyone went home defeated and disheartened with malice.
After reading Larry H. Miller's autobiography "Driven" I was impressed
by the fact he discussed the incident involving the movie Brokeback Mountain.
Soon after Miller pulled the movie from his theaters (In a way which
in hindsight he wish he had handled better) Miller attended a meeting of LGBT
students at the U of U. He described being moved to tears upon hearing how gay
and lesbian couples were harrassed at movie theaters and in other of Miller's
facilities. In this way, the Brokeback Mountain incident, from Miller's
perspective, turned out to be a good thing.A news article such as
this one must have the same affect on all sides. No matter how strongly you feel
about the subject of same-sex marriage, it will do no good to malign, mock or
bully people you have never even met. Wasn't there some old war
story about seeing the white's of your enemy's eyes before you shoot? Maybe if
we all truly looked into the white's of each other's eyes, we wouldn't feel so
inclined to harrass and bully one another.
"I'm pretty sure Mormons are completely fine with a homosexual man marrying
a woman."Talk about social experiments. Do you have a daughter
you'd like to have marry a gay man?
@RivertonCougar & America First;And you say we're the intolerant
ones. I can assure you that I'm no murderer nor am I a "social
pestilence". Can Organized Religion say the same thing? Think the
Inquisition and Salem Witch Trials before you answer that.And if God
will be the judge, then why are you usurping his role?
I am surprised that the AP would even run such an article as this given the fact
that it is so politically incorrect to say anything, no matter how true it is,
that does not portray the gay community in a positive light. The
intolerance of the gay community was clearly manifest in the early 70's when gay
activists used intimidation, threats, violence, disruption of academic
conferences, deception, political pressure, and subversion to get the APA remove
homosexuality from the DSM list of mental disorders. The change to the DSM took
place in 1973, and the gay activists at the heart of the campaign to either
discredit psychiatry or to force them to change the DSM openly admitted and
bragged that this change was due to political pressure and intimidation and not
due to a multitude of paradigm changing studies. Oddly enough this
change was made with more than half of the voting membership voting on this
issue, and many of those doctors who opposed the change were politically
blackballed for openly stating their opposition to removing homosexuality from
the DSM list of mental disorders.
Sexual preference doesn't rise to the level of a human trait such as race or
sex, the only characteristic that binds gay rights special interests is
behavioral deviance and social pestilence.
Facebook groups demand legal action! Petitions! Democracy is SO unfair...When gays start beating Christians to death, (as Christians did Matthew
Sheperd, David Kato, Jose Sucuzhanay, Anthony Collao and Noxolo Nogwaza)
Christians will have reason to complain. Until then, they just sound like a
bunch of whiny bullies complaining there's nobody to beat up and rob of their
lunch money. Who ELSE thought he'd have black slaves serve him in a
utopian fantasyland after this world ended in flames? Oh yah. Charly
Manson. After being raped by bigger black kids in the Indiana
reformatory, Manson joined the Church of Scientology. "Once you
get men to believe absurdities, it's easy for them to commit
atrocities."-VoltaireSharon Tate found that out the hard
way. Bullies and rapists in an Indiana reformatory helped create the world's
most famous serial killer. Not petitions or democracy. Get a sense of
proportion, please, your sufferings are nothing compared to the victims of gay
bashing, "corrective rape" and Uganda's "Kill the Gays"
culture, imported by American Christian groups like Doug Coe's "The
Family." Charly Manson had a family, too.
Some people suggest that we "take religion out" of legal issues, such
as marriage. They claim the founding fathers were not religious or inspired by
God in any way, only saying they were to appease the religiously-minded
people.However, I believe religion to be the foundation of society's
view on right vs wrong. If we "take all religion out of it", as they
say, then we would live in anarchy. As President James E. Faust said:"Some who wish to appear broad-minded say, under the guise of not
imposing religious belief, I dont drink or gamble, but I dont think we ought to
have any laws to control others that wish to. This completely ignores the health
and social costs to society of the vices. They foolishly argue that laws cannot
control human behavior. My long legal career has led me to conclude that all
criminal laws have a moral basis."In the eyes of religion
homosexuality is a crime (in fact, sexual sins are just behind murder in
seriousness according to the Book of Mormon), so this can be considered a law
with a moral basis. In the end, God will prevail.
dcj07Well said. Amen.
It is not my place to start calling the other side names. Like 'disgusting' or
'perverse' as been called homosexuals on this very site. I will,
point out a few things. This story points out five examples of
'discrimination' based on taking a position AGAINST lgbt rights.
Five. 1) 31 states still have laws on record that allow you to be
fired for being gay. 2) 14,000 service men/women have been, and
continue to, be discharged under 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' Source? Service
Members Legal Defense. 3) In the SLC Discrimination report from July
2009, there were x3 cases reported of discrimination in housing due to
orientation alone. Three cases, per month. So, that's 31
states, 14,000 people discharged, and three cases per month in SLC alone... compared to five. While I would be foolish to say
discrimination doesn't HAPPEN on both sides, I think this gives a clear
indication as to WHICH side is actually being tolerant... and which
side is only playing, the victim. LGBT face discrimination on a
daily basis. And it is NOT protected by majoirty of goverment yet, as
religion. Choose the right side of history.
In typical fashion, the persecuting now claim to be the persecuted. Please hold
onto your views and free speech. Please Anti-Gay followers, continue to explain
how you promote discrimination, the world is watching and wising up to the
reality of this promoting of prejudice. For decades this group has used these
very same tactics to deny gay and lesbian families their equal rights and now
cry fowl when the tables & tides are turned. Not much sympathy from me...
In my neighborhood of Sugarhouse Park there are lots of gay people. I associate
with them the same way I associated with my illegal neighbor, however, it
doesn't mean I accept their position, it means I respect them because they are
human. I bellieve they are both wrong in their positions, but I also know how to
treat people with dignity. I believe they will be judged for their actions
someday. I don't need to be a hater of polite, well mannered realy nice people.
I don't think they should be allowed to marry, I think they should have
pairrage. Two people pair up and unite. They are here on this earth to make
choices and let someone else be the judge. I want to thank them for being caring
loving neighbors. There are always a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone
else (those that throw gayness in your face) but most of them are just as
respectful of me as I am of them.
TJ:"According to the bible homosexuality is "an abomination in
the sight of God". "---So is eating shellfish and wearing
clothing made of multiple fibers. Yet you probably commit these abominations
each and every day since you probably wear manufactured clothing. If you eat
clams, oysters, shrimp and lobster, you also commit abominations. Where is your
condemnation of these abominations?sjgf:"Replace
homosexual with any other minority (Black, Jewish, Mormon)You can't do
that. Being black, or white, or some other race, is not a choice."--- Homosexuality, just like Heterosexuality is also NOT a choice.
Tekakaromatagi:"There is no place in a progressive, tolerant society
to persecute individuals for exercising their freedom of conscience. "--- Exercise your consience all you want, you however, do NOT have the
right to deny equality based on your "consience". Your conscience is
for YOU to live by.Seronac:"What I don't understand is
how they can say such opposition is hateful. I am opposed to gay marriage...
They should have access to the legal rights that married people do, so I support
a civil union, but marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding
that arena infringe on religious rights."---What about the
religious rights of those religions that believe GLBT couples should be allowed
to marry? Their religious rights are being denied and infringed by your
religious rights. And Separate But Equal is not equal.The Caravan
Moves On:"It absolutely shocks me that the pro-homosexual crowd
demands that churches... has no right to get involved in matters of morality.
"--- Your church has every right to tell YOU how to live, but
your church has abolutely NO RIGHT to tell Non-Members how to live or what is
"We are unjustly called 'haters' and 'bigots' by those who have carefully
framed their advocacy strategy," --- If you act like a bigot
there is not reason you shouldn't accept the label gladly."...
biblical worldview on sexuality..." --- Fiction and superstition
shouldn't be the basis of public policy.I find it amazing that the
actual bullies, those pushing to deny GLBT Americans the rights they themselves
enjoy are trying to make themselves feel better by calling us the bullies.
Pitiful actually.There is absolutely no reason to tolerate bigotry.
YOU all call US intolerant, yet when have we ever lobbied to legislate away YOUR
religious rights? NEVER.
@slcskp 10:53 p.m.You said - "When the gays start circulating
petitions among the electorate to dissolve LDS marriages and interfere in your
families, then we can have a legitimate discussion about how gay people and
their supporters are just as intolerant as you are."Actually,
this is happening already. -Feel free to browse Facebook or any
number of gay rights blogs and you'll find petition drive after peition drive of
people demanding the IRS sanction churches which will not marry gays and lesbian
couples.-In San Diego, straight firefighters sued the city after
being forced to march in a Gay Pride Parade where they were repeatedly
harrassed. The reaction from the gay community to the lawsuit has been,
"Shut up and march, you homphobes." @DanO 11:32You said - "One of the most violent acts you can do is deny someone
their identity."And nobody does this better than the left. If
your thoughts or lifestlye doesn't go along with theirs, you are automatically
pegged as a racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, neocon facist. Prejudice is actually okay, as long as the politcally correct thought police
are the ones doing it.
A few thoughts for everyone here:"We have no government armed
with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest
cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was
made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the
government of any other."-- John Adams"All of our
opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises."
UCLA law Prof. Eugene VolokhOur beliefs are just that, beliefs,
based on what we feel is true. We can argue until we're blue in the face and not
get anywhere because the bases of our ideologies are entirely different.One more: "People believe what they want to believe." Terry
Goodkind, in "Wizard's First Rule"Your argument is
pointless and fruitless. Only the consequences of our decisions will influence
Bigotry should never be tolerated.
People who use terms like "bigot" or "homophobe" to
describe perspectives that differ from theirs are not much different from
fundamentalists who use terms like "cult" to describe churches which
they don't like. In both cases, the mentality seems pretty similar to me.I campaigned actively for Proposition 8 in California. Nobody ever
asked me how much money I contributed, no "suggested contribution"
amount was ever mentioned. and no one tried to get me to contribute by using a
tithing envelope.Those who raise the issue of Separation of church
and state in reference to LDS involvement in the Proposition 8 campaign seem to
have no such problem with Unitarian and other religious liberal involvement on
the opposite side of that issue. As a Mormon and former Unitarian, I find this
rather amusing - not to mention blatantly hypocritical.
The ultimate display of prejudice is telling someone that they are not who they
know they are in their heart. One of the most violent acts you can do is deny
someone their identity. It's much easier to judge us when we're reduced to a
single act. However, we, like all people are more complex than that. It's like
saying that being LDS means you sit through church for three hours every week
and that's your sole definition. Homosexual is a clinical term, but it
encompasses only one piece of the entirety that is each of us.
"It seems to me that slaves didn't get their freedom, women the right to
vote, or blacks get some civil rights by the good will of the majority. The
injustices had to be shown first then change had to be advocated. I'm sure at
the beginning of this process the majority felt the minority was being
intolerant and that they just needed to stay in their place where they
belong."-----------------------------------It's not about who
is in the majority, and what the majority believes. It's about what's right.
The LDS Church has opposed slavery, advocated blacks' rights and womens' rights,
and now oppose gay marriage. What God says goes, regardless of the majority.-------------------------------------"Mormons spent
millions to deny California gays the right to marry."-----------------------------------That statement is false. I'm
pretty sure Mormons are completely fine with a homosexual man marrying a woman.
What you refer to (a man "marrying" a man) is not marriage, as most of
the nation realizes. Gays don't want marriage-- they deny themselves of that
right by refusing. What they want is an alternative to marriage, which is an
immoral option that we cannot allow.
Wow, thanks so much, unnamed persons on this board, for highlighting what
"tolerance" means to you and your fellow believers: the right to call
gays "abominable", "abnormal", "perverse", leading
our fair Republic to "the brink of disaster". And thanks,
Deseret News comments board moderators, for validating their vitriol as the sort
of civil discourse that you're willing to post. So, for the
aforementioned-but-nameless posters (to comply with the rules of the DesNews
comments moderators against inappropriately inflaming people by using their
names):1) Under the freedom of speech (and religion) rights
guaranteed by the First Amendment, you can continue to call gays the hateful,
bigoted names like what you've used on this board. 2) Under those same
rights, we can continue to call you out as hateful bigots. Everybody
wins!And "tolerance" of one another's disparate beliefs
and practices demands no less. When the gays start circulating petitions among
the electorate to dissolve LDS marriages and interfere in your families, then we
can have a legitimate discussion about how gay people and their supporters are
just as intolerant as you are.Do we have a deal?
panamadesnews Yes, these pro gay rights persons have the right to say or
do what they want so long as they do not infringe upon our rights. But we also
have the right to say and do what we want, so long as we do not infringe on
their rights. ...Let us remember that important teaching in the scriptures. May
righteousness prevail. KJKI agree 100%. Both sides should use
kindness, gentleness, meekness, persuasion, long suffering, etc... to convince
people. May both sides eschew force and treat all equally. We LDS may not
believe same-sex marriage is correct, but we don't believe in the Athanasian
Trinity, Calvin's TULIP, women clergy, infant baptism, etc..., but we tolerate
them. We should likewise treat SSM. Allow it and try to persuade those with
Same-sex attraction to resist yielding to it.SSm advocates are not
asking anything different than what we LDS asked for 125 years ago regarding our
own unique form of marriage.
Organizations without a leader and without unity will disappear; if such an
organization is wrong, it will play out over time. If you truly believe your
way is the right way, then be at peace. If you feel you are right, then you
don't ever need to argue. Not all gays are alike, some oppose gay marriage
and are embarrassed by those having to be "even" at everything in
@DanO"Replace homosexual with any other minority (Black,
Jewish, Mormon)"You can't do that. Being black, or white, or
some other race, is not a choice. Being Jewish or Mormon has elements of choice
and elements of indoctrination by the familial society into which one is
born.However, choosing to be public about being homosexual is
strictly a choice. (I don't think very many people concern themselves about
people with homosexual inclinations as long as they keep it private. It is when
they become so proud of their inclinations that they announce it to the world
and make a big deal about it that people have concerns.)Being
"in your face" homosexual is definitely a choice.Being
black or white or some other race is not a choice.You are not
comparing apples to apples.People should not discriminate based on
things that people have no choice over, such as race or gender. But a decision
to be "in your face" about something people consider a vice will
offend people and cause them to want to distance themselves from such a
person.Homosexuals should learn to not be "in your face"
about their vices.
I for one love all but have no tolerance for acts I believe to be wrong. I
believe homosexuality is wrong. As the vice president of a large company, my
right hand man was homosexual. He grew up back East with a conservative family
that has shunned him. I don't know all the facts. I know he is a great worker
but he and I will never see eye to eye with respects to morality and partnership
It is apparent that the Deseret News editors reject that same-sex attraction is
an addictive behavior. I would suggest that you read "Letter From One In
Recovery From Same-Sex Attraction" page 305 in the book, He Restoreth My
Soul, by Donald L. Hilton Jr., M.D. You will find that the same chemical
processes that affect those who are addicted to pornography and other sex
addictions are the same that govern same-sex attraction. Rather than hide you
heads in the sand, you need to look at the problem clearly for what it is.
Homosexuality is a sex addiction and to grant those afflicted with it the same
rights as someone with normal heterosexual behavior would be the same as
granting rights to any other form of sex addiction no matter how egregious and
criminal the behavior might be.
The only public opinion polls that are real are those that take place inthe isolation of the voting booth. To date in the US, every time gay marriage
has come to the vote of the people, it has been rejected. This in spite of
widespread media support, the lock step education lobby of the NEA, and the well
funded advocate groups. It will be interesting to see, if that changes based on
these new poll findings.
Certain things have always been wrong/immoral and always will be: Theft of what
is not yours, lying, etc. etc. come to mind. Just because the gay community
currently tries to couch their behavior in terms of "individual
rights", or whatever terms/philosophies will hit the most buttons doesn't
mean it's OK. But, I will agree that this whole argument (and others
like it) depend on whether you believe in God and His prophet. If yes, the path
is clear. If no, then I suppose that path is inevitable as well. I
DO believe in God and His prophet. I feel fortunate to do so. It lends great
peace, focus, and happiness to my life.
With regards to the comment that it is OK to fire someone because they are gay,
I disagree. I don't know if it is illegal but I think that it would be
termination without cause and that could result in a lawsuit.Tekakaromatagi
I don't understand why people want to deny the LDS Church's role in defeating
Prop 8. The LDS Church was heavily involved in the campaign and was public
about its support. The Church leaders urged its members to donate time and
means (money) in support of Prop 8. Church members appeared in the commercials.
A Church member wrote the "Six Consequences if Prop 8 Passes" missive.
A group, "Mormons for Proposition 8" reported:"As of Nov.
8, 2008, there are 6,585 total donations of $1,000 or more listed here. Of
those, 3,365 (51%) have been identified as Mormon/likely Mormon. These donations
represent $15,305,050.17, or 48% of all donations."So, own it.
Own the success of the campaign. As every Mormon knows we have a very effective
ability to organize and raise money. Taking a stance means risk.
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Vandalism and violence are against the law and should be prosecuted.As for me, I chose not to suuport Prop 8.
Jesus Christ will soon return to the earth. He will resolve this issue once and
for all. He will not conduct any polls. He will not ask for a vote. He will not
be swayed by majority opinion. When He comes, EVERY knee will bow and the wicked
who refuse to repent will be destroyed. I recognize that I have room for much
improvement in my life. But I am not trying to change His word to fit my
behavior. I am trying to change my behavior to fit His word. That is the only
path to true happiness and eternal life. There is no valid alternative!
Back to the claim that the LDS church did 'not' donate to support Prop 8... *'LDS Church's in-kind donations to Prop. 8 total $190K' - By Lynn
Arave - DSNews - 02/03/2009 '"The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints has filed the final report of its contributions all of which
were nonmonetary to the ProtectMarriage coalition," said Scott Trotter,
church spokesman. "The report, submitted in advance of the Jan. 31
deadline, details in-kind donations totaling $189,903.58.' The LDS
church made continual refferences that it's donation was 'less than 1%' when
compared with other donations... while 1) Trying to distance itself
from the fact that a religion DONATED on a very much politcal issue in another
state, California and 2) That it did NOT take into account the
donations of it's members. Who make up less than 2% of California's population.
The Caravan Moves On, whether the Church donates the money directly or instructs
it members to do so, the end result and the intentions are the same. The Church
just used its people and its people were just happy to oblige.And
"A Guy With A Brain", replace homosexual with any other minority
(Black, Jewish, Mormon) in your scenario and ask if it's not wrong to fire
someone because who they are not their capabilities.
So, A Guy With A Brain, what exactly is wrong for a private company to fire
someone solely for being a Mormon?Is this not America?If
I run a company, MY company, don't I have a right to operate my the way I see
fit?And yes, if I worked for a company run by a Mormon and they
fired me because I opposed Mormon activity, then yes, they have that right to do
that as well.Again, isn't this America?
@ isrred | 7:18 p.m. June 12, 2011 You're talking about the Church's
payment of airline tickets for LDS officials to and from California and other
administrative-type expenses. The LDS church did not take any money
and dump it into the Prop 8 fight in the manner you claim. If you disagree, by
all means, cite your historical sources: government documents, dates, form
numbers, signatures of LDS officals, dollar amounts, etc.Come on,
you made your claim first, prove it.
'You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that
claim is absolutely, positively NOT true.' - The Caravan Moves On | 6:44 p.m.
June 12, 2011 About that... *'Mormon Church agrees to
pay small fine for mistake that led to late report of contributions in Prop. 8
campaign' - by Scott Taylor - DSNews - 06/09/10 'As the state agency
for interpreting and enforcing California's campaign finance rules, the FPPC
identified 13 instances of "nonmonetary late contributions made and not
timely reported" or the church failing to file daily reports detailing
$36,928 in in-kind contributions, including the cost of staff time spent by
church employees to help the "Yes on 8" committee.' - Article The LDS church has gone on record for almost $200,000. It's MEMBERS, donated
much more. And DSNews, this is a fact, reported by you. Don't deny
this post due to bias. When making the CLAIM that the LDS church
'didn't donate funds to support Prop 8'...? Make sure they are
TRUE. It is not. They did. Accept it, or make your objection known.
According to the bible homosexuality is "an abomination in the sight of
God". Of course if we say anything about that we are being hateful but if
the gay comminity says opposition is being hateful our comments don't get
approved. I am on Gods side. Love all his children but condemn immoral behavior.
Read this through several times:"Unlimited tolerance must lead
to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to
those who are intolerant [my insert here: I agree with the article; the
"intolerant" these days is largely the pro-homosexual crowd], if we
are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the
intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them We
should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the
intolerant." - Karl PopperNow, I am not suggesting in any way
that we not tolerate homosexuals by their persecution and death, that obviously
is evil in the extreme, too. However, I AM saying that conservatives and the
anti-homosexual marriage crowd have every right, and even a moral obligation in
the name of tolerance, to not tolerate immoral behavior; to not just roll over
and give up in any fight concerning right and wrong.In the future,
homosexuals in America may very well gain the legal right to enter into
'marriage', but that doesn't make homosexual activity moral nor does it mean
conservatives must just give up the fight against evil.
"You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for Prop 8 but that
claim is absolutely, positively NOT true."The campaign
disclosure forms submitted by the LDS church itself, as well as the fines
imposed on the Church by the California election commission for improper
filings, say otherwise.
" It is not hate for people; it is disgust from the perverse acts performed
that define what you are."It's a sad indictment on your
character and the fragility of your humanity that you believe deep love,
commitment, and selfless sacrifice between two human beings to be perverse. A
God that would be angered over two of his children loving each other to the
utmost extent possible is not a being worthy of worship or adoration.
@Pagan | 5:11 p.m. June 12, 2011 So, Pagan, what exactly is wrong
for a private company to fire someone solely for being a homosexual?Is this not America?If I run a company, MY company, don't I have a
right to operate my the way I see fit? And yes, if I worked for a
company run by a homosexual person and they fired me because I opposed
homosexual activity, then yes, they have that right to do that as well.Again, isn't this America?
@ tmaxr | 11:50 a.m. June 12, 2011There you go again, making a false
claim. You say that the LDS church donated money in the fight for
Prop 8 but that claim is absolutely, positively NOT true. It was not the
"LDS church" that donated money but individual members. Early in the
Prop 8 fight I actually went to my bishop and asked him where I could specify
money on the tithing slip to go to the Prop 8 fight and he said there was no way
to do that through the Church, that if I wanted to donate I'd have to do it
through a private organization.It absolutely shocks me that the
pro-homosexual crowd demands that churches, and the LDS church in particular,
has no right to get involved in matters of morality. Just what exactly do you
think churches are formed for?, to just get people together for tea and
fortunately, for those of us who support equal rights for all, the tide has
turned in our favor. your kids and my kids have realized that a country that
values freedom and rights for all cannot deny certain groups those rights just
because other groups find them "ichy'. the older generations will pass on
and the younger generation will bring equality into existence. it's inevitable
those darn gays! they're trying to stop the homophobes from practicing their
(perceived) constitutional right to block others from having equal
constitutional rights. what a bunch of bullies!
Here's the problem: you don't have the right to "oppose" gays.
That's like saying, "I oppose women."Faith is something
you choose to believe in or not. So people of faith, you do not get to make the
rules for other people. People of faith can choose to not be gay, if they so
believe it is a choice. I am excited about the recent developments
in benefits for gays. We are making progress!
Shame on those alleged 50% in favor of gay rights. It is an abomination that
will put our civilization on the brink of disaster, until we people of the
United Stated wake up and put this abomination into its rightful place in our
thinking. Yes, these pro gay rights persons have the right to say or do what
they want so long as they do not infringe upon our rights. But we also have the
right to say and do what we want, so long as we do not infringe on their rights.
Let's not let them bully us into entering into their way of thinking just to
pacify them - let us continue to fight for righteousness for our nation. Let us
not call bad, good - and good, bad. Good is good, and bad is bad. Let us
remember that important teaching in the scriptures. May righteousness prevail.
This article did it's homework. And found cases of people choosing to leave a
job profession, it's true. But the claims that the LGBT movement
are 'intolerant' pale when confronted with one, simple fact. 31
states still have laws on record that allow them to fire someone for only being
gay. How is this an example of 'tolerance' from the other side? From
those with anti-gay bias? Answer: It does not. Now that more and
more examples of a majority in SUPPORT of LGBT rights is becoming evident, those
against gay rights make claims of those in favor of gay rights as
'intolerant.' When Kobe Bryant made an anti-gay slur not 4 months
ago. This is the example of the 'moral right.' Of the people who
claim God is on THEIR side... they are now playing the role, of the
One comment included the following: 1) Doubt there is a god, 2) Assurance that
if there is a god, he or she will not be displeased with sexual perversions, and
3) if god mistakenly disapproves, then god is unworthy.Oh, how far
we've come! All the way to Sodom.
Prior comments have hinted at what I think part of the problem in relation to
this issue, that is, the shifting of majority view and the resulting relabeling
of positions. Whether it is acknowledged or not, the majority view is typically
intolerant of the minority (or opposition) view, and often demonizes the
minority/opposition. Rarely is it comfortable for the majority to experience
this shift away from power and traditional intolerance/ignorance. When the
minority fights back and is able to land blows against what has become the
"former" majority, the latter often feels victimized and disrespected,
as if appealing to the minority, many of whom HAVE been victimized and
disrespected for ages, will do them any good. As the forces of both sides
equalize it behooves the former majority to understand what the minority knows
too well...this is a war and all's fair, including individual persecution and
open aggression, unless one establishes personal guidelines of good behavior
towards friend and foe alike. My suggestion is to spend one's energy on the
group of people who are largely ambivalent about the issue and attempt to win
them over to one's point of view and side.
Part of the problem is that the homosexual community is trying to redefine
standard English words, which makes it very difficult for us to discuss
things:Gay -- used to mean "happy"; now means
"homosexual male"Hate -- used to mean an emotion bordering
on a desire to cause harm; now means disagreeing with someone, even if you love
the personMarriage -- used to mean a lifelong commitment of a man
and woman to live together and be the basic unit of society, typically (but not
always) with the understanding that the union might produce offspring and bear
the responsibility of rearing the offspring; the LGBT community wants to change
the word to include two people of the same sex, to obtain government recognition
and benefits even though there is no possibility of producing and rearing
offspring.Tolerance -- used to mean being civil; now means totally
agreeing with the LGBT agenda without question.
@alt134You talk about government staying out of marriage, but in the
same posting discuss the merits of a civil union between gay persons. Unless
you define a "civil union" differently than what I've seen, you can't
even separate the government from the idea of a civil union. The government is
involved whether it's a "civil union" or a "marriage."Marriage is not just a religious imperative. A man and a woman declare
by their marriage that they are committed to each other in the eyes of the law
and society. It is a social contract too, that is indeed quite important to and
for society. Indeed, gay people want the government to condone same-sex
marriages, not just "civil unions." But still, a civil
union is a relationship recognized by the GOVERNMENT, with certain rights and
priveliges. The government is still involved.
"As the gay-rights movement advances, there's increasing evidence of an
intriguing role reversal: Today, it's the conservative opponents of that
movement who seem eager to depict themselves as victims of intolerance."If the pro-marriage side is protecting marriage (a liberal institution
because it fights poverty) and protecting freedom of conscience, how is it they
are conservative? The role reversal is deeper than gay rights. It is a role
reversal about progressivism. The old liberals are the new conservatives. The
old conservatives have become progressive and liberal.Tekakaromatagi
To conclude:2000's AD God, through appointed leaders,
preaches tolerance and nondiscrimination, while
consistently condemning the behavior.Thank
Heavens some things never change.
I don't mean to argue but I don't think the comments of tmaxr are comparing
apples to apples. Marriages between a man and a woman may have indeed had their
own peculiar set of discriminations as tmaxr illustrates. But, now we are
talking about an man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman. Not the same.
Never was. Never will be as I understand it. Indeed, "Some things never
change." For the present argument, what was wrong decades, centuries, and
millenia ago is still wrong. My second point is that the Mormon
church's view and policies are actually quite accommodating and tolerant when
one considers how serious the sin actually is in the eyes of our Lord and
Savior. The position is entirely consistent with loving the transgressor, but
not the transgression. Coming out in favor of anti-discrimination policies is
truly a sign of a tolerant church when it so strongly feels the
spiritual/moral/religious convictions against the behavior.
@isrred. No, I don't have pictures of family and I do not discuss my family or
personal life in the workplace. My personal ethical and value systems prohibit
such things. The work place is professional, there are those who do choose to
behave as you depicted, I choose not to. Your point is well made, and I would
agree with you to a point. However, my remarks were made more towards the
intimacies of life, not the familial context in which you took it. My opinion
is that personal life is at home, professional life is in the workplace. In
regards to this article, if the individuals, lawfirms, or businesses are engaged
in lobbying or public information of either side then some generalized
discussion on the subject is appropriate, but personal life should not become a
forum at any time. To force ones views on another is inappropriate, and as has
been mentioned already, we are not judges, only players, even though some do not
play well with others in the sandbox of life.
Mormons spent millions to deny California gays the right to marry. Perhaps it's
time to revoke LDS tax-exempt status, until they get their church out of our
"marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that arena
infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion, then
what's the problem? "Well for one atheists can get married so
as far as the gov't is concerned it's not a religious union. Secondly,
increasing amounts of churches are marrying same sex couples. So for many of
them there is religion and God involved.
Anyway, we could end this right now by getting marriage out of the gov't and
giving all couples, same and opposite gender, equal rights civil unions that
have the same rights/benefits currently given to marriage. Either that or we can
slug it out until the gay marriage side wins nationally in about a decade.
What I don't understand is how they can say such opposition is hateful. I am
opposed to gay marriage, but I don't hate anybody, or any group. They should
have access to the legal rights that married people do, so I support a civil
union, but marriage is a religious union, and their mandates regarding that
arena infringe on religious rights. If they don't believe in God or religion,
then what's the problem?
10,000 BC: 'We can't let other tribes marry into ours, the sun god will be
angry!"1,000 BC: 'We can't let Gentiles marry Jews, it will be
the end of the Jewish people!'1,000 AD: 'We can't let outlanders
marry our women, they eat babies!'1500 AD: 'We can't let indians
marry whites, the colony will fail!'1600 AD: 'We can't let English
marry Irish, England will cease to be English!'1700 AD 'We can't let
Catholics marry Protestant, England will cease to be Protestant!'1939 AD: 'We can't let Jews marry Christians, it will be the end of
Germany!'1959 AD: 'We can't let blacks marry whites, it will be the
end of the white race!'2011 AD: 'We can't let gays marry, it will be
the end of the world!'Some things never change.
Women have had the vote in this country for 90 years. Anybody who advocated
publicly to repeal the 19th Amendment now would be labeled a bigot, and
rightfully ostracized. Ditto for anybody who tried to repeal the Civil Rights
laws of 50 years ago, or to reinstate slavery. Nobody would be defending them,
or advocating to give their positions equal time in the public square in the
name of supporting diversity.Universal support of civil rights, and
women's suffrage, are completely uncontroversial now, but every one of them at
point was opposed by a majority of the citizenry. Supporters of all those forms
of institutionalized bigotry claimed God was on their side back then, too.So it is now with gay rights. Already a majority of voters across the US
supports the right of gay people to civil marriage. Fifty years from now, our
descendants will probably look back at us and shake their heads at our
collective bigotry and ignorance, just like we do now for our forbears who
supported slavery and segregation, and opposed women's rights. The
arc of the universe bends toward justice, and justice will ultimately prevail
And the DN takes yet another opportunity to play the victim. Yes, the extreme
examples of vandalism and the like (which I can count on my fingers) have
deservedly been condemned, but the vast majority of the "intolerance"
out there has merely been citizens exercising their freedom of speech. You
don't get to enter the political arena and then hide behind religion when you
don't like the results. Prop. 8 has clearly been a PR disaster for the Church,
but instead of trying to learn something, you play the poor-little-us card.
Maybe this will change someday, but I'm not holding my breath...
@I choose Freedom: Can't agree with you more, although I'm not a believer. But
if there is such a deity, I'm sure "He" will have plenty to say about
the intolerance of not only gays, but many other less fortunate in our society!
Let "His" judgment begin! Better hope your stance is correct, because
I'm sure there's no way a 2,000-year-old bible could get misinterpreted.
Once again another Deseret News article about lumped-together gay issues that
has both sides talking past each other, instead of with each other. Yes there are individuals on any issues polar extremes, whose financial and
political livelihoods comes from hyperbolic rhetoric, and the riled up outrage
of their constituency. But these professional provocateurs don't represent the
vast majority of people in the middle whose interactions and beliefs are more
pragmatic and nuanced, and whose views rarely get coverage. It's in
the daily life of "the middle" where real change, tolerance, and
accommodation is occurring everyday, and to me, that's where the real stories
Beware of tolerance. It is a very unstable virtue...often demanded but seldom
The anti-gay rights crowd is simply shedding crocodile tears. The injustices
they have suffered pale in consideration of what the majority has imposed upon
gays.We LDS did the same thing. Brigham Young told the Saints to
not to do business with the Gentiles that came to or through Utah. "Kauf
Nicht Beim Gentiles".The anti-gay rights groups forgets that
actions and choices have consequences. Peter Vidmar chose to support Prop.8 and
those who didn't like 8 couldn't respect him and so oppossed him being their
leader. He had to accept the consequences of his actions. LDS who oppossed
Prop.8 (and Prop.22 before that) likewise faced consequences. Some had their
temple recommends taken and many were released from callings. Under both
propositions, the Saints were directed to send in campaign contributions with a
donation slip listing the members' ward and stake. The Church wanted to know
who donated what. Does anyone really think that there were no consequences for
some with means who donated nothing?Sure, the destruction of
property protesting the denial of rights is wrong whether it be graffiti on a
temple or dumping tea in Boston Harbor.
I agree with this article. There is no place in a progressive, tolerant society
to persecute individuals for exercising their freedom of conscience. People who
do this in the name of diversity have given diversity a bad name.
So because the gay community is reacting to the decades of being bulled by these
groups active attempts to discriminate against them they are now bullies? You
cannot take the effect and make it the cause. you cannot be upset after decades
of bulling someone if they finally stand up and kick you in the shin.
" Keep your private life private... I don't discuss my private life in
public... Please respect my rights and feelings and don't discuss
yours."Do you have photos of your family on your desk? Do your
coworkers talk about the joys and successes of their children in school, sports,
music etc? Have you ever taken your wife to a work Christmas party or other
function?If so, you have NOT kept your private life private and YOU
are being the hypocrite. Gay and Lesbian persons have families, and demanding
that they pretend that they don't exist IS a discriminatory attitude, regardless
of how much you say otherwise.Private sexual behavior has no place
being discussed in the workplace for ANYONE, and every LGBT person I know agrees
with that. Just because a person is LGBT doesn't mean they somehow lack
professional standards of conduct. But acknowledging a person's family and
loved ones is NOT the same as talking about sexual activity.
"God will have the final say on this issue. And no one will bully
Him!"If God does exist, he (or she) will not hold it against me
for loving my fellow man regardless of who they love and decide to share their
lives with. God will not condemn me for allowing other human beings the same
dignities and protections in housing, employment, and family protections that
everyone else enjoys. God will not be upset with my for standing up in public
when hateful hearted people think it is their place to verbally or physically
attack and scorn a gay or lesbian person or couple.And if God does
hold those things against me, then he certainly isn't a being worthy of my
worship, love, and following.
You don't need a constitution for the majority to take away the rights of a
minority. It's obvious from the spin on this article and the previous comments
that when the minority complains about its treatment, they get labeled with the
very terms the majority are trying to shed by its behavior and rhetoric. It seems to me that slaves didn't get their freedom, women the right to
vote, or blacks get some civil rights by the good will of the majority. The
injustices had to be shown first then change had to be advocated. I'm sure at
the beginning of this process the majority felt the minority was being
intolerant and that they just needed to stay in their place where they belong.
If I was to discuss the intimacies of life in the work place I would be hauled
into the HR office and summarily reprimanded, disciplined, or let go. Yet if
the same behavior was demonstrated by a person who espouses an "alternative
lifestyle" did the same thing, and the infraction was handled in the same
manner, this person would most likely scream at the highest level that they were
being oppressed, that their rights were being infringed upon because of thier
chosen lifestyle. I don't despise gay's for who they are, I despise them for
the hypocracy that is so clearly outlined in this article. Keep your private
life private... I don't discuss my private life in public... Please respect my
rights and feelings and don't discuss yours.
Gomorrah. The fate of this city was regarded as a warning against sensual
wickedness. Sensual meaning those, physical in nature, attitudes and acts which
are not natural. Yes, I said it..."not natural". Those who say
otherwise are confused. Period. There were 5 cities in total that experienced
the same fate. So, those of you who disagree, that's OK. I respect your opinion.
Now reciprocate and respect mine. There will be a day where some cities of the
world will experience the same fate, either through natural destructions
(earthquakes, floods, etc.) or self destructions. It has and will continue to
happen. Like you who advocate this "alternative" lifestyle, it is my
responsibility to support (in word or $$) those efforts to keep this
"lifestyle" away from my backdoor and my family. But only by
nonviolent efforts. Not through bullying or intimidation. When those who act in
such a way, to me it just means that they are losing their battle and are
resorting to whatever means they can to see their efforts succeed....which will
not in the end.
This is dead on. Don't disagree with the gay & lesbian activists, or you
will be persecuted for standing by what you believe in. It has happened to me
before more than once.
Gay Rights advocates are, indeed, leading an ugly campaign. I believe one of the
first victims many years ago was Anita Bryant regarding their threats and
intimidation policy. She was hounded and intimidated for years. These people
have a right to their skewed way of life, however their policy of bullying those
who disagree with this lifestyle many of us find reprehensible, is not an asset
to their cause. It's quite interesting to note what straight society really
thinks about gay rights when out of earshot of gayitivists.
I agree with this article. Pro-gay parties won't allow the "agree to
disagree". How many people were bullied for supporting prop 9?
God will have the final say on this issue. And no one will bully Him!
Another thing, this title is ludicrous. To say it is a "role
reversal" is to say that those who hold an anti-LGBT position have been up
to this point "intolerant". Nice inflammatory headline, DN.
This is all about a vocal minority imposing their will, and an apathetic
majority rolling over for lack of a spine. Everyone is entitled to their
position, opinion, and the expression of such. But that does not mean I need to
embrace an opinion I do not agree with out of fear, intimidation, or to seem PC.
To tolerate is to withstand. Look it up. In electronics,
tolerance is like a filter, to hold things to a higher standard. Judge
The article excluded the most egregious example of intimidation by homosexual
activists: the intimidation of Mormons in California. They were individually
targeted, and the LDS temples descecrated. Falsehoods were perpetrated - that
out of state funding by the Church was responsible, when, in fact the
Anti-Proposition 8 forces had a greater percentage of out-of-state funding than
the Pro-8 advocates, and the Church provided no direct monetary help.