To "RanchHand" but you are forgetting th 10th ammendment and the recent
SCOTUS ruling on marriage. Both have state that marriage is a state issue, and
is up to the states to decide.The 10th ammendment says that if not
specified in the constitution. The DOMA ruling also said that the definition of
marriage is a state issue.
@RedShirtCalTech;"...you can't remove somebody's
liberty or property ..." "...that they must apply their laws equally to
their citizens..."Like our liberty to choose whom we will marry
or our shared property - taxed differently than married heterosexual couples
upon one spouse's death? Demonstrably a violation of both
CBAX from Provo, UT stated "Carried about by every wind of doctrine."
Or IMO you are attempting to control, Non Mormons worshiping how
where or what they may! People should stop forcing their religious beliefs on
MULTIPLE "RedShirt" users - You casually throw out statements to support
your view, but don't tell the whole story. What you call a
"civil union" granted in Brazil (2012), of one man and two women was
actually a "stable union" which is recognized as a family entity. The
legal difference from marriage is that it doesn’t change individual civil
status from single to married. That stable union was overturned by Brazil's
Commission for the Rights of the Family within the Institute of Lawyers. It has
not set precedence and higher Brazilian courts have not permitted the practice
to continue.Norway allows Muslim men to become residents with their
multiple wives. The strain on welfare services has become evident and the
Norwegian Immigration Directorate is suggesting that the government should
prevent married men, who marry again without first divorcing in Norway, from
bringing their new wives to Norway.Other countries:Britain -
Exemption for Muslim men who enter with multiple wives, currently being phased
out.Australia - Polygamous marriages are illegal, but the law allows it
among indigenous peoples.New Zealand - Polygamous marriages cannot be
performed in NZ, but are permissible if legally performed in a country that
@rhappahannock - you mention the importance of pheromones in attraction and
building relationships. In animals, the choice of sexual partner is highly
influenced by sex-specific pheromones. Pheromone studies in humans
have shown that brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals respond differently to
human pheromones involved in sexual arousal. The research showed that when both
heterosexual women and gay men are exposed to a testosterone derivative found in
men's sweat, a region in the hypothalamus is activated. Heterosexual men
and lesbians have a similar response to an estrogen-like compound found in
women's urine."Both studies indicate that the physiological
response in brain regions associated with reproduction are different in homo-
and heterosexual persons," Ivanka Savic, a neuroscientist at the Karolinska
Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, said in an email.The research was
published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and can also be
found on the U.S. National Institutes of Health website.
"What about first cousins? What about brother and sister? What about parent
and child?..." Yes, NH Transplant, marriage is a slippery slope. First poor
people, then divorced people, then non-white people, then mixed
races....Horrors! When will it end?
To "AndyTompkins" but legalizing SSM has lead to polygamy in Brazil and
in the Norway. There already are reports out of Brazil and Norway where
polygamists have been granted "civil unions". They are following the
exact same path that the gays did in those countries. First they get civil
unions, then within a few years they are granted marriages.
Look, can we just get this thing over with. I don't see why gay's
can't get married as long as they don't force the clergy of a church
that does not believe in it. A justice of the peace is a different story no
matter what his belief. He has a government job and a duty to do his job.
There is a difference between a civil marriage and a church marriage. If the
church is OK with it than fine. Just because people don't agree please
don't call them bigots. Everyone has a right to their beliefs. There are other more important issues we need to take care of, like the
Legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada didn't lead to the legalization of
polygamy in that country - just the opposite. I use the Canadian example as
it’s very similar regarding socio-economic, legal, religious and societal
structures/mores. Lawyers for polygamists in Canada argued that
since same-sex marriage was legal in Canada that legalizing polygamy was the
natural extension.The prosecutors successfully argued that same-sex
marriage did NOT change the basic, fundamental structure/definition of marriage
in Canada — the union of TWO people. Polygamy WOULD change that
fundamental, legal structure/definition.Interesting to note that The
Christian Legal Fellowship, one of about a dozen interveners in the case, told
the judge in its final argument that the same-sex debate settled the definition
of marriage: a union of TWO people.
To "RanchHand" actually it doesn't. The 5th ammendment has to do
with the process of law. It just states that you can't remove
somebody's liberty or property without following what the law states. So,
Ammendment 3 does meet the 5th ammendment.The 14th Ammendment tells
the states that they must apply their laws equally to their citizens. The
Ammendment 3 does not prohibit a gay person from marrying a person of the
opposite gender. The law is applied equally to all people.If you
say that prohibition of SSM based on the 14th ammendment is wrong, then you will
have to allow anything that somebody wants to call marriage.Using
your argument, you will have to allow 1 man and 4 women to be married, or a
group of 2 men and 3 women can be married, or maybe 4 men and 1 woman can now be
married. Do you really want to allow marriage to be redefined to be anything
that anybody wants?
Carried about by every wind of doctrine.
@Dr Thom..."See what all this equality is all about"...Sir. May I say
how eloquent. It's comments and beliefs such as your highly intellectual
post states that will align you with the true thinkers of our time once Judge
Shelby's ruling is lawfully upheld and equality for all is rightfully
granted to all individuals rather then just a select and chosen few.
@RedShirtCalTech;What part of "nor prohibited by it "
didn't you understand? Amendment 3 violates the 5th & 14th Amendments
to the US Consititution, therefore qualifies as "prohibited by it".
The majority of the comments (not all) that involve opposition to same-sex
marriage on this thread are permeated with negativity and hate. That is the most
devastating aspect of this whole debate. Demonizing a whole group of people and
deriving satisfaction from their "eventual punishment" in heaven. This
is an indicator that the only thing you are standing up for is anger and hate.
This issue is probably more about cultivating our ability to love and understand
each other and less about being right.
I like broccoli but that is not enough. Because I also like cauliflower. I
believe that we need freedom and choice when it comes to our vegetables, and
that my friends, that is the defintion of liberty.
To "Lane Myer" lets see what the 10th ammendment really states. It says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people." So, anything that has not been delegated to the Federal
Government by the Constitution or prohibited by the constitution is left to the
states or to the people.So, the State and the people living in Utah
declared that they liked Ammendment 3. They followed the constitution to the
letter.If you want to argue this point, first find in the US
Constitution the location of any clause that declares what marriage is.
FlashbackKearns, UTHistory Lesson. Everyone go and read
the 10th Amendment.------------------"The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it"
(the Constitution)"to the States. are reserved o the States respectively, or
to the people."That is the 10th Amendment. It states that the
States will have powers ONLY if they are constitutional. Amendment 3 is NOT
constitutional. It will not be upheld.Read the darn thing.
To "praxis" thanks for confirming what I said before. We are devaluing
marriage, and the increse in divorce is not a good thing. Since I never said
that SSM was the cause, but just a symptom of failings elsewhere, I appreciate
seeing that Massachussetts is suffering just as much as the rest of the us.I found a NY Times article discussing "The Unexpected Legacy of
Divorce", and wow, it shows how society is destroying itself from within.
The couples that they discuss could have been helped or could have helped
themselves had they had more of a marriage based focus, but were often focused
on themselves.Divorce rates are just a symptom of a cancer spreading
through society that will not lead us to a pleasant place.
@ SlopJ30You must have friends at the DN. I wrote a comment using real
numbers of Nazi's against LGBT and was put on hold, go figure.@
Redshirt 1701you wrote: "According to sociologists, that is a bad
thing because of the problems that occur when children are without parents being
comitted to each other" and in your previous post you listed a number of
problems because of lack of marriage.All the concerns you presented
support the need for Same Sex Marriage.I'm sure you mean well
and I'm sure that if you are sincere and re-examine your own and all data
you will be supporting SSM. The well being of society rest on the
shoulder os the family . Then allow it to happen.
To follow-up with the divorce rates from the CDC website. Again, no real change
in percentage after SSM began in Massachusetts in 2004 - 49% in 2000 and 53% in
2011. I think anyone would be hard pressed to make the case that allowing SSM
directly lead to the failure of any marriages. Year / Divorces &
annulments / Population / Rate per 1,000 total population / Percentage2011
/ 877,000 / 246,273,366 / 3.6 / 53%2010 / 872,000 / 244,122,529 / 3.6 /
53%2009 / 840,000 / 242,610,561 / 3.5 / 51%2008 / 844,000 /
240,545,163 / 3.5 / 49%2007 / 856,000 / 238,352,850 / 3.6 / 49%2006
/ 872,000 / 236,094,277 / 3.7 / 49%2005 / 847,000 / 233,495,163 / 3.6 /
47%2004 / 879,000 / 236,402,656 / 3.7 / 47%2003 / 927,000 /
243,902,090 / 3.8 / 49%2002 / 955,000 / 243,108,303 / 3.9 / 49%2001
/ 940,000 / 236,416,762 / 4.0 / 49%2000 / 944,000 / 233,550,143 / 4.0 /
49%As a child of divorce, I think it would be helpful if couples
waited a few years to make sure they are truly compatible, and that the marriage
will last, before bringing children into the relationship/family.
@Redshirt1701 - according to the CDC website, the marriage rate was already in
decline before SSM began in Massachusetts in 2004.Year / Marriages /
Population /Rate per 1,000 total population2011 / 2,118,000 / 311,591,917
/ 6.82010 / 2,096,000 / 308,745,538 / 6.82009 / 2,080,000 /
306,771,529 / 6.82008 / 2,157,000 / 304,093,966 / 7.12007 /
2,197,000 / 301,231,207 / 7.32006 / 2,193,000 / 294,077,247 / 7.52005 / 2,249,000 / 295,516,599 / 7.62004 / 2,279,000 / 292,805,298 /
7.82003 / 2,245,000 / 290,107,933 / 7.72002 / 2,290,000 /
287,625,193 / 8.02001 / 2,326,000 / 284,968,955 / 8.22000 /
2,315,000 / 281,421,906 / 8.2Divorce will happen, whether in OSM or
SSM. Most 20- and 30-somethings I talk to mention their own parent's
divorce as to why they have delayed marriage or chose to just cohabitate.I recommend you read "The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce" by
Judith Wallerstein. A 25 year study of 131 children who's parents divorced
in 1971 and how it affected their lives and relationships. For most, their first
SlopJ30St Louis, MOLDS Liberal -Whoa there bubba-boy.I think I'm with you on this one.I like broccli, yet
many people do not.My point was, My liking broccoli
doesn't give those who dont like broccoli can tell me I what id can or
can't like.My liking it, buying it, living with it,
Doesn't effect them or their shooping or preferences at all.In fact, My wanting broccoli doesn't force or take away ANYTHING
from them.It's just different.Like at a
resturant.If you're not into that, Choose something
else.But others need to stop telling people what they can or
can't like.BTW -- I'm not the one wanting people
wearing Pink Triangles.I'm a Liberal -- the far-right would throw me
into the gas chambers too.
@Red Shirt "According to sociologists, that is a bad thing because of the
problems that occur when children are without parents being committed to each
other."OK, lower divorce and decreasing marriage rates. So, is
your argument that we should hold same-sex couples accountable for the failure
of opposite sex couples to act in a manner the state or a specific religion says
they should?Moreover is are there any differences between correlation and
causation in these scenarios?Please explain the constitutional
justification in your argument as to why same-sex couples should not be able to
marry. I'm missing the rational basis in your argument.
One persons noise is another persons freedom, equality, justice, the America our
fore fathers envisioned and many people gave their lives for. Simply put a place
of peace and opportunity for all regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation
To "fact based" you should also see that Massachussetts has the lowest
marriage rate too. You should also know that the divorce rate is measured in
divorces per 1000 people. If you divide their divorce rate by their marriage
rate, you end up with roughly 50% of marriages in there ending in divorce.Only looking at half of the information is not helpful, especially since
I said that marriage rates are decreasing. If you look at a graph of marriage
rates in all of those locations that you list, you will see that there are fewer
marriages now than there were 10 years ago.According to
sociologists, that is a bad thing because of the problems that occur when
children are without parents being comitted to eachother.
LDS Liberal -Your love of broccoli shows how much you hate
cauliflower. It's a slippery slope; today we tolerate broccoli, then we
embrace it. Next, broccoli becomes the norm . . then cauliflower will be
declared illegal, like it was in Nazi Germany! I, for one, stand unafraid in
defense of traditional cauliflower!When righteous men and women look
upon broccoli with the least degree of tolerance, woe, WOE to the wayward
something something, for Satan, he that loveth iniquity and green, vitamin-rich
vegetables that look like cute little trees, rejoiceth.
@ Redshirt "Where is the evidence that society has cheapened marriage and
that is a bad thing, really?" Iowa and Mass. have the lowest
divorce rates in the country and both have same-sex marriage. Stable opposite
and same-sex marriages must be a good thing in those states, no?Certainly you're not arguing that same-sex marriage cheapens opposite sex
marriages. If so, you would have provided credible evidence.
History Lesson. Everyone go and read the 10th Amendment.
To "No H8 - Celebrate" where is the evidence that society has cheapened
marriage and that is a bad thing, really?You have the increased
number of women in poverty.The increase in children born without a
father.The number of boys being raised without fathers.The decreasing marriage rates across the world.The increased
unrest in society.The number of people with mental illness that go
untreated.The number of kids being raised by people that are not
their parents.There are so many problems that have their roots in
the lack of a stable foundation that you would have to be in complete denial not
to see just a few of them.
Hard to believe, this many months after the fact, that dogma-controlled posters
still seem sooooo consumed by this issue, and seem to think bigotry will
prevail.It baffles the mind. This vile animus will not prevail. At
the end of the day, hate never wins. You have lost this battle. Today is the day
the 10th Appeals hears the Utah case for continued discrimination. Best prepare
yourselves for the outcome. You know what it will be, and so does everyone else.
Well, I think every possible argument has been made in both directions about
five times in this thread. Time to wrap it up?The nice thing is,
everyone should be happy! My side . . the side that finds it inconceivable that
people think they're own religious beliefs and sexual hang-ups should be
used to make or interpret law . . is happy because we've basically won.
It's all over but the two married fat ladies singing.The other
side should be happy because they can look forward to an afterlife where they
are greeted by singing angels and a very pleased God congratulating them for
sticking to their guns in the face of reason.Win-Win!
Capitulation!Gene Schaerr filed Utah's supplemental letter with
the 10th Circuit yesterday, which you can find on Scribd, disavowing part of the
State's argument, "in response to recent press reports and analysis of
the study by Professor Mark Regnerus."Money quote: "Thus,
the Regnerus study cannot be viewed as conclusively establishing that raising a
child in a same-sex household produces outcomes that are inferior to those
produced by man-woman parenting arrangements."Quite a little
backtrack on the eve of today's scheduled oral arguments.In
closing, I note this line from today's Washington Post, describing the DOMA
decision: "It said the arguments were mostly window dressing for unlawful
prejudice based on sexual orientation."The judges hearing the
Amendment 3 appeal are more conservative than liberal, appointed by two
Republicans and one right-centrist Democrat. If/when they deny this appeal,
I'm sure conservatives, though, will be screaming, "Liberals!"
Read Romans 1:18-32.
Homosexuals often claim that 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, A why are
you trying to prevent me from getting married when you straights so such a poor
job of it approach. They are apparently deriving these statistics from comparing
the number of marriages in a jurisdiction in one year to the number of divorces
of people in the same jurisdiction who had been married for varying numbers of
years. Anyone with a basic understanding of mathematics should know that this
comparison would not give you the number of marriages that end in divorce. I
call that "the statistics of the unknowing provided to influence the
I choose Broccoli!There, Did that hurt anyone who doesn't
want broccoli?Did that take away anyone's rights, freedoms?Did
that hurt the store?, other customers?, the Nation?No difference.
Jim...if procreation is one of the reasons for marriage then should we be
testing couples for fertility and denying licenses if one or both of the couples
is infertile? Reject the dud spouse and insist they find another who can help
churn out more babies? That is what it turns into...a cold, baby producing,
assembly line. Another person mentioned Mozilla and how their CEO
resigned. Sadly, he lacked the courage of his convictions and resigned with an
apology for 'hurting people.' You have the right to change your mind,
but don't buckle under to pressure if you really believe it. Fortunately,
social media and the company website has exploded with people complaining that
he felt the pressure to resign. Despite the vocal few in the company who
screamed loudest and forced his hand, others have stood above the roar with
their own courage, swamping the NET and saying NO enough is enough people have
the right to their own opinions and beliefs without fear of retribution.
Funny though that a DN article brings this up though in light of the
censorship that DN exhibits when comments are made which bring to task the LDS
djk stated "did anyone out there supporting gay marriage even watch listen
and learn from general conference?"I think we are talking about
non Mormon sames sex marriage, not Mormon marriage! and even the Mormon church
from what I know, believes that God allows humans free will and the ability to
worship how where, or what they may, right?
@ John Locke "Just because it is the law, doesn't make it
moral."Moral disapproval, vile religious animus, bigotry,
hatred, ignorance are not valid constitutional reasons for discrimination. There has to be at least a rational basis in the law that demonstrates
it will indeed actually accomplish a state interest. Punishing the
children of same-sex couples through denial of their parents marriages, in order
to supposedly make opposite sex couples value and more committed in their own
marriages does not pass constitutional muster either.
To: mrjj69Please, please study the rule of law in this Republic that
we live in. It make me angry no matter what side of the debate to think that
voters can make laws against the civil rights of any citizen. These same voted
rights in early history demonized my Mormon ancestors. They were not valid
then. Majority rule does not ever overrule constitutional liberties. Please take a Constitutional class.
MexicanUte, Your history of marriage is quite erroneous. From the
time of the Romans well into the Renaissance, marriage in the Christian world
was accomplished by simply agreeing to live together as a married couple. There
were no papers to sign or ceremonies to perform. We know this as Common Law
Marriage, and it's still legal in nine states. Churches had nothing to do
with it for centuries. It wasn't until 1563 that the Catholic Church
required a ceremony, witnesses and a registration for a marriage to be
recognized. In the Anglican realm, this didn't happen until 1753 and
didn't apply to the colonies. The US never had an official
church, so common law marriage remained the norm for many years until cities and
states began requiring civil marriage licenses.And that remains the
case. Churches may not, on their own, create legal marriages. American
marriage is purely a matter of civil law, licensed and recorded by a government
agency or by common law. It may be conducted in a church, but only if civil law
Live and let live! It is not the right of individuals from any certain religion
belief to disallow others to Same Sex Marriage! It would be like me getting mad
at you for eating a donut because I am on a diet!
Good thing Putin isn't in charge...we should be proud as Americans that in
our country we have a a constitution that protects freedom of assembly and free
speech. That does not mean that it is a majority opinion in Utah, or even in
California. Just because it is the law, doesn't make it moral.
mrjj69 wrote:"Gays do NOT need to be married. They can get the
same rights with a domestic partnership."Sir, would you be
willing to trade your marriage license for a domestic partnership certificate?
And if not, why do you think any gay couple should be content with one?
@Red Shirt " SSM is changing the definition of marriage from something
between man and woman to being whatever you want. As society cheapens marriage
through living together and SSM...."Where is your evidence to
support your claim that the sky is falling because of SSM? Do you know someone
that claims their marriage has been redefined or cheapened because someone else
just got married? If so, there marriage is already in trouble and not because of
same-sex couples and their marriages. We don't hold same-sex couples
accountable for the irrational actions of others in civil or criminal law, it
just is not rational to do so. If legal felon abuse civil
marriages are not redefining the institution of marriage to something less than,
I can assure you two loving same-sex couples in a stable married relationship
aren't going to "redefine" the institution of marriage either. In
fact, loving same-sex couples and their children on help to strengthen the
existing institution of marriage. Just like it did by allowing women to
participate in the traditional institution of voting, from a gendered
institution to a genderless institution, making it better.
did anyone out there supporting gay marriage even watch listen and learn from
general conference ?
@ 1 VoiceFrom the founding of the colonies through the early years
of the republic, civil authorities regulated marriage to foster stable
households, legitimate children and designate providers to care for dependents
who otherwise would become wards of the state. During the twentieth century, the
state and federal governments furthered these goals by granting many benefits to
married couples. For instance, Social Security survivor benefits and government
sponsored healthcare benefits are available to legally married couples, but not
unmarried partners. Foreclosing same-sex couples from obtaining these benefits
undermines the very aim of one of the central historical bases for civil
marriage, namely, family stability.For most, sexual orientation,
race and gender is not considered a choice, unlike religion and 3 some
relationships. Moreover, same-sex couples are also not advocating for harmful
and abuse in minor relationships. Relationships are more than
friendships. Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to a
persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones
(heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry
is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for
which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all.
@Redshirt1701: "If you take 1000 heterosexual couples and 1000 gay
couples..."About 5% of the population is Gay or Lesbian, so your
example is meaningless. However, artificial insemination would solve your
"problem" and the second generation would be 90% straight. So life would
go on."Next, go and read the book "Men are from Mars."
Men and women do communicate differently. However, I am mostly a guy
from Venus - reading that book helped me understand that, while I do have male
socialization, why I was always "one of the girls," not one of the guys.
Even as a kid I was more comfortable with my Aunts and girl cousins than my
Uncles and boy cousins. In my teen and young adult years I learned to negotiate
social and working relationships with men. This was a problem with my marriages
to women - I was always more "Venus" and it actually created
communication problems. @mrjj69 "First gays do NOT need to be
married. They can get the same rights with a domestic partnership." Not according to Amendment 3 in Utah and similar laws in other states.
mrjj69 - I can only guess that you have not been paying attention. It has been
ruled in courts at both the state and federal level that Civil Unions do NOT
grant the same rights, responsibilities and privileges of Marriage. In striking
down DOMA, the SCOTUS made it clear that Civil Unions are not equal to Marriage
and now that the federal government recognizes same-sex marriages, they have
made it clear that only those marriages have access to federal benefits and
Civil Unions do not.Marriage provides1,400+ state and federal
rightsRecognized worldwide Civil Union provides300+
state benefits and protectionsNo federal protectionNo guarantee of
protection outside the state that granted the union
First gays do NOT need to be married. They can get the same rights with a
domestic partnership. Second, if the majority of voters vote
against gay marriage.... why do the minority rule over everyone else??
After 48 years, I think that I am letting go! It hurts more than anything I
have ever felt, but I have to let go of a great wish! For years I have wished
that I could feel like I belonged among the people I grew up with1 I would often
think about how it would be if they could only believe that I deserved to be
there! I can't change my sexuality and I will not live a lie! I stayed here
and all of these years I have tried to live a good life! what do you do
when the people you love don't put much value on your life? This
isn't love! It isn't right either! We can't change the way people
feel! What hurts is how easily they tell us that we are unacceptable! I have
learned one good thing! I don't ever have to define anyone when it comes to
God! God will decide if they wil be in His Kingdom, not I! Why do people have
such a need to tear us down? We are better people than how people are treating
Homosexuality is no more a sin than is left-handedness(although this was once
thought to be sinful as well). It is merely a natural human variation. Gays deserve the same freedom to marry that straights have. It will not
affect current marriages, it will only add to the number of happy secure
families.Ten years from now we will all look back on this and wonder
what the hub bub was about.
@stand firm -- I completely agree with you in this sense. You should absolutely
stand firm and true to your beliefs and NOT enter into a gay marriage. I will
support you, everyone will support you. Stand firm on that and live according
to your values. But allow others to live according to their values. It
doesn't hurt YOU when someone else does something you don't like. You
are not burdened by hearing about or being aware of gay marriage. It
doesn't affect you or your marriage or your ability to keep your covenants
in any way. Please live true to your beliefs and let others live true to theirs.
To Jim and Meckofahess using Nazi Germany as a comparison to their
"rights" being denied by those advocating for same-sex marriage:Survivors of the Holocaust have specifically stated that comparing
current issues to the Holocaust and life under the Nazis is an exaggeration and
they find it offensive.The national director of the Anti-Defamation
League, Abraham H. Foxman, wrote in Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "It seems to
happen with greater regularity in American political debate today than ever
before: When anger reaches a fever pitch on a particular issue, out come the
inevitable comparisons to the Holocaust. It has become a rule of thumb, an
all-too convenient catchphrase of the times.""It diminishes
the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Wiesenthal
Center, an internationally known Holocaust studies center based in Los Angeles.
"Survivors and others are very upset about this. When you exaggerate,
it’s very harmful to them when they know that their mothers and fathers
were taken to the gas chambers without any recourse to the law. They lost
@ No H8 – CelebrateYou do seem confused. Have you read the LDS
proclamation on the family? The episcopal position on homosexuality
is admirable and correct. We should not persecute individuals for their sexual
tendencies. God loves them as much as he loves everyone else. However,
accepting that some people have same sex attraction doesn't mean we should
codify SSM into law any more than we should codify marriage for minors, polygamy
or bigamy as it is most likely is not in the best interests of society. Pedophile tendencies are real (they exist and are un-natural) but I
don’t think you or I would ever suggest we codify marriage between
pedophiles and consenting minors just to be fair to them, even if you believe it
is their constitutional right (I know minors can't consent by law even if
they think they can, its only an example). But how do you feel about three
consenting adults joining in marriage? I'm sure you wouldn't deny them
As the gay marriage decision hangs in the balance. I remind all of us that our
founding fathers stood for the rights of the people WE the people of Utah, have
the sovereign God Given right, we chose Amendment 3 for our safety and
happiness. We have the right to make this law and the courts should uphold the
law.“ …We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.… Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
powers from the consent of the governed, …. it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its
foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… ”
To "my_two_cents_worth" lets go through a little thought experiment so
that you can understand my statement better.Lets start with the
superficial. If you take 1000 heterosexual couples and 1000 gay couples and put
each onto an island and wait 100 years. Assuming that they are all 100%
faithful to their partners, which island will most likely still be populated?
First difference.Next, go and read the book "Men are from
Mars." There we learn about communication differences between men and
women. Much of it is a hardwired trait that your typical hetersexual couple has
to learn to overcome if they are to form a successful marriage.Another point to look is the emotional differences between men and women. Men
tend to be less emotional and women more emotional. Learning to deal with and
appreciate eachother is something that you only get in a heterosexual marriage.
If you have 2 men or 2 women, where the the counterbalance?As much
as you think it is equal, gay marriage is not the same as hetersexual
marriage.To "Baccus0902" I said nothing of children or 2
people being emotionally involved. I only stated SSM is not equal to HM.
@Thats what I thought:But there needs to be a rational basis for
those legal limits. To use one of your examples, there is a rational basis for
laws against marrying a minor: so adults cannot take advantage of children.The only basis behind banning same-sex marriage is animus against LGBT
@ Redshirt:"It doesn't matter how much you insist, a gay couple
can never have what a hetersexual couple has."I think you are wrong,
but for the sake of the conversation let's give you the benefit of the
doubt. "Can never have" it seems to me that what you implied is the
level and quality of feelings, children Right?If that is the case,
then your point is irrelevant. Here we are talking about the right of two
consenting adults to join their lives. That is all. They may succeed or they may
fail,but they should have their chance. Children??? Many of us have children and
we are not married. Can you imagine how many more children we could adopt if we
are allowed to marry?The irony of your argument is that most of our
children are adopted because of the failure of heterosexual couples.
Right is right and wrong is wrong! Loud, shrill voices and demonstrations do
not change what is morally right or wrong. In today's world, there is a
perception that if one side or the other is loud enough, they "win".
The only way to win is to do what is right! Whether the world sees it as a win
or loss, doesn't matter. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of
God. If you have a problem with that, you truly have a problem, and no amount
of demonstrating will make it right!
Our society makes determinations on what is based on what is best for our
society. I can buy any gun I want, as long as it is within the legal limits. I
can be any profession I want to be, as long as it is not prohibited by law.
Similarly, anybody can marry whoever they want, as long as it is within the
legal limits- not same sex, not closely related, not a minor, not a multiple
spouse. Also, society limits people's rights based on decisions or how they
were born. People are restricted from gun ownership based on how they were born
or decisions they make. People are restricted from voting based on their
decisions. If somebody is addicted to any drug, if they are born with
kleptomania, or any other variety of uncontrollable impulses, we don't say
they cannot help it, we just say that their acting on those impulses fully is
not allowed. Just because somebody wants to do something doesn't mean they
should be encouraged by society to do it.
Vanceone said, "Can anyone deny that the gay activists are out to force
everyone to their views?"Utah Constitutional Amendment 3. 1.Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a
woman.2.No other domestic union, however denominated, may be
recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal
effect. So who, exactly, is trying to force their views on whom?RedShirt said, "To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never be
equal to heterosexual marriage."It is where I live and in 16
other states across the nation. You can keep telling yourself differently but
that won't change reality. My opposite sex spouse and I are
celebrating our 31st year of marriage today and marriage equality here in
Washington has done absolutely nothing to diminish, destroy, or adversely affect
or "traditional marriage; the sky has not fallen.
I'm against this issue being decided by the courts - its a political and
moral issue, more than a legal issue.
Redshirt,Until YOU have had both relationships, please do not try
and judge what they are like. I was actually more like my husband than I am my
partner. We were best friends with many of the same likes and hobbies. I have
had to work harder in the same sex relationship to understand our expectations,
But I can assure you that the feelings and emotions are real and
deep. It has the missing ingredient that my marriage did not have. I know
which one I choose and why.You can believe what you want and look
down on me and feel that your relationship is better. That is your right. I
also have the right to feel differently and have a completely different
perspective than you ever will have. I know what is right for me.
Elder Perry said in the last General Conference that in this complexity what we
really need is more simplicity.Marriage was, once upon a time, a
religious and/or cultural ordinance. Depending on the religion, the laws behind
marriage was strictly enforced. In all cases, a man and a woman were involved,
with the end game of providing a protective netting over their children.Government came into play saying that marriages help construct the
State. Then the governments started adding benefits and different levels of
taxes on marriage. Some governments said you could only marry your own race or
to a specific race. Others claimed as married those who lived together for X
number of years. Then no fault divorce became legal. Now with same sex marriage
on the books you are going to complicate these laws even further.Keep it simple. Leave marriage to the cultural and religious institutions
with their rules for entering marriage. Get government out of marriage.
To "Lane Myer" like I said before. It doesn't matter how much you
insist, a gay couple can never have what a hetersexual couple has. You said
that you communicate well with your partner and some men. That is fine, but in
your relationship with your partner did you have to learn a new way of
communicating or was communication easy because you both spoke the same
language? Are you a couple with the women that you don't understand?
Since you obviously are not, how are you going to learn how to spend the rest of
your life with a person that is your opposite in so many ways? Your post shows
that you are taking the easy road and are with somebody similar to you. If that
works for you that is fine, just don't lie to me and tell me that what you
have is equal to a heterosexual marriage.To "Evidence Not Junk
Science" you do realize that SSM is changing the definition of marriage from
something between man and woman to being whatever you want. As society cheapens
marriage through living together and SSM, society suffers. Society is suffering
now more than ever.
The “simple” is that we should all obey God’s commandments. I
realize such a statement is applicable mainly to me as many others believe
differently than I do. Not everybody believes in a god nor do they visualize
their “higher power” in the same manner as I do. That’s not my
problem. I can’t “fix” them. I can barely fix me. I
can’t be held responsible for their decisions and/or actions. I can only
be the best person I can and let God sort it all out in the end. Which, of
course, He will.
On one hand, this is a VERY complex issue and there are no easy answers. On
another, it’s plain and simple. I would have to claim that I
don’t understand homosexuality and SSM. That being said, I have an acute
understanding that those persuasions do exist and in today’s environment,
need to be acknowledged, recognized and provided some sort of accommodation. I
would never dream of denying ANYONE the freedoms, rights, privileges and
opportunities provided by our great Constitution. I have friends and relatives
on both sides of the fence and have love and respect for them as people. They
need to be treated as such. While I may not agree with all of their choices
– regardless of their orientation – I can still accept them for who
they are – children of God.I think He is the same way. While
He refuses to look upon sin with the least amount of accommodation, He also
refuses to look upon His creations without love and wants us ALL to return home
– just as any good parent would. Nevertheless, He will hold us accountable
for our decisions, right or wrong. (more . . . .)
Utah will remain a clean state and marriage will be left up to the states, as it
should be.That is what is right and proper.
@ 1 VoiceI'm confused kindly explain which view should be
codified into civil law and why?1. "...The proclamation to the
world regarding LDS beliefs."OR2. "LGBT men and
young women will continue to be vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and
heterosexism, to the violence of hate and fear until we in the church can say to
homosexuals now what it has said to heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your
sexuality is good. The church not only accepts it. The church celebrates it and
rejoices in it. God loves you as you are, and the church can do no
less." - Episcopal 2014 Message to the World.
This article argues that the growing number of singles is one of the evidences
that marriage equality is really about destroying marriage altogether.This
begs the question, what do you want gay people to do with their lives?If
you don't want gay people to be single and you don't want them to be
married to each other, what do you want them to do? Do you want them to marry
opposite sex spouses? Or would you prefer that we all just didn't exist?
@ Red Shirt "...How does redefining one of the foundations of society
benefit gays?"Besides the family stability marriage and social
understanding, there are about 1100 state and federal benefits that come with
marriage. Spousal health insurance, pensions, social security, disability etc.
Importantly, there is simply no such thing as redefinition. How
does excluding people DEFINE marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude
spousal, child, drug and alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse
be a better definition? Moreover, excluding people for what most
consider immutable characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation)
does not define marriage either. Sky will fall, heterosexuals will
act differently because of gays, marriage will be "REDEFINED"
argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen
the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting
was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still
voting, no?How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is
now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can
legally civil marry? Nada, not a one. Redefinition is such a silly
unsupported claim to make, no? Kindly explain how excluding others defines
UT Brit, it’s not so much that I have not “studied the words of the
prophets” as it is that I was not in the MTC at the time you were (as was
the case for most people) and was not privileged to hear Elder Oaks speak.While you demonstrate a fair knowledge of gospel principles, your
obvious contempt of them belies your inspired understanding of them. The
concepts you propound – while correct in principle – are presented
so as to identify them as ridiculous. I don’t know what changed your mind
from embracing the gospel to holding it in such disregard but it seems to have
been quite effective.But that’s okay. You are allowed to think
what you want. Thoughts are still not entirely regulated - yet. I realize that
there is nothing I can to “prove” the folly of your contemptuous
attitude and over-generalizations of “truth,” so it would be foolish
to even attempt. It appears that we’ll have to leave that to He who is the
author of all truth.
@VanceoneYour post at 11:24 was the best and most accurate summation
of what legalized gay marriage really is all about. It is not the end goal of
SSM activists it is just a milestone.
REdshirt: "Your aunt was involved in a hetersexual marriage. Within their
marriage they most likely had the balance that can only occur when you have the
differences between a man and a woman. For example, the way a man communicates
is different than the way a woman communicates."----------Baloney! I was married to a man for 11 years. I have lived with my partner
for almost as long. Both relationships take communication, understanding, and
compromise. We are all different. Just because we are women does not mean that
we communicate the same way. There are many women that I just simply do not
understand. There are many men that I consider very good friends that I can
talk to about anything. I am sorry for you that you feel that all
women communicate the same and lump us all into two piles, but I can assure you
that men are not all the same and neither are women. That includes parenting,
interests, religion, etc. Celebrate the diversity within each group. Life is
not black and white, but many colors!
Sorry waikiki_dave if you are offended by my stating the fact that homosexuality
is un-natural. As a species, sexual attraction between a man and a women is
natural, and necessary, to propagate the species. Thus same sex attraction is
un-natural; not only for having children but, as research has shown and God knew
already, for raising children. Don’t get me wrong, this
doesn’t mean that I advocate persecuting homosexuals in any way. If
someone has a disposition toward same sex attraction I understand, to them it is
real and natural. I just believe that the institution of marriage is instigated
by God to fulfill his purposes for having us come to earth. Without an
understanding of the plan of salvation it would be hard for you to understand
why I value, support, and attempt to protect traditional marriage. If you are
interested please read The Family: a proclamation to the world regarding LDS
@babyR"Thank Heaven (literally) there are still enough righteous
people to oppose same-sex marriages and perhaps slow down the movement if not to
stop it entirely. "Fun fact: suggesting that people who disagree
with you aren't righteous is not a very good step in trying to get them to
agree with you. @hockeymom"Isn't that why States
should make laws based on the majority rule of the people in each state?"Except when it violates the Constitution. If say the majority of Utahns
voted to ban women from voting, that would be struck down as
unconstitutional.@That's what I thought"those who
support traditional marriage are publicly shamed by the media, labeled a
homophobe, told they are haters, bigots, ignorant, etc. "Not
exactly... those who actively seek to ban same-sex marriage are. Think of it
this way, you might notice that when it comes to a ban on female clergy that
there's virtually no outside pressure on churches even though there are
plenty of feminists and others who believe such a policy is sexist. It's
not so much having a view that attracts conflict, but trying to impose that view
Alan Simpson said, "Whether you're gay or lesbian or straight, if you
love someone and you want to marry them, marry them." What if the someone
you love is already married? The form of morality embraced in the past by the
majority of Americans says that you shouldn't marry someone who's
already married to someone else, and in fact that's against the law. But
that same form of morality says that you shouldn't marry someone of your
own gender. If we're going to defy one taboo, why not defy the other one?
I've said before that if someone were to propose a law that made it legal
for two or three adults of any gender combination to get married, I would
support that law. But I oppose legalizing same-sex marriage that doesn't
do anything about legalizing polygamy.
To "LDS Liberal" you say that you are "with Jesus, Joseph Smith and
the Pope on this one...Who am I to judge?"You do
know that the Pope is against gay marriage? You also know that just last
weekend we were told by Prophets that just because it is legal and socially
acceptable does not mean it is right. If God has said that something is wrong,
you are not judging if you reaffirm what has been said and say that it is wrong.
To "Sank You, Doctor" but you can never have the same thing that your
aunt. Your aunt was involved in a hetersexual marriage. Within their marriage
they most likely had the balance that can only occur when you have the
differences between a man and a woman. For example, the way a man communicates
is different than the way a woman communicates. Great marriages are formed as
they each learn to communicate in a common language. When 2 men are married
together, where does that learning go? Where is the learning that is a result
of uniting 2 opposites together come from? No matter how hard you try, you will
never experience the same thing that your Aunt did.To "Evidence
Not Junk Science" that is a nice rant, but you fail to address the issue.
How does redefining one of the foundations of society benefit gays? So far it
has caused open hostility between gays an the religious community. Marriage has
been redefined. It has gone from the union of man and woman to the union of 2
people that love eachother. That is a change, like it or not.
JSB - Well said...I voted against Ammednment 3. At the time I
believed that there should be no difference between straight and gay marriage.
However, the more I learned on this topic, I "evolved" to believe that
the two are in fact very different.I support civil unions. Secular,
legal rights should be provided equally. The problem is the attack on religion
that this issue has fostered. There is really no need for it. If true
"tolerance" were practiced we would never be where we are today.I will defend my religion, even unto death. That is what Christ
requires. In the US, I would never expect that to happen. Unfortunately for my
kids and grandkids, it very well may.
Oh nooo!!!! people is fighting for gay marriage!!!! horror!!!now all the
republican senators (and democrats also, hehe) are going to start having affairs
and destroy their families and carrers!!! even gay's affairs!!! now they
are going to try to "tap"their feet in public bathrooms to pick gay
partners!!! I knew that gay marriage was going to destroy straght people's
@gwtchd "if you love your sister marry her. If you love your mother and she
is single marry her. Or if your dad is single and you love him marry
him."Sexual orientation has been determined to be fundamental to
a persons identity and person-hood. A requirement to change someones
(heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual) sexual orientation in order to civil marry
is not only unreasonable, but un-constitutional. A right to marry someone for
which there is no attraction or desire of intimacy is no right at all. Current civil marriage law has a presumption of intimacy, a type of
relationship that is fundamentally different than the one you have with your
dad, sister or mother, where a legal family relationship already exists.
Same-sex couples through civil marriage establish the same family relationship
with the presumption of intimacy as opposite-sex couples.
I'm with Jesus, Joseph Smith and the Pope on this one...Who am
I to judge?
RE: Vanceone"Can anyone deny that the SSM proponents are out to
force everyone to their views?"Vance, the argument you present
can be used both ways and it's a week argument either way. Again I ask, how in any way are the Gay's forcing any one to accept their
views by wanting to get legally married? You can still disagree with SSM if
they are allowed to marry, you can still believe it's immoral, you can
still preach against it. All they want is the same ability you do to get
legally married. How dare you complain about forced views when your side has
been doing it for years. The simple fact we hare having this issue is proof of
that.Everyone has the right to believe as they wish but with that
said God did not put you here to be Judge, Jury and Executioner. I think God
said it best when he said "Let he who is without sin cast the first
stone.". God will be the judge not us.
@Red Shirt " By going after the term marriage they are seeking to redefine
the foudnation of society."How does excluding people define
marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and alcohol
abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition? Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable characteristics
(race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define marriage either.
Sky will fall, blaming Gays for the future actions of opposite-sex
couples and marriage will be redefined argumentation is honestly nonsense.
Allowing people to participate or strengthen the institution of marriage is not
"redefinition." Traditional voting was not "redefined" by giving
women the right to vote. Voting is still voting, no?How many folks
in any state where same-sex marriage is now legal, thinks their marriage has
been refined because someone else can legally civil marry? Nada, not a one. Redefinition is such a silly unsupported claim to make, no?
Conservatives love keeping people ignorant to maintain positions of power.
It's probably why they oppose funding education. Utah became a state after
the Civil War and twenty seven years after the 14th Amendment, which limited
state's rights, was ratified. You knew the rules when you became a state.
The 14th Amendment says that a state has to have good reason when denying one
group of people a right which the majority enjoys. Marriage is such a right as
declared multiple times by SCOTUS. In courts across America, those who would
deny marriage equality have not been able to put forth one coherent argument as
to why gay and lesbian citizens should not be afforded that right. Make no
doubt, the 14th Amendment, puts the burden of proof on them. In fact, when
burdened with the requirement of having to "tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth" in court, witnesses for the proponents of
"traditional marriage" have had to admit their actions harm LGBT
families and that the alleged threats to "traditional marriage" are
theoretical at best.
To those who claim the gay crowd is riotously infringing on your freedoms by
demonstrating legally to draw attention to their viewpoint.Let us
all remember a few things. The Supreme Court of this country has essentially
ruled that money is speech. When the California citizens voted on a ballot
measure to ban same sex marriage, hordes of cash (which is now considered free
speech) poured into the coffers of the anti-SSM campaigns. Much of that money
was from Utah at the behest of the LDS church leadership. Seems to me there was
a lot of riotous shouting going on back then, and it did not even concern
Utah.Therefore, it would appear that riotous speech is in the eye of
the beholder. Stop the hypocrisy on this issue. It demeans your faith, good
reason and humanity.
"1 Voice" "same sex attraction is an un-natural affection".That is probabaly one of the most disingenious and insulting statements
that I can think of that would motivate gay people and their friends to fight
like 'heck' for marriage equality. To complain that gays are using
'bully' tactics to fight for their rights, and in the same breath to
make a comment like that? If I said any more the DN probabaly wouldn't
publish my comment.
MyTwoCentsWorth, The funny thing about Christians quoting Leviticus 18:22 is
how much importance they claim to put on it, while fully ignoring all other
verses in the Book. Some are quite graphic and explicit and clearly intended to
be followed. The passages about menstruation particularly so, 15:19-30 and
20:18. Yet, there are no Christians today who don't immediately dismiss
these passages as irrelevant, simply because they find them inconvenient. We
need go no further to see the true worth that conservative Christians put in the
Book of Leviticus: None. Especially when it comes to their own sex lives and
hygiene, their clothing, their farming practices, their diets, treatment of the
dead or any of the other myriad nuts and bolts details that Leviticus
prescribes. One of the hundred or so prescriptions and 21 warnings
of "abomination" fits their purposes, so they're happy to quote
that one, but to what end and with what moral authority, when they clearly
ignore the rest of the Book, is beyond me.
CleetornElder Oaks told us in a talk he gave while I was at the
Provo MTC. His first wife died, he then married and was sealed to his second
wife. 1+1=2.They go on in our temples, a man may be sealed to more
than one woman. True there are only two in the sealing on the earth but in
heaven he is being sealed to more than one woman.I am aghast that no
one has studied the words of the prophets. The principles of godhood sound
pretty core to me.
@ Physics27 "Often If one speaks out in favor of traditional marriage one is
ridiculed and told how bigoted, rude, hateful, and ignorant they are. Maybe we
are not as loud anymore to try to avoid contention. I will try to speak up more
with kindness."@ 1 Voice "...doesn't mean our values
and morals should be dismissed in favor of a loud minority group who noisily
pushing an unjust agenda through social terrorism."-----How can Mormons speak up for traditional values? I've been watching the
free you tube movie "Prayers For Bobby" It shows how a faithful Mormon
woman can speak up and support religious beliefs, exactly like the Saints were
asked to do by Apostle Andersen during conference.
A friendly FYI for the people on this forum, the laws of the land, US
Constitution, are designed to distinctly protect the rights of the individuals
from oppression from the Government. These same laws protect the rights of
religious institutions to practice their beliefs without fear of prosecution or
persecution from their Government. Consenting adults who want to enter into a
marriage (a civil contract in the eyes of the Government), regardless of gender
are afforded these rights under the Constitution, which will be upheld by SCOTUS
within the next 18 months. There is a clearly defined separation of church and
state in this country, defined by the Constitution and supplemented by the
Jeffersonian papers, which is designed to protect the rights of religious
organizations, their followers, and the rights of the individuals.
When it comes to marriage equality, gay people have been waiting for centuries
to finally shed their second class citizen status. They should be allowed to
cheer, celebrate and make all of the noise they want!
Redshirt: "To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never be equal to
heterosexual marriage. No matter how you define things or wish it to be, two
gays that are married will never be equal to a hetersexual couple. If gays want
the legal benefits of marriage, they should be fighting to have a separate term
included in the law. By going after the term marriage they are seeking to
redefine the foudnation of society."----------As a
gay person, I just want the same marriage that my aunt had at 66. She was not
supposed to have any children, but to have a marriage that brought her joy and
companionship. I do feel that any marriage that I may have would be equal to
hers. Can you tell me how it would be different? Please just grant me the same
legal rights and privileges that she received with this marriage. REdshirt, you can gloat and believe that you are better than my aunt and I,
but as long as we are both treated equally under the law, I don't care what
In other news, recent research out of California has indicated that when
same-sex marriage supporters and same-sex marriage opponents get together and
talk to one another, views are changed - of course, those changes are support
for same-sex marriage by those who previously opposed it and the changes are
greater if the same-sex marriage supporter is an LGBT individual - but
communication is effective for changing minds.Plans to encourage
local opponents of same-sex marriage to carry on conversations with supporters
of same-sex marriage may just backfire.Oh - and the reason the
same-sex marriage crowd is louder is because there are more of them.The biggest mistake opponents made was fighting for Prop 8 - it exposed the
shaky foundations of the anti-same-sex marriage propaganda machine and
highlighted the humanity of same-sex couples. The up slant of the hockey stick
shift in support of same-sex marriage can be tied directly to public awareness
of the lack of real arguments against same-sex marriage. Even many religious
people who think homosexuality is a sin believe civil marriage should be allowed
for same-sex couples.
I used to be more sympathetic with the plight of homosexuals. I have always had
friends who were homosexual. I'm presently helping a homosexual friend find
a job. But I do have reservations about the long-term negative social effects of
gay marriage since I believe that biologically we are a heterosexual pair
bonding species and we should stay that way. For having this concern I have been
attacked as a mean spirited, homophobic bigot. If I think gay men should not go
into women's restrooms, I'm a mean spirited homophobic bigot. I think
it would be very unwise and place young boys at risk to have homosexual boy
scout leaders. Again, the noble homosexuals brand me as a mean spirited
homophobic bigot.I'll still try to help my homosexual friend
find a job. But, that doesn't mean I appreciate being branded as a mean
spirited homophobic bigot because I think that some of the things some
homosexuals are trying to force into our society are unwise. The more they try
to force their agenda on me, the less support I have for them.
Being loud and proud, getting people fired who don’t share your values
morals or opinions, bulling people to get your way may be great social terrorism
tactics but they are not right and they won’t make you right with God.
Wickedness never was happiness. No supporters of traditional
marriage are not noisy; that doesn't mean our values and morals should be
dismissed in favor of a loud minority group who noisily pushing an unjust agenda
through social terrorism.
SSM will likely become law, but not because it’s a good idea or morally
right but because a minority group of very loud people are good at pushing their
agenda through bully tactics and blurring the issue. Certainly same
sex attraction happens, but it is an unnatural affection. Advocates know it is
not natural but they have gained the status of protected minority because they
were discriminated against; they now use that status as a weapon to
discriminate, bully and harm those who disagree with their values and morals in
an attempt to get their way. Advocates of SSM say its only fair but
its not about rights or equality. Society makes laws that protect the morals
and norms of society. We restrict marriage to two individuals (a man and a
women, not a minor, not your sister your daughter or your mom) because it is the
best way to raise children. No, traditional marriage isn’t
always perfect and doesn’t always works out but traditional marriage is
the best way; God says so, I believe him.
Reading through the comments, it is amazing to see the "tolarant" people
attacking anybody who does not believe in gay marriage. Don't you see the
harm that this is causing to society by attacking people who have a different
opinion?To "ordinaryfolks" the problem is that things have
moved so far to the left that whe you refuse to eat the piece of pie, the people
don't rally around Aunt Betty. Aunt Betty is now attacked and ridiculed
for even bringing a pie that not everybody could eat. They shame her into never
bringing a pie again.To "CHS 85" but gay marriage will never
be equal to heterosexual marriage. No matter how you define things or wish it
to be, two gays that are married will never be equal to a hetersexual couple.
If gays want the legal benefits of marriage, they should be fighting to have a
separate term included in the law. By going after the term marriage they are
seeking to redefine the foudnation of society.
Can anyone deny that the gay activists are out to force everyone to their views?
I comment on some conservative sites, and we have various liberals telling us
that it is "inevitable" that soon we will be prosecuting people for
child abuse who "teach hatred" of gays. Since "hatred of gays"
is currently defined as disagreeing with them, it is clear that same sex
marriage is just the beginning. Already in England there are gays suing to be
married in a church wedding. There are pastors being arrested for teaching from
the Bible. Canada did that too. It's coming here. Same Sex
marriage is just a step on the path to criminalizing Christianity. I stand
against the gay activists now, rather than later. After all, didn't they
swear that civil unions was all they wanted? That they wouldn't ever force
people to do anything? Mozilla's CEO, various bakers, photographers, etc
can all testify that yes, the gay activists very much intend to force their
views on all of us, and they do not believe in freedom to disagree.
Did Gayle just say they were having a work shop on how to train their supporters
to deal with the media? Gayle if it walks like a Duck and squawks like a Duck
it is a Duck. No amount of training or elegant words are going to change the
fact you and your supporters are on the wrong side of history.I will
tell you this. I do like your "Staying Out Of The Media" strategy.
It's been nice not having to see you and I think it's the best option
for your cause.
Simpson said: "if you love someone and you want to marry them, marry
them," Simpson says in the 30-second spot."So if you are a Male
and you love your brother marry him. If you love your sister marry her. If you
love your mother and she is single marry her. Or if your dad is single and you
love him marry him. Same goes for you if you are a girl. Common
sense says that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Many of the posters here today have indicated that they are afraid to stand up
for "traditional marriage" for fear of losing their jobs. I have to ask:
have you been asked to not wear your wedding rings at the work place? Have you
been told that your family photo has no business being in the workplace? Has
your opposite sex life's partner been denied coverage under your company
medical plan? Has it been suggested that you introduce your spouse as your
"good friend" at company social gatherings? Do others in the work place
talk about you behind your back, referring to you as "one of those
types?" Do GLBT co-workers remind you routinely that you are living in sin
and doomed to hell if you don't change? Are you constantly reminded that
it's "Adam and Steve, not Adam and Eve?" If "no" then your
"persecution" is as much make-believe as the argument that SSM threatens
traditional marriage. For the record, "defending traditional
marriage" is not synonymous with beating your fellow human beings over the
head with Leviticus 18:22.
UT Brit, polygamy may be an “eternal principle” but it is hardly a
“core principle.” And it while it may go “on today in
temples,” NONE of those temples are LDS. While “sealings go on
daily” in LDS temples, they are limited to one man and one woman, not
multiples thereof. Also, I would like to know where you found your reference
that “Elder Oaks is sealed to two women.”Demiurge, you
“suggest you give being gay a chance for a few weeks.” Your proposal
is laughable at best. I don’t need to get hit in the head with a baseball
bat or take illicit drugs to know that they’re not good for me.
To: North of Here"Wait, you mean someone (Mozilla CEO) was
discriminated against for supporting their beliefs? We didn't see that one
coming. This will only get worse from here on out. Its tyranny under the guise
of human rights?"Gay people have been loosing their jobs for
hundreds of years for being gay. I personally think that no one should loose
their job on either side. I love how you say it is "tyranny" now but
when the gays were getting persecuted you didn't mind. You can't have
it both ways.
@truthistruth"Currently, woman can be sealed to more than one
husband"My blue church handbook of instructions for Bishops and
Stake Presidents says otherwise. A woman can be sealed to one man, a man may be
sealed to any number of women. What does your handbook say?"I do
not believe it is an eternal principle"If you had said this when
Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were around you would have been
excommunicated."Obviously the holy practice [of polygamy] will
commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of
the millennium." - Bruce R McConkiePlease read up on the
subject, you obviously need to turn to the teachings of the prophets and the
scriptures if you dont think polygamy is not an eternal principle.
@Vince Ballard: so well spoken. I, too, was anti-gay marriage until I had a
precious cousin - who I love very much- who came "out" as gay and
married the love of his life. Another gay man. My love for them is pure and
unconditional. I love them and feel like they had no choice how they came to
earth; they were made by the same loving Father who created us all. Who are we
to judge Father and his creations? HE loves us all; even those who judge
unfairly. You can BET you have gays in your own family; you just don't know
it yet. Mind your own business; and clean your own house. We'll all be
better off, that way. God bless us all as we travel this confusing earthly life.
Those of you who follow the doctrines of the LDS church please read D&C
49:15 And again, verily I say unto you, that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not
ordained of God, for marriage is ordained of God unto man. @bj-hip LDS
doctrine teaches nothing about eternal families being destroyed if same-sex
marriages are allowed. The LDS church recently apologized for their servants
teaching incorrect concepts regarding race and the priesthood "None of these
explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church." IMO, God wants you to think for yourself and minister to and support all
Meckofahess, you use Nazi Germany to support your rights. Gay people were
executed and tortured while people with your attitude that you were
"right" were allowed to survive and in most cases be the kind of people
that persecuted those other minority groups. You are not losing any
freedoms nor have you been placed in concentration camps and executed for the
way you were born.
The traditional marriage proponents are staying quiet because the moment they
make any "noise" they are accused of bigotry by so-called progressives,
some of whom have shown themselves to be intolerant of opposing viewpoints
(remember the vandalism and picketing/boycotting of businesses in the aftermath
of Prop 8 passage?). Also, I think many conservatives have conceded that gay
marriage nation-wide is inevitable, so why fight it.
OreoBetty CrockerLevi’sCheeriosAmerican ApparelWalt Disney WorldStarbucksWheatiesTideMicrosoftThe Home DepotPampersPepsiSafewayOld NavyGirl
ScoutsMacy’sTargetJCPWalgreensFordGapCrestPillsburyGeneral MillsProctor and GambleThis is a list of companies and products targeted by religious and
conservative groups for boycott and letter writing campaigns for their support
of LGBT rights. To all here claiming the 1st amendment has been destroyed by
Google’s business decision taken to prevent loss of market share and
prevent damage to their corporate image I say your “indignation” is
both hollow and hypocritical. As they say, “what is good for the goose is
good for the gander.”
As a married (over 30 years!) heterosexual Christian who regularly attends
worship, serves on committees and is intimately involved in the life of our
denomination, would someone care to explain to me what my wife and I stand to
lose if marriage equality is extended to gay and lesbian couples?Our
denomination happens to support marriage equality, but supposing it didn't,
what would happen? No government can require us to change our teachings or our
opinions, nor our speech. No government can require us to perform any rites or
admit any members. Just like we condemn people for greed, for pillaging the
earth, for selfishness, for hubris, we could continue to condemn them for
anything else that becomes perfectly legal.If you're a Mormon,
and same-sex marriage is legalized in your state, nothing has been
"forced" upon you. You're free to continue your teachings, your
religious practice, your marriages, and your everyday lives just as if nothing
happened. You can still criticize, condemn, or ostracize your apostate
neighbors, if that's how you feel.So, I don't understand
what's at stake for you in this "fight" you're waging.
I think perhaps we see a similarly cynical approach to political campaigning.
Coin a catchy slogan that diverts attention from issues and ideals. Show
everyone heartfelt endorsements rather than presenting objective discussion.
This methodic duplicity appears to be rather effective in winning public
approval and popularity. How unfortunate that such efforts so seldom seem able
to stand on serious consideration of their own merits.
@hockeymom"why can't society/law just pass some kind of
other word for SSM i.e.: "Commitment Union" that would offer the same
legal benefits for same sex partners, without trying to demand that society call
what they do "marriage"?"So you advocate for
"separate but equal?" What could possibly go wrong with that?
I love the idea that part of the defense of Amendment 3 is that it should be
upheld because it had strong public support and overturning it would lead to
civil and religious unrest - but when it is pointed out that the majority of
Americans (and half of Utahns) support same-sex marriage the defenders of
Amendment 3 want to argue that public opinion should not matter.For
those of you who think civil unions should be a viable alternative: Ten years
ago you voted to prohibit those also and Utah cannot have them while Amendment 3
stands. You created the all or nothing situation that you are currently dealing
with and once Amendment 3 is struck down, there will be no going back and
rewriting it.@ Lone Eagle: "Please redefine the color blue while
you are at redefining marriage." Poor choice - blue is defined as visible
light in the Spectral coordinates of Wavelength 450–495 nm and Frequency
~670–610 THz. Humans have identified at least 60 varying shades, tints,
or hues within these coordinates - yet they are all considered "blue."
There is no need to redefine blue, and there is no need to redefine marriage.
Noise yes, but no truth.
@ UT BritLondon, EnglandThis probably shouldn't have
turned into a polygamy discussion, but this guys comment really rubbed me wrong.
In response:"For there shall not any man among you have save it be
one wife..." This is the rule, polygamy was an exception at times, and I do
not believe it is an eternal principle. Currently, woman can be sealed to more
than one husband, so is polyandry an eternal principle? I do not know, perhaps
God has allowed that before too.
@ MeckofahessFreedom of speech does not mean freedom from
consequences. He was allowed to share his opinion. Unfortunately his opinion
was at odds with a large number of people who are very passionate for their
cause, and it potentially cost his company a lot of money. Therefore he lost
his job. If he came out in support of legislation that discriminated against or
somehow disadvantaged Mormon's (which he has the right to do), he would
face similar consequences; and rightfully so.
@VanceoneProvo, UTWell said good citizen!. We are with you in
what you said 100% - and we are MANY! Lets keep the faith and stand up for our
freedoms and rights against the traditional marriage and straight haters who
would take our religion, our rights and out chidren away from us!
@ Ranch and Noodlekaboodle:Glad we gaught your attention. We will
not sit still while those of your ilk continue to trample on our constitutional
rights and freedom of speech. Let the cultural wars begin!
@HockeyMom: You say, "Since marriage between a man and a woman is ordained
of God, and it's primary function is intended for the bringing forth of
children..."I've read Utah's marriage laws.
Thoroughly. It doesn't say what you think it says. There's nothing
in there about God or children.If the function of marriage is to
bring forth children, then it's a complete failure. Fully 41% of children
are now being born without benefit of marriage, so marriage clearly has nothing
to do with sex, insemination, pregnancy or childbirth. That's the plain
and simple reality of it.To put it another way, biology makes
babies, marriages do not. States make marriages, not babies. (Nor do States
require marriages to produce babies.) When you are deciding who can get
married, you're not deciding who can make babies. You're also not
deciding who can adopt babies. Adoption law is separate.The
"natural children" argument is merely an ex-post-facto rationalization
for your anti-gay laws. It's not mentioned in the law itself.
@ DemiurgeCertainly most people who engage in homosexual behavior consider
those feelings to be "natural" because they feel them. For lack of a
better analogy .... I sometimes have a "natural" urge to gouge out my
husband's eyes.... but I don't for a variety of reasons. ;) If it
became legal that all wives who "naturally" want to gouge out their
husbands eyes could do so, there would be a lot of blind husbands! Accepting an
activity as "natural" increases the likely hood that people will
"try it" who might not otherwise have. Look at the drug and sexual
revolution of the '60's - "if it feels good, do it". You
can't tell me a myriad of social ills did not come out of that.
Just a reaction to the headline: Possibly because those who support traditional
marriage are in a no-win situation. If we support traditional marriage, it must
mean we hate everything else, which is not true. If we say anything about it, we
get shouted down and told we're biased and again, hate everything, which
again, is not true.
"Live and let live"- Let the majority of America live it's
traditional values of heterosexual marriage. Let those who choose homosexuality
live the way they choose. That is freedom and that is fair. But don't try
to force acceptance through the courts, or force a change in values by changing
The headline "Same-sex marriage advocates making more noise than traditional
marriage supporters" seems rather slanted.A more neutral and
accurate headline would be "Same-sex marriage advocates more visible and
outspoken than advocates of banning same-sex marriage."
And Nixon's "Silent Majority" will continue to remain silent until
their silence is no longer a choice. Oh wait a second, let's ask Brenden
Eich about what happens if you support traditional marriage. This article is a
no-brainer: those who support traditional marriage are publicly shamed by the
media, labeled a homophobe, told they are haters, bigots, ignorant, etc. and
they don't show up as much as the people who are celebrated for showing up.
You can have any view in this country, as long as it's the view that the
vocal minority approves of. Tolerance only goes one way here.
@EliyahuInteresting point. Isn't that why States should make laws
based on the majority rule of the people in each state? The problem we had
recently was a judge from Colorado deciding what should happen in Utah. I would
suspect those wanting Shariah Law in Utah are way in the minority. I would
expect that if I travelled to another part of the globe, I'd be expected to
abide by the laws of that country or state while I am there.
Here's some quiet "noise" on behalf of traditional
marriage---it's TRADITIONAL because God so intended it to be that way. For
a God-loving state, I'm ashamed to admit that we now live fully in the
"world" of which we've been counseled by God's spokesmen
(Prophets) not to be a part. Thank Heaven (literally) there are still enough
righteous people to oppose same-sex marriages and perhaps slow down the movement
if not to stop it entirely. I personally prefer to live in a world with
traditional families who strive to uphold God's laws. Perhaps I'll
change my mind when men and women in same-sex marriages begin to have babies and
fulfill God's most compelling law--"multiply and replenish the
I think one reason people are quiet is the fair amount of ambivalence harbored
by most of us who know a gay or lesbian family member. It has also become
increasingly apparent that being gay is not a choice, nor the result of some
sort of sin. This of course, puts the L.D.S. Church in an awkward position,
considering some past mistakes and ill advised comments by church leaders in the
past. This has also been unsettling to many members, thus the silence. This is
probably the greatest crisis faced by the Church today, and I don't know
how the current leadership can correct it.
The many commenters that claim we are entering a new Nazi era (because of same
sex marriage) have really got to get a grip on reality. Saying that your free
speech and religious freedom is being assaulted by SSM advocates is hyperbole
as best, and bullying at worst.My favorite analogy to this line of
anti SSM thinking goes like this. At our family reunions, Aunt Betty drags out
her apple pies and insists that everyone have a slice ( it was her mother's
specialty). If I refuse this offer, I become persona non grata. I am made to
feel like the proverbial illegitimate child at the family reunion. I become the
metaphorical Nazi, even though I can not eat the pie for medical reasons. I
have gone against the grain for reasons having nothing to do with this desert.
Being a minority in any situation is uncomfortable. When you are in
the majority, it is easy to bully the minority. The vast majority of people are
heterosexual, and in the majority of the world still bully homosexuals. What
universe do people live in that they do not understand this?
Since marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and it's
primary function is intended for the bringing forth of children and
homosexuality isn't - why can't society/law just pass some kind of
other word for SSM i.e.: "Commitment Union" that would offer the same
legal benefits for same sex partners, without trying to demand that society call
what they do "marriage"? Same sex couples cannot bring forth children,
that's a fact. A long term same sex couple should have access to rights
relevant to civil issues such as taxes, beneficiaries of wills, mortgages, etc.
which I think they already have. Why is this not satisfactory for the same sex
@JJ1094"Why all the fuss, should we really adopt any laws that
are contrary to God's laws?"Which God's laws? The
ones Mormons accept? The ones Baptists accept? The ones Catholics accept? The
ones Jews accept? Or the ones accepted by Islam? My religion holds that God
has forbidden us to eat pork or shellfish, to mix meat and dairy in the same
meal, to charge interest to our fellow Jews, to light a fire on the Sabbath, and
many other things which are perfectly legal under civil law. Shouldn't we
have laws to prohibit people from doing any of those things? Muslims would like
to see Shariah law become the law of the land -- a law which would impose
incredible restrictions on non-Muslims and make Christian missionary efforts a
crime. What makes the religious laws you believe in any more compelling than
those of other religions? This is the unspoken problem when people
advocate for more religion in government and schools: they assume it will be
their own religion that is adopted and haven't considered the possible
consequences if it's the religion of someone else instead.
I don't think it is anyone elses business who chooses to love whom. If YOU
are guilty of judging others then you have failed miserably at following HIM- He
who "judged" not. Shame on you. It isn't your place to agree or
disagree one way or the other with gay or hetero marriage. It is between the
couple and the Lord. Not the couple and YOU.
@hockeymonYes, the human race is in dire danger of not perpetuating.
Also, if you think most people have any choice in the matter of their
orientation I suggest you give being gay a chance for a few weeks. I know it was
no choice in my case to be hetero - I've known I like girls since the 1st
I will admit my support of Prop. 8 was based on supporting my church leaders
though I didn't understand the full context as to why.Seeing
what has happened over the past few years to religious liberty including the
lawsuits against bakers, photographers etc. it is starting to make more sense.
@ DemiurgeThere is so much more at stake here than just government
benefits. The statistics on the health of society and children in general,
birth rates and perpetuating the human race are lower when "marriage between
a man and a woman" is not the norm. Read "Stand for the Family" by
Sharon Slater for some very frightening statistics on this! She makes the point
that the "loudest" ones get heard, and right now it's the gay
right's activists. Unspeakable damage is happening to society because of
this "anything goes" mentality. The more "accepted" SSM
becomes, the more people who might not otherwise have gone in that direction
will. It is the "politically correct" thing to do to support it, and
even experiment or engage in activities against our nature.Those who
oppose SSM need to get as loud about it as those who support it!
Although I don't support the things the acts of the LGBT community, I will
always love them as brothers and sisters in God's eyes. Let's work to
meet each other half way instead of bashing on each other because of differing
Interesting. Advocating for fair treatment of gays and lesbians, and allowing
them to marry their mutually chosen partners of the same gender, is just
"noise," is it?Whereas advocating for continuing
discrimination against their personhood and individual liberty, is what,
righteous religious crusading?I understand a yearning for equality
among all men and women.I don't understand an expressed desire
to prevent that. Who benefits? Why do some religious communities feel that
allowing equality is a personal affront to them? What do they plan to do with
their own gay children? Just like secular communities, the birthrate of gay
children to religious communities is about the same*. Jesus was for
equality. Jesus was for accepting outcasts back into society. Anyone who
counts themselves as a Christian should at least consider those words of
Jesus.__________*(The science is still developing, but initial
evidence seems to show that the rate of homosexuality may rise as the number of
births to one mother rises. Speculation surrounds maternal antibodies and
placental hormone levels. This may even be a natural mechanism to slow
population growth in high-birthrate populations.)
Why the loaded headline - Gay marriage "advocates" vs. traditional
marriage "supporters"? "Advocates" sounds radical, disruptive.
"Supporters" sounds wholesome, good. And yet we are led to believe the
media has a liberal bias.
Why all the fuss, should we really adopt any laws that are contrary to
God's laws? Note: all majority faiths (some even characterizing God a
little differently) around the world know the difference between right and wrong
when it comes to sexual relations.
I support traditional marriage 100%, one man & one woman.
They are a "noisy" lot for sure. And, like most situations, loudness
does not demonstrate either civility or correctness.
The Eagle Forum and religion should stay the heck out of law.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is the "swing vote" on the U.S. Supreme Court.
He has already stated that he is influenced by public opinion. It is his belief
that "the people decide". That is why he is an advocate of states'
rights. It is his belief that each state should be able to set their own
standards. This didn't work out so well in California with Prop 8. The
idea of declaring controversial ideas as civil rights issues is a very dangerous
precedent. I have no problem with accepting gay marriage. However, this is
basically a civil issue for the rights of federal benefits. The problem will
come when liberals with these precedents in hand come to enforce their agenda on
the churches. Charles Krauthammer has stated even on Fox News that the tide
appears to be toward the acceptance of gay marriage. However, it is a vital
opinion that the people of each state need to allow the gradual movement toward
such instead of a violent forcing on the part of the legal system. Without a
doubt, the teaching profession has had a lot to do with this controversy.
The gay activists I know are starting to make noises about making it an act of
child abuse to say or teach anything "bigoted" about homosexuality.
Including, and specifically, any sort of religious teaching that homosexuality
is wrong. They want to make it child abuse to read the Bible, take your kid to
church, or do anything to raise your kid in a moral fashion.Since
child abuse means you lose your kids, this is a new and troubling development.
Short answer to "Why are you against same sex marriage?": Because the
gay activists want to fire me, close down my business, persecute me for hate
speech, desecrate my religious institutions, and take my children away.
Isn't that a good enough reason?
What we're seeing is that denying basic rights to a certain group of people
for no good reason is unpopular. Furthermore, jurist after jurist is concluding
that it is unconstitutional. "Promoting traditional marriage", which
sounds fine by itself, is just propaganda for forbidding gay people from getting
married. If "traditional marriage" proponents are quiet, I would hope
it is because they are realizing that their position is indefensible. Being gay
is legal and having gay relations is legal everywhere in the country. In this
position what possible defense can there be for forbidding gay people from
getting married? (I hear silence, irrelevancies, and the thumping of bibles,
but little else.)
Wait, you mean someone (Mozilla CEO) was discriminated against for supporting
their beliefs? We didn't see that one coming. This will only get worse from
here on out. Its tyranny under the guise of human rights.
@Pete1215"In heterosexual marriage, the couple used to make a
public announcement that they were a couple, and thus no longer on the meat
market. With man-man marriage, the sex-partners-per-year count is not expected
to drop. So marriage is losing its original point."Please
provide some type of scientific research (or any research) to back this claim
up. I would like to read it.
My Webster Dictionary defines "gay" = given to social pleasures; also :
licentious in addition to "cheerful and bright" and "straight" =
lying along or holding to a direct or proper course or method, properly ordered
or arranged. Before we change the definition of marriage, maybe we should
define who we are. Who are you?
@Parry's Power Guide"Let's put this issue to a vote.
Oh wait, we already did that."While we're at it, let put
all civil rights up for a vote. After all, mob rule is what our country is all
bj-hp,I agree with what you're trying to say, but I would add a
friendly correction.The eternal family will not be destroyed./////The established practice and acceptance of family may
be destroyed in the world. But eternal bonds will not be. What God seals cannot
be broken.Really, in the end... any other "marriages",
contracts, or bonds entered into won't last. Eternal families are the only
thing that will remain. Another reason this entire issue is folly.
@Jim, MeckofahessWhat did you expect? Your mad now that the shoe is on the
other foot, but this has been happening to gay people decades. Who do you think
gets fired more for what they believe, Christians or gay people? When
you've oppressed and marginalized a group, who finally gains the power of
public opinion what did you think was going to happen?
Once again the silent majority are quiet, maybe you don't see the really
big picture of what is happening because of your silence. The majority are
suffering because they do not speak up. If those that believe this wrong along
with all the other wrongs being perpetrated upon this nation in the name of
politically correctness let your voices be heard stop buying the products of
those that advertise and cut off the money from those forces of destruction and
you will see how fast they will change. The cash is what talks. No matter how
right or wrong something is if your silent you are condoning the wrong. Speak up
people let your voices be heard, not in violence but in standing boldly for
@Jim & I Know It: I agree. Also, I am actually working everyday and wonder
how these same-sex advocates find time to demonstrate all the time.
@george of the jungle;Allowing LGBT marriages isn't going to
affect the number of future tax-payers in the least. Aren't you guys the
ones who continually point out that two people of the same-sex "can't
produce babies"? @Jim & Meckofahess;Neither of
you had a problem when the Constitutional rights of LGBT people were being
trampled; you were warned that when you violate someone elses Constitutional
rights, yours also went up for grabs (but your First Amendment rights to free
speech are still intact, so are the potential consequence).@rhappahannock;No conflict here.@III;That
"iron rod" of bigotry you're holding so tightly is all rusty and
corroded.@Spellman789;Not trying to persuade you.
Don't care what you believe one way or the other.@Stormwalker
;Very well said!@Physics27;It isn't
speaking out "in favor of traditional marriage" that gets you called a
bigot, it's the "I am against the idea that traditional and gay
relationships should be treated equally by the government." that does it.bj-hp says: "The eternal family will be destroyed if same-sex
marriage becomes law ..."-- Oh good grief!
As someone who support gay marriage, I agree that people who voice anti-gay
marriage views should not feel like they may lose their job over it. I'm
appalled that the Mozilla guy lost his job over this.Now consider
those who voice opposition to the LDS Church. I have read comments from people
who say they will refuse to do business with anti-Mormons. First of all,
it's unfair to label someone an anti-Mormon if they oppose the religion.
To the point, if someone is being civil but direct about their opposition to the
LDS Church, including what they believe to be false teachings, that person
should not be subject to losing their job or losing their business connections.
It goes both ways. Practice the golden rule. If you don't like that
others have made someone lose their job over the gay rights issue, don't do
the same with respect to those who raise their voice in opposition to your
well you could stick your neck out in favor of traditional marriage but you
might get spit on or lose your job, I kinda need my job.I wonder if
they will call it gay divorce or traditional divorce....
It's not a zero-sum game where someone has to lose in order for another
person to win. No one is arguing against "traditional" marriage. What
people are asking for is that civil marriage include same-sex couples as well as
opposite-sex couples, nothing more. It doesn't affect my marriage or yours.
We're still just as married as we were years ago, and
"traditional" marriages will continue to have the same horribly high
divorce rate as always. The First Amendment will remain intact and your church
won't have to perform gay marriages any more than it has to perform other
marriages that are contrary to doctrine. The only difference is that gay
couples and their children will have the same legal protections and obligations
as the rest of us do. The sun will rise and set each day as the earth continues
to spin on its axis, and life will go on.
People keep saying that Gay marriage is about "love". Really? It seems
to me it's about sex. Does the modern definition of love now mean that you
have sex together? Can parents be considered to love their children under this
new definition? Can children love their parents? Can you love your siblings or
a very close friend or relative under this new definition? Can two people of
the same sex be in love and not have sex? I would say that there is nothing
unnatural with two people of the same sex loving each other, but engaging in a
sexual relationship crosses a line that nature didn't intend.
I can certainly agree that there's more -noise- involved. If you
don't openly support changing marriage to focus on two adults' sexual
desires rather than joining and extending families, that very noise brands you
with a bunch of vulger names and threats.
The arguments put forth by people who have some type of animus toward gay people
reek of the same comments people put forth to justify discrimination against
interracial marriage.How did that work out for proponents of
discrimination toward interracial marriage?
In heterosexual marriage, the couple used to make a public announcement that
they were a couple, and thus no longer on the meat market. With man-man
marriage, the sex-partners-per-year count is not expected to drop. So marriage
is losing its original point.
I am alarmed by the concept put forth by the advocates for same-sex marriage
that courts have an easier time deciding things when the winds of public opinion
are in their sails. That concept would mean that interpreting the law is more
influenced by the whims of the public than by what the law actually says and
does. A logical extension of that concept means that law really has not meaning
and that courts can do what ever they please as long as "public opinion"
supports it. That is not law! That is tyranny! That means that if the public
believes it is appropriate to take things from one group and give them to
another then the courts/legislators should do just that! Can no one see where
that kind of thinking leads? It means that no one has any rights, divinely
given or otherwise! It means your right to property, your freedom of religion
@A RunYou will find that polygamy is an eternal principle and a core
doctrine of the church. It still goes on today in temples. A man can be sealed
to more than one woman and the sealings go on daily. Elder Dallin H Oaks is
sealed to two women.
Let's put this issue to a vote. Oh wait, we already did that. Judge in
Colorado 1, Utah voters 0. So much for having your voice heard.
@rappahanock " don't think that any argument regarding pheromones has
been made in courts of law. It is information that the gay community would like
to suppress."Every major professional organization in this
country whose focus is the health and well-being of children and families has
reviewed the data on outcomes for children raised by lesbian and gay couples,
including the methods by which the data were collected, and have concluded that
these children are not disadvantaged compared to children raised in heterosexual
parent households. Organizations expressing support for parenting, adoption,
and/or fostering by lesbian and gay couples include (but are not limited to):
American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
American Psychoanalytic Association, American Psychological Association, Child
Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, and the
Donaldson Adoption Institute. Representatives of the American Psychological
Association unanimously voted in favor of issuing a position statement that
research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological
well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the
children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual
parents to flourish.
More 'noise'? I guess objectivity isn't important, eh?
This canard about Mozilla's CEO seems to be the most disingenuous
discussion yet. For every anti-gay marriage advocate afraid to speak out, there
are dozens of Alan Simpson-like folks who would love to say "live and let
live." Yet they sit quietly through meeting after meeting while gay people
they love are castigated. The intimidation flows both ways, and many
tears are shed in private by Utah parents and grandparents intimidated into
silence by their holier-than-thou neighbors.
@ MeckofahessThe Nazi's were not friendly to the gay community.
That is an extremely poor comparison. Also, which freedoms are you giving up
@Lone Eagle " Please redefine the color blue while you are at redefining
marriage."How So? How does including or excluding others
redefine marriage, please explain exactly. How does excluding people
define marriage? Otherwise, why don't we exclude spousal, child, drug and
alcohol abusers? Wouldn't marriages free of abuse be a better definition?
Moreover, excluding people for what most consider immutable
characteristics (race, gender, eye color, sexual orientation) does not define
marriage either. Marriage has been and is still marriage in every country and
state that has SSM, no?Sky will fall, marriage will be redefined
argumentation is honestly nonsense. Allowing people to participate or strengthen
the institution of marriage is not "redefinition." Traditional voting
was not "redefined" by giving women the right to vote. Voting is still
voting, no?How many folks in any state where same-sex marriage is
now legal, thinks their marriage has been refined because someone else can
legally civil marry? Nada, not a one. Redefinition is such a silly
unsupported claim to make, no?
@rhappahannock"I think at their core Gay people know they at conflict
with themselves, and know their actions are wrong.That is why they are so
antagonistic towards anyone who suggests homosexual relations are a perversion
of the natural, scientific order. "I think the more likely
reason is that people tend to be antagonistic towards people who are first
antagonistic towards them. Call a gay person a pervert and they probably
won't like you. Call a religious person a cult member and they probably
won't like you either.@A Run"Polygamy is a practice
long since stopped in our religion."Civilly, yes. Spiritually, a
widowed man can still be sealed to another wife in the temple, while a woman
could not do the equivalent without getting rid of her first marriage.
Don't you wonder why the attorney's for Mr. Reynolds of Reynolds v.
United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), didn't assert the equal
protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment?
What about those of us who support traditional marriage but see nothing wrong
with homosexual marriage? The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I've been "traditionally married" to my lovely wife for 28 years.
We have adopted a beautiful daughter, but we also support our gay and lesbian
neighbors to have the same wedded bliss and wedded not-so-bliss that we have
experienced. I still don't understand the vitriol
Have you ever noticed that when someone knows they are on the wrong side of the
argument the volume is increased and the tone gets more shrill?
I would love to speak out and lend my support for traditional marriage. I have
never ridiculed anyone nor have I shunned any of my gay friends or nephew.
It's true, the so called tolerant "live and let live (aka non tolerant
g-string, immoral, pride parade, in your face SSM advocates) demonstrated and
have put fear into me that I will lose my job if I do speak out.
One scientific aspect of marriage that the gays like to ignore is "pheromone
therapy." The different genders (defined by XX and XY, not by
"feelings" or hysteria) produce different pheromones that are received
by the natural mate (the opposite chomosonal content). These work together to
reinforce hormones that bond mates together, resulting in more stable families
and societies. When people of the same chromosomal content try to
form families, the same pheromones are simply not there. There is no real way
to chemically convey the same connection in a gay relationship. This is borne
out in the much higher rates of gays having multiple partners, and huge numbers
of partners (1000+). I don't think that any argument regarding
pheromones has been made in courts of law. It is information that the gay
community would like to suppress. There is a real, scientific reason why gays
living together will not have the same stability as heterosexual marriages.
Thus, there is certainly a reason to subsidize heterosexual marriages and not
subsidize gay marriage.
I'm not sure I could make it through the day anymore without a same sex
story. Keepers creepers........enough already.
RE the headline: Is this really surprising? If anyone in support of
traditional marriage makes a peep, the SS marriage proponents scream
"intolerance, hate" and other nonsense (look at what happened to Mozilla
founder), thus demonstrating their intolerance and hatred for those who disagree
(regardless of First Amendment protections). This whole situation is descending
into anarchy. Perhaps on purpose?So, let me join the fray with this
question: If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Answer: 4.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Oh, and a note to the SS
marriage crowd: Please redefine the color blue while you are at redefining
One side wants to shut down debate and punish anyone who speaks out against them
and the other side is like in the days of Shadrach, Meshach and Abendego where
we don't want to get thrown to the fire if we express our religious beliefs
@Bj-hpAren't you stepping on the religious liberty of other
faiths that believe differently? Why do you feel it is your right to impose
your religious views in civil law over another faith? What about their freedom
of religion?"Young LGBT men and young women will continue to be
vulnerable to the sins of homophobia and heterosexism, to the violence of hate
and fear until we in the church can say to homosexuals now what it has said to
heterosexuals for 2,000 years. Your sexuality is good. The church not only
accepts it. The church celebrates it and rejoices in it. God loves you as you
are, and the church can do no less." - Episcopal message from the
A child throwing a tantrum is louder than the parent a majority of the time.
RE: Mechofahess "I still believe there will be a huge back lash toward the
gay community when Americans start realizing that we are giving up our freedoms
over this issue."Let's go back to a slightly earlier time.
The civil rights movement, culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964
eventually led to the legalization of multi-racial marriage, and the dropping of
much LDS race theory, at least so it would appear. At the very least the Civil
Rights movement changed the attitudes of LDS towards blacks. Were the rights of
LDS taken away in this process? Yes, in a way, but such was in response to
necessary change.We now have admitted for the most part that same
sex attraction is not based on a calculated decision. It is probably inborn.
So are the losses of rights to the orthodox religionists in the case of SSM
pretty much the same as they were with the legalization of inter-racial
The fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a
particular practice as immoral is not sufficient reason for upholding a law
prohibiting the practice. Since 1888, the Supreme Court has consistently held
that marriage is a constitutionally protected fundamental right of every
citizen. The last case being two women (Windsor). Because marriage
is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, marriage discrimination by
race or sexual orientation is a prohibited action for Congress, state
legislatures, and public referendums.While there are those who have
opinions that oppose equal rights for gays and lesbians, those opinions have NO
rational or scientific or legal basis. While the expression of those opinions is
protected by the 1st Amendment, such opinions have no validity and no weight and
deserve no consideration. Specifically, the Supreme Court has never
excluded same-sex marriage. Instead, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed
the universal nature of this fundamental right. There is no constitutional, no
rational, no objective basis for any person, because of their sexual
orientation, to be rejected, excluded, stigmatized, discriminated against, or in
any way have their constitutional rights denied or restricted.
@Red CorvetteSacramento CaliforniaDo you realize that those
were different times, and under different circumstances. Polygamy is a practice
long since stopped in our religion. Are you judging us for our ancestors? I am
pretty sure I could find things that your ancestors did that would be viewed as
negative in today's society.
Regardless where you stand on this. The eternal family will be destroyed if
same-sex marriage becomes law around the world. Same-sex marriage will not go
beyond the veil. Whether you believe or not, on your death bed you will see the
light and then it is too late.The Lord, Jesus Christ, has already
spoken on this. "Whether by my own mouth or by my servants it is the
same". This past weekend we heard from the Lord's anointed and were
taught that no amount of law can change the eternal laws. Go ahead enjoy your
so called happiness now but in the end, wickedness never was happiness.
Often If one speaks out in favor of traditional marriage one is ridiculed and
told how bigoted, rude, hateful, and ignorant they are. Maybe we are not as
loud anymore to try to avoid contention. I will try to speak up more with
kindness. I am not against anyone. I am against the idea that traditional and
gay relationships should be treated equally by the government. I have nothing
against the people, just some of their actions. There are great people on both
sides of the debate.
@JimMesa, AzJim, well said. You are right about how sad this
mess is evolving into. I really think the gays don't care if we lose our
first amendment rights as long as they get to shove their agenda down our
throats even if it does evolve into something like Nazi Germany. That said, we
must have courage to stand up for what is right even if there are risks. I
still believe there will be a huge back lash toward the gay community when
Americans start realizing that we are giving up our freedoms over this issue.
In some instances we might just need to quietly oppose this agenda. The sad
thing is that when the back lash occurs, it will cause a lot of problems for our
@rhappahannock: "nature abundantly shows that homosexual relations are an
aberration."Actually, there is quite a bit of research
documenting homosexual behavior - including courtship rituals and pair-bonding,
not just sex, in about 1500 species ranging from primates to gut worms. This
research is well documented for 500 of them."I think at their
core Gay people know they at conflict with themselves, and know their actions
are wrong. That is why they are so antagonistic towards anyone who suggests
homosexual relations are a perversion of the natural, scientific order."No. I was at conflict when I was trying to have romantic relationships
with women. Now I am much more peaceful, happy, and joyful. I do get
a bit upset when somebody who does not know me, my history, my thoughts, my
relationship, or my activities tries to tell me that I am an abomination or a
bad person or perverted. It often causes me to do twisted and mean things, like
talk a lot about my life and relationship when I am around them - in many cases,
as they get to know Gay people their attitudes changes.
The new CEO of a company is found to have supported a cause that the company is
officially opposed to. Employees and customers complain and demand he be
removed. And now, according to the leader of a "traditional marriage"
group, people in Utah are fearful they will be treated the same way. Perhaps somebody who is the head of a multinational company with very liberal
policies would have a concern. But the average citizen? Really?This
sounds like a cover for low turn-out and low support. I picture Mary Summerhays
and a handful of supporters alone in a big rented hall, wondering where the
crowds have gone and spinning wild conspiracy theories. @NH
Transplant: A parent and child already have a legal relationship
with many protections and limits. A Gay or Lesbian couple, like a Straight
couple, are "legal strangers" until they are married, at which point
they gain about 1,400 legal benefits and protections. ON the other
hand, under Utah law, a 16 year old and a 57 year old can marry, can consummate
the relationship, and can have children. The law allows that.
Awesome. Side note: those who support gay marriage are not out trying to rid the
world of "traditional" marriage. We support both marriages. We support
love. Marriage in general, is good and pure. Gay or straight.
Intimidation and bullying...that's persuasive.
People can make as much noise as they want. I'd rather be holding the iron
rod than shouting with the loudest bark. Shouting mostly distracts people and
leads people away in fear or doubt. What we need right now is not more noise,
but more peaceful and respectful reminders and defenses to seek the
Savior's help that all human beings need, to submit to humility and to help
others.People shouting may lead others away from the rod. Those
people may feel proud and enjoy that they've "convinced others to leave
or change". But when face to face with our Heavenly Father & the
Savior... joy is not what will be felt.If the choice is between
having the loudest bark and having the 'most right' bark, I'd
rather be right with God. Anything else is pretty foolish.
It is a sad state of affairs when people are too scared to say anything in fear
of retribution from a minority group. Fear of losing their jobs, or popularity
or whatever. When this type of fear exists first amendment rights go out the
window. This smacks of nazi germany pre ww2, I.e 1930's. People argue
that the majority want same sex marriage. We'll show me the figures, show
me the sample population, and show me how the questions we're put . One
of the purposes of marriage is procreation. Same sex. Marriage can never be
equal as it takes two members of the opposite sex to produce children.
If I was a law maker Knowing I get my money from tax payers I would think about
the future tax payers and the tax payers after them. I would want a large
population. it's about the money.
I don't know if people have noticed, but marriage itself has been dying in
the western world. If you truly support marriage, you might want to consider
supporting it for everyone gay or not as long as they are two consenting adults.
Otherwise support for it will continue to decline, and eventually the benefits
at adhere to it will be stripped.
""Does it? I think it does. Should it? No, it shouldn't. But I
believe that it does,..."How much do you want to bet Gayle would
sing a different tune if the winds were blowing in her direction?
"What about a 16 year old, with parents consent, marrying a 57 year
old?"That's probably already legal in Utah since a 16 year
old can marry with a parent's consent. It doesn't say that there is a
maximum age that the other partner has to be. However, they probably can't
legally consummate the marriage.
"Whether you’re gay or lesbian or straight, if you love someone and
you want to marry them, marry them," If you love someone then
marry them. An argument many are making along with the equal protection clause
of the 14th Amendment. Government cannot take away a person's life,
liberty, or property without due process is another piece of the argument.What happens when a third party wants to join the marriage, gay,
lesbian, or straight? What about their equal protection? What about first
cousins? What about brother and sister? What about parent and child? I think
a child may want to marry the remaining parent so that their siblings cannot get
the inheritance. What about a 16 year old, with parents consent, marrying a 57
year old? Where will this equal protection end and what arguments
will there be for stopping interesting relationships from getting married?Any other concerns out there about consenting people that love each
other? What will be the definition of marriage be in the next several
"Live and Let Live" How sound is this logic?
Dr Thom, why are you waiting? It's already happened. Probably many time.
You think there hasn't been any divorces in the 10 years marriage equality
has been the law in Massachusetts?It's really no different than when
heterosexual couples divorce, as it should be.
RE: Dr. Thom What would make that any different than the 50% of
"traditional" marriages that end in divorce?
I'm waiting for the first same-sex divorce to happen, then see what happens
to all this diversity and equality especially when one person in the
relatiohsips wants alimoney from the other.